Benchmark Results: Crysis
Ah, the ageless Crysis—always surprising us with interesting results. Perhaps most problematic is that, on the 790GX platform, CrossFire results in a fairly massive performance hit that proved reproducible with Catalyst 9.6.
The results get a little more disappointing from there. Core i5 is beaten out by Core i7 by a slim margin, Core 2 Quad scores its first win against Core i5 (this is with a single card installed), and AMD’s Phenom II even slides in ahead of Core i5 as resolution increases.
Of course, the CrossFire issue results in the Phenom II getting smashed up pretty hard with two cards installed. But AMD’s configuration isn’t the only one to suffer. At 1680x1050, the Core i5 and Core 2 Quad—the two other platforms seeing PCI Express connectivity cut in half, lose a few frames each when a pair of 4870 X2s are used. By the time we switch to 2560x1600, Core i5 and Core 2 Quad actually start gaining a bit from CrossFire, but Phenom II continues shedding performance.
Let’s see if these results hold up with the added stress of anti-aliasing applied.
The backwards-slide isn’t as bad here, but there are still some notable issues. Mainly, two Radeon HD 4870 X2s in CrossFire on a 790GX platform are performing worse than one. Nevertheless, the three Intel configurations at least demonstrate gains at 2560x1600, where this potentially very I/O-limited benchmark is finally able to tax the graphics cards and show the benefit of two cards versus one. If you want a better look at Crysis performance, check out today's gaming analysis story, which tests the latest processors using their stock clocks and SSDs, opening up the frame rates substantially.
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.