Benchmark Results: Stalker: Clear Sky
Our first game test hammers graphics performance. With one graphics card installed, the Core i5 is unable to translate its advantage in 3DMark Vantage into a win over Core i7. The pricier platform edges out the newcomer—its two advantages are Hyper-Threading and three channels (rather than two) of DDR3 memory.
Core i5 does best the slightly higher-clocked Core 2 Quad by a fairly substantial margin, though, with a lead that shrinks as resolution increases. It puts an even bigger gap between itself and the 2.8 GHz Phenom II.
Dropping a second card into our test platforms does very little for performance at 1680x1050 or 19200x1200—a result of our relatively slow CPU clocks holding back performance. Let’s look at the red bars instead, representing 2560x1600. First up, Core i5 versus Core i7. The even result between these two platforms with one graphics card installed suggests that one 4870 X2 isn't enough to flesh out differences between the two. With a pair of cards, the i7 takes a quantifiable lead. Clearly, dividing PCI Express up into x8 slots is hurting i5. Is the difference palpable in the real-world? Almost certainly in this case, it is not.
Once again, i5 puts in a couple of frames above and beyond Core 2 Quad and a few more on top of AMD’s Phenom II—both platforms clearly limited by their host processors at lower resolutions (thus, you see CrossFire adding zero performance).
Anti-aliasing adds a significant graphics workload, partially mitigating the CPU bottleneck experienced previously.
With one card installed, i5 and i7 achieve almost exact parity. And for that matter, Core 2 Quad and Phenom II are remarkably close as well, suggesting a single Radeon HD 4870 X2 is now the component holding us back.
Add the second card and the range opens up a bit. Core i5 once again trails i7 when its PCI Express lanes get divided up between two powerful video cards. The same happens to Core 2 Quad and Phenom II, though, so it’s not really a surprise to see i5 besting both platforms at 2.8 GHz.
Well... the results from Crysis were very disappointing. It got outpreformed by an previous generation CPU, ah come on...
Nice review, interesting to see how the Phenom II is doing.
AMD doesn't have to improve, Intel is getting worse for them. ( in my opinion )
i keep seeing you reviewers bragging about core i7/i5 socket 1156 CPU's Turbo Mode giving it a major advantage or making it better than i7/X58 but how many people are actually going to run them at stock speeds? Once their overclocked Turbo Mode means nothing really, especially 1 and 2 core Turbo Mode. Also getting those 1 and 2 core multipliers is not easy, they dont always activate when games/apps are single/dual threaded because the other cores are still active and any background tasks or other executions will use the other free cores meaning that to consistently have the 1 and 2 core Turbo Mode multis you would actually have to disable the other 2 cores in the BIOS, which no one does even on the i7.
Did Intel throw all you guys a few sheckels to promote Lynnfield with this turbo Mode mantra?
^^ Oh for *GODS SAKE* would you effing fanboi muppets STFU? What is this 'thing' nowadays that when a group doesn't like news they just generate their own, join a group of likeminded muppets, make your delusion expand by shouting constantly at everyone then sit back condemning the purveyors of the truth as liars? I bet Obama's going to kill your grandparents with a deathpanel eh?
Let me answer your question with another question; what effing proportion of people overclock? One in twenty, if that? I'm certainly going to clock my 860 to 4.0-4.2, but what about everyone else, and how do overclocked Nehalem architectures compare to overclocked Phenom II's? they lose. Period. I've benched them myself you utter muppet. Right now AMD are using a moderate revision of the Athlon 64 architecture, if Bulldozer comes out swinging and wins, I'll be happy, until then, deal with it.
And stop mindlessly attacking journalists who don't conform to your fanboy view of the world. L2compute FFS.
whos the fanboy? sounds like the reviewer is and i am not sure what your problem is but i may seek counselling as your outrage and outburst over something thats pretty unimportant in the grand scheme of things is a little alarming.
Why would Obama kill my grandparents?
and if you dont overclock your i7 your basically giving up a free easy OC boost, atleast on the i7/X58, i have read that socket 1156 CPU's have a little trouble overclocking on stock voltage due to the PCI-E contoller and its voltage being tied in to other parts of the CPU.
I really dont get the core i5 platform. The processors are way too expensive and its a mainsream platform. Well, i think it pretty much fails as the price tag is high end.
whos the fanboy? sounds like the reviewer is and i am not sure what your problem is but i may seek counselling as your outrage and outburst over something thats pretty unimportant in the grand scheme of things is a little alarming.Why would Obama kill my grandparents?
You are the fanboy, not the reviewer. This is because the reviewer is telling it like it is, and you are being a complete idiot to try and discredit a perfectly sane point they made - all because you don't like the truth. That kind of thinking is destructive. Seek counselling for that and maybe your comments will have some value.
re Obama, L2readinternationalnews
Dont believe the hype, do, do, do, dont believe the hype.
This is the issue; it's not hype.
It's like Toyota bringing out a car with, oh, I dunno a battery that recharges when one brakes and your saying "uhhh don't believe the hype - the batter only works when you brake, what if you never brake???" The only conclusion I can come to is that you and your brethren are 'beyond extreme' AMD fanboys, or that this is some kind of pathetic attempt at 'buzz marketing' by AMD.
I'll leave it to everyone with two brain cells to rub together to work out which option is more likely and less pathetic.