Tomb Raider Benchmarks CPU

[csbin]

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/tomb-raider-test-gpu/testovaya-chast.html


FX has done pretty well

 

[Ken g6]

So, the game can effectively use at least 4 cores - I'm looking at you, 8350 - doesn't like HT, but generally isn't CPU-bound anyway.

Why an i3-2100 but not a 2120 or 3220?

FX-4300 continues to look good to me as a low-end overclockable gaming CPU. Though it seems like nobody's looking to overclock on the low-end these days. For the non-overclocker, I think Haswell i3s are going to be interesting. :sneaky:

 

[Termie]

Interesting benchmarks. I know those core loading benchmarks are a bit fanciful though, as core loads never remain constant during gaming. Other than an instantaneous look at core load, they're only useful for determining whether a CPU has any single core that is bottlenecking the game. Obviously, the dual cores do.

For the first time, we're seeing AMD quad and hex cores clearly beating a hyperthreaded Intel i3. Time to stop recommending the i3 to entry-level gamers. Still love it for home use though.

 

[grimpr]

And to think they even suggested the Core i3 against the FX6300, talk about prescience!

 

[KompuKare]

Why an i3-2100 but not a 2120 or 3220?

I heard GameGPU doesn't really a have hardware budget. That is, they're waiting for Intel to send them an IB i3.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I heard GameGPU doesn't really a have hardware budget. That is, they're waiting for Intel to send them an IB i3.

Yea, really have to wonder if they dont even have the budget to buy the latest processors.
Really a GPU bottlenecked game though, even with a GTX 690.

 

[inf64]

And to think they even suggested the Core i3 against the FX6300, talk about prescience!

The trend is reversing when it comes to recommendations . Even intel fans realize that i3s are a no-go for future games.

 

[Ferzerp]

Those aren't CPU benchmarks.

Those are GPU benchmarks most of the time.

They are CPU benchmarks for the bottom 6 CPUs and that's it.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

The trend is reversing when it comes to recommendations . Even intel fans realize that i3s are a no-go for future games.

This board still recommends Pentiums and Celerons for gaming. 1 2 3 How sad is that? It's gonna be a while before the i3 recommendations stop...

 

[Ferzerp]

This board still recommends Pentiums and Celerons for gaming. 1 2 3 How sad is that? It's gonna be a while before the i3 recommendations stop...

Show me where anyone on this board recommends and i3 paired with a Geforce 690 like in these tests.

 

[Termie]

Show me where anyone on this board recommends and i3 paired with a Geforce 690 like in these tests.

Regardless of whether or not the tested setup is a balanced setup, the i3 is clearly losing to the AMD multi-core CPUs. Sure, with a weak GPU, the i3 would come close to the AMDs, but that doesn't mean it's better in this game under any circumstances.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Show me where anyone on this board recommends and i3 paired with a Geforce 690 like in these tests.

I didn't say this board recommends i3 with a high-end card, I said it recommends Celeron and Pentium for gaming (low budget builds). An FX or APU would be a much better choice than those while still keeping the budget down. I at least try to nudge them to i3 myself if they are dead set on Intel.

 

[Rvenger]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. I think this is great that AMD is shining. Guys, if AMD keeps this up with more titles this year, Intel will start coming out with CPUs with higher clocks/ more cores etc to mainstream.

 

[KompuKare]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. I think this is great that AMD is shining. Guys, if AMD keeps this up with more titles this year, Intel will start coming out with CPUs with higher clocks/ more cores etc to mainstream.

Yes, you'd think that's what they'll be forced to do. Or something similar. Remember for S1155 Intel only makes two dies (dual & quad) and the rest is mainly blowing fuses. But the problem on these forums seems to be that a lot people here act more like shareholders than consumers. Or maybe the price of i5K/i7K (while historically low) is seen by some as a barrier which separates real enthusiast from cheapskates?

 

[Ferzerp]

Guys, if AMD keeps this up with more titles this year

Keep what up? Being GPU bottlenecked?

 

[Exophase]

Those aren't CPU benchmarks.

Those are GPU benchmarks most of the time.

They are CPU benchmarks for the bottom 6 CPUs and that's it.

The load figures are CPU benchmarks. Variable FPS and constant load or constant FPS and variable load are both measuring CPU performance.

 

[Borealis7]

Yeah...umm...useless benchmarks are useless.

 

[Abwx]

Keep what up? Being GPU bottlenecked?

We know it , the GTX690 is better suited for 720p.....

 

[sze5003]

I don't really care lol all I know is I was getting around 60fps or more on ultimate setting. Of course it dipped below that but for the most part the game runs great and the new hair thing is ok I guess. Looks more strandy than a head of hair but I'll take it.

 

[Haserath]

Why doesn't the game utilize hyperthreading at all?

Games usually see a big benefit from hyperthreading when it's used extensively on an i3.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Keep what up? Being GPU bottlenecked?

Yeah...umm...useless benchmarks are useless.

It's clearly not just GPU limited, it's also core limited, and they aren't useless benchmarks. Even the quad-core Athlon II @ 2.6GHz puts up better numbers than the dual-core + HT i3 @ 3.1GHz.

 

[Durvelle27]

Really nice to see the FX doing so well in new games. Just loving the gaming trend utilizing more cores

 

[frozentundra123456]

It's clearly not just GPU limited, it's also core limited, and they aren't useless benchmarks. Even the quad-core Athlon II @ 2.6GHz puts up better numbers than the dual-core + HT i3 @ 3.1GHz.

No one was claiming the dual cores were GPU bottlenecked. However, all the intel quads and hex cores were clearly GPU bottlenecked, as were all the AMD FX processors.

Whether this tells you about "cpu performance" depends on how you mean that. Basically it tells you that those cpus are "good enough" to utilize whatever graphics card you are testing to its maximum. It doesnt tell you the absolute performance limit of the CPU however. It is like saying the engines in a Prius and a Corvette are both "good enough" to max out the speed if you have tires only good for sixty miles per hour. Yes that is true, but if you allowed the engine to be used to its maximum there would obviously be a difference.

 

[KompuKare]

Why doesn't the game utilize hyperthreading at all?

Games usually see a big benefit from hyperthreading when it's used extensively on an i3.

Pure speculation this:
firstly I assume that non-kernel process can't do anything about hyperthreading as such (or even the kernel: never had an HT CPU but doesn't it need to be turned on in the BIOS and hence has little to with the OS).

So that just leaves normal threads as far any process is concerned. So maybe there are some mix of instructions which stall HT? Someone who knows more about the way HT works might be able to answer but that seems the most logical explanation.

(Although there's always the conspiracy theory: the game checks a CPU flag and cripples itself to make AMD look good in a sort compiler shenanigans in reverse)

 

[Rvenger]

(Although there's always the conspiracy theory: the game checks a CPU flag and cripples itself to make AMD look good in a sort compiler shenanigans in reverse)

Doubtful since it will also make the AMD graphics card look bad too lol.



4 core and 6 core intels perform just fine in Crysis 3 and Tomb Raider. Who cares that intel doesn't have a 30% + lead like they normally do.