AMD’s lower-cost FX-8350 continues to maintain performance parity in Battlefield 3, even as our highest resolution and detail settings lean hard against a pair of Radeon HD 7970s.


Both AMD and Intel employ integrated memory controllers. However, Intel's exhibits better performance. We recently stumbled across a memory bottleneck in DiRT 3, and that could be reflected in F1 2012. If nothing else, this sets us up for another story idea.


Overclocking gives Intel's Core i7-3770K a quantifiable boost in F1 2012, but a clock rate increase barely nudges AMD's FX-8350. Memory frequency is held constant throughout, in case you need any hint as to what's happening behind the scenes.


Skyrim appears to be the most CPU-dependent game in today’s suite. It also appears to be the most heavily slanted toward Intel's architecture. AMD's FX-8350 appears adequate across all of the tested settings, though we do have a little more data to discuss.
- Chasing Bottlenecks To Eyefinity (But Not Beyond)
- Test Settings And Benchmarks
- Results: 3DMark, Aliens Vs. Predator, And Metro 2033
- Metro 2033, Second By Second
- Results: Battlefield 3, F1 2012, And Skyrim
- Battlefield 3, Frame By Frame
- Skyrim, Frame By Frame
- Power And Efficiency
- Can AMD's FX Keep Up With Its Radeon HD 7970?
What you're paying a premium for (it seems,) is a fluid experience. If you buy an Nvidia SLI/Intel combo, your wallet will take a hit, but you're in for less stutter. Go for all AMD crossfire/CPU, and you might just notice the occasional stutter - Not a problem for casual gamers, but a bit of a nuisance when you're twitch gaming. My aging hardware often causes problems in BF3 - flipping round a corner, spinning round etc - God help you if your GPU freezes for just a split second.
Is there a cunning (or daft) reason that Nvidia cards wouldn't work with AMD processors? If not then wouldn't it make sense to test that too - perhaps go down the route of seeing what the slowest CPU from each side is that gets up to a certain level (either absolute rates or a percentage of the top Intel result or somesuch)
I totally agree with this. Nvidia should have been tested as well.
That's what it looks like to me.
A2 can go up to about 60fps depending on the mission but it seems the AI and some other stuff is very processor heavy (and apparently it doesn't work as well on AMD CPUs anyway) which results in the GPU only being used 30-40%. Some of the worst missions seem to be the official campaigns, which apparently use a lot of scripting and drag it down to 17fps at times.
BS2 never goes above about 40fps and drops to about 25fps or lower whenever there's several other plane/helo models in view, such as flying towards an airfield and again is only using about 40% of the GPU most of the time. Being a 64-bit game, it was also disappointing to find it only uses about 2GB of my 16GB RAM, so I made a 11GB RAMDisk with it instead to make it load faster and eliminate the stuttering/jitters.
To be honest its' rather irritating when you have seen the video more than once, and it keeps on opening every time you just want to read a review. I respect the need to raise advertising revenue especially in these difficult times, I just find the way the video content automatically loads to be somewhat frustrating.
Thank you.
I know for one that i do. Yes i have 2 x 7950s in c/f. do i want more than one monitor no... Do i want to game at 5760 x 1080.. err no i dont..
and the Sabertooth Z77 is a Pci-e 3.0
For equal comparison they needed the Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 Gen3.
the difference from the Sabertooth 990fx (B.1604) and Saberooth R2.0 Gen3 (B.0305)
is about 10%~20% (it differs a lot per website reviews in, Games, Resolutions)
Not to be a conspiracy nut but the reviews should have known this from the start.
not sure if they are going down hill with people or if they made an honest mistake.