• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Good gaming oriented sandybridge review?

B

BababooeyHTJ

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
6,951
Has anyone gotten around to a good comprehensive gaming oriented review/comparison with sandybridge with none of that low detail, low resolution bs?
 
These test are more realistic, I wish most sites used 1920x1080 with max settings to show how much of an improvement (if any) one will see from going to a 2600k from say a Q9xxx or Phenom II x4/x6. I took the plunge and will be checking it out myself.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
Has anyone gotten around to a good comprehensive gaming oriented review/comparison with sandybridge with none of that low detail, low resolution bs?
Click to expand...

then your running into gpu limitations not cpu ones. defeats the purposes of testing a cpu in gaming.
 
Filter said:
then your running into gpu limitations not cpu ones. defeats the purposes of testing a cpu in gaming.
Click to expand...

Really? That must be why I saw close to a 30% improvement in Serious Sam HD and Darkplaces (the only games that I tested) when I overclocked my cpu by 30%. The minimum framerate in quite a few games is effected with cpu speed. What makes you think that the settings in games will only effect the gpu?

Using unrealistic settings like low settings on a high end cpu defeats the purpose of testing imo.

Porter_ said:
take a look at the thread i started, which lists several early reviews. off the top of my head, the Tech Spot review uses high game settings.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I forgot about the HC review which also has some good benchmarks too.
 
Last edited:
Filter said:
thats what im saying so are you arguing or agreeing with me??
Click to expand...

Thats not at all what you said.

Filter said:
then your running into gpu limitations not cpu ones. defeats the purposes of testing a cpu in gaming.
Click to expand...

Who is gaming on a $300 cpu at a low resolution and low settings? I also don't agree that you won't run into cpu limitations in some games especially with mods on a high end video card.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
Thats not at all what you said.



Who is gaming on a $300 cpu at a low resolution and low settings? I also don't agree that you won't run into cpu limitations in some games especially with mods on a high end video card.
Click to expand...

LOL i was completely backwards in my train of thought when reading this thread and posting.
 
Raudulfr said:
Of course, everyone knows real gamers play at 1024x768, low settings, 0xAA 0xAF, amirite?
Click to expand...

The purpose of using low settings is to take the video card out of the equation.

It is true you don't get an absolute measure of performance, but you do get a relative rating compared to other CPUs.
 
That first review on BFBC 2 4xAA 16AF, shows less than 1 frame difference between a 1090T and 2600K @ 2560x1600 & 1920x1080.

Same with Supreme Commander. Even the AMD Quad Cores do fine and even AMD Quad Core beats out the 2600k but like I said, by less than 1 frame difference, but that is what resolution is the most popular in todays games and widescreen lcds sold.

So glad I went with the Quad Core I have, and only spent 88.99 on this CPU instead of hundreds. I feel for the gamers who thought differently. That's life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top