Back to Article

  • Joe Schmoe - Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - link

    This was a very good article. I'm not quite ready to build a new system just yet. But it is tax return season. I'm glad the Phenom II is competitive. We all win when AMD puts out a nice chip. I was about to jump on the I7 band wagon but decided to just grab a q6600 and save my coins for now. Hopefully this will end some of the endless flame wars going on through the forums.
  • Aquineas - Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - link

    First of all, thanks for the hard work you put into testing. Many folks are getting hung up on 5-10 percent performance differences and making a big deal out of it . I think the most important part of the article is the part where it says, repeatedly (paraphrased):

    "We couldn't perceive a difference in gaming performance between platforms."

    That being said, I think 18 months from now we'll see more games where the CPU differential matters more, which is right around the time I'll be doing my next system build.
  • myterrybear - Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - link

    I agree with this as well, great job on the article & shows the point as I have ALWAYS said, when it comes down to it would ya even notice the diffrence between the 2 if you had just sat down on it & started to do stuff on it ??

    Yeah exactly 6 or 8 gig ram on Phenom II would be interesting, I know I've found 4 gigs on Phenom I to be very nice now that I am running a full 64bit os ( win 7 beta) on a oc to 3 ghz Phenom 9850 be. I'm just awaiting to see how things will be once I get my Phenom II 940 any second now. :)
  • myterrybear - Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - link

    My thing that I am noticing with all these tests of core i7 vs phenom II is the fact the systems are not even ramwise. I mean what would a core i7 run like with 4 gigs of ram or if the phenom II platform had 6 gigs of ram.

    it's a valid argument I think.
  • Aquineas - Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - link

    Honestly, it probably wouldn't matter much. If I were the author I'd re-run the test with 8GB on the PII, but it's probably less than a 2 percent differential. Reply
  • BlueBlazer - Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - link

    Love to see Intel and AMD in SLI numbers! Reply
  • ThePooBurner - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    Am i the only one that noticed that the results for the PhenomII were just about identical between resolutions? There should have been some form of difference unless the AMD platform is being artificially hard-capped for some reason. Otherwise that the frame rates would be identical when upping the resolution makes no sense at all. I suggest looking into it further. Reply
  • ThePooBurner - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    Err, Crysis Warhead is what i meant by FarCray2. Reply
  • 7Enigma - Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - link

    This is a perfect example of why the full data is so incredibly important in teasing out the details.

    Yes if you look at the graphs they show a very close clustering for the single card, CF, and overclocked CF, but if you look to the right of the names you will see the min and more importantly max will scale with upgraded components. Not to the same level as one would like but there appears to be some really REALLY rough sections as the min frame rate is almost identical across the board (look at single vs. CF you see the same frame rate). That is probably due to some driver issue where both cards are not being utilized and the single card is not optimized well either.
  • ThePooBurner - Wednesday, February 04, 2009 - link

    I think you are missing my point. When going to a higher resolution it is expect that the frame rates for a card will change. Both the min and the max as well as the average. In almost every single game tested the values for the ATi cards at all resolutions are nearly identical. This smells very fishy to me and makes me think there is some sort of artificial limit being placed on the ATi hardware. Reply
  • megabuster - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    If it's not too troublesome next time please include a few pictures of your hardware set up. :) Reply
  • none12345 - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    There are errors in the benchmark charts on page 9....and maybe other pages..

    In the first chart you have the overclocked 9550 CF at the top of the chart, yet if you look at the min and max frame rates it is NOT the top performer, the core i7 beats it with 5 more min frames and 12 more max frames. The overclocked phenom ii cf shoudl also beat it with 11 higher min frames tho 13 less max frames.

    In the second chart, the clear winer by the min/max frames is the overclocked phenom ii CF, it had a 9 higher min fps and 6 higher max fps yet its rated lower then the core i7. It had 21 more min fps yet only 2 less max fps then the 9550 but was ranked way lower.

    Your score or min/max numbers are fubar...something is really wrong with those charts.

