![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Real-World Gaming CPU Comparison with BFGTech 8800 GTX SLI
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
QuakerOatz
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2004
- Messages
- 161
Great article guys. Looks like Intel is back at the top of the pack.
Isn't it time to start benchmarking with the undisputed game of the year?
Company of Heroes
Isn't it time to start benchmarking with the undisputed game of the year?
Company of Heroes
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,634
Thanks for your thoughts. Sorry to waste your time.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,634
The previous article failed in NO WAY, what is showed you was the real experience you could expect at the time. We showed many ways in which the Conroe was superior, just not in gaming. Things change, hardware changes, software changes. We thought it should be visited again. It is also safe to say now that unless you have high end 8800s in your box you will still see GPU bottlenecks.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here but...
You're using the ingame performance graphics wise essentially to dictate "which is better" between the C2D and the AMD but your test setup has the eVGA 680i running with Linkboost enabled.
Doesn't that therefore mean that performance of the two GTX's is going to be better on the 680i regardless since they're essentially overclocked the PCIe bus to 125Mhz instead of the 100Mhz that the AMD board will be running at?
You're using the ingame performance graphics wise essentially to dictate "which is better" between the C2D and the AMD but your test setup has the eVGA 680i running with Linkboost enabled.
Doesn't that therefore mean that performance of the two GTX's is going to be better on the 680i regardless since they're essentially overclocked the PCIe bus to 125Mhz instead of the 100Mhz that the AMD board will be running at?
InorganicMatter
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 15,461
Well, if you want to go by the "platform, not architecture" argument that 4x4 fans like to use, than Linkboost is fair game, since it's a feature of the 680i platform and we should compare platforms, not architectures.
I don't disagree with you but since both of the test platform boards use the same 590 MCP it would have been a closer comparision between them if linkboost was off on the 680i.
Don't get me wrong, some of the tests there are very obvious differences that I don't think linkboost could in anyway account for. But where the FPS is different by 10 frames or less I'd like to know what impact it would have had on the results
Don't get me wrong, some of the tests there are very obvious differences that I don't think linkboost could in anyway account for. But where the FPS is different by 10 frames or less I'd like to know what impact it would have had on the results
I just want to state I donot post alot, but do visit daily and enjoy the site 
I do have a question or two, shouldn't all test be Apples to Apples?
*edit* If you are spending this much money on a sytem like this wouldn't you be pretty upset to not be able to use the higghest settings?*/edit*
Looking at the numbers...
42.6*100/53.4
79.7752808988 21% ES
26*100/36.7
70.8446866485 30% FSX - (numbers are from Apples to Apples)
28*100/35.8
78.2122905027 22% MIITW - (numbers are from Apples to Apples)
83.5*100/94
88.8297872340 12% BF2142
112.3*100/166.4
67.4879807692 32% FEAR EP
61.4*100/66.2
92.7492447129 8% NFS
49*100/51.7
94.7775628626 6% WOW
Here is the average advantage the Core 2 Duo has...
21+30+22+12+32+8+6
131/7
18.7142857142
Almost 19%.
I could careless about these test since I will not own a 30" LCD and two 8800GTX in SLI anytime soon, but this site seems to be afraid to say something that could be percieved as a negative against AMD, and it would seem unfair to your readers to show bias in any regards.
If Intel is ahead, just say it.
What is with the comment "There is undoubtedly a world where the Intel Core 2 Duo reigns supreme, but in the world of gaming that power is not near as apparent."
I am no rocket scientist but in an apples to apples comparison, that 19% would seem pretty aparent.
Just my 2 cents... flame on
PS: Below are the links to the two images showing the average FPS (as extracted from the apples to apples images) for FSX and MIITW.
http://www.enumae.com/Flight-Simulator-X.jpg
http://www.enumae.com/Medieval-II-Total-War.jpg
I do have a question or two, shouldn't all test be Apples to Apples?
*edit* If you are spending this much money on a sytem like this wouldn't you be pretty upset to not be able to use the higghest settings?*/edit*
Looking at the numbers...
