It's the GPU d'oh!
Printable View
My Crysis demo utilizes only one core here (G15 performance monitor display show 50% utilization). How you guys been able to get the game to use two or four cores to bench its performance?
LOL cmon, don't give me that real world stuff, you know what I mean. This is XS, I'm looking at things from an enthusiast perspective. Crap timings are crap timings, IRL a 3GHz Core2 is blazing fast, here it's slower than a run of the mill stock voltage overclock...
This is a pretty stupid test IMO.
Where is the NEXT gen GPU?
And all that on DEMO, please...
NEXT!
Mr. cookerj please stop spreading propaganda man. I get enough of that from my government. Thanks.
I thought it was a funny statement also, how does it work you might ask?
well apparently if you overclock a 2ghz phenom to 2.4ghz it will be as fast as a 2.4ghz c2d, and if you oc it to 3ghz it will be as fast as a 3.4ghz core2 and if you oc it to 4ghz it will send a t100 cyborg Terminator unit back through time to destroy the Intel team in Haifa, Israel, before they could invent core2.
do you follow?
Two tests :
old one http://news.expreview.com/2007-10-29...0532d6599.html
showing 5% gap between Phenom and Penryn.
new one http://www.expreview.com/news/hard/2...91d6785_1.html
showing 25% gap between Phenom and Penryn.
Why?
:shakes:
How in the world this can happen with 2 different setup (one for Intel and one from AMD)?
Too weird to be reliable. I don't say fake, i just say let's see in 2 weeks...
You do know how Crysis benchmark work right? That it uses the settings you got in crysis to test with?
I bet my rear end on the first is mainly GPU limited with a higher res than the other.
Also your links dont work...
I wonder what the new excuse will be when Phenom launches. Newer bios? B3 stepping? RD890 platform will first really unleash phenom? Oh, the soap opera...
It's easy to say X > Y when the numbers agree. Until then....
Why is everyone so pissed off? I haven't seen one post that provides any alternate conclusion with explanation (did I miss it). Tell you what, lets do our own tests then. At least we can provide some sort of statical data then just arguing around in a circle. I'll start, here is my test with a E6700 at 3.4 using default settings of 1024x768 with all the other settings set to "high" (not sure if changing these to low will "stick" otherwise).
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...s_1024_768.png
With the above setup I am getting 39 FPS with the first loop to 46 FPS with the remaining 3 loops
Now what are you getting with the same setup?
Site works fine..just need to use the right links...
http://news.expreview.com/2007-10-29...0532d6599.html works alot better than http://news.expreview.com/2007-10-29...0532d6599.html
I will await your new excuse when it launches :yawn2:
So you want REAL WORLD results? Isn't it clear to everyone that Intel just about RAPES AMD's by stock speed, price, power consumption, overclockability and market share? If you care about OEM, then stick with Intel, there is no OEM share for AMD for a long time, unless they can beat old Pentium 4's or cheap C2D/Pentium Exxxx machines Intel is selling. Also even if AMD COULD compete with speed/price, Intel would pay the resellers NOT to sell AMD's, like it has done all the time. Thats why no one cares about OEM, except Intelists, just to smash AMD people, am I right? ;)
amd people should be happy as they get the stuff cheaper this way...
and i know when amd stuff beats intel they charge a frikken fortune for it.:shakes: thanks for that.
(re: pre c2d X2 prices:lol:)
Can AMD win any fight easily these days :rofl: