Dolphin, the GameCube and Wii emulator - Forums

I'm not going to even give that a dignified response.
If Intel is so much faster than AMD why is it in any Game test (real world NOT synthetic) if the FX chips (including the 4100) are ever behind by a comparable Intel cheap, even an i5 the FPS difference is so negligible as to be like wow.....5fps? Whoopie fucking do.

And according to some websites, say http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx8350_visherabdver2&num=1 show the FX chips demolishing Intel? HMMMM?
And AMD's architecture is not the same as Intel, so no you cannot just toss the same coding at the AMD parts, that's like trying to throw the same code for a GTX 680 at a fucking HD 7970, or Geforce FX 5200, they're not the same they require different coding to work properly also the 5200 was shit and still is shit to this day so I just tossed it in for lulz.

And wow, doesn't mean they know diddly.
Compiled with doesn't necessarily mean they left everything at defaults.
If it were really optimized it would be faster, much faster.
(Especially with better core/thread scheduling rather than staying Dual/Triple just because oh em gee Intel wont benfit ur stoped)

(06-10-2013, 06:14 PM)Cruzar Wrote: [ -> ]And AMD's architecture is not the same as Intel, so no you cannot just toss the same coding at the AMD parts, that's like trying to throw the same code for a GTX 680 at a fucking HD 7970, or Geforce FX 5200, they're not the same they require different coding to work properly also the 5200 was shit and still is shit to this day so I just tossed it in for lulz.

Lol wut yes you can, you have obviously never programed.

Also those tests are highly multi-threaded, basicly the ONLY thing an AMD chip can do better (because the have so many cores)

Most games are GPU limited at real world settings.
Using code optimized for BD doesn't make much of a difference.

(06-10-2013, 06:14 PM)Cruzar Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not going to even give that a dignified response.
If Intel is so much faster than AMD why is it in any Game test (real world NOT synthetic) if the FX chips (including the 4100) are ever behind by a comparable Intel cheap, even an i5 the FPS difference is so negligible as to be like wow.....5fps? Whoopie fucking do.

And according to some websites, say http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx8350_visherabdver2&num=1 show the FX chips demolishing Intel? HMMMM?
And AMD's architecture is not the same as Intel, so no you cannot just toss the same coding at the AMD parts, that's like trying to throw the same code for a GTX 680 at a fucking HD 7970, or Geforce FX 5200, they're not the same they require different coding to work properly also the 5200 was shit and still is shit to this day so I just tossed it in for lulz.

And wow, doesn't mean they know diddly.
Compiled with doesn't necessarily mean they left everything at defaults.
If it were really optimized it would be faster, much faster.
(Especially with better core/thread scheduling rather than staying Dual/Triple just because oh em gee Intel wont benfit ur stoped)

This is so wrong on so many levels.

You're not helping.

(06-11-2013, 02:13 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]You're not helping.

But it's all wrong!

I don't care. Posting that image adds nothing to the conversation. All it does is give him the power to rightfully claim that we're acting like immature children. Which gives him a valid excuse to not continue the discussion because there is no point in arguing with immature children with no desire to actually refute the points you make with logic and/or data.

And I don't want him to leave. I want him to stay here and throw everything he can at us until he realizes how utterly wrong he is and how poor his understanding of programming, low level code, and cpu microarchitectures really is. If that doesn't happen guess what will happen? He'll spread that nonsense elsewhere and other people will have to deal with it sooner or later. I would like to save those people the time and effort if I can.

Unfortunately responding to that post is going to take a long time. And I don't have that time right now. So you will all have to just hang in there until later tonight or tomorrow.

Considering how heavily entrenched he is in that ideology this will likely take a long time with many back and forth rebuttals. Thank god this is my thread and the discussion is actually on-topic here since the thread is about cpus.

Here goes

Quote: I'm not going to even give that a dignified response.

NaturalViolence puts the odd gif into his posts. It's how he stops himself going mad around the multitude of people stating dumb stuff as fact that we get around here.

Quote: If Intel is so much faster than AMD why is it in any Game test (real world NOT synthetic) if the FX chips (including the 4100) are ever behind by a comparable Intel cheap, even an i5 the FPS difference is so negligible as to be like wow.....5fps?

Games don't usually require much CPU power, as they're usually limited by how good the user's GPU is. This means that you won't get a big difference even with a huge difference in processor power. Picture a road with a narrow bit cars have to slow down to pass. This is the GPU. If you make another bit of the road wider, it means more cars can pass through that area, but it won't make a huge difference to how many cars get to the other end per unit time, because they all have to go through the narrow bit. In the real world, this model isn't perfect, but it's enough to give you an idea of how bottlenecking works. It also allows me to point out that the French for traffic jam is embouteillage, which literally translates as bottling or bottlenecking, which is one of the few things I can remember from being taught French.

Anyway, CPU speed makes very little difference in GPU bound applications, like gaming, which is why you see very little difference in benchmarks.

Quote: And according to some websites, [link removed] show the FX chips demolishing Intel?

The benchmarks used here are very synthetic, and don't represent what a user is actually likely to do with their CPU. Practically nothing can be split into as many threads as the AMD chips are using there, and often the things that can be that well threaded aren't very similar to what that benchmark was doing, and/or are usually run on a GPU, where they're even faster. In the more practical benchmarks, the Intel chips came out on top. Additionally, the fastest AMD chip was overclocked, while the Intel chips were at stock clocks.

Quote: And AMD's architecture is not the same as Intel,

Their instruction set architectures are both IA-64, and the ISA is what compilers compile for. The microarchitectures are different, however. These have an effect at a different level, i.e. they affect how the chip deals with data and instructions. It is very, very difficult to make a program favour one microarchitecture over another if they are both supposedly the same speed.

Quote: that's like trying to throw the same code for a GTX 680 at a fucking HD 7970, or Geforce FX 5200

All these GPUs take in standard DirectX and OpenGL instructions, and compute the same answers, albeit at different speeds. Do you really think they compile a different game for every single GPU ever released?


The rest will be added in when I've eaten some food.

EDIT: I typed the rest, and then it disappeared because I pressed backspace when not clicked into the textbox. I can't be bothered typing it out again, so NV will have to finish off.

Now I have three posts to respond to......4 if you count the original post that I never responded to.

Since Cruzar also posted in the Metroid Prime emulation help thread about this same topic I'm going to respond to that post here as well in order to avoid further cluttering that thread.

I vote to demote the Core 2 Duo to the "moderate" category since they struggle to run games considered lightweight

Cruzar, better get some good arguments if you are really up against NV.

and despite being an AMD user, i have to admit that right now Intel has better CPUs for Dolphin