Fallout 3 Game Performance

Bethesda’s latest game uses an updated version of the Gamebryo engine (Oblivion). This benchmark takes place immediately outside Vault 101. The character walks away from the vault through the Springvale ruins. The benchmark is measured manually using FRAPS.

Fallout 3 - 1680 x 1050 - Medium Quality

Gaming performance is a particularly strong suit of the Phenom II processor, here it is actually faster than the i7-920 although not by a noticeable margin.

Left 4 Dead

Left 4 Dead - 1680 x 1050 - Max Settings (No AA/AF/Vsync)

FarCry 2 Multithreaded Game Performance

FarCry 2 ships with the most impressive benchmark tool we’ve ever seen in a PC game. Part of this is due to the fact that Ubisoft actually tapped a number of hardware sites (AnandTech included) from around the world to aid in the planning for the benchmark.

For our purposes we ran the CPU benchmark included in the latest patch:

Far Cry 2 - 1680 x 1050 - Playback (Action Scene) - Medium Quality

The Far Cry 2 engine appears to put a greater focus on threading, which may prove to be the case with future titles as well - the end result is the i7s do quite well and the Phenom II actually falls behind the Q9400.

Crysis Warhead

Crysis Warhead - 1680 x 1050 - Mainstream Quality (Physics on Enthusiast) - assault bench

The 955 just edges out the Q9550 under Crysis Warhead. The i7 continues to lead in performance.

Blu-Ray, FLV & Archive Creation Performance Power Consumption
POST A COMMENT

65 Comments

View All Comments

  • dragonsphere - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link

    I read articles like this all the time for multiple websites. I am a professional application performance tester and I can tell you that most of these articles are junk just to stir up the masses. Most of their statistics are based on averages. This means that 51% of the time they are wrong. Have you noticed that none of them show confidence tests to prove that their data is accurate? Also they don't use 90th percentiles. I think this is due to the lack of the tools that they are using to generate these sub-standard statistics. Until the software they are using is more precise I would consider these tests to be junk science. Reply
  • cal954 - Saturday, May 2, 2009 - link

    Thanks for all the information. I used this model to build my first computer, although no matter what I try to do, my CPU-Z never shows me the multiplier being anything but 4.0 and I can't get my core speed above 800 even w/ CnQ disabled. Reply
  • Hamlet2000 - Saturday, May 9, 2009 - link

    You need to update your bios on your motherboard. I had the exact same thing with my new Phenom II 955 build on a Gigabyte board. Once you update, go into your bios and set the clock at 200 x 16. You'll notice the speed difference right away - it's a smoking fast CPU! Reply
  • Edgemeal - Monday, April 27, 2009 - link

    Geez, some of you people make it sound like AMD has to have the fastest CPU in the market or they just aren't any good or something!

    AMD knows what their chip/PC parts are worth in the market place and their price/performance fits in very nicely. I applaud AMD, without them you'd be reading about the new $900 2GHz P4s right about now LOL!
    Reply
  • swapnadip - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link

    Either AnandTech is Intel fan or Intel pays them hefty Loyalty.

    If not, then why every other reviewieng site shows AMD PHENOM 2 X4 955 BE defeating Core i7 940 on evey computing prospects.

    On some instances it has bashed on Core i7 965 extreme.

    This is pretty much biased and helping INTEL play their MONOPOLOY in this sector. In today's market, no two rivals can have their top of line product bearing differences of Day and Night like shown in this review.

    Thanks
    Reply
  • swapnadip - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link

    Either AnandTech is Intel fan or Intel pays them hefty Loyalty.

    If not, then why every other reviewieng site shows AMD PHENOM 2 X4 955 BE defeating Core i7 940 on evey computing prospects.

    On some instances it has bashed on Core i7 965 extreme.

    This is pretty much biased and helping INTEL play their MONOPOLOY in this sector. In today's market, no two rivals can have their top of line product bearing differences of Day and Night like shown in this review.

    Thanks
    Reply
  • swapnadip - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link

    Either AnandTech is Intel fan or Intel pays them hefty Loyalty.

    If not, then why every other reviewieng site shows AMD PHENOM 2 X4 955 BE defeating Core i7 940 on evey computing prospects.

    On some instances it has bashed on Core i7 965 extreme.

    This is pretty much biased and helping INTEL play their MONOPOLOY in this sector. In today's market, no two rivals can have their top of line product bearing differences of Day and Night like shown in this review.

    Thanks
    Reply
  • iFX - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link

    PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+
    PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+
    PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+
    PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+
    PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+
    PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+
    PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+

    ----

    Why is it every AMD article on this site has errors?
    Reply
  • wowo - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link

    how x264?x264 benchmark 2.0 is very old .

    it is 819,but new x264 is 1139.intel is better for 1139 a lot.

    please test wirh new x264.
    Reply
  • ultrageek1111 - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link

    you know what they say about black processors... Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now