Doom (2016) CPU analysis.

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,093
Doom (2016) CPU analysis.
Doom тест GPU | Action / FPS / TPS | Тест GPU

Guess it's time to retire these AMD CPUs since they are lagging so far behind the competition in newer console ports. I might upgrade to a i3 for this game.
/sarcasm /dry wit

In all seriousness these FX processors are like the Energizer Bunny. They just keep going and going and going...

doom_proz.jpg



Intel load percentages.
doom_intel.jpg


AMD load percentages. That one core that could on the FX-8350. ;)

doom_amd.jpg


I also found it interesting that the game uses almost 8GB of ram if you have 32GB installed.

doom_ram2.jpg



At any rate feel free to discuss. The game is a monster according to Kyle.
Anyone Getting Their DOOM On?


1463153426vhWMO6q7xk_1_1_l.jpg


 
Last edited:
idk if i would really look much into that chart.....for one it shows the amd cpus with a full 1700MHZ clock advantage above the Intel ones;) WTF? Also it shows by turning Hyperthreading off on the intel cpu it gives double the performance? Yeah Right..I believe that one:woot: For those with high clocked AMD 8core cpus holding out till Zen to upgrade.....I get it why not? It will do ok till then..but to brag about them performance wise is pushing it a bit LOL
 
primetime said:
idk if i would really look much into that chart.....for one it shows the amd cpus with a full 1700MHZ clock advantage above the Intel ones;) WTF? Also it shows by turning Hyperthreading off on the intel cpu it gives double the performance? Yeah Right..I believe that one:woot:
Click to expand...

The 5960X thing may be an issue with to many threads: GTAV wont even run with 16 or more threads, DOOM may have a bug that causes an issue.

And these processors are all at stock frequencies.
 
I was just about to mention they were all running at stock hahaha. I wonder how they all fair when overclocked?
 
primetime said:
idk if i would really look much into that chart.....for one it shows the amd cpus with a full 1700MHZ clock advantage above the Intel ones;) WTF? Also it shows by turning Hyperthreading off on the intel cpu it gives double the performance? Yeah Right..I believe that one:woot: For those with high clocked AMD 8core cpus holding out till Zen to upgrade.....I get it why not? It will do ok till then..but to brag about them performance wise is pushing it a bit LOL
Click to expand...

This is why Intel had to layoff people due to poor sales. This should have been a massacre going by the age of the FX processors. If you toss every AMD number off the chart, and just go by the Intel ones; why would someone with a 2600K upgrade to something new? To save 5 cent a month in electricity?
 
One has nothing to do with the other.....lol...sure from a purely gaming pov the gains are very limited...doing other stuff like large video encodes can be huge time savers over the amd cpus (like many hours lol)
 
Last edited:
primetime said:
One has nothing to do with the other.....lol...sure from a purely gaming pov the gains are very limited...doing other stuff like large video encodes can be huge time savers over the amd cpus (like many hours lol)
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood what I said. Take all of the red figures off the first chart. Then compare say the 2600K to the 4770K. There really isn't much difference in the two processors. This is proof that Intel hasn't really increased their processor power over the years. That's also why the AMD CPUs can hang right in there with the best that Intel has.

Also AMD CPUs are very good at encoding. Not as good as a 12 or 16 thread Intel of course. But they can hold their own encoding.
 
Honestly....games will always be limited by consoles since thats were the money is really made in game sales....if it were not for that then it be different
 
cageymaru said:
I think you misunderstood what I said. Take all of the red figures off the first chart. Then compare say the 2600K to the 4770K. There really isn't much difference in the two processors. This is proof that Intel hasn't really increased their processor power over the years. That's also why the AMD CPUs can hang right in there with the best that Intel has.

Also AMD CPUs are very good at encoding. Not as good as a 12 or 16 thread Intel of course. But they can hold their own encoding.
Click to expand...

There are benefits besides pure speed, platform improvements going from Z68 to either Z87 or up through Z170 may very well be worth it for some. If you're only talking pure speed, I can see what you mean. Not much to get hyped about in the last 5 years from either camp. If you have a 2600k, there isn't anywhere meaningful to go, from either AMD or Intel. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who purchased Sandy back in the day should be happy that they haven't had a reason to upgrade for so long. The days of needing a new processor every year are behind us, for better or worse.
 
