Developers Alienate AMD CPU Gamers



  • Perhaps AMD is to blame, perhaps the developers are (perhaps I have no idea what I’m talking about)…but I have your attention either way. Now, it’s frustrating to get low fps playing chivalry on my fx-8350 when it plays games like watch dogs (which utilize multi core cpu’s like my 8 logical core fx-8350) on nearly highest settings (ps4~to pc on medium settings, for reference). I suppose the tides are turning now that consoles have shitty 8 core versions of (or similar to) AMD’s bobcat architecture CPU’s. Finally CPU’s like mine will be utilized :D But still, this doesn’t help me with Chivalry. I plan to overclock (need better cooling), but there must be something more the developers can do to benefit the many people who are in my exact situation. This being said, there are many people with relatively high end i7’s that have poor performance with Chivalry, so who knows. Anyways, consider this the continuation of the “Frame Rate” thread that was idiotically shut down. It’s not like our conversation about the conflict in Iraq (albeit off topic) was hurting anyone; it was engaging. Those new moderators are just itching to use their powers I suppose.

    P.S. I know AMD CPU’s kinda blow, but some of the “higher end” ones have some real potential…especially with OCing.


  • Global Moderator

    I think talking about Iraq in that thread was pretty damn off topic even for my standards.

    Anyway. Its an older DX9 game on the UE3 engine which is quite old and not updated to cater for newer CPUs. Not a lot of infastructure to work on for multicore support already.

    Many games forget it. Games that need it more than chivalry like simcity and total war rome 2. They are single threaded. March 2013 and September 2013 were the release dates respectivly. No multicore support hell both of those games are 32 bit only as well. Maxis are well, pretty clueless when it comes to this sort of thing but the creative assembly aren’t. Or at least weren’t. But many games recent large tiles. CA are a highly skilled developer and they aren’t even completely “owned” by their publisher. They have a lot more freedom and are in a more of a partnership deal with Sega rather than fully owned. CA was SEGAs only western developer and that’s where all the money came in. They have stuck to their original deal almost rather than a full buyout. Anyway all that skill and they made one bad call. One last pump of the engine. They over estimated it were too ambitious and realised too late. Maxis well we don’t have a clue but we know they have actually had a rather bad track record since 2008. Spore didn’t really work out even though it was delayed constantly for 36 months an in development for a total of 8 years. Sims 3 wasn’t that much more fundamentally than the sims 2 though a largely different game. Simcity they completely overestimated their new engine being 32 bit and single threaded. What the hell were they thinking.

    But torn banner had an engine made for them and were only a small team learning how to make a game in UE3. CPU optimisation obviously isn’t easy. You really gotta have a track of dedicated experianced software engineers which is a different path. They may be able to do something but it won’t be easy for them. Unless they are all ninjas.



  • That thread got completely derailed. Mods aren’t itching to lock threads, we’re just trying to keep things organized. Ya’ll ruined that thread. Don’t play innocent. ^__^

    Anyway, I think most of the fault is with AMD. It depends on the game engine, but in the majority of cases they are far behind Intel in game performance.


  • Global Moderator

    And the FX series was pretty bad.



  • I hear people saying Mantle in BF4 actually REDUCES fps for them.

    rotflmaolelololel



  • @dudeface:

    That thread got completely derailed. Mods aren’t itching to lock threads, we’re just trying to keep things organized. Ya’ll ruined that thread. Don’t play innocent. ^__^

    Anyway, I think most of the fault is with AMD. It depends on the game engine, but in the majority of cases they are far behind Intel in game performance.

    Okay, I might have thrown the discussion pretty far off course :devilish:

    But yeah, part of it is AMD’s fault for sure given that they know multicore (like 6-8 cores) aren’t practical for modern games. However, that appears to be changing with newer engines (e.g. UE4) that utilize extreme multi core CPU’s; especially since consoles are now using 8 core AMD CPUs.



  • @lemonater47:

    And the FX series was pretty bad.

    Yes and no. I agree for the most part, but they have their redeeming qualities. For example: They’re actually pretty good for “next gen” games which utilize their many cores. I have the fact that consoles use 8 core amd cpu’s to thank for that. Pair that with the fact that they have tons of room for OCing and you have a pretty good CPU. I got my FX-8350 for like $179…and that was almost a year ago. Besides gaming, it scores very high on other computing benchmarks that contribute to overall fast PC performance. Next time I buy a new CPU though, I will definitely consider Intel; but for the money, this was a bargain imo.


  • Global Moderator

    Well when they were released they got hammered. As there were no next gen games.



  • I imagine next gen games will still perform better on Intel CPUs though. AMD is light years behind.



  • @dudeface:

    I imagine next gen games will still perform better on Intel CPUs though. AMD is light years behind.

    The FX-8350 (believe it or not) marginally out-performs the i5-4670k in multi-thread performance. And is on par with the i7-2700k for multi-thread perfromance (single thread is a whole other story of course). So I think for next gen games high end fx series CPU’s will be just fine…not bad for how cheap they are. Not to mention the amount of potential there is for OCing with FX series CPU’s, particularly the 8350 (can be OCed to 5.0Ghz fairly easily). But overall, I’m sure even new mid range Intel cpu’s will outperform amd’s by a sizable margin. Trust me, I know Intel CPU’s are head and shoulders above AMD’s, but there’s some redeeming qualities for some of AMD’s high end units. Is it worth the price difference? Really depends on the budget you have, AMD offers decent performance for broke people. You get what you pay for.



  • Yeah, the increase in game performance should effectively close the gap when taking price into consideration. I really wish AMD could do better though. I simply can’t justify purchasing their CPUs anymore (I stuck with AMD for a decade after my first 700mhz Athlon).


  • Global Moderator

    Yeah the new AMD APUs like the A10 also do pretty doing well against their intel counter parts. Even without using the integrated graphics which is head over hell’s better than any intel integrated graphics they are pretty good. Though the AMD app acceleration doesn’t work with integrated AMD graphics like intel quicksync works with intel integrated graphics.

    Anyway AMD have stepped up their game recently. The new consoles having a lot of cores will also help AMD. Everyone thought they were idiots. But they probably knew about the new consoles specs for a while.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Torn Banner Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.