PDA

View Full Version : WTF ... is wrong with you AMD ?!



abohamed
12-05-2012, 07:28 AM
hey guys ... watch and cry ..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvkgnFbC2tM

http://www.hwcompare.com/7160/geforc...adeon-hd-5770/ (http://www.hwcompare.com/7160/geforce-gt-430-1gb-vs-radeon-hd-5770/)

no comment ..............

spectatorx
12-05-2012, 09:34 AM
HD5770 and geforce 430 are two different gpus... 430 is low-end gpu and 5770 is mid-end one. This comparison is kinda stupid.

P.S.
I think you know low fps, same as high fps in ac3 exists on various configurations, some people get low fps with top-end rigs and some people are getting pretty nice fps with low-end configurations.

Wulvyr
12-05-2012, 10:17 AM
I got low fps on my Radeon HD 6850. I got 6 gb RAM and a Phenom quadcore so I really dont know why Im getting those framerate drops. It is a real problem. It isnt because my rig is bad cause it isnt AT ALL.

abohamed
12-05-2012, 11:21 AM
HD5770 and geforce 430 are two different gpus... 430 is low-end gpu and 5770 is mid-end one. This comparison is kinda stupid.

P.S.
I think you know low fps, same as high fps in ac3 exists on various configurations, some people get low fps with top-end rigs and some people are getting pretty nice fps with low-end configurations.

hey man .. welcome back ... well i know ... i just get so mad when i see this video :mad:

hitman47222
12-05-2012, 02:46 PM
hey man .. welcome back ... well i know ... i just get so mad when i see this video :mad:

Not as mad as i get

http://www.hwcompare.com/7134/geforce-gt-430-1gb-vs-radeon-hd-6850/

Roanark
12-05-2012, 07:00 PM
So what exactly it is you're complaining about? You're ranting like a child and I can't even understand about what.

abohamed
12-29-2012, 08:02 AM
so what exactly it is you're complaining about? You're ranting like a child and i can't even understand about what.

thank you

ProletariatPleb
12-29-2012, 08:09 AM
What exactly are you crying about

Anykeyer
12-29-2012, 09:14 AM
If you still didnt get it... In many modern games (including AC3) best "hi-end" AMD's CPUs are on par (or even worse) than upper low-end Intel's CPU Core i3-2100 (dual core btw). I dont understand why gamers still continue to sponsor AMD and then complain about "fancy" 6/8 cores not performing as well as they "should"
As for AMD/ATI GPUs it maybe (and most likely is) just a driver issue. But using existing release versions AMD GPUs underperforms in AC3 compared to similarly priced Nvidia GPUs

ProletariatPleb
12-29-2012, 09:18 AM
If you still didnt get it... In many modern games (including AC3) best "hi-end" AMD's CPUs are on par (or even worse) than upper low-end Intel's CPU Core i3-2100 (dual core btw). I dont understand why gamers still continue to sponsor AMD and then complain about "fancy" 6/8 cores not performing as well as they "should"
As for AMD/ATI GPUs it maybe (and most likely is) just a driver issue. But using existing release versions AMD GPUs underperforms in AC3 compared to similarly priced Nvidia GPUs
So now you're blaming AMD for this? Who makes a game in 2012 that is not optimized for multi-core processors? There is enough evidence to see that AC3 is only running fine on CPUs that have powerful single threads.
While AC3 barely utilizes 1-2cores, Far Cry 3 works fine with upto 32cores.

abohamed
12-29-2012, 09:19 AM
If you still didnt get it... In many modern games (including AC3) best "hi-end" AMD's CPUs are on par (or even worse) than upper low-end Intel's CPU Core i3-2100 (dual core btw). I dont understand why gamers still continue to sponsor AMD and then complain about "fancy" 6/8 cores not performing as well as they "should"
As for AMD/ATI GPUs it maybe (and most likely is) just a driver issue. But using existing release versions AMD GPUs underperforms in AC3 compared to similarly priced Nvidia GPUs

true ... and thats why i have intel CPU and ATI card because AMD processors is just a bad joke ... and about AMD driver part i hope they will be fix it soon

arcanum_2g
12-29-2012, 09:21 AM
If you still didnt get it... In many modern games (including AC3) best "hi-end" AMD's CPUs are on par (or even worse) than upper low-end Intel's CPU Core i3-2100 (dual core btw). I dont understand why gamers still continue to sponsor AMD and then complain about "fancy" 6/8 cores not performing as well as they "should"
As for AMD/ATI GPUs it maybe (and most likely is) just a driver issue. But using existing release versions AMD GPUs underperforms in AC3 compared to similarly priced Nvidia GPUs

I'm using an Intel Core2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66 GHz, pairing that with 4 GB of ram and an ATI Radeon 5770 HD GPU.

