Who's Got Game? Twelve Sub-$200 CPUs Compared

[ww2003]

It going to be interesting to see what happens when the AMD Bulldozer is released. Will it have gaming advantage or will it be more for he tech area of computing. I have heard both and it it does Will it stand up to the Second gen Intels or fall short on the benchmark.

 

[americanbrian]

ummmm, am I the only one to notice that the test setup says athlon II x3 445, not 455, and that it is actually not clocked to 3.3GHz, but only to 3.1Ghz, and further that it isn't actually a 445 anyway, but a still cheaper 420 that has been overclocked?

Surely you jest. I would like an explaination as to what was actually used, as it seems to be a unfair comparison if the "test setup" was actually correct

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]americanbrian[/nom]ummmm, am I the only one to notice that the test setup says athlon II x3 445, not 455, and that it is actually not clocked to 3.3GHz, but only to 3.1Ghz, and further that it isn't actually a 445 anyway, but a still cheaper 420 that has been overclocked?Surely you jest. I would like an explaination as to what was actually used, as it seems to be a unfair comparison if the "test setup" was actually correct[/citation]

Sorry, that was a typo.

To confirm, the test was done with a 450 overclocked to 3.3 GHz to simulate a 455. The text has been updated.

 

[spam123]

This article is supposed to be a CPU comparison, but almost all of the benchmarks are GPU limited. Look how close they are, with the exception of the slowest CPU's they're all within a few % of each other.

I much better test would have been to benchmark at a lower resolution like 1280x1024 for CPU performance. Then to bench again at 1600x1080 for those non-gamers that run their rigs GPU bound.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]spam123[/nom]I much better test would have been to benchmark at a lower resolution like 1280x1024 for CPU performance.[/citation]

We're looking for usable data though, and that would not yield real-world results.

The idea is to find out actual CPU limitations, not theoretical ones. And keep in mind, the CPUs are already somewhat unleashed with a powerful graphics card.

 

[spam123]

Cleeve: Obviously you are not a gamer, because in the "Real-world", any true gamer will lower the resolution and detail to ensure that the FPS is smooth (> 30-60 FPS depending on the genre).

Nice job taking my quote out of context. Yes, the high resolution data is useful, but it's not enough. You can always lower the detail or rez, but changing CPUs is not such an easy option. By benchmarking these CPUs in a GPU bound environment, they are hiding the relevant data. To make an informed decision we need both CPU bound and GPU bound benchmarks. This article only give us 1/2 of the data.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]spam123[/nom]Cleeve: Obviously you are not a gamer, because in the "Real-world", any true gamer will lower the resolution and detail to ensure that the FPS is smooth (> 30-60 FPS depending on the genre).[/citation]

Obviously you're not a gamer, because a true gamer will lower detail and keep resolution high so he can make out smaller targets.


[citation][nom]spam123[/nom]This article only give us 1/2 of the data.[/citation]

I don't share your opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[schmich]

It's a CPU gaming article and you don't even put in Bad Company 2?! This game's engine is superior to most games by using up to SIX CORES and the new version of the engine will come later this year.

I would have loved to see how an overclocked 6-core AMD CPU would do against an overclocked Sandy Bridge in that game. You better do a review on BF:BC2 when Bulldozer comes out.

 

[Why_Me]

It's a CPU gaming article and you don't even put in Bad Company 2?! This game's engine is superior to most games by using up to SIX CORES and the new version of the engine will come later this year.

I would have loved to see how an overclocked 6-core AMD CPU would do against an overclocked Sandy Bridge in that game. You better do a review on BF:BC2 when Bulldozer comes out.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-2500k-and-core-i7-2600k-review/21 <--- There ya go. Don't forget that the SB easily o/c's to 4.8 - 5.0+ghz on air 😉

Most games the SB 2500K flat out destroy's anything AMD.

 

[shredder777]

Dammit I hate seeing AMD get destroyed by even the i3's! They better kick some ass with the bulldozer.

 

[ctbaars]

[citation][nom]darkchazz[/nom]Wait for bulldozer , then compare it with SB[/citation]
ha ha ha ha

 

[silicondoc]

So, as usual, the sad AMD tale has to be given many free legs up by the reviewer... the bias NEVER ENDS...
Let's take the multitasking page - as the 1075T loses in ALL FOUR BENCHES (2 each per)to the i5 2300 and 2400, the reviewer states: " AMD's Phenom II X6 1075T stretches its legs a little, matching performance with the Core i5-2300 and -2400. "
In this case 1075T still lost, just didn't lose so terribly badly as in the other tests, so now, since the bias is so thick you'd have to be blind, illiterate, and deaf, or a brainwashed fanboy not to notice, being behind still is BEING EQUAL.
I note the processor didn't stretch it legs as the reviewer stated, the reviewer stretched the truth... as do all the little AMD liars we have had everywhere for some time now.
BEING BEHIND BY 4-25% IS NOT "matching performance", no matter that you were behind by 30,40,or near 50 percent elsewhere...
LIES, lie lie lie lie lie.
That's not science, not a fair review, and it's plain BS, but boy oh brother that 2 week Island vacation AMD pays hundreds of the review media to "attend" every year must be filled with fabulous hookers of any preference.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]silicondoc[/nom]I note the processor didn't stretch it legs as the reviewer stated, the reviewer stretched the truth... as do all the little AMD liars we have had everywhere for some time now.[/citation]

Wow. I'm not sure if you're high, are unable to read charts, or just have a ludicrous hate on against AMD.

Let's make sure it's not the second one. The multitasking results are (in Red):

i5-2400: 14.5 minimum, 55.7 average
X6 1075T: 13.4 minimum, 55.3 average
i5-2300: 14.3 minimum, 54 average

How is that a 30, 40, or 50% spread?

Aside from that, do you honestly suggest that we're being paid in hookers by AMD to title our conclusion page "Sandy Bridge Has Game", and recommend the Core i3-2100 over the Phenom II X4 955?

Your post makes no sense, Silicondoc.

It's like you read that page, and then pretended it said something completely different to fit a conspiracy theory you had before you even looked... 😀

 

[Guest]

Need to point out that the i3-2120 part is a 3.3 GHz chip not the 3.2 GHz the testers apparently over clocked the i3-2100. I know, it's only 100 MHz, but I think it still needs to be pointed out.