Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 22 Mar 2006.
An Intel actually won in part of the gaming benchmark suite?
Nice review as usual bigz; too bad netburst is being killed off now; Intel's new efforts to tweak the silicon and use minimal power for the clock speeds theyre getting could really have given netburst one last good run against the Athlon 64 - at let us enthusiasts go nuts with the overclocking
on the subject of overclocking - I'm working on it right now
about the dvd shrink bench, wouldn't it have been better if you ripped the vob files to the hard drive without encoding, then opened the vob files and encoded from there? seems like that bench is more of a motherboard IDE bench than anything.
We'll be changing some things in the near future and this is one of those things on the list.
Good review - looking forward to the overclocking . It's quite funny that, as Intel are just about to retire NetBurst, they come up with technology capable of curbing its power consumption.
Actually, a small niggle that I have with the charts - it would be helpful if you highlighted the processor being tested in bold on the benchmarks so that it stands out more. Call me lazy, but it's quite difficult to pick out immediately where it sits in relation to its competitors.
Nice review guys, typical with the netburst tech
I'd also have to agree, I found it quite hard to justify what cpu was what.
I love seeing independent test like these. I know that they are unbiased and AMD still kicks but. This test almost had me thinking that I might have to purchase an INTEL for my next major system upgrade, but AMD is still king of the pile. Keep up the great work guys.
Nice review....but not to nit pick but at the bottom of page 5 when your talking about F.E.A.R.
shouldnt that be CPU?
Im unimpressed, I didnt expect to see anything decent until cornroll or whatever its called comes out. When does it come out?
What temps is that chip running at?
nope, should be GPU limited (GPU limited = higher resolutions and more strain placed on the graphics subsystem - i.e. resolutions closer to what you're likely to use without being completely graphics limited)
Oh cool, ta for clearing that on up I must have just gotten confused.
A very catchy but rather untrue sentence.
keep chasing that dream
Why, on the last page, is the FX-55 beating the FX-60?
single core vs dual core
you'll also notice the 3700 or 4000 beating the X2 chips at some tasks or the single core P4 beating the dual core.
it runs at about 53 deg C ful load, compared to 65+ on the 955
At the same clock speed? The FX-60 is just two FX-55s stuck together. I could understand the FX-57 beating the FX-60, but not the 55 beating the 60!
In fact that pattern is repeated throughout FEAR and Far Cry. Whoever programmed the "multi-threading" in those games deserves a wooden spoon of some sort
Certainly where multi-threading is concerned in Far Cry, I don't think there is any... F.E.A.R. should show performance benefits with dual cores though...
Separate names with a comma.