    Maybe some of the other charts are messed up too, but this page stood out like a sore thumb.
  • Gary Key - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    The charts are sorted by Average Frame Rates, unfortunately our engine does not allow multiple sorts on values. Let me see if I can do something different in the SLI article with an Excel chart, or I might just separate all the values into individual charts.. Reply
  • 7Enigma - Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - link

    Gary, Let me just throw my opinion in to keep it sorted by average frame rates.

    That is probably the most important data point (next to possibly minimum) and so is a good way of ranking. I will thank you again and ask that all future reviews use your format of showing all 3 data points as it is very important in determining the better card for a specific game at a specific resolution/detail setting.
  • balancedthinking - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    The Phenom II massively gains gaming performance with an overclocked Nortbridge because it directly boosts the cache performance.

    Reviews like the one from the german site p3d showed an increase in gaming performance worth 300-500mhz core frequency for an overclock of only 400 mhz NB frequenzy!

    The NB runs stock @ only 1800 mhz. Good overclocks are in the range of 2600 - 2800mhz. Imagine the performance that is missing in the OC results from anand!

    That is why the Q9550 can pull ahead when overclocked, because due to architecture, the cache gets overclocked too wenn you raise the reference clock.

    The Phenom II 940 offers great potential when tweaking the NB clock but you have to do it manually in contrast to Q9550!

    So please Anand, redo the Phenom II 940 OC tests with the Northbridge frequency maxed out. Only that would be a fair comparison.
  • Gary Key - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    The NB frequency is at 2486MHz in these tests. I have it listed on page two now. I could not go higher and maintain this clock speed in Vista 64. Raising the NB speed to 2712 meant lowering CPU speed to 3842MHz. I test both values and our 3955/2486 combo performed the best. Reply
  • Kiijibari - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    Perfect :)
    Thx a lot.
  • Kiijibari - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    I agree, an info concerning the NB clock of the Phenom2 is missing.

    @anandtech: Please add it.


  • Kiijibari - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    From the article:
    "(17.5x226, DDR2-1205, 5-5-5-18)"

    That means, that the NB was clocked with 2034 MHz, if nobody changed the default multiplier 9
  • CPUGuy - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    Thanks for providing this tidbit of information regarding how cache is overclocked on the Intel vs AMD CPUS. If this review is based on what you said then it should be amended for re-testing.
  • balancedthinking - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    If these Settings were used for the Phenom II 940, at least it is not as bad as I first thought:">

    That would mean an NB frequency around 2450. That is quite okay though it can be tweaked a bit further.

    Still, it would be nice to know which settings were actually used for the Phenom II.
  • hooflung - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    That is a very, very well done article. Keep it up guys. Can't wait til' income tax and I am going to get a e8500 and a pII 940 to upgrade my P35 and 790GX, respectively. Reply
  • 7Enigma - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    Thank you for finally including this information in the charts!

    This has been a HUGE peev of mine for a while now and it really helps to see which card (or in this case system) is actually better than the other at a particular game where the average frame rate may not tell the whole story.

    Please make sure the rest of the Anandtech crew starts using this format for future testing.
  • CPUGuy - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    Although I understand the intent of using the highest OC possible I do believe the results can lead to another conclusion. A few of us discussing the CPU OC, CF results. It appears (so far) that the reason why the Q9550 came out ahead in CF results was a direct result of it's overclock. Some believe that if the PII 940 was OC'd that high (yes we read the other article about this) or the Q9550 was OC'd down, results would be different.

    The reason for this point of view is that most are not able to get Q9550 at 4.25GHz on air.

  • jusme - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    I found this article very informative. It now puts into perspective where the PII 940 stands in the gaming arena. Thanks Anandtech for taking the time to do it. I myself have 3 computers, 2 capable of of either the quad 9550(P45) or PII 940 Deneb(780g). It is very good to know that which ever solution I choose, xfire on P45 or single on 780g, I know the performance capabilities of both, and I like both. Hell, you got that Q9550 up to 4.05 oc for these tests? Wow! I knew they were capable, but to run these games that well under the load is alone impressive. You sure it was'nt the Q9650? I alone was going to shoot for a modest 3.8 for gaming, stability and temp management. In closing, it is also good to know that those who jumped on the I7 bandwagon real fast are sitting pretty, I know it was'nt cheap, but alot of those builders skimped on graphics. Reply
  • zenguy - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    In your review, it you stated that your testing did not reveal any difference between the P45 and P48 for CrossFire Limits so a P45 board was chosen.

