Intel Core i7 4770K "Haswell" Benchmarks On Ubuntu Linux

[ferry_th]

AMD rocks my world..

[erendorn]

Gameplay benchmarks cannot be repeatable. It's not science, it's gameplay.

Then it's gameplay, but not benchmark.

You can't "benchmark" some medicine by taking a different one each time you get a cold, and then measure how long it takes you to get better, even if you follow the prescription very seriously.

[juanrga]

Except that I haven't gotten any hardware out of AMD in a long time now...

Another question: what timings (speed, latency) were selected for the RAM in the tests?

Does the 3700k, 4770k, A10, and FX-8350 use 1600 MHz memory or the AMD chips use the correct 1866 MHz stock speed?

[mendieta]

Sounds like the issue might just be a feature that defaults to off in radeon but on in the intel driver. Not sure what current state is, but floating point textures and texture compression/s3tc used to be the main areas.

(For the record, Brigman was answering to my "... but a lot of the humble bundle games will not run (and run instead on my son's $200 intel's chromebook, which makes you wonder)."

For the sake of justice, I did a serious comparison. The stuff that is not running in AMD Rig with Open Source radeon is actually a few older games like trine and shadowgrounds which are having issues with 32 libraries in a 64 bit rig. So, it's not really a display issue. It seems like some old binaries that were provided by ia32-libs have been upgraded with the Ubuntu upgrade, since they are not being found anymore. Sigh.

Sorry for the FUD. I installed a few of the games my son installed on the chromebook, and they run on the AMD open source box as well

Cheers!

[curaga]

Thats just a copout. You should really look into their gameplay benchmark methods. It's a really good way of doing things.

OK, I looked: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=52269

Let’s take Anandtech’s canned Crysis GPU benchmark results for example. They show a 3870 X2 averaging over 31fps at 1680 resolution with High Quality settings and about 28fps at 1920 resolution at High Quality settings in Crysis. We trust Anandtech to relate benchmark data to us that is “correct.” But I also believe the benchmarking tools it has used in no way relate to real world video card performance you are going to experience at home playing the game. We have actually used the ATI HD 3870 X2 to play the game Crysis and our gaming experience in no way mirrors those graphical settings at those framerates. What if we play Crysis with the resolution and quality settings represented in their review?

To put it plainly, it was a painful gaming experience.

Anandtech’s results in no way suggest to the reader what the video card might actually perform like in Crysis or what resolutions or quality settings might be configured.

Do you want video card reviews that suggest “relative performance of a graphics card” based on timedemo benchmarks when some cards benchmark better than others, or do you want an evaluation of those video cards' in-game performance in the latest and greatest computer games that you are going to be playing with it?

HardOCP is very firm in its commitment to give our readers video card evaluations that will allow them to make good purchasing decisions based on real world expectations of the product. We have no interest in showing you “relative performance” based on a “benchmark.” We sit down and spend hours and hours playing the games on each video card and then share our thoughts and analysis. The simple fact of the matter is that HardOCP’s video card evaluation experiences cannot be replicated by clicking a single mouse button and putting a number on a graph.

Timedemo benchmarking of video cards is broken. We have proven this on the preceding pages with today’s most graphically intensive gaming title. Many will argue that timedemo benchmarking is the only scientific approach to video card performance analysis that can be trusted. Why you would want to trust a performance metric that is in no way shape or form going to relate to your gaming experience is beyond me. There is also no doubt that there are some games out there that benchmark perfectly in relation to their real world gameplay. We just don’t know what they are, and quite frankly we don’t care. Today's Crysis benchmarks that in no way reflect real world gameplay are enough validation for us to keep on doing it “our way.” If you want someone’s idea of overall "relative performance" of a graphics card based on timedemo benchmarks, HardOCP.com is not for you. We are going to make sure that our video card evaluations give you a solid idea of the actual gaming performance you will experience at home when playing the game.

And I disagree with that. It still stands that a number that can't be repeated is something they could have pulled out their asses.

If some timedemo is not representative, that is a problem with that timedemo, not with the scientific method. Any number pulled with manual unrepeatable work is by definition unrepeatable - even if they actually got that number instead of making it up, there's no guarantee you will see a similar number with a similar hw setup.

