omega_rugal Wrote:In the end, it all depends on how much you want to spend and how good are the results for you.
go for AMD if you just want to play
go for Intel if you don`t wan to lose any single frame, even if you really can`t notice it.
looking for "perfection" isn`t gonna get you anywhere.
Alex I'll take "Missing the point" for 300 please.
Your side comments about why these debates are pointless don't actually effect the argument. Sometimes people debate things just for the sake of acquiring information or proving truths. It's not about looking for perfection. Before we were arguing which was better. Now we're arguing about whether the difference is perceivable. "Good enough" doesn't factor into either of those two discussions.
As for noticable stuttering, I can feel stuttering even with my CPU at times in games I've enabled an on-screen framerate meter which shows 59-61 all the time.
Continued from earlier:
They chose 16.67ms, 33.33ms, and 50ms as their intervals deliberately. At 60Hz 1 refresh cycle is 16.67ms and those are all multiples of 16.67. They should rename them to "more than 1 refresh cycle for 1 frame", "more than 2 refresh cycles for 1 frame", and "more than 3 refresh cycles for 1 frame" respectively. Just using the first game FC3 as an example. The ivy bridge cpu rarely falls above 16.67ms and never falls above 33.33ms or 50ms. Whereas the FX 8350 falls above 16.67ms a lot, 33.33ms occasionally, and 50ms rarely. There is no question that's going to produce some perceivable stuttering regardless of whether it's a big deal to you. 2 cycle frame times produce perceivable microstuttering. 3-4 cycle frame times produce very severe stuttering.
Quote:As for noticable stuttering, I can feel stuttering even with my CPU at
times in games I've enabled an on-screen framerate meter which shows
59-61 all the time.
the framerate meter "stutters" too.?
Quote:Alex I'll take "Missing the point" for 300 please.Your
side comments about why these debates are pointless don't actually
effect the argument.
I`m not taking part of it, it`s an old and boring one.
Quote:Sometimes people debate things just for the sake
of acquiring information or proving truths.It's not about looking for
perfection.
i just don`t see the reason to debate, Intel rules in single threaded performance, while AMD is the 2nd best, and that`s it. stuttering happens now and the even in the fastest CPUs, you ARE looking for perfection.
reminds me of a friend of mine who is always buying new CPUs as soon as he see a missing frame on a game.
Quote:Before we were arguing which was better. Now we're arguing
about whether the difference is perceivable. "Good enough" doesn't
factor into either of those two discussions.
stuttering is subjetive, what may be acceptable for you may be unacceptable for others.
(07-01-2013, 09:20 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Continued from earlier:
They chose 16.67ms, 33.33ms, and 50ms as their intervals deliberately. At 60Hz 1 refresh cycle is 16.67ms and those are all multiples of 16.67. They should rename them to "more than 1 refresh cycle for 1 frame", "more than 2 refresh cycles for 1 frame", and "more than 3 refresh cycles for 1 frame" respectively. Just using the first game FC3 as an example. The ivy bridge cpu rarely falls above 16.67ms and never falls above 33.33ms or 50ms. Whereas the FX 8350 falls above 16.67ms a lot, 33.33ms occasionally, and 50ms rarely. There is no question that's going to produce some perceivable stuttering regardless of whether it's a big deal to you. 2 cycle frame times produce perceivable microstuttering. 3-4 cycle frame times produce very severe stuttering.
"Single-GPU configurations do not suffer from this defect in most cases and can in some cases output a subjectively smoother video compared to a multi-GPU setup using the same
video card model. Micro stuttering is inherent to multi-
GPU configurations using
alternate frame rendering(AFR), such as
nVidia SLi and
AMD CrossFireX but can also exist in certain cases in single-gpu systems.
[1][2][3][4]"
I'm only using one GPU, I won't get micro stuttering...
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1032646751&postcount=1
No offense, but you lost some of your credibility when you started using incorrect vocabulary....
omarman Wrote:"Single-GPU configurations do not suffer from this defect in most cases and can in some cases output a subjectively smoother video compared to a multi-GPU setup using the same video card model. Micro stuttering is inherent to multi-GPU configurations using alternate frame rendering(AFR), such as nVidia SLi and AMD CrossFireX but can also exist in certain cases in single-gpu systems.[1][2][3][4]"
Your random forum post is about GPU microstuttering. We're talking about CPU based frametimes (including microstuttering caused by variation in frametime). They used the exact same GPU and memory in all of the tests so any difference in frametimes is solely due to the different CPU.
