Gaming Performance

In testing Left 4 Dead we use a custom recorded timedemo. We run on a GeForce GTX 280 at 1680 x 1050 with all quality options set to high. No AA/AF enabled.

Left 4 Dead

Far Cry 2 ships with several built in benchmarks. For this test we use the Playback (Action) demo at 1680 x 1050 in DX9 mode on a GTX 280. The game is set to medium defaults with performance options set to high.

Far Cry 2

Crysis Warhead also ships with a number of built in benchmarks. Running on a GTX 280 at 1680 x 1050 we run the ambush timedemo with mainstream quality settings. Physics is set to enthusiast however to further stress the CPU.

Crysis Warhead

Our Dragon Age: Origins benchmark begins with a shift to the Radeon HD 5870. From this point on these games are run under our Bench refresh testbed under Windows 7 x64. Our benchmark here is the same thing we ran in our integrated graphics tests - a quick FRAPS walkthrough inside a castle. The game is run at 1680 x 1050 at high quality and texture options.

Dragon Age: Origins

We're running Dawn of War II's internal benchmark at high quality defaults. Our GPU of choice is a Radeon HD 5870 running at 1680 x 1050.

Dawn of War II

Our World of Warcraft benchmark is a manual FRAPS runthrough of a lightly populated server with no other player controlled characters around. The frame rates here are higher than you'd see in a real world scenario, but the relative comparison between CPUs is accurate.

We run on a Radeon HD 5870 at 1680 x 1050. We're using WoW's high quality defaults but with weather intensity turned down all the way.

World of Warcraft

For Starcraft II we're using our heavy CPU test. This is a playback of a 3v3 match where all players gather in the middle of the map for one large, unit-heavy battle. While GPU plays a role here, we're mostly CPU bound. The Radeon HD 5870 is running at 1024 x 768 at medium quality settings to make this an even more pure CPU benchmark.

Starcraft II

This is Civ V's built in Late GameView benchmark, the newest addition to our gaming test suite. The benchmark outputs three scores: a full render score, a no-shadow render score and a no-render score. We present the first and the last, acting as a GPU and CPU benchmark respectively. 

We're running at 1680 x 1050 with all quality settings set to high. For this test we're using a brand new testbed with 8GB of memory and a GeForce GTX 580.

Civilization V: Late GameView Benchmark

Civilization V: Late GameView Benchmark

Visual Studio 2008: Compiler Performance, FLV Creation & Excel Perf Power Consumption


View All Comments

  • DMisner - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    Part of me hopes BD gets delayed so AMD will release a Phenom II X4 @ 4GHz Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    ...But why? It would just look good on paper, BD is where their real performance aspirations are. Reply
  • DMisner - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    for the sheer novelty of it. Thats all. Reply
  • Belard - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    There is no novelty to these issues. Its business. Buy any AMD X4 965+ and OC to 4Ghz.... thats the Novelty part.

    Having ALL your best products - even those costing almost $300 that is slower than the competitions $200 lower-end CPUs is not fun.

    I have a #2 desktop that is rendering videos daily (converting my OLD VHS) - and I'll need to upgrade its mobo/CPU to speed up the process. A NEW CPU will speed things up at lest 4-6x. (Its an OLD AMD X2).

    The Intel's use less power, there is that odd-ball combination that allows the GPU of the intel be used to help render video faster.

    So yeah, when looking at a $150~200 CPU, its performance that counts - not MHz.

    Still, for most people - any $75~100 CPU will DO just fine. Including gaming.
  • GullLars - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    With a $20-30 aftermarket cooler, you can hit 4GHz while undervolting a x50+ Phenom II. I haven't tried Athlon II's, but i'll be upgrading my father's Athlon X2 7550 to an Athlon II x4 645 and donate my old 1066 CL5 DDR2 sticks to it, so i guess i'll try hitting 4GHz on that too just for fun with a Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus.
    My 1090T runs F@H smoothly at 4GHz with stock volt (Noctua NH-D14 cooler).
  • JonnyDough - Thursday, May 05, 2011 - link

    I agree.

    Considering that the AMD Phenom II X6 1100T is only $54 more and beats the new chip in most benchmarks while using less power under load (using max turbo @ 3.7, same clocks as the new 980 BE) I'd say that this new 4 core is a poor value comparatively.
  • JumpingJack - Sunday, September 21, 2014 - link

    Hindsight is 20/20, it didn't work out quite as people wanted.... Reply
  • StrangerGuy - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    I'm sure the PhII is already stuck at 3.8GHz at reasonable voltages and has been this way for a long time.

    I wonder how AMD feels when the mobile i7-2820QM is just as fast as their 4.2GHz OCed Phenom II X4. Bulldozer single-threaded performance and power consumption has to be at least the same as Nehalem to stand a fighting chance.
  • khimera2000 - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    probably the same way Intel feels about AMD's video cards. Reply
  • Belard - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    You ARE kidding, right?!

    You can already OC to 4Ghz. And it will STILL be slower than i5-2400 ($190) which runs at 3.1Ghz.

    Clock Speed doesn't mean then end-all. Remember the says of AMD64 vs P4? Even at 3~4Ghz, the $1000 P4 Extreme Editions were still SLOWER than AMD's 2.0~2.4Ghz $200~300 CPUs.

    The performance wouldn't be so much an issue *IF* that i5-2400 was selling for $400, but its not. Its selling at the same price with a actual performance benefits.

    The i3-2100 (I hate these stupid intel model numbers) = $125 and puts it on par with the AMD-PII 955 ($140) - which is an upper end AMD part... going against an intel bottom end Core X CPU.

    Bulldozer needs to be OUT NOW. AMD makes great products, but they are late to the party.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now