• 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.

Nvidia fan thinking of turning

Rusty0611 said:
It's a valid point though and potentially a consideration. The review is to showcase the Galaxy 660Ti (which let's be honest - it does pretty well) and the other cards are in a base of comparison nothing more.
Click to expand...

oh sure, i can see where you and he are coming from, i just don't think its possible. I don't think they are that stupid.
 
humbug said:
oh sure, i can see where you and he are coming from, i just don't think its possible. I don't think they are that stupid.
Click to expand...

In the dark corridors of buildings where the staff for review sites work there are some very dodgy things taking place :D.

Sponsors will want their cards looking nice. This is what they're paying for at the end of the day. Obviously it would undermine the credability of the site (and the brand) if it was obviously biased but there can be subtle things done to make the card they're reviewing stand out if it is a sponsored one.

(such as running favourable games etc, that kind of small stuff)
 
Rusty0611 said:
In the dark corridors of buildings where the staff for review sites work there are some very dodgy things taking place :D.

Sponsors will want their cards looking nice. This is what they're paying for at the end of the day. Obviously it would undermine the credability of the site (and the brand) if it was obviously biased but there can be subtle things done to make the card they're reviewing stand out if it is a sponsored one.

(such as running favourable games etc, that kind of small stuff)
Click to expand...

I doubt one of these things was showing a 7950 at around 40% faster in skyrim and 30% in the witcher 2 @ 1600p. It does look more respectable at 1080p though.
 
LtMatt said:
I think its medium graphics because they were trying to highlight the cpu performance.

Bf3 48-64 man multiplayer loves cores/threads, so the four core chips get much lower minimums.
Click to expand...

But BF3 doesn't use Hyperthreading so I'm still confused why the i7's are so much higher.

Please, please correct me if I'm missing something.

TheRealDeal said:
I doubt one of these things was showing a 7950 at around 40% faster in skyrim and 30% in the witcher 2 @ 1600p. It does look more respectable at 1080p though.
Click to expand...

Not surprising due to the memory bandwidth. That kind of resolution will hurt a 192 bit bus.

Comment was tongue in cheek btw.
 
Last edited:
I also had a problem with this statement / graph... as I can turn off cores and still get the same performance in multiplayer (and I mean cores not just HT)

the performance difference of the 2500 to 2700 will be core speed
and then factor in that 99% of 2500k owners will be OC'd well north of 4ghz and that chart becomes meaningless

and differences of a few FPS either way will be down to variability of multiplayer benching
 
Nice to see my old trusty i7 920@4ghz is still cutting it. Was considering an upgrade but looking at that i don't think i will see to much difference in most games. Think i will hold on until intel refresh again.
 
Last edited:
I have to say, I didn't notice any bump in FPS (certainly not to the tune of what we're seeing here) going from i5 2500k and i7 3770k both clocked to around 4.5 Ghz. Even in multiplayer.

Shame I didn't test before and after though :D
 
Rusty0611 said:
I have to say, I didn't notice any bump in FPS (certainly not to the tune of what we're seeing here) going from i5 2500k and i7 3770k both clocked to around 4.5 Ghz. Even in multiplayer.

Shame I didn't test before and after though :D
Click to expand...

Come on now, lets not pretend you got the 3770k for anything other than getting higher in the 3Dmark11 thread :p
 
BaDBoY_uK said:
Don't do it. ATI drivers suck ass. I have used them for single, crossfire and trifire. Just MHO
Click to expand...

Even though its just your opinion your implying it generally as your saying because it sucked for you its going to suck for the OP too which you have no way of knowing.

I would not even try to claim because it has not sucked for me that it wont suck for the OP.

Its about warning about the potential issues that he may or my not get because its a lottery on both brands and saying that AMD sucks in general even on single cards is really pushing it.

Oh.. OP seeing as you already have a NV 3D you may as well stick with NV, pity about the prices atm though.
 
Last edited:
psychodil said:
I'd still wager a max overclocked 2500k would beat a max overclocked 920, but I can see that the extra 'cores' are certainly helping there.
Click to expand...

For pure mhz yes for muscle probably not. If you look on gregsters 3dmark11 thread I used my i7 975 which is almost identical to a i7 920 for the runs on my HD 5970s. It was clocked at 4.27ghz and for the final runs it was getting almost 10000 points on the physics tests.
 
Kaapstad said:
For pure mhz yes for muscle probably not. If you look on gregsters 3dmark11 thread I used my i7 975 which is almost identical to a i7 920 for the runs on my HD 5970s. It was clocked at 4.27ghz and for the final runs it was getting almost 10000 points on the physics tests.
Click to expand...

I meant for real world gaming to tests, I don't care about a synthetic physics test.
 
Kaapstad said:
Thats not what you stated in your original quote.

Agreed for gaming Sandy Bridge is superior to socket 1366 systems but for CPU based tasks up against a 2500k it is a different story.

Now about your wager :D
Click to expand...

:D

CBA arguing but I was trying to extrapolate a Max clocked 2500k onto that graph of 64 player BF3, and I predicted it would be ahead of a Max clocked 920 :p

But yes there are certain games/benchmarks which do benefit from the extra threads :cool:
 
psychodil said:
:D

CBA arguing but I was trying to extrapolate a Max clocked 2500k onto that graph of 64 player BF3, and I predicted it would be ahead of a Max clocked 920 :p

But yes there are certain games/benchmarks which do benefit from the extra threads :cool:
Click to expand...

When I made my comment about my i7 975 and the 2500k I missed the fact you were refering to the graph in the previous post. So yes a maxed out 2500k @5.0ghz will thrash a maxed out i7 975 @4.5ghz running that game.
 
LtMatt said:
You get a big boost with hyper threading on, on 64 player multiplayer maps.

In large open 64 player maps the game is severely cpu bound.

Image
Click to expand...

erm... none of the processors in that graph have hyperthreading?
all it does show is that a 920@4ghz and a 2500k@4ghz both get about the same FPS (along with an FX and we all know how rubbish they are)

edit; I'll run with HT on and off now and see if it makes a difference on caspian 64
 
andybird123 said:
erm... none of the processors in that graph have hyperthreading?
all it does show is that a 920@4ghz and a 2500k@4ghz both get about the same FPS (along with an FX and we all know how rubbish they are)

edit; I'll run with HT on and off now and see if it makes a difference on caspian 64
Click to expand...

Eh? The i7 920 has hyper threading doesn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom