However what the data recorded in this article suggests is when future games became more demanding on the CPU, the Core i7 is going to provide a higher level of performance. While this is a very likely scenario, the Core i7 has been available for well over a year now and this still has not happened. Therefore in terms of value, the Phenom II X4 still makes more sense for gaming purposes.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
« Supreme Commander 2 Performance · Radeon HD 5870 Crossfire CPU Scaling Performance Part 1
· Asus P7H55-M Pro vs. Gigabyte H55M-UD2H »
pages 1 2
|
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. |
|
Steve Posts: 75 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. |
|
Steve Posts: 75 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. |
|
Steve Posts: 75 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? |
pages 1 2