Not exactly relevant at this point, but I thought I'd format Majesticii's numbers into a more readable format. Not sure if I can actually be arsed to extend this to the other benchmarks, admittedly.
Note: Numbers chosen were lowest of samples for minimum, median for average and highest for maximum.
Fine, another attempt. Assume 70-75fps is the absolute max avg the 7970ghz can do, which i'm pretty convinced it is.
So 75fps represents 99% load, and 0 fps means 0% load.
The AMD starts at a much lower GPU load, represented by 44fps, in regard to the intel, represented by 65fps.
Hence increasing the frequence starting up from 2.5ghz, the AMD still has a performance gain at a seaminly higher scaling, whereas the Intel almost saturates the 7970 @ 3-3.5ghz and hardly scales. However, this means it has a much higher efficieny per-frequency, and thus leaving more headroom for the future. Because it takes 4.5ghz on the AMD just to max out a single 7970, when you can do the same on a stock 3570K.
Any newer, or faster card, and the AMD will start to bottleneck.
Pointing to the fact that the FX-8350 is linear from 2.5-4.5 Ghz is not real proof that the FX-8350 will behave linearly beyond 4.5 Ghz for this case.
Like I've said before, using other benchmarks doesn't help since the 'wall', as Majesticii put it, moves around depending on game, settings and GPU used.
Last edited by yurano; 2013-01-27 at 02:10 AM.
With my own i5-760, i get 99% load on a overclocked 670. Which relates to a 680 stock (in the test) which is on par with the 7970 on that test.
Meaning you don't get extra fps after that threshold.
YES, they are assumptions. But they're valid assumptions, not just simply made up.
Are you even still comprehending this, I sincerely doubt it at this point.
They only scenario where a CPU upgrade would affect my performance in FC3, is if i couldn't reach 99%, or had big GPU load drops. Which i don't. It stays on 99%.