For the most part the Core i7 9xx and Core i5 7xx series were in a league of their own. Something that we did also find surprising was the fact that for the most part the Core i3 5xx series kept pace with the Phenom II X4 on a clock-for-clock basis. Something else we noticed when making this comparison was that the Core i3 5xx almost always matched the minimum frame rate of the Phenom II X4, while in a number of cases it was significantly faster.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
« QNAP TS-459 Pro Turbo NAS · Radeon HD 5870 Crossfire CPU Scaling Performance Part 2
· MSI R5870 Lightning »
pages 1 2 3
|
Kreeper |
Posted on: 04/06/2010 01:33 PM
Good stuff but where is my Phenom II X3? |
|
Dan |
Posted on: 04/19/2010 02:11 AM
Outstanding review. No effort can be all encompassing; however, this one is excellent and comes closer than most reviews I have read. Thank you for adding the E8600 CPU, and I look forward to Gulftown being added. Regarding Gulftown, excluding the number of cores, I am not sure how much the architectural change will make a difference in >2 core CPU gaming. On a side note, I would like to see 4 core [8 including virtual] Gulftown CPUs that are clocked at 4+ GHz from Intel that can be easily overclocked to >5GHz on air. I suspect that will make a great deal more difference to gamers than 6+ cores [12 including virtual], at least until 22nm arrives. Intel CPUs have been bumping their head against 3.33GHz maximum factory clock for far too long. I noticed in your charts that there was often little or no difference between 3.6GHz and 4GHz. I suspect that may be due to further optimized RAM, as that would take a great deal of time, to make further changes for testing. If a 4 core Gulftown rated at 4GHz or higher from Intel were available I suspect that RAM timing would yield higher benchmark results because little tweaking in that area would be needed in order to keep a slightly overclocked CPU fed. Then again, I could be wrong, though it would be nice to know for certain. Again, thank you. Dan |
|
Java |
Posted on: 04/20/2010 11:13 AM
Great article, Ive been searching for a while for something like this and now that ive found it, its ended up giving me more questions lol. Ive looking for the cheapest upgrade from an athlon 6000, ASUS M3A78 pro, 4gb ram and HD4870 512mb to something that can handle eyefinity. Currently in the homework stages still but I was considering waiting until near the release of HD6xxx card when prices will be at their lowest (hopefully) but my problem is what else will I have to upgrade? my options are 1)Stick with current set up and just add the HD5870 2)Add a phenom II along with the HD5870 and at a later date either get an AM2+ crossfire board or possibly go AM3 if ram prices are lower and add the second HD5870 Tho looking above and using the Pentium E6xxx results @ 2.8GHz as a rough guide, the Athlon 6000 performance looks ok to be able to run a crossfire solution. Im now wondering if its worth upgrading the processor at all and if so whats the best upgrade path on my limited budget. If prices remain the way they are or increase more, Ill be waiting until HD6 series cards are out. /sigh such dilemmas |
|
RickkiR |
Posted on: 04/15/2010 08:52 PM
WOW run some tests LOL. Thanks for the article it was a very interesting read. |
|
Dan Posts: 2 Joined: 2010-04-18 |
Posted on: 04/19/2010 02:55 PM
Steve, If you could find the time please include the following. Because Gulftown is an unknown for gamers, when you get your hands on one [beg or borrow] I would be interested in seeing a repeat of the battery of tests performed in your "Performance Part 2" using just the Gulftown, with the same RAM timings used with the i9xx and i7xx to save time, and add it to the results. Also, because the multiplier is unlocked I would like to see how many GHz an "easy" overclock would yield with two cores turned off, then lower the RAM timings to the point of instability then increase the timings slightly for stability. With this set-up run the benchmarks again. And add the results to "Performance Part 2". I do not expect you to spend a lot of time working with the RAM; just take a few educated shots to