Stuttering in Crysis with CF6870

Bodom · 20 May 2011 at 20:49

Your CPU is perfectly fine for Crysis, @3.6ghz it will not be bottlenecking your performance.

Final8y · 20 May 2011 at 20:53

Bodom said:
Your CPU is perfectly fine for Crysis, @3.6ghz it will not be bottlenecking your performance.

I ran Crysis about an hour ago & its used very little CPU.

cjgardens · 20 May 2011 at 20:57

My good nemesis it matter about relevance. If the guy is getting helped out then that is all that matters.

whipgeez · 20 May 2011 at 20:58

speaking of crysis(to save making a new thread) does anybody know why i'd get horendous screen tearing at around 50 fps (maxed out)?

someone suggested it could be because i use hdmi, i got a LG m2380d tv/monitor and it only has hdmi and vga imputs, so would the hdmi of this be mainly for the tv and cause an issue like this? i've got a dvi-vga adapter coming tomorrow, the vga quality seems high when i have the netbook connected through it and that isn't designed for 1080p

specs are 1090t,gtx570,4gb ram,

i was also wondering if it could be a win 7 problem as crysis has compatability problems with it

Final8y · 20 May 2011 at 21:03

cjgardens said:
My good nemesis it matter about relevance. If the guy is getting helped out then that is all that matters.

It matters when the help has already been said & everything else will not change anything in regards to that game with the setup he has & will give him the impression that more CPU will let him run at a higher setting which it will not in that game.
The problem is that Marine-RX179 goes on about the CPU with Multi GPU sets all the time regardless of the OPs issues.

Marine-RX179 · 20 May 2011 at 21:31

Final8y said:
It matters when the help has already been said & everything else will not change anything in regards to that game with the setup he has & well give him the impression that more CPU will let his run at a higher setting which it will not in that game.
The problem is that Marine-RX179 goes on about the CPU all the time regardless of the OPs issues.

And your problem is you are over defensive regarding the performance of Phenom II CPU.

Last time regarding the CF6990+6970, I say overclocked Phenom II X6 is not making the most out of that graphic set up and has room for improvement on frame rate if the OP got money to upgrade to Bulldozer or SandyBridge in the future, and you keep going on and on about how Phenom II X6 is not lacking in performance.

This time, I merely pointed out that Crysis is a dual thread game, meaning that the game itself won't really use more than two cores, so the CPU that run dual thread quicker will deliver higher frame rate. and i5/i7/SB are faster in dual thread than Phenom II X6. I did not say the overclocked Phenom II X6 at 3.6GHz would be a huge bottleneck for CF6870, so I have no idea why act like a hedgehog always always having the needles up to defend the precious Phenom II, when everytime I merely mention that overclock i5/i7/SB deliver higher frame rate than overclocked Phenom II (which is a fact).

Final8y said:
I ran Crysis about an hour ago & its used very little CPU.

Dual Thread on Hex core CPU...

Final8y · 20 May 2011 at 22:37

Marine-RX179;19186468 1) said:
And your problem is you are over defensive regarding the performance of Phenom II CPU.

Last time regarding the CF6990+6970, I say overclocked Phenom II X6 is not making the most out of that graphic set up and has room for improvement on frame rate if the OP got money to upgrade to Bulldozer or SandyBridge in the future, and you keep going on and on about how Phenom II X6 is not lacking in performance.

This time, I merely pointed out that Crysis is a dual thread game, meaning that the game itself won't really use more than two cores, so the CPU that run dual thread quicker will deliver higher frame rate. and i5/i7/SB are faster in dual thread than Phenom II X6. I did not say the overclocked Phenom II X6 at 3.6GHz would be a huge bottleneck for CF6870, so I have no idea why act like a hedgehog always always having the needles up to defend the precious Phenom II, when everytime I merely mention that overclock i5/i7/SB deliver higher frame rate than overclocked Phenom II (which is a fact).

2) Dual Thread on Hex core CPU...

1) I'm not over defensive about the phenom2 at all because we all know its slower but the unnecessary suggestions that you keep going bang on about like they are imperative & boarders on telling people to get a i5/i7/SB for Web browsing in relation to importance.

This OP does not need an i5/i7/SB for the issues he is having but you droning on about it make you like it matters when it does not.

Also remember the other thread
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18269532

The OP was happy with the frame rates but just wondered why his GPUs were not running at max usage a faster CPU will most likely get him higher usage but he will not notice it outside of fraps as he has already reach a plateau of high fps anyway so he maxed the in game & driver quality settings to make up the usage & still gets high fps that is past his monitors capabilities & again you brought up Crysis even though the OP said nothing about that game, Also more CPU in a GPU limited Multi GPU situation can increase the chances of micro stuttering even if the minimums were higher.

And again you going on and on like everyone who is using multi GPU must get an i5/i7/SB when in fact that is not the case.

i5/i7/SB has the potential to get more out of Multii GPU but that is not always necessary= A plateau is reached.

To keep it simple i want to reach 140MPH in my car, 1 Turbo gets me 120, 2 Turbos gets me 150MPH but then you come along & tell me im not getting the most out of those Turbos with my engine & that a bigger engine will get them most out of them 170MPH which is fact but it does not matter as i have already reached my plateau of 140MPH.

2) Which does not matter if it maxed out the CPU or not as im GPU limited in that game regardless with the settings i like to play at.

And in fact the fact that a i5/i7/SB should be a faster setup over all for most tasks why don't everyone use them? because lesser systems are fast enough already, hence your Sig.

Marine-RX179 · 21 May 2011 at 00:37

Final8y said:
Which does not matter if it maxed out the CPU or not as im GPU limited in that game regardless with the settings i like to play at.

And in fact the fact that a i5/i7/SB should be a faster setup over all for most tasks why don't everyone use them? because lesser systems are fast enough already, hence your Sig.

http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...ossfire_cpu_scaling_performance_part_2,4.html
Crysis Warhead CF5870 1680x1050 0xAA 0xAF

i7 9xx 4.0GHz: min 44fps, average 60fps
i5 7xx 4.0GHz: min 43fps, average 60fps
Phenom II X4 4.0GHz: min 34fps, average 55fps

And for your claim of GPU limited circumstances CPU don't really matter, let's take a look at 2560x1600 (Crysis again at 0xAA, 0xAF):
http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...ossfire_cpu_scaling_performance_part_2,5.html

i7 9xx 4.0GHz: min 23fps, average 34fps
i5 7xx 4.0GHz: min 23fps, average 35fps
Phenom II X4 4.0GHz: min 18fps, average 36fps

Let's have a look at another game with CF5870- World in Conflict 1680x1050 and 2560x1600 0xAA, 0xAF:
1680x1050
i7 9xx 4.0GHz: min 30fps, average 104fps
i5 7xx 4.0GHz: min 31fps, average 102fps
Phenom II X4 4.0GHz: min 18fps, average 72fps

2560x1600
http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...ssfire_cpu_scaling_performance_part_2,13.html
i7 9xx 4.0GHz: min 34fps, average 91fps
i5 7xx 4.0GHz: min 33fps, average 90fps
Phenom II X4 4.0GHz: min 18fps, average 69fps

The CPU bottleneck there is quite clear in showing that Phenom II doesn't keep up in the slightly more CPU demanding games that are not optimised for more than Dual Thread, rather it is at or is not at GPU limited situation. But for games that are well-optimised for using multi-cores (i.e. BFBC2), the Phenom II would likely to keep up with overclocked i5/i7 etc. But sadly well-optimised games like BFBC2 don't come most of the time, as we tends to get half-arse console port majority of the time that struggle to even use 3 cores well.