Oniigumo said:
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who purchased Sandy back in the day should be happy that they haven't had a reason to upgrade for so long. The days of needing a new processor every year are behind us, for better or worse.
Click to expand...
this is how us AMD users feel. our chips have held up pretty good over the years and dx12 is breathing new life into them.
 
primetime said:
iAlso it shows by turning Hyperthreading off on the intel cpu it gives double the performance? Yeah Right..I believe that one:woot:
Click to expand...

I'll let that hang in the air there for those who actually understand what hyperthreading is. Go do some reading- you're busted there Sparky.
 
pendragon1 said:
this is how us AMD users feel. our chips have held up pretty good over the years and dx12 is breathing new life into them.
Click to expand...
The whole takeaway from my post was supposed to be that yeah, Intel hasn't really gone anywhere meaningful from sandy outside of platform improvements and efficiency, but neither has AMD relative to sandy. It's been good for the wallet, and for longevity of our chips for both camps, for some time now. It's not, and shouldn't be about either AMD or Intel. The CPU market as a whole, has stagnated. I'm pulling for AMD to deliver with Zen, because competition is a great thing. It could mean a price war, or bringing the focus back to performance, but whatever happens it'd be a good thing for all of us consumers if AMD somehow lights a fire under Intel's ass.
 
Spirit_Retro said:
I'll let that hang in the air there for those who actually understand what hyperthreading is. Go do some reading- you're busted there Sparky.
Click to expand...
lol Is there something odd about wanting an 8 core cpu with HT.....I was talking about cpu like an intel 5960x
 
Last edited:
Oniigumo said:
There are benefits besides pure speed, platform improvements going from Z68 to either Z87 or up through Z170 may very well be worth it for some. If you're only talking pure speed, I can see what you mean. Not much to get hyped about in the last 5 years from either camp. If you have a 2600k, there isn't anywhere meaningful to go, from either AMD or Intel. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who purchased Sandy back in the day should be happy that they haven't had a reason to upgrade for so long. The days of needing a new processor every year are behind us, for better or worse.
Click to expand...

I'm looking at possibly an I3 skylake in a server board (if that is supported these days), solely for the DMI/pci-e lane improvements... Processor speed has been "good enough" for quite some time...
 
KazeoHin said:
The 5960X thing may be an issue with to many threads: GTAV wont even run with 16 or more threads, DOOM may have a bug that causes an issue.
And these processors are all at stock frequencies.
Click to expand...
It does bring up a good question about why the performance difference...Right no im guessing the game doesn't play well with HT or like you said if you only allowed a certain amount of cores to the game it would regain the performance. Since kyle and company has the game we should get an article sooner or latter. If its just an HT thing that easy enough to disable before hand but i wonder if there is a quicker software method instead of going in the bios...Regardless i bet this game gets a few patches and whoever writes up an article better finish it well before the next patch lol. Im not going to argue the benefits of ht cause i dont care tbh....Has there been another game in the past that had a huge loose in performance from having ht on? I just havent run into it before. Last one i remember was BF3 when it first came out was smoother with ht off but latter got patched and fixed
 
This is one of the limited times that the FX 8 cores are scaling very well with clock speed - means they are being utilized very well. But the HT off thing seems kinda weird.
Also here are benchmarks from a reputed site - DOOM Benchmarked: Graphics & CPU Performance Tested

The only processors to really drop off in terms of performance were the AMD FX-4320, 6350, 8320E and Athlon X4 860K. The Pentium G3258 and G4400 both sustained over 90fps, while the Core i3 processors were good for 100fps+.
Click to expand...

FX 8 cores cant really demolish an i3 in any game, even when fully utilized.

CPU_01.png


CPU_03.png
 
so much contrast in the results.. they are all over the place.. gamegpu.com have always proven to be semi accurate regarding some leaks or earlier benchmarks, but I don't know what to think, in their chart they state 980TI SLI but every result is slower than a single 980TI used by Techspot.. may be a bug with drivers/game? I would for sure trust more in Techspot as one of the more reputable sites on the web, but still intriguing the high contrast from some results..
 
a3venom said:
This is one of the limited times that the FX 8 cores are scaling very well with clock speed - means they are being utilized very well. But the HT off thing seems kinda weird.
Also here are benchmarks from a reputed site - DOOM Benchmarked: Graphics & CPU Performance Tested


FX 8 cores cant really demolish an i3 in any game, even when fully utilized.
Click to expand...

I had a good laugh now I could not find any AMD hardware specs for the CPU testing you call this a reputable website, let them first try and list all the specs of all the systems they used if it is not to hard for them.
 
cagy posted this in an other thread but it speaks for itself. if an FX cant keep up with an i3 how do you explain it beating an i5?
 
I'm guessing those numbers in the bar graph chart are FPS? What I find interesting is when I watch the video it looks like the i5's FPS are typically running higher than the 8350... Then we get a chart that shows otherwise. Unless my eyes and the numbers are completely deceiving me I find that odd.

Doesn't matter either way as both are more than playable FPS.
 
It is this one case it is really shining - all the threads are being utilized nicely and that's why it performs so well.
Hopefully more games can do this, you can see the i5 has 100% on all cores - wow.

Doesn't make it a better buy than i3 thought because it really shines in a few games out of hunderds. But it seems to be in i7 territory in Doom which is impressive as fuck, and kudos to the developers for making use of all that potential of the 8 cores.

AMD's selling point is value and 8350/8320e aren't really good value chips since 2 years now.
 
a3venom said:
It is this one case it is really shining - all the threads are being utilized nicely and that's why it performs so well.
Hopefully more games can do this, you can see the i5 has 100% on all cores - wow.
Doesn't make it a better buy than i3 thought because it really shines in a few games out of hunderds. But it seems to be in i7 territory in Doom which is impressive as fuck, and kudos to the developers for making use of all that potential of the 8 cores.
AMD's selling point is value and 8350/8320e aren't really good value chips since 2 years now.
Click to expand...

If that is not the case you can always keep posting pics of benchmarks done by people who don't list any hardware specs and hope that will prove your point ....
 
lol I3's will become totally irrelevant as soon as the new AMD Zen's hit.....Im totally glad to see games that finally makes decent use of 8 threads (that means i have 4 extra threads for other tasks;))
 
primetime said:
lol I3's will become totally irrelevant as soon as the new AMD Zen's hit.....Im totally glad to see games that finally makes decent use of 8 threads (that means i have 4 extra threads for other tasks;))
Click to expand...

Exactly. Having extra cores makes things like alt tab in and out of the desktop and back to the game seamless. It's like having an extra i3 waiting for more tasks in your PC. ;)
 
cageymaru said:
Exactly. Having extra cores makes things like alt tab in and out of the desktop and back to the game seamless. It's like having an extra i3 waiting for more tasks in your PC. ;)
Click to expand...

It's 2016, alt tabbing is exactly the same on a celeron and a xeon, stuff doesn't take CPU like it used to unless you are running something CPU-Specific. I know a lot of users here are from 1990-2000 era of PC building but things have changed and everything is efficient.
 
a3venom said:
It's 2016, alt tabbing is exactly the same on a celeron and a xeon, stuff doesn't take CPU like it used to unless you are running something CPU-Specific. I know a lot of users here are from 1990-2000 era of PC building but things have changed and everything is efficient.
Click to expand...
And yet each one of us that have experience with Intel 2 core processors tell you that alt-tabbing on a 2 core is far from seamless as in the 4 core or greater processors. Maybe in some Facebook game, lol. But in the majority of games today 2 cores are showing heavy load that alone would account for the lack of MULTI-tasking ability. You are taking liberties with facts and the simple one that most of us here on this site as well as other hardware enthusiast sites run more than just the game.

Fact: More cores can handle more threads and tasks/programs running simultaneously.

Hence why I don't ever recommend less than a 4 core/Intel or 8core/FX. Rather have the ability and not need it than need it an not have it.
 
JustReason said:
Hence why I don't ever recommend less than a 4 core/Intel or 8core/FX. Rather have the ability and not need it than need it an not have it.
Click to expand...

That's a good point, but ability to potentially upgrade an i3 will always trump ability to potentially utilize more cores down the road in a FX-8 setup. It just adds so much in terms of value.
 
interesting, this might change my upgrade decisions.
 
Two fallacies in this thread:

1. If it's old it must suck.

2. IPC trumps everything in choosing a processor.
 
Spirit_Retro said:
Two fallacies in this thread:

1. If it's old it must suck.

2. IPC trumps everything in choosing a processor.
Click to expand...

um when a i5-3470 runs roughly equal with an FX 9590 how can you say the above? if it's current gen AMD it probably sucks, and IPC does matter in this game, which is what this thread is about.
 
Outliers always exist, we may have just found the one game that runs well on Bulldozer. It's shame it's way too late at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top