42.6*100/53.4
79.7752808988 21% ES
26*100/36.7
70.8446866485 30% FSX - (numbers are from Apples to Apples)
28*100/35.8
78.2122905027 22% MIITW - (numbers are from Apples to Apples)
83.5*100/94
88.8297872340 12% BF2142
112.3*100/166.4
67.4879807692 32% FEAR EP
61.4*100/66.2
92.7492447129 8% NFS
49*100/51.7
94.7775628626 6% WOW
Here is the average advantage the Core 2 Duo has...
21+30+22+12+32+8+6
131/7
18.7142857142
Almost 19%.
I could careless about these test since I will not own a 30" LCD and two 8800GTX in SLI anytime soon, but this site seems to be afraid to say something that could be percieved as a negative against AMD, and it would seem unfair to your readers to show bias in any regards.
If Intel is ahead, just say it.
What is with the comment "There is undoubtedly a world where the Intel Core 2 Duo reigns supreme, but in the world of gaming that power is not near as apparent."
I am no rocket scientist but in an apples to apples comparison, that 19% would seem pretty aparent.
Just my 2 cents... flame on
PS: Below are the links to the two images showing the average FPS (as extracted from the apples to apples images) for FSX and MIITW.
http://www.enumae.com/Flight-Simulator-X.jpg
http://www.enumae.com/Medieval-II-Total-War.jpg
If you really want to test your CPU in Oblivion; God yourself up with the console, head into a city and miff all the guards you can so they chase you about. Engage in some combat as well. The command tdt will allow you to observe FPS without using another app like FRAPS.
Situations like that are real crunch time for the CPU. Walking around a game relaxing is not the same thing as measuring a heavy fight with shadows, many creatures, AI and real time rendering. Fights with many creatures in Doom III, Prey and GRAW would be good tests for the CPU as well.
Situations like that are real crunch time for the CPU. Walking around a game relaxing is not the same thing as measuring a heavy fight with shadows, many creatures, AI and real time rendering. Fights with many creatures in Doom III, Prey and GRAW would be good tests for the CPU as well.
I just want to state I donot post alot, but do visit daily and enjoy the site
I do have a question or two, shouldn't all test be Apples to Apples?
*edit* If you are spending this much money on a sytem like this wouldn't you be pretty upset to not be able to use the higghest settings?*/edit*
Looking at the numbers...
42.6*100/53.4
79.7752808988 21% ES
26*100/36.7
70.8446866485 30% FSX - (numbers are from Apples to Apples)
28*100/35.8
78.2122905027 22% MIITW - (numbers are from Apples to Apples)
83.5*100/94
88.8297872340 12% BF2142
112.3*100/166.4
67.4879807692 32% FEAR EP
61.4*100/66.2
92.7492447129 8% NFS
49*100/51.7
94.7775628626 6% WOW
Here is the average advantage the Core 2 Duo has...
21+30+22+12+32+8+6
131/7
18.7142857142
Almost 19%.
I could careless about these test since I will not own a 30" LCD and two 8800GTX in SLI anytime soon, but this site seems to be afraid to say something that could be percieved as a negative against AMD, and it would seem unfair to your readers to show bias in any regards.
If Intel is ahead, just say it.
What is with the comment "There is undoubtedly a world where the Intel Core 2 Duo reigns supreme, but in the world of gaming that power is not near as apparent."
I am no rocket scientist but in an apples to apples comparison, that 19% would seem pretty aparent.
Just my 2 cents... flame on
PS: Below are the links to the two images showing the average FPS (as extracted from the apples to apples images) for FSX and MIITW.
http://www.enumae.com/Flight-Simulator-X.jpg
http://www.enumae.com/Medieval-II-Total-War.jpg
For fuck's sake people the correct expression is "I couldn't care less." Not "I could care less." See the difference? The first one means that you couldn't care less because you are at the minimal possible level of caring (which is zero) concerning the subject the comment was made in reference to. That means, you don't give a shit. The other statement. "I could care less." means that you do care about the situation the statement was made in reference to. If you could care less than you are not at the minimum level (of zero) or complete lack of caring. Saying you could care less means that there are lower levels of caring than you currently have in regard to the statement.
Stop it. It's driving me nuts. Thread after thread people keep screwing up that saying.
BACK to the topic at hand.
19% isn't always apparent. When your FPS are already above 60FPS and your LCD is limited to a 60Hz refresh rate you will not notice the difference. Especially if you use V-Sync to eliminate the tearing. In a real world scenario I could put the two test machines with their monitors in front of you, and I doubt you could tell the difference between the two. 19% or not, that percentage improvement fluctuates and will be taken away or masked by other factors.
BTW Linkboost is supported on the 590MCP as it is on the 680i. The chipsets are virtually identical. The main difference is that 590SLI doesn't overclock for shit (Intel version) and the 680i does.
http://www.nvidia.com/page/nforce_600i.html
Check the product comparison chart. It's on the left hand side close to the middle of the page.
Oblivion seems to grind systems to their knees when fighting around an active gate/portal in the middle of an open, grassy field under high-end settings. Turn vsync on, throw a 15% chameleon spell on yourself and bust out the torch if you want... .
All other areas are relatively smooth, although the slight sluggishness and occasional hitch, as reported by the review, does happen. I've since chalked that up to software issues, and not to any shortcomings of the card or system.
. All other areas are relatively smooth, although the slight sluggishness and occasional hitch, as reported by the review, does happen. I've since chalked that up to software issues, and not to any shortcomings of the card or system.
Commander Suzdal
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,134
I just want to state I donot post alot, but do visit daily and enjoy the site
I do have a question or two, shouldn't all test be Apples to Apples?
*edit* If you are spending this much money on a sytem like this wouldn't you be pretty upset to not be able to use the higghest settings?*/edit*
Looking at the numbers...
42.6*100/53.4
79.7752808988 21% ES
26*100/36.7
70.8446866485 30% FSX - (numbers are from Apples to Apples)
28*100/35.8
78.2122905027 22% MIITW - (numbers are from Apples to Apples)
83.5*100/94
88.8297872340 12% BF2142
112.3*100/166.4
67.4879807692 32% FEAR EP
61.4*100/66.2
92.7492447129 8% NFS
49*100/51.7
94.7775628626 6% WOW
Here is the average advantage the Core 2 Duo has...
21+30+22+12+32+8+6
131/7
18.7142857142
Almost 19%.
I could careless about these test since I will not own a 30" LCD and two 8800GTX in SLI anytime soon, but this site seems to be afraid to say something that could be percieved as a negative against AMD, and it would seem unfair to your readers to show bias in any regards.
If Intel is ahead, just say it.
What is with the comment "There is undoubtedly a world where the Intel Core 2 Duo reigns supreme, but in the world of gaming that power is not near as apparent."
I am no rocket scientist but in an apples to apples comparison, that 19% would seem pretty aparent.
Just my 2 cents... flame on
PS: Below are the links to the two images showing the average FPS (as extracted from the apples to apples images) for FSX and MIITW.
http://www.enumae.com/Flight-Simulator-X.jpg
http://www.enumae.com/Medieval-II-Total-War.jpg
The article states clearly and repeatedly in the results section for each test which CPU has the advantage. Are you upset that they didn't make it a scrolling banner with color cycling, or what?
t_ski
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,506
I wonder if it would be possible for you guys to run one or two benches for us with the CPU's clocked the same. There will still be a difference in L2 cahce between the CPU's, but I would like to see what difference is made by the 193MHz difference. In just terms of raw MHz, there is about a 15% difference between the two CPU's, and I believe there was a remark made in this thread that there was about 19% difference in overall performance.
If the field was more level I think the comparison would be more apples to apples.
If the field was more level I think the comparison would be more apples to apples.
The test is pretty apples to apples as far as I am concerned. (I didn't write the article, so I am just expressing my own opinion here.) They took AMD's best single socket dual core processor and tested it against Intel's best single socket dual core processor. The Intel CPU does have a very slight clock speed increase over the AMD Athlon FX-62, but I don't think that invalidates the test. This wasn't an article comparing CPU specifications or design differences. It was a match up between the best offerings each company had in regard to single socket dual core CPUs. The test was specifically designed to showcase which was the better gaming CPU at stock speeds and if the 8800GTX SLI was truely bottlenecked by either CPU.
Comparisons at stock speed are going to be more constant and reproducable as well. If you overclocked the CPUs, the Core 2 Duo would absolutely rape the AMD CPU. The Intel CPUs can generally reach higher frequencies than their AMD counterparts can. You could underclock the Intel CPU, but what would that prove? Sure the gap in performance might decrease slightly, but what do you hope to gain from seeing that slight drop?
t_ski
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,506
I already stated what I would like to see, and that is if the increase in megahertz accounts for the difference in the benchmarks. Either by increasing the clock speed of the AMD or by reducing the clock speed of the Intel, I don't think it would really matter. The point is to eliminate as many variables as possible. That idea was brought up from the beginning that both setups would be as close as possible. We all know that there is a difference in clock speed, CPU cache, and chipsets. I did not see if there was a difference in the rams speed (I only saw that tyhe timings were listed as the same and what ram was used), but I am going to assume that they were the same. Obviously, we cannot run an AMD CPU on the same chipset as the Intel, nor can we disable the extra cache on the Intel. However, clocking the two CPU's to the same MHz can be done, and it would eliminate one more variable in the equation.
Of course, you are obviously entitled to disagree, and you have done so. This is just my two cents.
Of course, you are obviously entitled to disagree, and you have done so. This is just my two cents.
QuakerOatz
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2004
- Messages
- 161
Dan! There's a whole world out there you're missing. Get out, talk to a female, get laid. It's all waiting for you!
I have no problems in those areas. It is simply one of those things that drives me nuts. Because I am bored at work I addressed the issues I had with that particular post.
Ok, I may not have made my point. I will try again.
"There is undoubtedly a world where the Intel Core 2 Duo reigns supreme, but in the world of gaming that power is not near as apparent.", maybe it was his choice of wording, but to try and say these two processors are equal or close performance wise is not true, and in my eyes is only showing bias. Yes, I understand they said it was better but the comment is what ended up getting my attention.
To me, the test of FSX and MIITW is just an attempt to show AMD keeping up with Intel, and this was done by HardOCP by comparing the higher setings of the Intel based system to the lower settings of the AMD system.
Shouldn't the focus have been on apples to apples especially when they are talking about real world testing/gaming?
To add to the controvercy they do not show the numbers for the apples to apples test.
My understanding was that the previous test of Core 2 Duo (on launch) was GPU bottlenecked, and now they use two 8800GTX in SLI and a 30" LCD, which would make it GPU bottlenecked again.
Why was there not a re-review using the new GPU's and the same resolution (1600x1200)?
Sorry about the "I couldn't care less." Not "I could care less.".
I understand the 19% will not always be apparent and that it does fluctuate.
I did not state this in my original post, but looking at the Flight SimX apples to apples AMD machine is below 24FPS more than above it, and in MIITW there is also quite alot of time under the 24FPS, so that 19%+\- would seem to make real world gaming more enjoyable.
I blame society.
In the case of Flight Simulator X it does seem more apparent than it would be in other tests. That is one situation where that 19% does make a visible difference. In cases where your FPS is over 60, (as you would generally expect out of an FX-62/8800GTX SLI setup or Core 2 Duo X6800/8800GTX SLI setup) it wouldn't be readily apparent.
Touche. This bothers me as well.
I completely agree, thanks.
Here is the point ----> .
Here is you ---->
Did you read anything other than "Avg. FPS"?
These two games demonstrated the highest discernible difference in gameplay, and they showed the largest advantage for Intel. What they showed is that using Intel, they were able to obtain higher gameplay settings than with AMD. What part of that is hard to understand?
Good article. Sheds some light on the performance deltas at the bleeding edge, which is very useful to me. The Core 2 is a consistent winner, as we would expect, and this article serves to give real-world perspective to all of the other canned benchmark/apples-to-apples evaluations.
I must admit that I'm growing very concerned with the plethora of RatPadz advertisements, banner or otherwise (of which there are two on the conclusion page). A previous article I read actually went so far as to advertise RatPadz within the content of the article itself! I'm fully aware that RatPadz is wholly owned by Kyle, but I still don't agree with the idea of inline advertising that isn't objective as IntelliTXT. I feel almost as if RatPadz are in the same category as snake oils at this point as they have been pushed so "forcefully".
I must admit that I'm growing very concerned with the plethora of RatPadz advertisements, banner or otherwise (of which there are two on the conclusion page). A previous article I read actually went so far as to advertise RatPadz within the content of the article itself! I'm fully aware that RatPadz is wholly owned by Kyle, but I still don't agree with the idea of inline advertising that isn't objective as IntelliTXT. I feel almost as if RatPadz are in the same category as snake oils at this point as they have been pushed so "forcefully".
To this I must ask: What controversy? How does a graph create controversy?
I understand that.
I am just not able to make my point clear, but I will ask one question and make a statement...
Had they shown AMD's scores at equal settings, in all test, wouldn't that have made the performance gap between AMD and Intel seem even larger?
I feel HardOCP has tried to save face for AMD by limiting the test to the GPU, just like they had done on Core 2 Duo's launch.
The reference point is "highest playable settings", not other factors. Some of these factors are weighted higher than others, but the sole objective is to define "highest playable settings" as well as possible. Anything else is secondary.
You attribute the reality of their review methods (which have not changed for a very long time now) with some sort of biased agenda. Why? The review methods did not change in order to minimize the AMD/Intel performance delta; the evaluation method is the same employed countless times before.
You attribute the reality of their review methods (which have not changed for a very long time now) with some sort of biased agenda. Why? The review methods did not change in order to minimize the AMD/Intel performance delta; the evaluation method is the same employed countless times before.
So you are accusing [H]ardOCP of bias in favor of AMD? Bwahahahahaha!!!!
This is a little known factoid. About a year ago when I started doing motherboard reviews for the [H], HardOCP championed AMD and suggested that anyone wanting to build a gaming box should by an AMD based machine. (In reference to the Athlon 64.) Now this made sense at the time because the AMD CPUs were still cheaper, and the motherboards certainly were, and DDR2 ram was too damned expensive. Plus, gaming performance was DOMINATED by AMD at the tiem. I knew this before I came onboard. What most of you don't know is that Morry and Kyle both were running Intel based machines at home. NOT AMD based. (I was also surprised to learn that the [H] guys don't all have the latest and greatest hardware in their personal machines.)
I know that some of the AMD CPU motherboard reviews released since the launch of the Core 2 Duo recommend AGAINST buying an AMD processor at this time because the Core 2 Duo is faster and certainly better in many ways. This was mentioned in at least one recent review of an AMD Athlon 64/X2/FX based motherboard that I know of specifically. It was an article written by Morry and not myself.
This has also occured even in the wake of the Core 2 Duo gaming article that came out that was so controversial. That's the article that said that the Core 2 Duo was faster, but not worth replacing an existing high end AMD CPU based machine for. That article also stated (if I recall correctly) that if you were building a new system today, the Core 2 Duo was the superior choice.
Yes, we are biased in favor of AMD here.
t_ski
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,506
Actually, I would agree that you are not biased toward AMD. I think the opposite. If you guys want to do an evaluation and see what actual benefit is created from CPU power, why not take one rig with an unlocked CPU and underclock it through several different stages (2.0GHz, 2.2GHz, 2.4GHz, etc.) and where the performance changes. Then continue the CPU changes through overclocking and see what happens there. Pitting one faster CPU with more cache against a slower CPU with less cache and calling them "the same" is ridiculous.
So you are accusing [H]ardOCP of bias in favor of AMD? Bwahahahahaha!!!!
This is a little known factoid. About a year ago when I started doing motherboard reviews for the [H], HardOCP championed AMD and suggested that anyone wanting to build a gaming box should by an AMD based machine. (In reference to the Athlon 64.) Now this made sense at the time because the AMD CPUs were still cheaper, and the motherboards certainly were, and DDR2 ram was too damned expensive. Plus, gaming performance was DOMINATED by AMD at the tiem. I knew this before I came onboard. What most of you don't know is that Morry and Kyle both were running Intel based machines at home. NOT AMD based. (I was also surprised to learn that the [H] guys don't all have the latest and greatest hardware in their personal machines.)