"Feel-based" reviews belong in game reviews, not in benchmarking. If the game is laggy on level 4 when you look at the tower, that's something about that game, and has no place when comparing gpus/cpus/etc.

[Marc Driftmeyer]

I definitely don't regret going AMD.

I bought the GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3 AM3+ when it was $159 with a warranty extension from Newegg and 6 months later it dropped down to $119 on special, now back up to $139.

Then you can find the FX-8350 going for as low as $179 on Amazon.

I look forward to Steamroller and when Excavator comes out I'll still have this box in a Corsair 650D humming along maxed out.

[Marc Driftmeyer]

What is the point of these benchmarks when you use such asinine graphics drivers for FX-8350 and the APU?

Show me Catalyst and Nvidia proprietary results against Haswell already.

[YAFU]

Well if you drive both cars at 60 km/h then probably any cheap tires will work. Both the 3770k and the 8350 are unlocked. Moreover, one obtains the best performance of the FX with faster memory (the i7 is rather insensitive to ram speed). It does not make sense to me to buy a 3770k and then a 'cheap' motherboard. I would save more bucks by selecting the 3770.

You are right that, at normal clocks, there is almost a unnoticeable difference in performance between 'cheap' and 'expensive' motherboards, however there are large differences regarding power consumption or temperatures.

I do not know why you insist with Ferrari or cars. With a cheap Asus P8Z77 you can drive your Ferrari at the speed you want. Rest assured about that.
You can OC an unlocked intel processor with any P8Z77 Asus cheap model (CPU + GPU + RAM). Usually you will only be limited by the type of cooler you use. You can even do a little OC in non-K processors (I can put my non-k i7-3770 to 4300Mhz). Search on youtube: P8Z77 overclock.

It does not make sense to me to buy a 3770k and then a 'cheap' motherboard.

In general the more expensive Asus models to intel has many other good features, but do not have much to do with the processor performance. If you do not plan to use all those other features, you does not have to spend more money on one of the expensive models.

[Marc Driftmeyer]

Not sure about excavator, but yes, the focus is no longer CPU power, but thermal power. Most people have had powerful enough computers for a while. Now they want more portable, lighter, more silent, less bulky. That means boxed size PCs, Lappies, Tablets, even phones, heck. AMD had a great twist when buying AMD, in that sense. And they do have the upper hand, still. Not sure for how much longer. It still holds a lead (and it's still a much better value), but Intel is closing the gap.

Anyways, I do agree that the focus is the APU and lower power, rather than achieving gazillion MFlops at insane freqs with burning hot CPUs. Also, software is progressively parallelized, so we'll soon have chips with hundreds of cpu + gpu cores, each using a tiny amount of power, but collectively giving you a massive computational power.

There goes my crystal ball, my friends.

Two things are obvious with Excavator: The final and future unified HSA architecture (version 3 just published) in a CPU/GPGPU SoC that stamps out at 20nm/14nmFinFET and below which will drastically cut power consumption but equally important the matured architecture in it's 3rd incarnation has both FPU/SPU numbers through the roof.

All the laptop solutions AMD comes out with this architecture will most certainly match anything Intel can throw at it, including power dissipation and consumption.

[juanrga]

I'd happily see how much a cheap motherboard impacts CPU benchmarks.
Probably not as much as a car tires..

In Asus, a cheap motherboard is very good hardware anyway. In Asus for Intel, the cheap motherboards (P8xxx common models for example) and Top models (Pro - Sabertooth - Maximus) not have practically differences in CPU performance. The difference is much smaller if models have similar chipset. Top Motherboards have better configurations in PCI-e Crossfire/SLI, Back IO Ports and extreme OC cooling. You can buy an cheap model from Asus and rest assured that the CPU will work like a Ferrari anyway.

Well if you drive both cars at 60 km/h then probably any cheap tires will work. Both the 3770k and the 8350 are unlocked. Moreover, one obtains the best performance of the FX with faster memory (the i7 is rather insensitive to ram speed). It does not make sense to me to buy a 3770k and then a 'cheap' motherboard. I would save more bucks by selecting the 3770.

You are right that, at normal clocks, there is almost a unnoticeable difference in performance between 'cheap' and 'expensive' motherboards, however there are large differences regarding power consumption or temperatures.