Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Xenoc]

i5 750 @2.67GHz
8GB RAM
8800GT

45-55 FPS

People really need to stop seeing clock speed as important - it hasn't been an accurate descriptor of CPU performance for over a decade - the very first AMD chips clocked lower and outperformed intel.

[Thief^]

The first AMD chips were Intel-licensed designs, and so were identical to the Intel version. Instead, AMD had a reputation as a cheaper alternative.
It wasn't until the Athlon XP that AMD started making chips which obviously outperformed the competition at a lower clock. 'course, that wasn't hard when their competition was the P4.
EDIT: Some digging even turns up that at one point Intel had a 75MHz chip that performed similarly to AMD's 133MHz cpu. That's a nice contrast to the P4 era

[Tormy]

AMD Phenom II X4 965 (3.4GHz)
8GB memory
Geforce GTX 260
Windows 7 64-bit

32-46 FPS. It only dipped down to 32 for a split second early on, and only hung around down near there for a few seconds, and likewise only briefly spiked up to 46 for a second or two. It mostly hovered around 41-42.

Hm, I am no expert, but isn't your FPS a bit low with regard to the quality of your system? I almost have the exact same FPS on an E8400 system [3ghz dual core].

[devek]

Figured I would try my laptop...

Sony Vaio VPCF126FM
Intel i7-740QM 1.73GHz
6GB DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M (1 Gig RAM)
Windows 7
Eset Nod32 antivirus
All settings are stock.

40-55 fps. Average was 50fps.

[Tormy]

Figured I would try my laptop...

Sony Vaio VPCF126FM
Intel i7-740QM 1.73GHz
6GB DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M (1 Gig RAM)
Windows 7
Eset Nod32 antivirus
All settings are stock.

40-55 fps. Average was 50fps.

Holy sh*t! 40-55 FPS? It looks like that clock speed isn't important indeed. 

[devek]

Well maybe.

Read: http://www.intel.com/technology/turboboost/

My processor can run one core up to 2.93GHz if the other cores are not doing anything. It can also boost all 4 cores of my processor if the processing load is "easy". I think DF is the best case scenario for turboboost, because the type of processing it does won't generate a lot of heat (moving integers around). I think that is why you're seeing the i7s dominate.

So speed is even more subjective these days.

[Tormy]

^ Interesting stuff!...Either way, these i7 processors are impressive.

[carebear]

Intel Core 2 Duo 3.16 Ghz
4GB RAM
ATI Sapphire Toxic HD4850 512MB
Windows XP Professional 64-bit.

FPS was between 35-45. Average was, yeah, 40.

[MaximumZero]

Tormy said:

Exactly!   I guess it's safe to say that i5/i7 is much better for gaming than the core2duo processors, even if their clock speed is lower. [I really thought that my E8400 won't be worse than a 2,66Ghz i5 in a game like DF, but actually the i5 beats my E8400 with 15-20FPS, and that is a LOT in a test like this..]   I am glad that I made this topic, because now I am thinking about upgrading to an i7 system.

If you guys want a little more info, I work with HP. (I'm a sales rep.) No, I'm not an expert, but I can always contact someone who is if it's important or intriguing.

[qwert]

People really need to stop seeing clock speed as important - it hasn't been an accurate descriptor of CPU performance for over a decade - the very first AMD chips clocked lower and outperformed intel.

It IS important, for comparisons between the same processor. For example, same processor as yours  but clocked at 3.8 resulted in 70+ fps for me.

[project23]

So far there really hasn't been anyone focusing on clock speed as an important factor. It has obviously been cpu core has been the cause for speed increases. And although this is super sloppy and not the best test ever, it IS a test and some people have provided results. I find it interesting to see all these high FPS reports. I'm usually playing in the low 20s most of the time. :>

Maybe we could run a test save that is quite a bit more complex?

[devek]

I might still have the save where I pumped magma up 160 z levels...

[Tormy]

Maybe we could run a test save that is quite a bit more complex?

Yep, that would be good indeed. Someone who happens to have a big fortress running in a small world [the size of the save is the smallest this way] should upload it. [Personally I never generate small worlds, which is why I don't have a fortress running with this setting.]

PS. The i5/i7 processors will dominate in that as well...I guess?

[Janus]

AMD Phenom II X4 965 (3.4GHz)
8GB memory
Geforce GTX 260
Windows 7 64-bit

32-46 FPS. It only dipped down to 32 for a split second early on, and only hung around down near there for a few seconds, and likewise only briefly spiked up to 46 for a second or two. It mostly hovered around 41-42.

Hm, I am no expert, but isn't your FPS a bit low with regard to the quality of your system? I almost have the exact same FPS on an E8400 system [3ghz dual core].

That depends on what you're going by. The Phenom II X4 965 is only ~$10-20 more expensive than an E8400 (haven't checked the current price difference) and is quad-core rather than dual-core (which isn't relevant to DF since it apparently uses only up to 2 cores, but relevant to the price difference). You'll also notice I said it mostly hovered around 41-42 FPS for the largest part of the test, while the range I gave were the absolute lowest and highest that showed up. Finally, different processors/chipsets excel in different areas; based on the surprisingly high i5-750 framerates posted, it seems that i5s and i7s particularly excel with whatever calculations are done by DF.

[Symmetry]

based on the surprisingly high i5-750 framerates posted, it seems that i5s and i7s particularly excel with whatever calculations are done by DF.

I'm guessing cache size.  I think they have 8MB L3, and 1MB per core dedicated L2.
*cough* edited for ignorance