ABOUT BENCH FORUMS PODCAST LOGIN REGISTER
PC Components▼
Smartphones & tablets▼
Systems▼
ENTERPRISE & IT
GUIDES▼
DEALS

ATI HD 5870 Scaling Performance: X58 vs P55 Showdown

 by Gary Key on September 29, 2009 12:00 PM EST
85 Comments | Add A Comment
85 Comments

H.A.W.X.

We utilize FRAPS to capture our results in a very repeatable section of the game and report the median score of our five benchmark runs. H.A.W.X. responds well to memory bandwidth improvements and scales well with GPU improvements.


H.A.W.X.

The stock HD 5870 single card x8 configuration is around 1% slower in average frame rates. The 4.2GHz single card x8 setup is slightly slower than either the stock P55 or X58 setups. The stock/overclocked single card HD 5870 P55 platform is 3% slower than the X58. Once again, there was no difference in actual game play, especially considering minimum frame rates are above 65fps in each instance.

H.A.W.X.

The results with 4xAA enabled improve the P55’s standing against the X58. The stock HD 5870 single card x8 configuration is around 2% slower in average frame rates. The 4.2GHz single card x8 setup is slightly slower than the X58. The overclocked single card HD 5870 P55 platform is slightly faster than the X58 with equal minimum rates. In fact, thanks to the turbo mode on the 860, the stock minimum frame rates are 7% at this setting than the X58.

H.A.W.X. CrossFire Scaling – Average Frame Rates


ATI HD 5870 CF Scaling H.A.W.X. 2xAA H.A.W.X. 4xAA H.A.W.X. 2xAA 4.2GHz H.A.W.X. 4xAA
Intel Core i7 920 (X58) 70.8% 73.7% 75.2% 75.8%
Intel Core i7 860 (P55) 70% 72.5% 73.2% 72.2%

At stock speeds, the X58 has a 3% scaling advantage over the P55 and 5% when overclocked in the 2xAA benchmark.

H.A.W.X. CrossFire Scaling – Minimum Frame Rates


ATI HD 5870 CF Scaling H.A.W.X. 2xAA H.A.W.X. 4xAA H.A.W.X. 2xAA 4.2GHz H.A.W.X. 4xAA
Intel Core i7 920 (X58) 72.7% 87% 80.3% 62.5%
Intel Core i7 860 (P55) 68.2% 66.1% 71% 62.5%

Minimum frame rates and scaling favor the X58 in our stock clock speed results by 4% and 9% when overclocked in the 2xAA bench. In the 4xAA benchmark, the X58 has a 10% advantage at stock speeds and it is dead even when the two platforms are overclocked.

FarCry 2 - The hurt is on... Resident Evil meets Tales of Valor
PRINT THIS ARTICLE
Comments Locked

85 Comments

View All Comments

  • TurdMiner - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link

    TA152H "Wow, I'm being patronized by someone with half my IQ. And not even well. That's actually the worst attitude. That patronizing attitude like you're superior...How hypocritical."

    That's hella funny.

    You meant that to be funny, right?

  • tim851 - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link

    I don't think he gets it.

  • TimboG - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link

    I agree with you that they should NEVER alter ANY processor or motherboard speed settings during a platform performance comparison benchmark.

    How in the world can you publish a "comparison" between two platforms when the chipsets themselves have been altered from their stock setting? This is nuts.
    I read but keep quiet on most everything AnandTech publishes but this one takes the cake. To call itself a comparison of platforms where each has been altered is one article headed for file 13. I have noticed several of the "professional" review websites doing this in the past year or so and I for one think this type of comparison should be discontinued altogether. If you want to test overclocking ability then do it in a separate article. If you want to compare overclocked performance between multiple platforms then do it as such. Not as a direct performance comparison between platforms where each has been altered.

    You guys with your little plaques hanging on your walls and the cute name tags on your shirts are driving me mad while trying to get straight answers to simple questions.
    How about some real-time direct comparisons to what has been produced instead of what you want to "play" with in the BIOS before you benchmark? I don't care if TURBO is on if it is part of the "normal" operation of the combined CPU/motherbaord combo. At least that way it will show what you can expect "out of the box".

    Intel has continually been degrading our options as this last development cycle has progressed with less CPU options per platform and slowly removing functionality from others.
    It's almost like going to an auto dealer and getting the "confusion sell" tactic push onto us.
    I could go on forever. No USB3, no SATA6 ? At least there should have been some news during IDF to present new chipsets that supported these features, but nothing. It's almost laughable, but sad actually.
    Then we get manipulated platforms portrayed as being compared directly against each other and the results are something we should use to make a purchase decision with? Then combine that with the confusion sell Intel is already pushing on us. This is NUTS!

  • goinginstyle - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link

    "I agree with you that they should NEVER alter ANY processor or motherboard speed settings during a platform performance comparison benchmark."

    Dude, nothing was altered as they kept the systems at stock values/settings and ensured the memory timings were the same between platforms. How fair can you get and by the way they were open about everything. It is a sad state of affairs when being honest in an article gets you slammed.

  • Jumpem - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link

    In the original P55 review, and follow up i7 860 review, the i7 860 delivered higher framerates than the i7 920 at stock speeds.

    In this write up the i7 920 is coming out on top at stock speeds. I'm slightly confused. Gary, do you care to comment?

  • Gary Key - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link

    We were using the NVIDIA (275/285) cards in those reviews. ;) I have a meeting with AMD in the morning to further discuss our results. They have been working with our test results since this weekend to pinpoint why the HD 5870 is generating different results than the NV cards and even the HD 4890.

  • turnipoid - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link

    I really don't see the point of this article if it doesn't include 2560 X 1600.

  • xrror - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link

    Probably because if you can afford a 2560x1600 monitor you already have an x58 in preparation for i9.

  • the zorro - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link

    at that resolutions the lynnfield bottleneck becomes more evident.
    so it's better not to include that resolution.

  • the zorro - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link

    wow, Battle Forge CrossFire Scaling – Minimum Frame Rates difference is huge.

    this show how crippled the lynnfield platform is.

    almost 100% percent difference between lynnfield and x58

    this sucks.

    what's wrong with intel?
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.
BENCH
TOPICS
FOLLOW
ABOUT

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now