    However, based on a few other reviews I have read, the 4850 can be noticably limited by the P45 board and ergo I presume the limits on a 4870 1GB card would be much much higher.

    An example of one such review is below...........">

    Could this explain the "Unusual Drop" in performance or unexpected low framerates for the Intel Platform that you noted?
  • AtenRa - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    I am 100% sure that the results of the Core 2 Quad 9550 wild be much higher with an Intel X48 chipset than with the P45 in Cross Fire.
    Never the les, the article DOES show that Phenom II 940 is competitive in real life gaming at High resolutions.
  • zenguy - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    Yes the PII is a valid solution.
    AMD Finally re-entered the game in my Mind with the release.
  • SLI - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    Hammonds famous line in Jurrasic Park.

    Indeed, for 95% of folks, these ultra high benchmarks are useless. But for those of us in the 5%, thesy serve as a reminder on the ridiculous amounts of money we spend to squeeze just tha extra few FPS out. But then again the other 95% just dont get it...why?

    Here is a paragraph I have kept near and dear for some years and it explains it eloquently.

    "To upgrade or not to upgrade, that is the question that crosses many enthusiasts' lips on a daily basis. The upgrade bug is a high infectious, wallet-stripping disease that spreads fast once it gets a hold of you. Hardware manufacturers propagate this infection by offering you, the consumer, faster, more desirable hardware each month. Almost every facet of the hardware world begs you to get the next model up, or to break open the piggy bank and buy an 'upgraded version' of what you already have. Speak to a number of enthusiasts and they'll tell you that upgrading is more addictive than gambling (Biz387, 2003)."

    So, you see, it's not our fault. Were simply sick. I type this as I play crysis at DX10 Very High spec everything at maximum @ 1900x1200@ 40fps average. Pulling about 830watts at the outlet, lol.
  • CPUGuy - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    If I were to use your number, the inclusion of more mainstream benchmark results pulls in nearly 95% more hits to this website then it would be beneficial for both anandtech and it's viewer base. Puts things into prospective doesn't it? LOL Reply
  • jrch2k8 - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    first of all, nice article. i mention it cuz im upgrading my pc this month and this article make my choice clear XD

    i will go for a AMD plataform, my god nice move from these guyz, i think p2 is the best price/performance cpu around (maybe ill wait for p2 925 for ddr3).cuz i7 is a really expensive upgrade.

    i went to new egg and add to my cart 1 cpu, ram, and 2 radeon hd 4850 using mid range components nothing top notch

    intel i920 6gb ddr3 tc roughly 1108$ :(
    intel 1940 "" "" roughly 1350$ :( :(
    amd p2 920 4 gb ddr2 dc nice 673$
    amd p2 940 "" " " nice nice 713$
    amd p2 940 "" "" 4870 CF 800$ XD

    that is a hugeeeee money diff for a 30% perf diff at most and with that extra bucks put a nice air cooling and OC so ... and you dont need to worry too much in near future like with intel and their insane socket change every 2 weeks (i know 775 have been for a while but even if is the same physical socket every mobo/chpset need a specific cpu number so is like changing the socket anyway)

    and with linux and not winbloat vista perf is going to be hell better and winxp in my other hd ofc for some game that doesnt work with wine XD
  • ssj4Gogeta - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    Most mobos support Core 2 Duo, Quad, and Pentium dual core processors (i.e., all core-based processors). So I don't think it is a valid argument. Reply
  • raystormer - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    first of all to me the fx chipset is old compared to the new 790gx /w 750southbridge chipset plus it supports crossfire which u mention the 790fx is suppose to be better,don;t know how u came to that conclusion furthermore something about those scores do'nt seem right...cause i have seen beachmarks with the phenon 2 smoking the i7 920 u trying to tell me that @3.9 it performs slower bull$%#@ Reply
  • ssj4Gogeta - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    the i7 was also overclocked. read the article. Reply
  • BLaber - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    What was the Phenom II's North Bridge Uncore part) speed set to when oc to 3.9Ghz in above article. Reply
  • TDMFHK - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link"> how the PII is on top in their test (i know other video card etc etc... but how ??????????).Something is fishy with this FarCry2. Reply
  • Goty - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    You really can't compare the two sets of results since the system specs aren't the same. Reply
  • m4dd0g - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    Any chance of seeing how the phenom acts with 6gb RAM like the top intel box? Not sure why you had different memory configs there, I understand its DDR3 v DDR2 but why more of it? Reply
  • Goty - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    The i7 supports triple-channel DDR3 while the other processors support dual-channel DDR2, so the normal memory configurations are 3GB or 6GB for the i7 and 2GB or 4GB for the C2Q and PHII.

    Getting 6GB on the PHII system would be a little dumb because you'd have to go with 3x2GB DIMMs (just like the i7 box) and then you wouldn't be able to operate in dual-channel mode.

    I highly doubt the performance difference between 6GB and 4GB of RAM is noticeable anyway.
  • niva - Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - link

    I've been wondering the same...

    Even more bothersome is that they chose 4gb for the DDR2 system which makes no sense, for an equivalently priced system you can afford 8Gb of RAM on the AMD system easily and gain a significant boost out of the extra RAM. So if any one of these systems should have a disadvantage in RAM it should be the intel system but whatever.

    I'm running an original phenom with 8 gigs, the chip with the errata which I've never seen manifest. I'll buy one of these phenom 2 chips after I get back from my trip to Russia in March though and actually do a slight OC on it as it seems to take it so well.

  • Myrandex - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    I agree that you would probably not see a difference at all, but you can get 6GB of Ram in a PhenomII system and still keep your Dual Channel Goodness:
    2 x 2GB & 2 x 1GB = 6GB in all 4 slots, operating at dual channel mode.

  • Goty - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    This is true, but then you run into the problems AMD's IMCs have when you populate all four DIMM slots. Reply
  • monovillage - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    Good review and thanks for doing the work, i look forward to seeing the power numbers. With 2 very similarly priced platforms and the premium (but not out of reach i7 920) I was glad to see the P2 940 give a good account of itself. Reply
  • duploxxx - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    not sure how you guys whant to run a review, but perhaps start a comparing review with competing price configurations.

    q9400 = p2 940 in price, so it's useless to throw in a q9550, it's 20% more expensive.">

    then trying to memic a same price range by choosing a very expensive motherboard while a same spec mobo kosts about 50$ less.">

    so there is already a 10% price difference.

    not to mention that a q9400 also has the same hard time getting above that 4GHZ border and is already shown in many reviews including yours that this was the marketing target against p2 940 then why the hell testing a q9550.

    I call this review total crap and waste of time for readers and reviewers.

    Just remove the first page on your review, with this kind of review you just prooven that you are not open for the best whoever it provides.
  • CPUGuy - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    Unless I misunderstand their intent, it appears to me that they clearly showed the PII 940 is better then a Q9550. Reply
  • Erif - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    I think the purpose of this test is to see if AMD's latest processors are fast enough for higher-end crossfire setups or not.

    As for comparing the performance of specific CPUs and their prices- Anandtech did that in their Phenom II review back in January 8 review.
  • Goty - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    If you're going to try and tear down someone else's article, you might want to check your spelling so you don't come off as a complete idiot. Reply
  • duploxxx - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    wow nice post, your added value is very high. Lets try some writing here and start with several languages, french, dutch, german, english, let's see how good you are at foreign languages.

    The fact remains that the platform is not balanced on price and marketing.
  • Spoelie - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    Total platform price was the same. The motherboard you linked
    1) was an open box, i.e. second-hand
    2) had the 790GX chipset, while the motherboard in the review was the FX version. The feature set of this last one is more suited to running crossfire. Of course, you would have known that from actually reading the review instead of glancing at it.

    In fact, it's a rather interesting comparison for the purpose: cpu with a little more grunt (Q9550) paired with a mainstream chipset (P45) compared to a cheaper cpu (940) paired with an enthusiast chipset (FX).

