• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Bulldozer Finally!

grandmaster said:
Heres a fact for you. According to the benchmarks, In BF3 Beta, a GTX 580, with an AMD X4, pishes more frames, than an I5 2500k or a I7 2600k overclocked.
Click to expand...

1.) It falls under the error of margin 2.) That's because it's a GPU bottleneck.

You could run that test multiple times and get a different winner out of the top ones every time.

grandmaster said:
Are you saying an SLi setup would make the Intel stand far out from the AMD benchmarks?
Click to expand...

Relieving the GPU benchmark and requiring the CPU's to produce more frames, as long as the GPU's are pumping out more frames than the CPU's are capable of.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
not in bf3 ;)

quite under whelmed at how a single 580 gtx does in bf3 tbh not worth 360 .00 for 55 fps
Click to expand...

There's no law that says people have to run all their games maxed.

If a new engine was released today, that could only be run maxed in 10 years time, would all today's gfx cards be crap because they could only put out 3 FPS maxed?

Nope. You'd just scale back the settings for the next 10 years :p
 
yes but a 360.00 card which runs at 55 fps no thanks. might aswell keep same card i have until next gen .

only difference is you can run high or ultra at same res with same fps
 
The following chart was posted on XS.

3dsmax.jpg


It seems to be from this review site:

http://www.ozeros.com/2011/10/labs-¡amd-fx-en-ozeros/

It looks like the top three charts are for the FX CPUs.

The Core i7 charts which are blurred have a three in them?? :confused:
 
~>Dg<~ said:
yes but a 360.00 card which runs at 55 fps no thanks. might aswell keep same card i have until next gen .

only difference is you can run high or ultra at same res with same fps
Click to expand...

Too right. If im paying that much for a GPU, not only do i expect supreme frame rates, but it better wipe my..nose too!
 
Helpful :p
EDIT : AMD in my experience have always been good at 3DSMax rendering. my 965 at 4GHZ could outpace a 4GHZ Q9550 (I think, it was the same or something)
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The following chart was posted on XS.

3dsmax.jpg


It seems to be from this review site:

http://www.ozeros.com/2011/10/labs-¡amd-fx-en-ozeros/

It looks like the top three charts are for the FX CPUs.

The Core i7 charts which are blurred have a three in them?? :confused:
Click to expand...

Is it the lower the better?

Martini is gonna be chewing on his words when the bulldozer outperforms his crappy I5 setup hahahahahahahahahahahah lollll :D im tuggin ya chain martini :D AMD have always been a bit better at rendering video and stuff
 
Martini1991 said:
1.) It falls under the error of margin 2.) That's because it's a GPU bottleneck.

You could run that test multiple times and get a different winner out of the top ones every time.



Relieving the GPU benchmark and requiring the CPU's to produce more frames, as long as the GPU's are pumping out more frames than the CPU's are capable of.
Click to expand...

How you suppose we do that??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom