HD 5870 on clock-4-clock AMD & Intel quads

[Nedjo]

Great review: http://www.pcaxe.com/hardver/grafick...d5870/strana-4

it's not on English, but anyway there are more graphs than words


ups! I've intended this thread to start in "News" room, but somehow messed up! So could I ask mods to move it there? Please!

[chris.y2k.r1]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819117166
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103674

Ever important price info. Go AMD - looks like AMD takes that one all around, meaning it is cheaper and a better performer in a majority of tests. At $300 (Intel) vs $170 (AMD) even performing at 90% of the Intel results would have been good but to beat them in most cases is why me loves DAAMIT!

[Wiggy McShades]

you can get 920's for 199 I don't understand how that 300 dollar core 2 quad is the 955's closest competitor.

[Glow9]

you can get 920's for 199 I don't understand how that 300 dollar core 2 quad is the 955's closest competitor.

Not everyone has a microcenter in their town or country

[Wiggy McShades]

Not everyone has a microcenter in their town or country

valid point, still seems like core i5 might of be the real competitor to amd's black edition processors. either way its nice to see core 2 quads can be put to rest.

[Splave]

seriously guys? what a waste of time. I hardly call 1-2 fps a win in either camp.
-non of these benchies are limited to the cpu at all. Should have kept them both to 3ghz or benched lower res

[DedEmbryonicCe1]

Too many years have passed with it being pointed out that the CPU test portion of the 3DMark series doesn't accurately effect gaming performance. I would prefer if that test came at the end of the review instead of the beginning of the benchmarks. It could also be omitted entirely, of course.

[DedEmbryonicCe1]

seriously guys? what a waste of time. I hardly call 1-2 fps a win in either camp.
-non of these benchies are limited to the cpu at all. Should have kept them both to 3ghz or benched lower res

I thought that was the point? It shows how little either CPU is limiting the video card. Low resolution tests may be interesting to some but they aren't practical for a quad core at 3.6GHz with a HD5870. Who with that setup is going to ever use something lower than 1680x1050 for actual game playing?

[afireinside]

Why not i5? Worthless test IMO. C2Q is ancient tech.

[Splave]

I thought that was the point? It shows how little either CPU is limiting the video card. Low resolution tests may be interesting to some but they aren't practical for a quad core at 3.6GHz with a HD5870. Who with that setup is going to ever use something lower than 1680x1050 for actual game playing?

The point is they are trying to show you that AMD is better than intel clock for clock at 3.6ghz or atleast that is the tone of this thread. Low res tests would actually let you gauge what they are trying to review!

You mean you dont game at 1280x1024??

[haylui]

for gaming rig, try to shift more resources into GPU rather than CPU; it's wise to go GREEN

[Nedjo]

Why not i5? Worthless test IMO. C2Q is ancient tech.

tell that to army of people who think it's smart to invest in dead LGA775 platform 'cos someone told them Intel is better for gaming...

Point of this review, as I see it is to dispel misconceptions about value and performance of blue and green mainstream offering... you do know that still 75+% of Intel ofer is LGA775?

[Corsa]

Lost Circuts.com / AMD's Athlon II X4: The Baby Quads - High Resolution Gaming

If any of these benchmarks are representative of the overall gaming experience, then what it comes down to is the simple fact that saving $100 on a ninety nine dollar CPU and spending the savings on a higher-end graphics card is probably the best investment to get more out of a game.

[afireinside]

Lost Circuts.com / AMD's Athlon II X4: The Baby Quads - High Resolution Gaming

I think you're trying to prove AMDs superiority using the most GPU intensive bench around, but I'm kind of distracted by your avatar