    I presume the FX was able to provide a nice boost.
  • duploxxx - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    FX does not boost at all, unless you require the pci-e 2.0 16x bandwith which is already shown in normal CF setups that it is not required.

    here is another one.... board cost 100$ and although it is with the sb600, there is nothing wrong with it, the P45 is also a midrange board.">

  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - link

    You might want to read the article a bit more carefully. From the test setup page: "Our decision to go with a 790FX/SB750 combination on the AMD side is strictly based upon performance. The 790FX is about 3%~5% faster on average than comparable 790GX products. AMD continues to recommend the 790GX/SB750 as the platform of choice for the AM2+ and upcoming AM3 products. We disagree from a performance viewpoint; the 790FX/SB750 combination is simply the best choice in our opinion. Of course you will typically pay about $35~$40 or greater for the 790FX boards, but if you intend on running CrossFireX, we think it is worth the additional cost."

    You *can* find less expensive motherboards, but what will the *overall* experience with those board be? I for one would take a better motherboard with a less expensive processor every time over a faster default CPU clock and a cheaper motherboard. The motherboard is just too critical a component to ever warrant skimping in my book. YMMV, naturally.
  • side09 - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    Should the fusion program that runs faster maybe be put into the calculations for AMD? Reply
  • CPUGuy - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    Wow, I nearly forgot about that. I didn't see that mentioned as well. Fusion 1.0 is out and should be used in any and all AMD based benchmark reviews IMO.

  • kuyaglen - Sunday, February 01, 2009 - link

    2XAA ? Reply
  • Finally - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    Seriously, who cares for Crossfire (or SLI)?
    Please. Stop making those useless enthusiast's enthusiast reviews and come back to the ground, AnandTech.

    Please, go ahead, check the Steam survey hardware list.
    Then tell me: How many people out of 100 do have SLI/Crossfire.
    Then laugh.
    Then stop testing this shit like it was important.

    And here my suggestions for constructive improvement:
    Test the new generation of HDDs with 500GB platters (e.g. Seagate 7200.12 series)
    THAT would be interesting, because EVERYONE needs a good HDD, but no one needs Crossfire.
  • Finally - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    lies buried in the single-GPU results included in these benchmarks.
    No difference. No difference at all! (and I count 1-2 fps as no difference).

    But those aren't usually shown, because CPUs get tested under highly artificial conditions... to show their advantage... IN THEORY.

    In real life gaming performance it makes no difference, if you just intend to play with your quad-core... this is the real interesting result that could justify this article, nothing else.
  • Finally - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    ...that CF/SLI sucks. Anytime. Big time.

    It never made sense, it will never make sense.
    The time, you come back and drop in another card of the same class, there is a new generation available that easily tops your grandmother-CF/SLI and furthermore adds even DirectX 11 support and a plethora of other features into the deal...

    2 GPUs+ is a failed strategy - unless you are some scientist... working on a super computer... actually trying to achieve something... other than that it's highly efficient money-burning 2.0
  • darkvader75 - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    It seems you are abit confused. The "Steam" hardware survey runs when Steam launches. SLI and Crossfire are not active on the desktop so Steam says "no crossfire or SLI detected." More people have SLI or Crossfire by a longshot then what you are seeing by a detection program that is failing miserably. Go pull Futuremarks independant ID results list if you would like to see SLI and Crossfire #'s. Also tons of people playing counterstrike source years later don't exactly count as the bulk of the comunity. This is a high tech cutting edge website for new data and information about computer electronics. If you want babyville information about basic garbage then you need to visit Znet. Reply
  • SirKronan - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    "Seriosly, who cares for Crossfire (or SLI)?

    Holy smokes, man. Get out of here. You can get a P45 board for $100, overclock the crap out of a Core 2 duo/quad, a couple of 4850's for $300 and you've got a SERIOUS amount of gaming power. I was an early adopter of the Asus P5Q Pro with a 4850 to go with it. I've since switched, but while I had it, a second 4850 would've been a fantastic upgrade path. You can take two 4850's and an economical P45 motherboard and give the more expensive GTX 280/285 a run for the money, even winning in many games. 2x4850 is the "common man's" multi-GPU setup, and many many have been very successful with such a platform, without paying through the nose. When the 8800GT came out, and nVidia substantially improved SLI, the consumer was in a similar situation.

