No longer have that game installed. But you'll have to take your argument to these guys who contradict what you say (at least the multi-threading aspect): http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/metro_2033_performance_guide,9.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/game-performance-bottleneck,2738-6.html
Well i saw it by me on my Quadcore all 4 threads 85-95% through whole test (monitored with G15 on LCD), it was a little lower @ v.high since its more gpu bound but still over 70-80% on each core. Anyway if people want to buy FX8000 let them, i dont see a problem why not, usually its on par with much more expensive intel chip.. Dunno what's such a big deal here, let them be and everybody is happy.
I had edited my post which read "thats not to say your CPU doesnt use a lot of CPU power" before your reply. The game may compensate and use more threads on weaker CPUs, but it doesnt necessarily translate to big FPS gains, certainly not on newer more powerful CPUs in single vs multi-threaded performance nor it seems in raw mhz speed (as demonstrated in first link).
So phenom x4 is more powerful then yorkfield? I doubt this very much.. Phenom x4 needs to be at 4Ghz to be able to compete with Yorkfiled at 3.5-3.6Ghz, just saying.. Imo both of your links are flawed.. Anyway i dont really care, im just saying Metro2033 is highly multi threaded game, just like any recent codemasters game or Bf3 for that matter.
Heres our own Guru3d re metro 2033 CPU scaling: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/radeon_hd_7970_cpu_scaling_performance_review,6.html Look at the difference between that old AMD 645 vs 2600k @ 5ghz at 1920x1200. Not much. Some games are like that (esp heavy GPU titles) while others the difference can be considerable. The tek syndicate test is showing a massive difference, of the kind you would find in top GPUs vs mid-range ones. Silly.
^ Yes Metro2033 variation looked weird. But if you remove gpu bottleneck it becomes cpu really quick too, for example at medium or high mode (lower resolution).. Idk how this Tec syndicate guy tested but i presume v.high, 4xmsaa to get such low fps on both systems. But yeah 10fps difference vs Intel is a bit strange, I agree. But then again FX aint thaaat bad, especially for ~ 180-190€ and if you're at tight budget you can't go really wrong with it.
From that one game, 9 more games are tested + Crysis with streaming. Few things to consider, latter test with 670 show marginal difference in favor of i5, G3D tested with different GPU. Reasons for those results can be anything, from driver problem on AMD GPU, driver problem on Intel chipset. It could be also HT, maybe without HT, results would be different, and that suggest that drivers for 7870 are not well optimized for Intel when using HT.
You can get an i5 3570K for that sort of money. If you mainly use your PC for gaming it's superior in every respect. Lower power consumption, better performance. Not to mention longevity.
Ok small correction, EU world wide FX8350 for 165€, i5 3750K for 190€. And in multi threaded apps. not really, in single its another story..
As I said, in gaming the 3570k is superior in every respect. For a difference of 25 bucks in the EU (Or the same money in the US) it's the better product. Period. The new vishera chips are fantastic workstation chips and solid for gaming, but they're not the best option in the price range when taking the 8350 into account.
That's simply not true, power consumption - yes, longevity?, rest no. Hm, I'm going with cheapest. FX8350 = 160€, i5 3570 = 175€. Smaller difference here, AMD boards = more featured and much cheaper (again here). Gaming, old games, single threaded works well on AMD, multi works in some cases way better on AMD, future games will use more cores more efficiently.
Everything I said was correct. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise. You don't buy a modern $180 CPU for a gaming rig in order to play old titles. You're assuming future games will start to support more than 4 threads effectively, I'm sorry but I disagree. The few games which can make use of more than 4 cores still tend to put Intel on par with AMD at stock, and above when OC'd. For current games Intel is ontop, this cannot be argued. There are countless benchmarks proving it to be true. As I mentioned earlier. I'm confident I'll be able to put a top tier GPU into my rig in 2-3 years and not worry about bottlenecks being a major issue. I don't see that being the case for current AMD owners.
tweakpower I cant really understand what you are saying, its coming across as gibberish to me, can you dumb it down some so I can understand you
Teksyndicate, a site that just happens to disagree with almost every respected harware website on the internet. Yet I'm the one spreading false information? At this point you're obviously trolling. Honestly, you're the one making no sense.
Darkest, a man who fail to use common sense and logic. I'm sorry, but I'm not psychiatrist nor psychologist, if you can't understand what those guys are saying, it's better to just stay away from the topic.
Well, we all know that.. CPU performance is more apparent at lower res, and thats what the tek syndicate had as an argument, that the tests should focus on higher res like most people use now, not low resolutions which he seems to have implied other sites use to paint an inaccurate picture. What an amateur, esp in not realizing how silly he may look, not only in his flawed results (ie, metro) but vs all the other more reputable sites with different findings that basically are in accord with one another.
I suggest you take your own advice. Funny how you fall back to your trend of flinging petty insults around when someone points out your only source has no credibility. It's not the first time either, you've done this over in the Audio section and multiple times elsewhere while spreading nonsense.
all his posts in the audio section got deleted, like he was never there. something about 128kb mp3 files were as good as it gets or something