Lo and behold, I still only get 9-15 FPS in Boston. Excellent! :)

abohamed
12-29-2012, 09:24 AM
I'm using an Intel Core2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66 GHz, pairing that with 4 GB of ram and an ATI Radeon 5770 HD GPU.

Lo and behold, I still only get 9-15 FPS in Boston. Excellent! :)

.... and that is exactly what i was talking about ... the real problem is in the way of AMD driver handle this game not JUST our CPUs ... did you guys understand me now !!!

Anykeyer
12-29-2012, 09:27 AM
So now you're blaming AMD for this?

Of course. Not every task can be so easily multi-threaded. Good CPU would not have such pathetic performance/core. AMD can be a good choice if you building workstation, in this case it can actually outperfrom Intel's dekstop CPUs. But not a gaming PC


Who makes a game in 2012 that is not optimized for multi-core processors?

Almost everyone actually.

ProletariatPleb
12-29-2012, 09:57 AM
Almost everyone actually.
******** spotted right there. This is the only game which is giving issues because of crap CPU optimization.

Anykeyer
12-29-2012, 10:52 AM
LOL, Maybe AC 3 is the most demaning of them but its not the only one you will never see stable 60fps on AMD CPU no matter how good your GPU is.

ProletariatPleb
12-29-2012, 10:59 AM
LOL, Maybe AC 3 is the most demaning of them but its not the only one you will never see stable 60fps on AMD CPU no matter how good your GPU is.
This game? Demanding? Hahahahaahahahahahahahahah

Let me laugh hahahahahaahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha

This is the GTA IV port of 2012.

AjinkyaParuleka
12-29-2012, 11:26 AM
You guys are gonna make me get Nvidia cards and an Intel processor..

Anykeyer
12-29-2012, 12:12 PM
This game? Demanding? Hahahahaahahahahahahahahah

Let me laugh hahahahahaahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha

This is the GTA IV port of 2012.

No, its not. Unlike GTA this game scales very good with hardware, it does not have internal stalls. Its just designers (not programmers) who didnt pay much attention to what is known as performance budget in gamedev.

ProletariatPleb
12-29-2012, 12:16 PM
No, its not. Unlike GTA this game scales very good with hardware, it does not have internal stalls. Its just designers (not programmers) who didnt pay much attention to what is known as performance budget in gamedev.
Eitherway, I still want my patch, it's just absurd that a game in this day and age doesn't utilize CPU cores properly.

hitman47222
12-29-2012, 02:41 PM
No, its not. Unlike GTA this game scales very good with hardware, it does not have internal stalls. Its just designers (not programmers) who didnt pay much attention to what is known as performance budget in gamedev.

Not really. There are people on the LOW FPS thread reporting bad performance ( getting 32 FPS ) Running GTX 680 and i5 2500k... Those are the pretty much some of the best hardware out there.

Secondly about AMD processors. Yes Intel ones are better.. But you went too far saying AMD processors are not for gaming and only for workstation. i have a FX-6100 ( Fairly new only bought it like 8 months ago ) and the ONLY game i am having problems with CPU utilization in IS AC3.

As for how "demanding" the game is.. Then its the developer's fault. There is a difference between making a graphical masterpiece like Crysis games or BF3 which obviously require some power.
And making a normal console port like AC3 which in my opinion even mid-end PCs should max it. There is nothing extremely beautiful about AC3 that should make it demanding..

Also take a hint from this. If i am getting about 40 FPS in BF3 on ultra ( with msaa off ) and about 35 in Crysis 2 on ultra as well. AND getting 25 FPS for AC3 on lowest settings...

Don't tell me its cause of my hardware or its cause the game is demanding. Its just poor optimization.

abohamed
12-29-2012, 03:00 PM
Not really. There are people on the LOW FPS thread reporting bad performance ( getting 32 FPS ) Running GTX 680 and i5 2500k... Those are the pretty much some of the best hardware out there.

Secondly about AMD processors. Yes Intel ones are better.. But you went too far saying AMD processors are not for gaming and only for workstation. i have a FX-6100 ( Fairly new only bought it like 8 months ago ) and the ONLY game i am having problems with CPU utilization in IS AC3.

