 |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||
The time has come once again for us to take a pair of the gaming industry’s fastest performance graphics cards and couple then with a range of processors from both AMD and Intel. In this first part, which will be just one of many, we are taking the Core i7, Core i3, Phenom II X4, Phenom II X2 processors and testing them with Radeon HD 5870 Crossfire graphics cards at frequencies from 2.0GHz through to 4.0GHz...
As it stands, the most powerful single-GPU graphics card money can buy is without doubt the Radeon HD 5870. Although the dual-GPU Radeon HD 5970 is AMD’s flagship graphics card, a pair of Radeon HD 5870 graphics cards operating in Crossfire mode are actually quite a bit faster thanks to their 17% core clock speed advantage.
Throwing a pair of Radeon HD 5870 graphics cards into a gaming system is serious business for a few reasons. First and foremost this is one of the most powerful dual-card combination's possible, and secondly at over $800 US it is also one of the most expensive. With all this GPU power many readers often ask us what kind of CPU they would require to fully utilize such a setup. In the past we have done our best to address this question by testing a range of processors using the latest and greatest graphics cards. Today’s article is no different, as we set out to test a wide range of CPUs with a pair of Radeon HD 5870 graphics cards. However when compared to recent CPU scaling articles featuring the Radeon HD 5970, this version is a little different. The next page titled “Testing Methodology” better explains what I mean, so make sure you read this page before proceeding to the test results. Also, please be aware that the results from this article can in no way be compared to previous articles such as those featuring the Radeon HD 5970, as the test conditions are very different this time round. Already we have tested half a dozen processors since testing began in January of this year, with another half a dozen in the works. This article will feature four processors, two high-end models and two low-end models. The processor series in question are the AMD Phenom II X4/Phenom II X2 and Intel Core i7 9xx/Core i3 5xx. In total this article alone features 576 unique results. However in total 3456 test were conducted, focusing on the average and minimum frame rates each test was carried out a total of six times allowing us to recorded the average result. This has been a massive undertaking and as I just mentioned, has been months in the making. Each series will be tested at six different frequencies ranging from 2.0GHz through to 4.0GHz in 400MHz steps. For more information on how the testing has been conducted please read the next page... |
|||||
|
|
JohnnyR |
Posted on: 03/18/2010 03:56 AM
Been waiting for the core 2 duo and quad benches for along time. Are they ever coming? Are you not allowed to show them? A lot of us still have so called old tech. |
|
ProX |
Posted on: 03/08/2010 11:26 AM
Thanks for all the hard work. I was amazed at how well the little Core i3 processors do. I am keen to see how these compare in these tests to the Core i5... |
|
Dave P |
Posted on: 03/08/2010 12:42 PM
well done. it looks like my overclocked phenom ii x2 550 with all four cores enabled is enough to get the most out of my radeon hd 5850. i am keen to see how the slower core 2 duo processors go as well. |
|
Jonny Intel |
Posted on: 03/08/2010 01:27 PM
Great article about CPU scaling instead of the usual super jizzed up 1920x1200 8xMSAA/AF 5970 CFX, which obviously is limited by the GPUs. Though you could have thrown in better multi-cores games such as Dragon Age, RE5, Dirt2, AvP, BF:BC2, GTA4 etc. |
|
chemiczny_ali |
Posted on: 03/08/2010 02:55 PM
Who've done those graphs? All graphs are wrong. They've added min fps and max fps. LOL. Someone better fix this cos it's looking a bit embarrassing. |
|
Steven Walton Posts: 104 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 03/08/2010 08:26 PM
Posted by chemiczny_ali on 03/08/2010 03:55 PM
Embarrassing? Hardly they have been arranged by their combined min/average result on purpose. |
|
chemiczny_ali |
Posted on: 03/08/2010 09:22 PM
On purpose? Maybe to mislead the reader? What combined graph shows? Absolutely nothing! If you want to show performance of several processors/gpu's do it right way... http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5830_6.html#sect1 |
|
Dave P |
Posted on: 03/08/2010 10:53 PM
It showed nothing? More often than not the results aligned as they should anyway so I don't know what you are crying about. |
|
Steven Walton Posts: 104 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 03/08/2010 11:04 PM
Posted by chemiczny_ali on 03/08/2010 10:22 PM
I was almost not going to bother but I will. If it were you making the graphs how would you arrange the data, by the average or minimum result? |
|
chemiczny_ali |
Posted on: 03/09/2010 05:30 AM
I would arrange the graphs with the average BUT with adding minimum which is far more important for me. Have you looked at my link? But I'm starting realize that your graphs are not that useless I was thinking at first point. |
|
Telimektar |
Posted on: 03/09/2010 08:22 AM
Those graphs are perfectly fine, thanks for a great article. |
|
Steven Walton Posts: 104 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 03/09/2010 09:42 AM
Posted by Telimektar on 03/09/2010 09:22 AM
You are more than welcome and thanks for the feedback, makes all the hard work worth it  |
|
Dan |
Posted on: 03/09/2010 05:32 PM
Good article. But I do think that the stacked charts are biased and favor the intel processors (in this case). AMD Processors which are usually slower both in mininum fps and average fps are punished "twice" in such a stacked chart and the overall bar length gives impression of bigger performance difference then the actual difference. Also, although the observation that i7/i3 processors consistently provide better minimum fps is very valuable for potential buyer, minimum fps are based on a single data point and I do not think have the same weight as average fps. |
