Quoting: m0nt3I am not a blender expert by any stretch of the imagination. My temps are ok, I get by on a lower voltage than most people I have seen with an 8320 at 4.5. I get by on 1.32V CPU temp will peak around 55-56C under prime95 and 70C on the CPU socket. I am using a Phanteks TC-14-PE.

I heard in order to reach 4.5GHz for FX-8320E it takes 1.5V+. This aspect coupled with my meager cooling system (something like DEEPCOOL ICE EDGE Mini FS V2.0, I've forgotten exact model) and unoptimal MB (ASRock 970 Pro3) strongly dissuade me against extreme overclocking adventures. :-(

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: m0nt3There is a sample setting that can be changed that can drastically reduce the time needed to render the image. No one is sure how many samples AMD had set for their benchmark. The default of 200, I score 1:14 with my 8320 @ 4.5 but at 100 samples I scored 00:37. There is a big forum discussion about it on techpowerup.

Actually, there are a lot of settings. By reducing the number of samples per pixel to 100, enabling spatial splits and probabilistic path termination I've "upgraded" my CPU, reaching 00:49. ^_^

But I assume we are supposed to use presets from the file...

P.S. [email protected]... quite hot! Literally. My cooling system does not allow me to go higher than 3.6GHz (due to thermal throttling).

P.P.S. It is 1:31 on [email protected]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

del

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Too bad they are a little late to the party...

AMD basically butchered AM3+ FX processor line (no Steamroller or Excavator upgrade) thus making FX-83XX the EOL processors.

Granted, FX-8320E with overclocking to 4 GHz is quite impressive in multithreaded tasks (like CFD, ray-traced rendering or mass video converting) and almost on par with Core i5-6400 for basically 2/3 of its cost. But that's the best AMD can offer...

I'm highly sceptical about this 'Zen' generation. AMD can screw CPUs in favor of APUs yet again. Needless to say, my current CPU is sufficient for the next 5 years or so.

Quoting: XpanderRyzen had 35 sec

mine:

FX-8320@4,4ghz ~1:23

Mine FX-8320E@3,6GHz ~1:41

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeOk, got it: Windows and Mac only on Gog. That's quite strange.

Sadly, it's not the unique case. GOG often don't release Linux versions of games. Whether it doesn't care or the games have some hidden agreements to release Linux versions only on Steam -- I have no information. But the tendency of increasing reliance (or dependance) on Valve's Steam service is worrysome.

Soon, some will say Vale(R) Linux(tm) [like Microsoft(R) Windows(tm)].

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: orochikyoKeep passing until you realize that hipsters who play on GOG will still starving of games on five years, lol.

Can do!

My kind sir, no need to worry about me. I didn't switch from Windows to Linux only to embrace Valve's DRM lock-in. Don't even have Steam account, yet, I can not find enough time to play my 100+ games from Humble Bundles (and Humble Store), GOG, itch.io and direct downloads. Something tells me in five the sutuation will not change much. ;-)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeWhat are you talking about?
https://www.gog.com/game/the_last_tinker_city_of_colors [External Link]

Honestly, did you even look at that link? Needless to say I visited their official homepage. There is only Steam(tm) widget.

I'm afraid I'm right on this. Better luck next time, friend!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Another Steam-exclusive game... Pass.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Comandante oardoI would like to use AMD again if they get rid of the piledriver tech fiasco...

The real fiasco wasn't Piledriver. It was AMD's descision to cripple FX line in favor of AXX APU's.

After initial Piledriver flop due to lower per-core perfomance AMD got "brilliant" idea of heterogenous architecture. They thought that despite lower perfomance those GPU cores could double as auxiliary CPU cores thus "making" mighty GPU and 8-core CPU at the same time for the price of 4-core Intel CPU. They heavily gambled on this, up to not upgrading FX line to Steamroller and Excavator cores (every production line was refitted for AXX APUs).

Good idea!... Not!

This strategy had heavily relied on fancy compilers and application optimization, which simply did not come to reality. No one hurried recompiling their apps for CPU line with only 20% market share and the most popular compiler (Intel's) did everything it could to produce AMD-unsuitable code. Even now outdated FX-8320 CPU is more efficient (and cheaper) than any A12 chip. :-(

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: niarbehtOne of the few upsides to integrated GPUs is they usually come with hardware encoders/decoders.

That's not true. Dedicated GPUs are also equipped with hardware encoders/decoders (VDPAU for decoding and HVENC for encoding in the nVidia's case).

Quoting: niarbehtThey're also a nice, handy backup for when everything decides to break on you.

A really unneeded backup for our money. And in place of more CPU cores which could be put to use, like, in 3D rendering or CFD. Integrated GPU's are garbage for high-perfomance solutions and sholud be only used in "typewriter-PC" machines for text processors as sole video cards.

View this comment - View article - View full comments