I would also like to point out that the site you linked (techreport) didn't use SLI/crossfire in their test yet we still clearly see higher frametimes being hit more often on the FX-8350. You seem to be implying now that this is impossible yet the data you linked confirms it.
And I would like to point out that none of this has anything to do with your argument. Which is that the differences in frametimes are imperceptible to humans. Please try not to get sidetracked.
omarman Wrote:I'm only using one GPU, I won't get micro stuttering...
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1032...ostcount=1
Yes you will. You'll get a lot more microstuttering with SLI or crossfire but it's impossible to completely get rid of microstuttering. It's easy to measure too. Your techreport link proves this.
omarman Wrote:No offense, but you lost some of your credibility when you started using incorrect vocabulary....
What vocabulary did I use incorrectly if I may ask?
omega_rugal Wrote:stuttering is subjetive, what may be acceptable for you may be unacceptable for others.
Stuttering is objective, it can be measured and studied. Whether it's acceptable to you at a certain level is subjective. But that's an entirely different story.
omega_rugal Wrote:the framerate meter "stutters" too.?
Actually yes, kind of. It drops to 59 then pops up to 61 when a microstutter occurs. We don't really know why though. It's clear that it doesn't work properly for whatever reason.
omega_rugal Wrote:i just don`t see the reason to debate, Intel rules in single threaded performance, while AMD is the 2nd best, and that`s it. stuttering happens now and the even in the fastest CPUs, you ARE looking for perfection.
reminds me of a friend of mine who is always buying new CPUs as soon as he see a missing frame on a game.
This has nothing to do with the debate but I'll entertain it anyways.
Assuming you need to buy a new cpu and you have $200 should you buy the Intel i5 3470 or the AMD FX 8350? If someone is like me and the only demanding programs they run are emulators and PC games why would they get the FX if it performs worse in those applications? What benefit is there for them?
It's not about chasing perfection or upgrading constantly. It's about evaluating which product is right for you and why.
I posted that because micro stuttering is a term used to describe what happens when you use dual GPU setups, that's what I meant by incorrect vocabulary. I think the word you are looking for is "lag", or dropped frames.
But my FX cost me 180$, and the techreport link I posted showed that it performed as well, if not better than any i5 out there, and an i5 right now costs at least 200$. Only an i7 showed to have better frame times (less lag). And i7's are even more expensive.
Quote:Assuming you need to buy a new cpu and you have $200 should you buy the
Intel i5 3470 or the AMD FX 8350? If someone is like me and the only
demanding programs they run are emulators and PC games why would they
get the FX if it performs worse in those applications? What benefit is
there for them?
only if they don`t know about it..
or if i`m upgrading from an older AM2/AM3 CPU, or whichever is cheaper or available in the country i live? or someone who doesn`t plan to run demanding games on it? those are 4 reasons, or maybe people like me, who simply don`t buy intel anymore for my very own reasons (their customer support sucks).
don`t get me wrong, the only products that i`m interested on from AMD are the budget Athlon II (i have a special use for them) and the APU (only because they come with a free GFX chip inside)
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701
I5 3570k wins the majority on these benchmarks. And processors can have micro stuttering.
The way I read it was basically when the cpu goes from not processing much like just the character walking or driving, and all of the sudden there's an explosion and tons of physics and other things to process all at once. That spike can cause it. I can't really remember exactly how it was worded but that's the gist of it. I'm not describing the cpu bottlenecking or anything either. Just a spike in a lot more stuff to process than what it was processing can cause it for a split second. I think NV will know what I'm talking about and elaborate.
AMD APUs (prefer to A10 5800k , A10 6800k) have no competitor at 100-150$ price range . Just CPU performance alone , i3 can't beat APU(OCed) unless Intel make overclocking function available for current i3 chip (like i3 5xx first gen , i3 5xx are monsters at overclocking)
I will get APU if I'm on a budget . However , 200$ price range is different , I would choose Intel i5 "k" CPU if I had a chance (Hail for emulation lol) . Though i'm not interested in desktop CPU atm...
AMD Athlon X4 7xxk (760k) is a good CPU for low budget . Don't be fooled by the word "Athlon" , this CPU is based on Piledriver(similar Richland A10 6800k) but it does not have integrated GPU like an APU
Intel Pentium G6xxx (base on Core I series 1st gen ) can overclock (over 4GHz) . Intel G8xx(Sandy) , Intel G2xxx(Ivy) can't overclock
If only ...
Meh , Intel has abandoned low-budget CPU