AMD FX physics

[caddi daddi]

anybody know a way to improve AMD FX physics scores in gpu benchmarks?????
try as I might all I seem to be able to do is reduce an already horrid part of the score.........

 

[MaddMutt]

AMD before the release of the Ryzen, was way behind Intel on IPC and Multithreading on the CPU.
AMD is going to give you BAD scores in all 3D Benchmarks

 

[Alaric]

AMD was actually pretty fair at multithreading. The Thuban hex cores were not bad at all.

 

[Kenrou]

Turning on HPET in BIOS and Windows bumps FPS in CPU intensive games (like MWO), but i have no idea if it does anything for benchmarks. You can try and test if their both on with WinTimerTester, you want 14mhz :

 

[EarthDog]

AMD was actually pretty fair at multithreading. The Thuban hex cores were not bad at all.

Yes they were/are.

Clockspeed. Otherwise, its an amd cpu... multithreaded or not, they were 40% and change behind in IPC...they are terrible for anything cpu related, including physics scores in 3dmark (assuming this is what is being benched..).

 

[caddi daddi]

that's one that shows fx weakness, I guess it's time to assemble my 8600K rig and return this pile of parts to the junk pile so I can at least keep up with jiccman...........

it's so hard to remain worlds biggest AMD fanbouy.......
you have to say," yes your intel has better overall performance but, I win for price performance and cost per core....."
Having to try to hold your head high and say" yea, my pro duos perform on the level of the 1060 but, with 16 gigs of ram per chip and two chips per card I win for performance per slot"...... makes one want to cry.

 

[Blaylock]

...return this pile of parts to the junk pile so I can at least keep up with jiccman...........

LOL Good luck with that.

 

[caddi daddi]

I know, I always seem to dig some out again at some point...........

 

[Alaric]

I should have said "relative to single thread and IPC performance", LOL I always thought AMD handled the multi thread stuff fairly well. Isn't that why the FX octo cores were deceptively useful for gaming, even with Intel's "superior" performance? And weren't the Thubans AMD's best performers until Ryzen? I thought AMD sacrificed single thread for the multi thread prowess of the big 'Dozers?

 

[caddi daddi]

my 8350 has to run and hide it's head in the sand when I bring out my 4690K when gaming on the same card, which is why I game with a 4790K.
I may dread the day I get the 8600K up and running.

 

[Alaric]

Oh, the FX was way behind, but when it came out frame rates were certainly playable in most games, weren't they? It wasn't like you couldn't game on FX chips. They still manage most titles today, albeit at pretty reduced rates. I thought the ability to utilize all those cores were the only redeeming quality. Doesn't mean I'm arguing that I'm right, just stating my perception at the time. LOL

 

[EarthDog]

Utilizing the cores and the cores being fast are two distinctly different things. Just because it can use more cores, doesn't mean its faster than something without when its behind such a signficicant value in IPC and then clocks on top of that.

 

[caddi daddi]

and it is playable in all the games I enjoy but does it ever lag behind in benchmarking.

 

[Alaric]

Utilizing the cores and the cores being fast are two distinctly different things. Just because it can use more cores, doesn't mean its faster than something without when its behind such a signficicant value in IPC and then clocks on top of that.

That's what I was trying (poorly) to say. AMD's ability to schedule multi core seemed (maybe wrongly) to me to be quite effective, even if it was on sub par hardware. Hence Ryzen's multi thread magic out of the gate, they had that part down but didn't have the necessary foundation to utilize it competitively. Although, a big Bulldozer still does just about everything the average home PC user needs with no fuss. It's no Sandy Bridge, but it's still a competent chip for surfing, email and the like.It manages Excel and Word just fine. And they're tough. LOL

edit: Have a FX hex core running at 4400 MHz in front of me with a RX480 that handles War Thunder and WoW just fine. It runs on a 1080p 60Hz display and is a long way from not being suitable for casual gaming. And the Meltdown and Spectre fixes actually brought the 'Dozers closer in overall performance. They're gaining! LMAO!

 

[Kenrou]

Still decent enough for gaming as well, my 8370 still plays all my games @60fps even if i have to turn down eye candy every now and then.

 

[EarthDog]

That's what I was trying (poorly) to say. AMD's ability to schedule multi core seemed (maybe wrongly) to me to be quite effective, even if it was on sub par hardware. Hence Ryzen's multi thread magic out of the gate, they had that part down but didn't have the necessary foundation to utilize it competitively. Although, a big Bulldozer still does just about everything the average home PC user needs with no fuss. It's no Sandy Bridge, but it's still a competent chip for surfing, email and the like.It manages Excel and Word just fine. And they're tough. LOL

edit: Have a FX hex core running at 4400 MHz in front of me with a RX480 that handles War Thunder and WoW just fine. It runs on a 1080p 60Hz display and is a long way from not being suitable for casual gaming. And the Meltdown and Spectre fixes actually brought the 'Dozers closer in overall performance. They're gaining! LMAO!

Sort of...

1. The problem is most games don't use more than 4 threads, so many threads isn't a bonus in most titles. As time goes on that will change, but, by that time, those will be dinos.
2. Only the haters call it 'not suitable' for gaming. The concern here is some people would like to make sure the CPU isn't the bottle neck and........... that wasn't AMD at the time... in benchmarks or in gaming.
3. Spectre and meltdown patches for gaming have so far been shown to do nothing or improve performance negligibly. If you are talking outside of hte context, then yeah, a couple % closer in some instances.... LOOK OUT!

 

[Alaric]

Yeah, I wasn't intimating The Second Coming Of Bulldozer. LOL. Just saying they weren't as useless as the Team Blue fanboys tried to make them out. They're solid, functional CPUs that do 95% of what the average user needs. Benching and serious gaming (with max eye candy) were the only places they came up short for the vast majority of the desktop market-and that vast majority didn't do those things anyway. I know of two FX rigs that will probably be sufficient for their owner's needs for another 10 years. My girlfriend's rig was my old Phenom X4 on a M3N78-VM mobo with 8GB of DDR2 800. It ran Windows 8.1 flawlessly and she never found it to be anything other than quick and responsive. Her FX 8350 is about to get a 970 Pro Gaming Aura (With RGB!) to go with the 16 GB of DDR3 1600 and she'll be set for life, even being able to tinker with clock speeds when the urge to expand her horizons hits.

 

[EarthDog]

Id cry if that phX4 was my email and net machine...

 

[Alaric]

It renders web pages as fast as the web allows, and with the SSD it loads and plays Solitaire like a champ. With my old R7 260x it even loads those horrible Facebook pages on demand. WoW was playable six years ago on it, with integrated graphics!

 

[Kenrou]

I had an Athlon II x4 630 briefly that ran WoW like a champ until the Mists of Pandaria expansion (around 5 years ago). They revamped the graphics engine, introduced DX11 and some other tweaks, and all of a sudden he couldn't cope anymore (even with a 2gb 660ti which to date does the job decently enough) but even nowadays it should still be more then enough for light gaming and office work no ?