Final8y · 21 May 2011 at 00:45

Marine-RX179 said:
http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...ossfire_cpu_scaling_performance_part_2,4.html
Crysis Warhead CF5870 1680x1050 0xAA 0xAF

i7 9xx 4.0GHz: min 44fps, average 60fps
i5 7xx 4.0GHz: min 43fps, average 60fps
Phenom II X4 4.0GHz: min 34fps, average 55fps
Phenom II X2 4.0GHz: min 30fps, average 54fps

1)When AA and AF are applied, I wonder which will struggle to keep the minimum frame rate above 30fps....

And for your claim of GPU limited circumstances CPU don't really matter, let's take a look at 2560x1600 (again at 0xAA, 0xAF):
http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...ossfire_cpu_scaling_performance_part_2,5.html

i7 9xx 4.0GHz: min 23fps, average 34fps
i5 7xx 4.0GHz: min 23fps, average 35fps
Phenom II X4 4.0GHz: min 18fps, average 36fps
Phenom II X2 4.0GHz: min 18fps, average 35fps

Let's have a look at another game with CF5870- World in Conflict 1680x1050 and 2560x1600 0xAA, 0xAF:
1680x1050
i7 9xx 4.0GHz: min 30fps, average 104fps
i5 7xx 4.0GHz: min 31fps, average 102fps
Phenom II X4 4.0GHz: min 18fps, average 72fps

2560x1600
http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...ssfire_cpu_scaling_performance_part_2,13.html
i7 9xx 4.0GHz: min 34fps, average 91fps
i5 7xx 4.0GHz: min 33fps, average 90fps
Phenom II X4 4.0GHz: min 18fps, average 69fps

1) Fail because AA and AF is GPU bound so if it was still CPU limited with more AA and AF then the frame rate would stay the same.

2)I already said the minimum will be higher because there are always going to be times where the CPU will get clobbered in parts of some games & the fact that they are both fail anyway & its the averages that matter & not the low blips here & there with no time scale & the Phenom II X4 4.0GHz got higher average at higher res & your problem is your talking in absolutes when there is none with PC, the average matters & not the rare exceptions.

"on average you will not see any difference" which is said many many times but of course if you want to get the microscope out & get down to the pedantic
infinitesimal level all the time that most don't care about then there will always be a difference even on 2 things that are meant to be exactly the same.

A 70 foot rope is no worse than a 80 foot rope when you need 100 foot to reach the other side.

And my rigs plays it faster than all of them 2560x1600 (again at 0xAA, 0xAF)

And you always come back to Crysis as if that's the only game that exists & again this thread was about stutter & not about low frame rates & like the other thread the OP was not complaining about low frame rates or even crysis but again you bring out the crysis benches as if all games behave like it.

And your last edit World in Conflict the averages are more than high enough again on all of them.

And i notice that everything you posted had no AF/AA to make it CPU bound when most people would have AF/AA & then often you will see that the gap gets smaller between the averages with the faster & slower CPUs which is exactly my point about GPU bound which you have not posted at all as the point of the review your quoting show off the CPU, they didn't use AF/AA because that would be less obvious with lots of AA/AF because the GPU would be the bottleneck more often than not & the exact opposite of what the OP was doing.

Final8y · 21 May 2011 at 01:31

Marine-RX179 said:
The CPU bottleneck there is quite clear in showing that Phenom II doesn't keep up in the slightly more CPU demanding games that are not optimised for more than Dual Thread, rather it is at or is not at GPU limited situation. But for games that are well-optimised for using multi-cores (i.e. BFBC2), the Phenom II would likely to keep up with overclocked i5/i7 etc. But sadly well-optimised games like BFBC2 don't come most of the time, as we tends to get half-arse console port majority of the time that struggle to even use 3 cores well.

And again all irrelevant to the OPs issues.
We already know all of us & like i said in the other thread as well that Intel is faster we all know as well that Intel will give higher minimums but again you fail to understand that its the averages that matter & once it reaches a level that the user is happy with then that's all that matters.

There is no debate over which is faster but you bang this is faster time & time again when the thread is not about which is faster..

Marine-RX179 · 21 May 2011 at 01:56

Final8y said:
Fail because AA and AF is GPU bound so if it was still CPU limited with more AA and AF then the frame rate would stay the same.

And my rigs plays it faster than all of them 2560x1600 (again at 0xAA, 0xAF)

And you always come back to Crysis as if that's the only game that exists & again this thread was about stutter & not about low frame rates & like the other thread the OP was not complaining about low frame rates or even crysis but again you bring out the crysis benches as if all games behave like it.

IF the GPUs still has enough spare usage that is. However, my point is still valid for Phenom II will struggle in CPU demanding games that are run in Dual Thread or less (the World in Conflict results is already quite conclusive).

It's been widely acknowledge that shuttering for Crossfire set up tends to be most noticable and most likely to happen when frame rate is at below 30fps, and it includes Crysis, but not limited to it. There are other examples such as in Metro2033 as well as in Heaven Bench.

The point of the 2560x1600 result is to show that even at GPU limited situation, Phenom II falls behind and it's not as don't really make much difference as you claimed.

Did I use ONLY Crysis as presenation for Dual Thread game here? I don't see why you fail to realise that there are quite a lot of games were already fairly CPU demanding back then, which Single to Dual Thread was not exactly providing enough for them. Crysis is just one of them, and then there are others like World in Conflict, X3 Terran Conflict, WOW etc.

redrooster303 · 21 May 2011 at 02:31

I was getting the same stuttering you are talking about when I was turning around etc (on crysis 1 all serttings max 1080) and I could hear my hard drive really stressing which led me to believe it was something to do with the pagefile. Once I'd put my page file on my SSD everything was fine lol (this was when I only had 4gb of ram though).
Now I have 8gb of ram and it doesn't really matter what I have my pagefile set at.
I new it was an issue because it did it on other games aswell and I have 2 570s in SLI so it shouldn't have.
This may be nothing to do with your problem at all but it might be worth trying.

gurusan · 21 May 2011 at 02:35

Crysis is a buggy, inefficient, and boring/horrible game. Move on to better things.

Final8y · 21 May 2011 at 02:43

Marine-RX179 said:
1)It's been widely acknowledge that shattering for Crossfire set up tends to be most noticable and most likely to happen when frame rate is at below 30fps, and it includes Crysis, but not limited to it. There are other examples such as in Metro2033 as well as in Heaven Bench.

2)IF the GPUs still has enough spare usage that is. However, my point is still valid for Phenom II will struggle in CPU demanding games that are run in Dual Thread or less (the World in Conflict results is already quite conclusive).

3)The point of the 2560x1600 result is to show that even at GPU limited situation, Phenom II would still falls behind.

4)Did I use ONLY Crysis as presenation for Dual Thread game here? I don't see why you fail to realise that there are quite a lot of games were already fairly CPU demanding back then, which Single to Dual Thread was not exactly providing enough for them. Crysis is just one of them, and then there are others like World in Conflict, X3 Terran Conflict, WOW etc.

1) Yes we know & but at his res & AA settings both CPUs will fail to hold above 30fps at times with his GPU so one being a bit faster makes no odds as they both still fail, fail is fail. less fail is still fail.
I don't care & most don't care if 100% faster Intel get 10fps minimum FAIL but AMD get 5fps minimum FAIL.

2) Again & like said the averages are the most important & are way above of what is needed & again if the GPU has no spare usage then it would not have a higher average on a faster CPU.

3) GPU limitation means it does not scale more with CPU, if it scales on average then its not GPU limitation even at 2560x1600.

4) Again still fast enough averages & the majority of people who play those games are on far weaker GPUs & CPUs than the AMDs.

But still have nothing with the OPs stuttering at 8XAA because you showed none of those games at 8xaa & his res then you will see the lead that Intel has which is quite small in some games with AA/AF gets even smaller or nothing at all & this thread is not about which is faster.

Final8y · 21 May 2011 at 03:15

gurusan said:
Crysis is a buggy, inefficient, and boring/horrible game. Move on to better things.

Indeed.
I noticed when i got to a check point that there was a little stutter for a split second brought my fps down to 0..........good heavens.

Marine-RX179 · 21 May 2011 at 03:26

Final8y said:
1) Yes we know & but at his res & AA settings both CPUs will fail to hold above 30fps at times with his GPU so one beinf a bit faster makes no odds as they both still fail, fail is fail. less fail is still fail.
I don't care & most dont care if 100% faster Intel get 10fps FAIL but AMD get 5fps..FAIL.

2) Again & like said the averages are the most important & are way above of what is needed & again if the GPU has no spare usage then it would not have a higher average on a faster CPU.

3) GPU limitation means it does not scale more with CPU, if it scales on average then its not GPU limitation.

4) Again still fast enough averages & the majority of people who play those games are on far weaker GPUs & CPUs than the AMDs.

But still have nothing with the OPs stuttering at 8XAA because you showed nothing with 8XAA because then you will see the lead that Intel has which is quite small in some games with AA/AF gets even smaller or nothing at all & this thread is not about which is faster.

1) If you actually go back at look, the i5/i7 at 4.0GHz with the CF5870 at 2560 has minimum 23fps, what it means is that if overclocked them a bit higher to 4.2-4.4GHz, it should reach minimum 25fps, so it would manage to become playable (just barely) without AA (if shuttering does not occur that is); the Phenom II on the otherhand is at 4.0GHz and got no more overclock headroom left, with the minimum frame rate at 18fps so it's unplayable.

2) Having spare GPU usage and having enough spare GPU usage for applying AA without impacting on frame rate are two different things

3) Even if average frame rate were the same, the faster architecture CPU would offer higher minimum frame rate (even a faster motherboard would be able to deliver higher minimum frame rate on the same CPU and graphic card(s).

4) I wonder how people gotten i5/i7/SB just for the sake of getting smoother frame rate in WOW or the Total Wars games, because of the game's limitation with them basically being a Single~Dual Thread game?

Final8y · 21 May 2011 at 03:57

Marine-RX179 said:
1) If you actually go back at look, the i5/i7 at 4.0GHz with the CF5870 at 2560 has minimum 23fps, what it means is that if overclocked them a bit higher to 4.2-4.4GHz, it should reach minimum 25fps, so it would manage to become playable (just barely) without AA (if shuttering does not occur that is); the Phenom II on the otherhand is at 4.0GHz and got no more overclock headroom left, with the minimum frame rate at 18fps so it's unplayable.

2) Having spare GPU usage and having enough spare GPU usage for applying AA without impacting on frame rate are two different things

3) Even if average frame rate were the same, the faster architecture CPU would offer higher minimum frame rate (even a faster motherboard would be able to deliver higher minimum frame rate on the same CPU and graphic card(s).

4) I wonder how people gotten i5/i7/SB just for the sake of getting smoother frame rate in WOW or the Total Wars games, because of the game's limitation with them basically being a Single~Dual Thread game?

1) Still both fail would make no difference to the OP at 8XAA.

2) That's depends on how much spare there is & if its so close to the bone then it would impact the faster CPU before it impacts the slower because the CPU faster was closer to the bone of the GPU max to begin with.

3) It depends on what level the minimums are & how long the minimums lasted to whether they became an important factor.

Most of the time my mins are 60fps my avg 60fps my max 60fps maxed out on most games i play, there are people with i5/i7 that don't get that because they are on much weaker GPUs.

My GPUs are more powerful than these & im CPU bottlenecked so i turn up the quality but i hold 60fps Vsync so everything that's over 60fps means squat to me.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/ARES_CrossFire/1.html

Now that the Core i7 scaling results with the Radeon HD 5970 are in, it is time to see how the Phenom II X4 processors handle this monstrous graphics card. Again we will be testing at frequencies between 2GHz and 4GHz in a range of games, while comparing the results to those recorded with the Core i7…

The Phenom II X4 results were quite different to those recorded when testing with the Core i7 processors, though this was not necessarily a bad thing. When operating at lower clock speeds, the Phenom II X4 did not fair all that well, as we saw a sharp decline in performance. However when clocked at 3.0GHz and beyond, the Phenom II X4 really picked up the pace, and in many cases was able to outclass the Core i7.

In games such as Wolfenstein, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X, BattleForge and Far Cry 2 the Phenom II X4 processors were actually faster when clocked up near 4GHz! This is quite amazing as out of the 9 games tested, the Phenom II X4 series was faster than the Core i7’s in 5 of them. Although the margins were very limited, the Phenom II X4 was found to be faster, and even if had it just managed to match the Core i7 series with the Radeon HD 5970, we would have been impressed.

While the Phenom II X4 matched the Core i7 in Crysis Warhead, the only games where it failed was Company of Heroes Opposing Fronts AMD-102FPS Intel-109FPS, Left 4 Dead 2 AMD-130FPS Intel-134FPS and Batman Arkham Asylum AMD-159FPS Intel-169FPS. The Phenom II X4 was noticeably slower in these games, making the Core i7 the better choice here. Still, for the most part we found the Phenom II X4 to be every bit as good as the Core i7 processors when gaming with the new Radeon HD 5970.

Having said that, we recommend that AMD users looking at buying this powerful graphics card make sure that they have a Phenom II X4 processor that is clocked at 3.0GHz or greater. Most Phenom II X4 processors are capable of overclocking to 3.0GHz and beyond, while the more high-end options, such as the Phenom II X4 955 and 965 processors, come clocked at 3.2GHz and 3.4GHz respectively.

While we hardly expect there will be many users trying to pair a $600 US graphics card, such as the Radeon HD 5970, with a budget processor, it is nice to see that the sub-$200 US processors are up to the task. The Intel Core i7 920 proved to be more than powerful enough at $280 US, while the AMD Phenom II X4 955 will work just as well at $165 US, giving users plenty of great options.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/cpu_scaling_with_the_radeon_hd_5970,13.html
Added

Even with the games which said was noticeably slower, no one would notice that out side of a FPS counter at those high FPS anyway.

And from the review which you keep quoting from.

Compared to previous CPU scaling articles a few things have changed this time round. In the past we have set out to find what kind of CPU is required to power the latest and greatest graphics cards. We would test the graphics card or graphics cards in question using the highest possible visual quality settings with maximum AA/AF quality enabled. This places much of the work on the graphics card and portrayed the GPU as being the system bottleneck when using high-performance CPUs.

The idea was to determine if a Core 2 Duo processor could deliver the same gaming performance with the Radeon HD 5970 graphics card as the mighty Core i7, and if so, at what operating frequency would the two meet. Such an article is useful for readers who are looking to upgrade their graphics card, but wish to know if their current CPU is powerful enough to take full advantage of the upgrade.

However this time around we are testing a pair of Radeon HD 5870 graphics cards without enabling any AA/AF quality settings. Furthermore, we are not just testing at 2560x1600, and will instead include a low resolution test using 1680x1050. This will allow the high-end processors to really stretch their legs, and will uncover which processor would provide the best performance assuming no limits.

That said, these results will not necessarily reveal which processor is required to power a pair of Radeon HD 5870 graphics cards running in Crossfire mode. This is because the cards are not being pushed as hard as they could be given that AA/AF is disabled. Therefore, while our previous testing methodology may not have shown much of a difference in performance between a Core i7 processor operating at 3.6GHz and 4.0GHz for example, these non-GPU limited results that you are about to see likely will show quite a significant difference.

Something else worth noting is the fact that we will not only be including the results for the average frame rate, but also the minimum recorded frame rate. This is not something we have done before when running so many tests, as it is quite difficult to get accurate minimum frame rates.

For example, when testing with Company of Heroes with the Core i7 processor at 4.0GHz, we saw a consistent average frame rate of 155fps at 2560x1600. This frame rate would never deviate more than 1-2fps up or down. However the minimum frame rate would fluctuate between 40–80fps, making it difficult to accurately record this data.

Occasionally we would get a result as low as 2fps which we decided to ignore as this quick drop in frame rate was likely caused by something else happening in the background. In the end we decided that the only way to accurately show the minimum frame rate was to take the average of six runs. Typically we take the average from three runs, which is quite time consuming in itself. Still, this was not enough to accurately record the minimum frame rate and we were forced to double our work load.

Which is what most people aim for.
Which is my point that with AA/AF the difference becomes less.

And as i said its all about the averages & not about mins in a few games here & there that scale badly.
And personally i find the averages that many people accept in games in general appalling but that is their preference/choice/circumstance.

Marine-RX179 · 21 May 2011 at 11:07

Final8y said:
1) Still both fail would make no difference to the OP at 8XAA.

2) That's depends on how much spare there is & if its so close to the bone then it would impact the faster CPU before it impacts the slower because the CPU faster was closer to the bone of the GPU max to begin with.

3) It depends on what level the minimums are & how long the minimums lasted to whether they became an important factor.

Most of the time my mins are 60fps my avg 60fps my max 60fps maxed out on most games i play, there are people with i5/i7 that don't get that because they are on much weaker GPUs.

My GPUs are more powerful than these & im CPU bottlenecked so i turn up the quality but i hold 60fps Vsync so everything that's over 60fps means squat to me.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/ARES_CrossFire/1.html

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/cpu_scaling_with_the_radeon_hd_5970,13.html
Added

Even with the games which said was noticeably slower, no one would notice that out side of a FPS counter at those high FPS anyway.

And from the review which you keep quoting from.

Which is what most people aim for.
Which is my point that with AA/AF the difference becomes less.

And as i said its all about the averages & not about mins in a few games here & there that scale badly.
And personally i find the averages that many people accept in games in general appalling but that is their preference/choice/circumstance.

a) You keep on insisting on going back bout the OP using 8xAA, when later people were simply replying to him about his question regarding the CPU.

b) I made a simple remark/comment that people with overclocked i5/i7 will get higher frame rate than a Phenom II at 3.6GHz In Crysis due to it being a Dual Thread game, and you yourself said this:

Final8y said:
We already know all of us & like i said in the other thread as well that Intel is faster we all know as well that Intel will give higher minimums but again you fail to understand that its the averages that matter & once it reaches a level that the user is happy with then that's all that matters.

You just assume everyone already knows that; lets say I'm pointing out the obvious...does it matter when what I say is true? Like if there are people saying 5870 is faster than 6870 again and again, I suppose you would say they shouldn't bother pointing out the "obvious" since "we already know".

Let me put it this way:
"Can overclocked Phenom II at 3.6GHz deliver higher frame rate than overclock, or as high as i5/i7 at 4.0GHz or above, using the same graphic set up and same graphic settings in Dual Thread games?" Simple answer, no.

That was the point I was trying to address. You want to go on and talk about gaming experience with vs without AA is your choice, but it doesn't make my comments about overclocked i5/i7 deliver higher frame rate than overclocked Phenom II (with or without AA) any less true, and yet you keep going on and on trying to make it out like what I said was wrong, despite you are talking about another subject.

Freddie1980 · 21 May 2011 at 11:28

Give it a rest the question has been answered and this thread no longer serves a purpose nobody is interested in your stupid arguments.

mattius1989 · 21 May 2011 at 11:50

What have I created lol.

Thanks for all the info anyway people. I guess for the games not optimised for multi core, ill rein in the graphics a touch. Thanks.