I know that some of the AMD CPU motherboard reviews released since the launch of the Core 2 Duo recommend AGAINST buying an AMD processor at this time because the Core 2 Duo is faster and certainly better in many ways. This was mentioned in at least one recent review of an AMD Athlon 64/X2/FX based motherboard that I know of specifically. It was an article written by Morry and not myself.
This has also occured even in the wake of the Core 2 Duo gaming article that came out that was so controversial. That's the article that said that the Core 2 Duo was faster, but not worth replacing an existing high end AMD CPU based machine for. That article also stated (if I recall correctly) that if you were building a new system today, the Core 2 Duo was the superior choice.
Yes, we are biased in favor of AMD here.
Why don't you cut sugestions and recommandations from reviews ? I mean , 99% of the readers can draw a conclusion themselves , no need to be told buy this or that.
On a similar note , why put phrases like " you won't notice the difference between 73 and 85 FPS ".Why not let the user make his own choice instead of sending sublimal messages.
Simply cut the subjective part out of the review : Here are the numbers , the explanations , draw your own conclusion.
PCMusicGuy
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,222
Good article and a good read. I would certainly like to see this test repeated when we have 1GB enthusiast video cards readily available.
I would direct those comments and questions to [email protected] Kyle decides the format, not I. You are also free to disregard suggestions and conclusions based on the information as you see fit. At the end of the review, we just tell you if the board is recommended by us are not. That's all. Another factor that you may not be aware of is that many readers simply skip to the conclusion page and then if the product interests them, they may go back and read the rest of the article.
Such an article would be interesting. I'd like to know if more video memory in some games makes a difference or not. The last time video memory was a hot topic, people were comparing the 9800Pro 128MB vs. the 9800Pro 256MB.
These days the higher end cards typically have more memory than the lower end cards do. The exception to that rule is ultra low end cards that are needlessly equipped with 256MB or 512MB of ram as a marketing ploy.
They never said they are the same. They pitted the top-end dual core Intel processor against the top-end dual core AMD processor. That's all they did.
If performance is achieved with cache, clock speeds, front side bus or anything else, great! Performance is performance irregardless of other factors. Cache is not a user device. You cannot interact with it directly from the user level, so its only purpose is to increase performance of the CPU. That's it.
Now, if the cache afforded you different opportunities, if you could interact with it in a real way, and if it were truly relevant, this would be a different story.
I see your point, and I may be the only one, but once the "highest playable settings" are established, on either platform, that is what the test should be run at on both platforms... apples to apples all the way through.
I have not been into computers for all that long, maybe a year and a half, and if I misunderstand something I have no problem acknowledging it, and as such, maybe I had misunderstood the previous review, but to test CPU's and put a GPU bottleneck in the equation just doesn't make sense to me.
Justin_Diduch
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 585
Not all that old. See sig. Hot Deals FTW! (I guess the second LCD pushes it just over $1500) Everything was bought at discount a piece at a time over the last year or so.
I would like to see if that helps the C2D strech it's legs a bit more myself. I am also wondering if we need more memory or just faster memory to help smooth out the areas that Brent was talking about towards the end. If the frame buffer is full then more is needed but if it just cannot swap in and out of the buffer fast enough and it is not full, bandwidth is the ticket.
...Yes, we are biased in favor of AMD here.
The sarcasm does not help.
The title of the review/test is Real-World Gaming CPU Comparison with 8800 GTX SLI, if the test is a CPU comparison, why continue to create a bottleneck with the GPU's?
Am I missing something here?
Please explain, I have no intent to be hard headed.
Thanks
Don't forget that the AMD CPU has 940 pins against Intels 775. In order to achieve apples-to-apples conditions, 165 pins must be disabled/removed from the AMD unit, for a total of 775 contact points per CPU.
Justin_Diduch
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 585
From the left field files...