find the fastest timing with 4 CPU cores running. We all know that if a CPU is "spinning its wheels" waiting on system memory data crunching will be restricted. Again, for the sake of time you could exclude “Compiled Results” and limit results to 3.6GHz and 4GHz for 6 core Gulftown and limit results to 3.6GHz and maximum "easy" overclock and fast RAM timings with the Gulftown. Enthusiast, especially those on a budget are very interested in maximum bang for the buck. Thank you for your time and effort. Again, you did an outstanding job with your findings. Dan Note: I am the same Dan as the unregistered Dan in the post below. |
|
Steve Posts: 80 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 04/06/2010 09:41 PM
SShooter believe me you do not need to tell me the difference between the Kentsfield and Yorkfield architectures I have run countless tests over the years comparing them. Of course I still want to include the Yorkfield and other architectures for that matter but it’s all just a matter of time. Also Kreeper given time I will also add Phenom II X3 results and Chris it would be interesting to add the six-core processors as well... |
|
ProX |
Posted on: 04/06/2010 12:09 PM
Awesome article thank you so much and finally I get to see my Core 2 Duo results! Impressive work and it looks like my upgrade to the Core i5 750 was worth it. |
|
Chris |
Posted on: 04/06/2010 12:50 PM
This is nuts. I loved the first article but this one is worlds better. You might not want to hear this but can you please add results for the six core processors once the Phenom II X6 is out! |
|
SShooter |
Posted on: 04/06/2010 05:31 PM
At last. I thought. I've been waiting for this test for a month. Everyday i checked in here to see how my new q9550 do compared to my old dualcore and the newer platforms. The test is fine but... Why, oh why did you use an older, qrippled Core 2 Quad in the test when the rest of the cpu's are more top of their lines? Why didn't you use a q9650 instead of the q6700? Faster fsb: 1300MHz vs 1066MHz New build: 45nm vs 65nm More cache: 12MB vs 8MB plus you would had reach a 4GHz overclock on the 45nm c2q too. And btw, you didn't even mention your c2q in the conclusion! According to this test, the c2q is a crap game processor with a couple of high end graphics card in crossfire. Please please, could you update the test with a new (better) Core 2 quad? |
|
Brutalis |
Posted on: 04/07/2010 12:51 AM
Steve, mate, I appreciate all the hard work, but there's something seriously wrong with your graphs. For example the first two graphs included - the ones in the Crysis Warhead Compiled Results page. The first graph displays a much wider gap between 52 and 51 FPS (1 FPS difference) than between 51 and 48 FPS (3 FPS difference). The second graph displays no less than five bars with 43 FPS on them, which are all different lengths. It's illogical and misleading, and I do believe there's probably some kind of involuntary mistake made here. Please reply or correct the graphs as soon as possible. Thanks in advance. |
|
Kreeper |
Posted on: 04/07/2010 01:44 AM
Brutalis you are doing my head in, can you even read. I suggest you read the first paragraph on that page... |
|
Steve Posts: 80 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 04/07/2010 02:32 AM
Posted by Brutalis on 04/07/2010 01:51 AM
Brutalis it was explained in the review why the graphs are the way they are. If you have a better way of displaying all this data please show me I am open to suggestions. |
|
Brutalis |
Posted on: 04/07/2010 07:25 AM
Damn it, I clearly didn't notice THAT paragraph. Sorry :[ It was 4 AM when I posted, guess next time I should read reviews in the morning, after my coffee... Kreeper - no need to go all agro on my azz, dude  |
|
ProX |
Posted on: 04/07/2010 08:32 AM
Yeah they are the same graphs as the first article and they do make sense, but like you said not at 4am. Nothing does then  Kreeper did have a far go but at least you came back to admit your wrong. |
|
Steve Posts: 80 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 04/07/2010 09:01 AM
Posted by Brutalis on 04/07/2010 08:25 AM
Not a problem and kudos for coming back Brutalis. |
pages 1 2 3