    And look at all the moderately-priced, AMD boards that will take AMD's new cost effective X2's and X3's?? I think this review applies to A LOT OF customers. How many people out there have a P45 board? How many people out there have a crossfire capable AMD board?? And out of those, how many have a 4850?

    Well, now you know what you'll get for an upgrade path. Now you have a realistic preview of performance gains if you add a second 4850 some day. In some games, the benefits are great, and it will be worth your while. Now you know how the new Phenoms compare if you have a compatible AMD motherboard, or were considering one.

    Thanks, Anand for giving such consumers the heads up. Very useful article.
  • Gazz - Wednesday, February 04, 2009 - link

    I agree that was a great review
    I am running a 3.2ghz x2 duel core on a MSI K9A2 platinum with 4gb of ocz 1055 and I have just installed my second His 4850 1gb of mem
    graphics card
    eventualy I hope to up my ram to 8 gb install vista or the win 7
    and go to a 4 core cpu and a new pcu
    my motherboard can hold 4 graphics cards
    I still have not seen any tests with all AMD/ATI products on a vista win with that OC tool and with 4x 4850 1 gbmem
    oh well all fun and games great article thankyou

  • FingerMeElmo87 - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    "Seriously, who cares for Crossfire (or SLI)?
    Please. Stop making those useless enthusiast's enthusiast reviews and come back to the ground, AnandTech."
    --Whats down to earth? Intel Celeries and IGPs'? They did both average use benches with single GPU and enthusiast class benches with dual GPUs and overclocking. how could you get your panties in a bunch like so easily. did you even bother to read the article?

    "Please, go ahead, check the Steam survey hardware list.
    Then tell me: How many people out of 100 do have SLI/Crossfire.
    Then laugh.
    Then stop testing this shit like it was important."
    --Once again, same worthless comment. they didnt just test crossfire

    "And here my suggestions for constructive improvement:
    Test the new generation of HDDs with 500GB platters (e.g. Seagate 7200.12 series)
    THAT would be interesting, because EVERYONE needs a good HDD, but no one needs Crossfire."
    --ugh. saying eveyone needs the latest and greatest type of harddrive is like saying everyone needs crossfire and SLI.

    going as far as breaking down your entire retarded post was a complete waste of time just to call you a douche bag but i guess it had to be done
  • CPUGuy - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    The user "Finally" is right (although a tad abrasive). You don't need CF or SLI to run any of those games at an acceptable frame rate. Furthermore, the mainstream crowd does outnumber the enthusiast crowd using CF/SLI by many fold. So it would have made more beneficial to show both CPU stock and overclock results using just a 4870.

    Heck, they could have added a PII 920 at stock and overclock and a 4850 just to make it interesting. Maybe one day we will see such a setup tested.

  • scottb75 - Wednesday, February 04, 2009 - link

    With SLI/CF the CPU becomes more of the bottleneck then it would be with just one GPU. So, testing with SLI/CF shows more of a difference between the CPUs then it would with just a single card. Reply
  • Gary Key - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    This is not a GPU comparison per say, it is a platform comparison. We set the game options to a blended mixture of quality and performance in order to keep the GPU setup from becoming the limiting factor when possible. This is explained in further detail in page two. Reply
  • CPUGuy - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    Although I understand your reasoning and to a degree it make sense. However, many are using or attempting to use 4xAA max settings at 1680 (at the very least). Therefore, it would be very informative to many of use what we could expect.

    This is with the expectation that we are no longer worried about just CPU scores but platform scores. IMO, reviewers should start looking at the platform as whole in reviews like this as many are looking at it that way. If it were true that one motherboard performed exceedingly better then another a CPU only benchmark would make sense.
  • CPUGuy - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    us not use...sorry Reply
  • v1001 - Sunday, February 01, 2009 - link

    Page 10 - Final Words is missing Reply
  • Gary Key - Monday, February 02, 2009 - link

    The article went live before it was completed. Page 10 is in and I will update it late tomorrow with power consumption numbers. Just finishing the power tests on the i7 with the same power supply we use on the other setups. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now