As for how "demanding" the game is.. Then its the developer's fault. There is a difference between making a graphical masterpiece like Crysis games or BF3 which obviously require some power.
And making a normal console port like AC3 which in my opinion even mid-end PCs should max it. There is nothing extremely beautiful about AC3 that should make it demanding..

Also take a hint from this. If i am getting about 40 FPS in BF3 on ultra ( with msaa off ) and about 35 in Crysis 2 on ultra as well. AND getting 25 FPS for AC3 on lowest settings...

Don't tell me its cause of my hardware or its cause the game is demanding. Its just poor optimization.

enough said

Anykeyer
12-30-2012, 08:24 AM
LOL. You fail to comprehend some very simple things.
Take this 32 for example. Downclock CPU - lower fps, overclock CPU - higher fps. Game scales to hardware very well.
If your FX does not suck in other games than you didnt see enough of them. Shooters tend to use GPU much more than CPU, so you are less likely to get unplayable fps in them, this does not change the fact that even lowest i3 is much better in most of them.
This game is CPU-limited. This means its not limited by GPU. So your long story about graphics settings and comparision to other "pretty" games makes no sense at all.

ProletariatPleb
12-30-2012, 08:59 AM
LOL. You fail to comprehend some very simple things.
Take this 32 for example. Downclock CPU - lower fps, overclock CPU - higher fps. Game scales to hardware very well.
If your FX does not suck in other games than you didnt see enough of them. Shooters tend to use GPU much more than CPU, so you are less likely to get unplayable fps in them, this does not change the fact that even lowest i3 is much better in most of them.
This game is CPU-limited. This means its not limited by GPU. So your long story about graphics settings and comparision to other "pretty" games makes no sense at all.

That's the game's fault not the CPUs, and that i3 argument is utter bull, you're speaking fanboy, not facts.
Obviously the game will give more juice with higher clock, because it's not using all the cores! What the hell have you been smoking?

Anykeyer
12-30-2012, 05:41 PM
LOL. Blaming others for your faults is funny. Your fault is that you sponsored AMD bying theit crappy CPU. Not facts? Did google banned you?

You say AC3 is the only game? 2 minuties googling and this:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100/metro.png AMD 6100 gives laughable 19 fps, even i3 2120 gives playable 32 and more than ANY AMD CPU

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100/farcry.png playable on everything, but i3 is still better than any AMD

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100/starcraft.png RTS game and we now see that even low-end class Pentium is considerably better than any AMD.

You should realise one simple thing. No miraclous fps-boosting patches will ever be released. You can continue to blame everyone you want. But you have only 3 options: upgrade CPU, demand refund from Ubi (because they messed with listed minimum requirements and this can be considered as false advertising) or stay where you are and do nothing (which is stupid IMO).

ProletariatPleb
12-30-2012, 05:56 PM
LOL. Blaming others for your faults is funny. Your fault is that you sponsored AMD bying theit crappy CPU. Not facts? Did google banned you?

You say AC3 is the only game? 2 minuties googling and this:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100/metro.png AMD 6100 gives laughable 19 fps, even i3 2120 gives playable 32 and more than ANY AMD CPU

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100/farcry.png playable on everything, but i3 is still better than any AMD

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100/starcraft.png RTS game and we now see that even low-end class Pentium is considerably better than any AMD.

You should realise one simple thing. No miraclous patches will ever be released. You can continue to blame everyone you want. But you have only 3 options: upgrade CPU, demand refund from Ubi (because they messed with listed minimum requirements and this can be considered as false advertising) or stay where you are and do nothing (which is stupid IMO).

First, let me tell you, I don't have an AMD 6100, or any of the AMD FX series, or whatever it is.
Second, the point is, AMD doesn't have strong single-threads, but it relies on cores, what's so hard to understand with that?

YOU should realize one simple thing, it's the game's fault. 20-25 fps is no way acceptable, the game looks average, it's not a graphical pioneer. I get better FPS in Far Cry 3 and it utilizes all my cores as GPU fine, unlike AC3.

No need to upgrade CPU, it's not stupid, it's sensible, the game isn't polished. I'll hope for a patch rather than buy a new CPU because one game, which doesn't even look marvelous, can't run because they port isn't optimized for multi-cores and relies on the power of 1 or 2 threads.

Anykeyer
12-30-2012, 06:12 PM
6100 is mentioned by another, i dont care which one you have, for they are all crap.
There is little connection between visuals and CPU bottleneck. What is exactly CPU-demanding in FarCry 3? Absolutelly nothing. To compare AC3 to it you should take frontier, and not cities.
You can wait for eternity, but you will not get any performance patches.

Im done with you.

hitman47222
12-30-2012, 09:08 PM
6100 is mentioned by another, i dont care which one you have, for they are all crap.
There is little connection between visuals and CPU bottleneck. What is exactly CPU-demanding in FarCry 3? Absolutelly nothing. To compare AC3 to it you should take frontier, and not cities.
You can wait for eternity, but you will not get any performance patches.

Im done with you.

At what point did i imply that AMD is better than intel?? If you read what i said carefully i said that i agree intel is better but saying AMD is for workstations only is over reacting.

Secondly. About the overclocking. I overclocked mine from 3.3GHz to 4.0GHz and did not see a single FPS improvement... Maybe its just me but thats my own experience.

Thirdly. The game being CPU-Heavy or W.E is NOT MY FAULT. When i pass the recommended requirements i expect to get at least 30 FPS on LOWEST settings. Also, Check this benchmark out for example : http://img.techpowerup.org/121123/ac3%20proz483.png

According what is said there they used a GTX 690 ( Pretty much best GPU out there ) With different CPUs... You see the game dropping to 33 FPS on i3's and i5's and even reaches 40 on the i5 2500k and the i7.. Both are some serious top end hardware. Those 2 CPU's paired with a GTX 690 should at least get 60 FPS in pretty much everything...

Lastly. Chill out dude. No need to be offensive.

Anykeyer
12-30-2012, 09:44 PM
At what point did i mention that you implied that AMD is better?
You look at minimum fps. Wake up. Most current games do not produce 60 min fps on any system http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/53901-nvidia-geforce-gtx-690-review-10.html Wanting fps to never drop below 60 is just too unrealistic.

hitman47222
12-30-2012, 10:05 PM
At what point did i mention that you implied that AMD is better?
You look at minimum fps. Wake up. Most current games do not produce 60 min fps on any system http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/53901-nvidia-geforce-gtx-690-review-10.html Wanting fps to never drop below 60 is just too unrealistic.

When you started comparing AMD's processors to Intel trying to prove that Intel is better i was given the impression that you are trying to prove to me that i am wrong about AMD being better or so. If thats not the case. Then the fault is on me for misunderstanding you.

Actually . Wanting FPS to never drop below 60 is pretty realistic when you are running GTX 690 paired with the Intel i7 3930K from the link you shared.
And i checked results for Batman AA / BF3 / C2 and each them reached a MINIMUM 67 / 108 / 80 from your link also.
It only ever drops below 60 FPS when running dual monitors @ resolutions like 2560x1600 and even then it reaches i think 55 minimum.

Razrback16
12-31-2012, 03:27 AM
If you still didnt get it... In many modern games (including AC3) best "hi-end" AMD's CPUs are on par (or even worse) than upper low-end Intel's CPU Core i3-2100 (dual core btw). I dont understand why gamers still continue to sponsor AMD and then complain about "fancy" 6/8 cores not performing as well as they "should"
As for AMD/ATI GPUs it maybe (and most likely is) just a driver issue. But using existing release versions AMD GPUs underperforms in AC3 compared to similarly priced Nvidia GPUs

Intel does indeed make more powerful gaming CPUs, no question about it. But many games out there do really well with multi-core utilization. Just recently I upgraded from a Phenom II 955 which is 3.5 years old and it was still running every game out there with no issues whatsoever. GPU is the bigger key to good gaming performance. NVidia definitely does a better job on drivers than AMD and that is a big part of it, IMO.

abohamed
12-31-2012, 07:53 AM
Intel does indeed make more powerful gaming CPUs, no question about it. But many games out there do really well with multi-core utilization. Just recently I upgraded from a Phenom II 955 which is 3.5 years old and it was still running every game out there with no issues whatsoever. GPU is the bigger key to good gaming performance. NVidia definitely does a better job on drivers than AMD and that is a big part of it, IMO.

at last someone speak my language !!

abohamed
12-31-2012, 11:45 AM
http://www.hwcompare.com/12678/geforce-gtx-690-vs-radeon-hd-6990/

best nvidia card VS best ATI card until now ... and its so close as you can see but the difference between these two cards is SO BIG in AC 3 :

http://i.imgur.com/98Vej.png

so AGAIN what the hell AMD ?!