In 4 months time I would like us to re-enact these tests with the same hardware used for dx12 games / win10 and see if their conclusion is still correct.. if it is then I shall a) buy a hat and then b) proceed to eat it :D
Admittedly their conclusion is correct under current circumstances but we have plenty of tech websites telling us that this is no longer going to be the case for future dx12 games.
dont you Know, any Intel beats any amd in every circumstance. its just the general concensus. now go buy the same cpu 5 times on revisions of the same socket ;)
I want to know why they were getting 27 and 23 FPS in ARMA 3 with either GPU. When I ran ARMA 3 on a Pentium G3258 with a Radeon HD 6970 (about equal to the R9 270) I was getting 34 - 45 FPS...
My only other thought on this is that they didn't bother testing FarCry 4 since they know it won't even start on a Pentium, as where it will on the Athlon. (Whether it plays well is another story.)
i am confused by these results as well ... the intel G3258 has a dual core and integrated graphics whereas the amd has a quad core they tested with ddr3 - 2400 ...according to intel the g3258 supports only up to ddr 1333
comes to the result that most games gain a big performance step going from 2 -> 4 cores
so the game developers optimize rather for 4 cores and upward i guess; does the different chipset influence the performance that much?! AMD A88X vs Intel Z97 - something smells funny here i guess
Intel lists only the maximum JEDEC appointed speed that their CPUs support. If you use XMP the Pentium supports DDR3-2400 just fine.
It actually could make enough of a difference to give the Pentium that extra edge. Whether it be through memory interface or PCI-E lane priority, the Intel system would possibly get the jump over A88X. They probably could have evened the field a bit there, but that would have taken time and effort.