|
graf |
Posted on: 03/09/2010 09:49 PM
The graphs were confusing to me as well, until i figured out what you were doing. If you explained how you were graphing in the text, i missed it. I would suggest putting in a subtitle with something like 'summation of average and minimum values' and/or move the text for the average to the left side of its colored area. Other than that, the article was interesting and informative. |
|
bob smith |
Posted on: 03/10/2010 07:37 AM
sweet article, it helped me with a number of purchase decisions, i was worried about amd x4 965 vs intel i7 920 and now i know the amd will be just as good as the intel for gaming, i also know that i don\'t really need to over-clock to get great performance, i saw that the amd system only had 4 gigs of ram and the intel had 6 gigs, did the intel system really need 6 gigs? did the amd system get close to using all 4 gigs of ram? i am still trying to decide how much ram to get, the graphs are great, at this level of detail for all these tests i almost want a spread-sheet to do sorted comparisons where i can type in the prices to see added value, thank you for the value judgements on overall performance, the conclusions about the intel i3 are as funny as the conclusions about the amd x4 955 and the radeon 5970, i almost fell out my chair laughing when i first thought about buying a $200 cpu for a $600 gpu (i have no idea why my co-workers call me a nerd), newer dx11 games and multi-core game tests will be an amazing next article (supreme commander 2 on 3 monitors), is there any chance you could post some of the huge resolution screen shots of the min fps game-play? i would love to see how many units moving and shooting or huge explosions it took to bring down the intel i7 @ 4GHz to around 30 fps, i am still wondering about the bottlenecks around a radeon 5850, which cpu do you think would be the right match for gaming? not too slow to cause a bottleneck but not too fast to be a waste of money for gaming, i hate bottlenecks, these tests kick ass, i think this shows another example where gaming hardware is way more advanced then gaming software, crysis had the best graphics and stupid ai, i hope game coders realize that they can use the cpu more to make smarter ai while still having great graphics or use the cpu to help with more graphics, like the old unreal engine with 100% cpu graphics, with all this hardware pc games should be way better than ps3 and xbox36, right? |
|
ProX |
Posted on: 03/10/2010 08:41 AM
The Core i7 system is triple-channel and the Phenom II is dual-channel. So one has 3 sticks of 2GB memory and the other has 2. At the end of the day I am yet to see a game that performs better with 6GB of memory when compared to 4GB so this is a none issue, maybe Steve has more info on this. Also for most people 2560x1600 is a huge resolution, add another 30" screen and you can pretty much just halve the performance. Not sure what Xbox 360 games you have been playing but the PC equivalent always looks worlds better in my opinion. Half the reason why Crysis never went to console is because it was way to demanding. |
|
don´t like it |
Posted on: 03/10/2010 09:16 PM
There´s no such information about phenom II NB Overclock speed. In fact the Crossfire Scaling changes a lot with NB overclocked to 2.6ghz or 2.8ghz. Phenom II is bandwith Starved. It´s not true for the I7. Core i7 has turbo mode. Phenom II does not. So when overclock a Phenom II you have to overclock the NB clock ALSO. cheers Rodrigo |
|
Please read this!!! |
Posted on: 03/10/2010 09:32 PM
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3533&p=5 the guys at anand got 12% more speed just with NB Overclock. Well, I got huge 3000 points in 3dmark 2006 JUST WITH NB OVERCLOCK with phenom II. Also I got some 7000 ponts in 3dmark 2001 just with NB OVERLOCK The rule is... if you overlock your processor to 4ghz , you will need at least 2.8 to 3.0ghz NB Speed. |
|
ProX |
Posted on: 03/10/2010 11:04 PM
Clearly neither of you guys can read. First of all they were not using turbo mode. Second of all they said they overclocked the processors as close to their standard settings as possible for fair results. Finally if you look at the 2.0GHz and 2.4GHz data the margins are the same at 4.0GHz so put that in ya pipe and smoke it. |
|
Steven Walton Posts: 104 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 03/27/2010 10:24 PM
Posted by White on 03/27/2010 10:18 PM
Thanks for the feedback. The Core 2 Duo E8xxx series and Core i5 results along with half a dozen other processors will be online in the first week of April. |
|
White |
Posted on: 03/27/2010 09:18 PM
Great job Steve. I've been waiting for this article and you put a lot of arguments to rest. This is the first properly done article I have seen today that compares i7 and Phenom II in gaming performance. The dual core results are interesting as well. Great job! 2 thumbs!! PS: On part 2 if you are doing C2Q please do 45nm. Also, would have been nice to see how i5 fairs with these result, although I expect them to be very similar to i7. |
|
Julian |
Posted on: 04/07/2010 12:37 AM
Great article keep the benches coming! |
|
Pdp |
Posted on: 09/05/2010 11:17 PM
Yes we all know Intel have a better chips at the top end, benchmarking is fair enough but thats just bragging rights. But, in the real world of gaming the i7 965extreme costs £650 the x4 965 £120. But ya sure don't get 5.5 x the performance. On some benchmarks even the little i3 has better performance than its bigger brother. My point being its all about bang per buck. Even the X2 555 gets to within 75% minimum frame rate (crysis) of the i7 965 and that costs a meager £70, thats a wopping 9x price difference. Then you have the possability of unlocking 3 or all of the cores. With a descent motherboard. So its £800 i7/+mobo vs £170 X2 555/+ mobo. I know what I'd choose everytime. The £600 saving I go for X2 HD 5850 and water cooling. For even better performance. Then again any improvement over 60fps you won't notice any way as it's above the refresh rate of 90% of tft monitors!!!!!!!!!!! |