Benchmark Results: S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky
We’re kicking things off with S.T.A.L.K.E.R., one of the most graphically-challenging benchmarks in our suite (though at 1680x1050, you wouldn’t really know it, since all of our tested platforms achieve playable frame rates, and the addition of a second card doesn’t really do much for our five contenders).
Cranking the resolution up to 2560x1600 does demonstrate a more palpable reason to go for CrossFire or SLI, though.
The real kicker is that, from Core i7 to Core i5 to Phenom II, there’s literally zero difference between these configurations if you’re using a single GeForce GTX 285. One Radeon HD 4870 X2 favors the Nehalem architecture ever so slightly, but the two frames separating the Core 2 Quad from the Core i7-870 are hardly worth making a buying decision on.
What should be popping out at you, however, is how much of a difference CrossFire and SLI support make as we shift into our anti-aliased numbers. To all intents, constructions, and purposes, one ultra-powerful GeForce GTX 285 will turn back the same results in all five of these configurations. The same goes for the Radeon HD 4870 X2 compared down the line. Go for the cheapest motherboard and processor if gaming is your only concern, we say. Put the money saved toward another graphics card.
If that is, in fact, the route you take, note that at 1680x1050, two Radeon HD 4870 X2s and GeForce GTX 285s perform similarly. Only when you step up to 2650x1600 is there a bit of distance put between competing graphics architectures—in this case favoring ATI by a few frames.
As of this writing, a week before the P55 launch, the least-expensive Radeon HD 4870 X2 costs $369 on Newegg. The GeForce GTX 285 OCFU is a $389 board. Given ATI’s advantage in S.T.A.L.K.E.R., the Radeon is looking like a better buy at the high-end. Too bad it seems to be suffering limited availability (actually, that’s a good sign—next-gen, we’re looking forward to you!).
Interesting..whilst the Phenom II is a refined core rather than a new design, it still seems able to hold it's weight. It's also apparent that even the fastest Core i5's and i7's are getting some great results not from nVidia cards, but from AMD/ATI.
^ Source: single-card configurations, i.e. what most people can afford.
"Running at 1680x1050 represents a solid baseline for mainstream gamers, while 2560x1600 serves as today’s Holy Grail."
With so many people attaching their PCs to 1080p TVs why do we consistenly see a lack of 1920x1080 resolution results? Besides, many people still use top quality 17" & 19" monitors with 1280x1024 resolutions.
@up:
At 1280x1024 you sure as hell don't need Tri SLI 285 or CrossfireX 4870x2. In fact single 4850 will do.
This makes me rethink my whole i5/i7 upgrade at the first of the year.
I'm guessing my Q6600 @3.6 is alittle faster then the Q9550 used in the tests.
Maybe a i5 and 2x4770 GPU might do some good at a very low price?
the Q9550 was only clocked @ 2.83GHz, they should atleast used the Q9650 or OC the Q9550 to 3.4GHz like the PII 965
Well. Hello There. I want to share with you guys. Hello there!
@kasperg
then why not clock the i7 920 to 4GHz and all of the others accordingly?