Printable View
Was waiting for somebody to bring that up, the "low detail" settings. Obviously it was done to minimize the effect of the GPU on the benchmarks.
If you're looking out for a new CPU you can find the benchmarks somewhere anyways, doing this testing to suit everybody's desires at once would be like trying to stop a speeding steam train with your arms stretched out in front of you.
I hope you are joking. This review doesn't make netburst look any better in comparison to A64 then it did back in the day. Netburst gets it's ass handed to it in almost every test.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Not that it really matters to me since I won't be using either architecture ever again.
Huh ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
Back in the days an A64 3000+ constantly beat a P4E 3000MHz in a wide selection of benchmarks.Today it failed to beat a P4E 2800MHz in a single benchmark.
Short memory I guess.
Never the less, the top netburst still gets raped by a whole raft of A64s in most of the tests. I could care less about the ridiculous ratings.
Excellent! This info is really useful for a quick overview of old processors!
I said it's useless for me, maybe others play at 640*480 and will find this review useful. Unfortunately there are few benchmarks around comparing CPU's at high resolutions/settings, that's why I'm disappointed.Quote:
Originally Posted by inCore
e5200 @ 2.5GHz beats AMD 6400+ @ 3.2GHz :rofl: (F.E.A.R. test)
..but on par with phenom x4 @2.6
Lol Intel kicked the whole test. Kind of sad I wish there would of been more comp from AMD in that, but o well. Im just happy my 6600 stayed on top for the most part specially in the gaming area is all I was worried about.
So it is important to you, Personally, I couldn't care less:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
they have a spartan as an 8850 BE chip with one core.... :/
How to condense that test of 100 cpu's:
45nm C2Q = Win.
Positive surprise, the Q8200, didnt expect it to do so well compared to the "old" C2Q's, of course that doesnt change the problem with the far too low multi when it comes to oc.
Negative surprise, phenom, I did expect them to loose, but not that badly.
Nice, considering my E6300 at 3.15GHz is comparable to an X6800 I'm pretty happy!
Good job, thanks......
Watching the bottom 25% do Cinebench 10 must have been like watching paint dry. :(
Good stuff
Actually, it should be helpful and you should not be disappointed, it is informative data. Unless you build a completely new rig every new generation, knowing what constraints the CPU will put on a game is important in making decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by azraeel101
You will not find as many high res/settings benchmarks/reviews with the sole focus to compare CPUs since most graphics cards will give you the same result under high res/high quality settings ... all one would see is FPS cap due to the GPU running under your 'realworld conditions' ... no amount of CPU processing horse power will change the performance if the GPU is the limiter. The recent refresh of GPUs this is not always true however, even at high res/high settings, a 4870 X2 is capable of out running the CPU.
Increasing resolution and visual settings actuates the GPU, not the CPU. Running a bench at ubber settings hides any conclusion you could make regarding the CPUs ability to execute game code.
Here is a review more your liking I suspect:
http://legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770
Why, then would one want to see these types of number? Well, if, for example, my build strategy is to put together a system that I can upgrade to the latest GPU in the future ... I would want to know how the CPU may cap a game ... to see that, remove the bottleneck from the GPU and put it on the CPU to see that information.
so you are saying you tested all these on one testbed
why are the CPUz screens all different versions then........really old ones too
seems as though old info was recycles from previous tests.....?!?!?
it's a nice summary though...lots of work involved
Old CPUZ screenshot are there to illustrate historical part of review. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
These CPU-Z screens are there to illustrate. I have taken it from older articles I have written in the past because I did not have time to take (and forgot mostly) cpuz screens while testing for this 100 CPU roundup.
I can assure you that all 100 CPUs have been reviewed on the same motherboards with same configuration and same testing procedure. I have started this back in may 2008 slowly and these last three months I have done intensive CPU testing.
It is always strange to see people that do not believe when there is something unusual done. I do not know you and you do not know me. If you would have known me, you will know that this is not the way I am working. I always want to be the most precise and accurate in my reviews. ;)
So, I repeat, everything has been tested on the same testbenchs (2 configurations, one for AMD and one for Intel of course) from CPU 1 to CPU 100. :)
:clap: Great First Post, and :welcome: to XS. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephane@matbe
Welcome and congratulations for your work.It is outstanding. :welcome:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephane@matbe
fantastic man :up::up::up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephane@matbe
Thank you all :)