Ok, here you go.....Originally Posted by JumpingJack
First some details. The two compare systems are documented here: http://forum.xcpus.com/motherboard-c...d.html?garpg=7
Here is a pic of the details of the HW:
There is one significant difference in the HW described in the above link, I had to replace the Dell 17" monitor with a HP 2207 to access the 1680x1050 resolution. Also, read through the entire build setup -- I am using profile 1.1, which has DDR2-1067 however, all tests were done with DDR2-800 CL4 timings.
GRID does not have a demo record or replay save option that I could find, therefore, I had to do everything consistently as possible. It worked better than I had imagined. First, I installed the GRID demo and ran my first test simply going to the graphics options screen and selecting Ultra. This actually defaulted the resolution to 1024x768, so I tested there. I then repeated the test by forcing the resolution to 1680x1050 (the max of the monitor). All other game options were default as installed, I did not change any other settings other than as described by the graphics screen setup above. Finally, on the QX9650, I rebooted and set the FSB to 200 Mhz, and the multiplier to 12.5 to achieve 2.5 GHz.
All clocks were the same, 2.5 GHz (default stock for the Phenom 9850).
First I launched FRAPs version 2.9.4, I then launched a game and started a race. At the initial prompt screen, I hit enter for the first race track, enter again to select the default setup (car, driver, etc). The loading screen then appears, I wait for the first hint of the screen coming back after the loading completes to press F11 to start counting FPS with FRAPs. This allows the first 3-5 seconds to capture the fly through to the start of the race. I then allow the race to count down as normal, and press and held the up arrow key. After about 2 seconds I tapped the right arrow key twice (if you don't you crash in 10 seconds) then the left arrow key once, all this time keeping the up arrow key depressed. I allow the car to crash into the what ever car it hits as the group takes the first right turn. After the crash settles, I then press the F11 key to complete the logging of FRAPs.
The Excel file is attached (EDIT: i forgot, vBulletin doesn't allow XLS files, so I saved as tab delimited text). The first run on the QX9650 had one extra entry in the log file due to a delay in hitting the F11 key, that was removed. All other log entries are as they were collected.
Fraps output to ascertain reproducibility.
Here is the statistical summary:
Phenom 9850@2.5G 1024x768 Ultra Ave FPS = 64.75
Phenom 9850@2.5G 1680x1050 Ultra Ave FPS = 47.61
QX9650 @ 2.5G 1024x768 Ultra Ave FPS = 75.96 (NOTE, the very last entry is 108 FPS, if this is removed the average is 74.78)
QX9650 @ 2.5G 1680x1050 Ultra Ave FPS = 48.64
QX9650 @ 2.5G and 800 MHz FSB 1680x1050 = 47.54
This actually turned out to be another great example of GPU vs CPU limited domains. At 1024x768, QX9650 is 17% faster clock for clock (or 15% faster throwing out the last FPS entry in the QX9650 -- let's count it as an anomaly). At 1680x1050, both CPUs perform identically -- GPU limitation naturally.
Changing the FSB from 1333 Mhz (333 Mhz system clock, stock for the QX9650) to 800 Mhz (200 Mhz system clock) had no effect on the observed FPS -- as expected.
Tab delimited raw data is attached.
EDIT: Just for fun, I repeated the 1024x768 and 1680x1050 but at 3.0 GHz on the QX9650, and at 3.0 GHz on the Phenom, the results below (did not plot):
QX9650 @ 3.0G 1024x768 Ultra = 75.70 FPS
QX9650 @ 3.0G 1680x1050 Ultra = 49.68 FPS
Phenom 9860 @ 3.0 G 1024x768 Ultra = 71.94
Phenom 9860 @ 3.0 G 1680x1050 Ultra = 47.44
So at 2.5 GHz, an intel quad is enough to satiate a 8800 GTX at low resolution, ultra settings. At 3.0 Ghz, the Phenom can satiate the 8800 GTX at lower resolutions ultra settings.
Jack
Bookmarks