hardwareheaven shows BD > 2600k for gaming

SheepBeast · 13 Oct 2011 at 13:30

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...sor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-introduction.html

it's an interesting read. anyone know why they showed better results than most other sites?

lee20010 · 13 Oct 2011 at 13:44

Great review, very clear too.

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 13 Oct 2011 at 13:50

I would say its against the grain BENCH

Fact is unless something makes good use of 8 cores the chip is slower per core clock.

SheepBeast · 13 Oct 2011 at 13:52

yeah, i'm confused by how they manage to get a better gaming result out of the 8150 when other reviews show the 2600k to destroy it in games

Elevon · 13 Oct 2011 at 13:55

SheepBeast said:
yeah, i'm confused by how they manage to get a better gaming result out of the 8150 when other reviews show the 2600k to destroy it in games

I think they were only ones using Asrock 990FX board, rest were using Asus boards,don't know how much difference a BIOS makes between the two ,but I find it hard to believe they got those benchmarks.

malfunkshun · 13 Oct 2011 at 13:56

I may have missed something but hardwareheaven appear to have run the i7 with dual channel memory, not triple channel. I would imagine that this alone would impact the results?

welsh_andy · 13 Oct 2011 at 13:57

if you look here http://www.hardwareheaven.com/hardw...black-edition-processor-launch-review-hh.html
theres a gd debate with admin at why their results with Bd goes against most others reviews. intresting to see them having to justify their results. its a gd read

Martini1991 · 13 Oct 2011 at 13:57

malfunkshun said:
I may have missed something but hardwareheaven appear to have run the i7 with dual channel memory, not triple channel. I would imagine that this alone would impact the results?

The 2600k is only dual channel.
But the results are skewed on that.

Elevon · 13 Oct 2011 at 13:59

Anandtech forums have a decent thread on this too http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2198164 .

reiyushin · 13 Oct 2011 at 14:03

Will be reading this when I get back from work :0

Zinth · 13 Oct 2011 at 14:03

This review does claw back some interest atleast.

malfunkshun · 13 Oct 2011 at 14:04

Martini1991 said:
The 2600k is only dual channel.
But the results are skewed on that.

Ah fair enough, odd then that Toms shows a triple channel kit in the hardware set-up. Copy and paste for the lose it seems.
Comparing the F1 2011 benchy, like for like @ 1920 and 8x AA, I wonder where the HH reviewer found nearly 30fps extra on the FX system :confused:

welsh_andy · 13 Oct 2011 at 14:05

im loving this reply

Just reading the conclusion of that review... "There are two areas where the FX-8150 excells though, those are gaming and overclocking." Uh huh... dunno what hes been smoking but id like some.

Jay85 · 13 Oct 2011 at 14:07

Yay a good review! Maybe intel paid everyone to crap on bulldozer or AMD paid HH to give it a bump xD

malfunkshun · 13 Oct 2011 at 14:09

or HH skewed its results to muster interest and improve its CTR on those rather short pages

mmj_uk · 13 Oct 2011 at 14:11

It might be down to the PCI-E implementation of that Asrock Z68 motherboard.

According to ASRock site:

"Integrated PLX PEX8608 chip onboard to offer sufficient PCI-E lanes"

If it's anything like the NF200 it might be hindering performance slightly, being a 'middle-man' and all that all.

Or maybe they're just biased, they did give Bulldozer 46/50 afterall...

SheepBeast · 13 Oct 2011 at 14:52

mmj_uk said:
Or maybe they're just biased, they did give Bulldozer 46/50 afterall...

yeah, i dunno. BD did seem decent in their review but i wouldn't say the score of 46/50 was reflective of their performance figures. maybe 40/50 but not 46.

cmndr_andi · 13 Oct 2011 at 15:50

It looks like they chose three CPU heavy, highly multithreaded (or badly ported in the case of F1 2011) games and took those (albeit rather good for AMD) results as indicative of general gaming performance.

It could also be argued that using a single HD 6950 2GB in a CPU test and running the games at 1080p and high settings then in some cases the GPU would have limited the performance - not the CPU. So it wouldn't be a fair test.

zoomee · 13 Oct 2011 at 16:46

BF3 is the game that matters for most people - AMD claim better performance than that against both 1100T and 2600k - wonder if thats going to be true....

cmndr_andi · 13 Oct 2011 at 16:51

Based on this I would tend to believe them. Not that it really matters, It seems that with that game any decent CPU (heck even a Athlon II X4 does almost as well as an i7 920 in that test) will be limited by the performance of the graphics card.