SiSoftware's Sandra is a diagnostic that we use to isolate specific subsystems, such as integer and floating point performance, multimedia throughput, and memory bandwidth. This gives us an opportunity to flag a platform's weaknesses, which might surface later in the benchmark suite and be more difficult to identify.

Extreme budget limitations prevent Paul from significantly improving the performance of his CPU. Instead, he spent money on a capable graphics processor, which is far more important to the viability of his platform.

Unfortunately, Intel disables AES-NI in adapting the Sandy Bridge architecture down to the Pentium family, which is why Paul's build lags so far behind.

Although AMD was the company that introduced us to integrated memory controllers on desktop processors, its DDR3-1866-capable dual-channel controller operating at 1600 MT/s is beaten by the lowly Pentium's dual-channel DDR3-1333 controller. Fortunately, overclocking helps push its throughput higher.
- New Challenges, New Challengers
- Hardware And Software Test Configurations
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark And PCMark
- Benchmark Results: SiSoftware Sandra
- Benchmark Results: Battlefield 3
- Benchmark Results: F1 2012
- Benchmark Results: Skyrim
- Benchmark Results: Adobe Creative Suite
- Benchmark Results: Audio And Video Encoding
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Benchmark Results: File Compression
- Energy And Efficiency
- Value Conclusion
goes to show how even a $500 pc can thrash and destroy xbox 360 and ps3.
It would be far more accurate to say that the methodology of this SPECIFIC SBM was not deliberately ALTERED to PENALIZE AMD. The site has too much integrity to pull such a stunt.
Just a thought, but shouldnt the percentwise distribution of value for each built based on the purpose for which it was built ?
Something like : games, apps, storage.
$500 build : 80%, 15%, 5% (cheapest best gaming with lots of cheap storage. )
$1000 build : 50%, 40%, 10% (slightly better games over apps. Great apps. fast storage for boot)
$2000 build. : 42.5%, 42.5%, 15% (equally good games and apps. fast storage should be plenty and fast)
goes to show how even a $500 pc can thrash and destroy xbox 360 and ps3.
I was pleasantly surprised how well it turned out. I believe I would have gone with one that had less cores and spent the money elsewhere. Overall though, it turned out to be a pretty good machine. Now only if they could get the power usage under control.
Yeah the AMD 7850 really pulled its gaming performance up. Very nice too that the Intel G850 didn't choke it off. A sweet build!
Firstly, the bulk of sane consumers with even half a clue and with $1000 in their pocket would not have given the AMD platform a 2nd look if given the choice. Are we really suggesting that they would have thrown $1000 at a solution that would not give them a 3770K upgrade option later on if they felt like it?
Also, this comparison deliberately factored out power consumption, which was rather convenient for AMD. I'm afraid you can't factor this out in this day and age, just because it's hard to quantify the cost across the entire globe. What you could do is produce some sythetics that represent average consumption over a given task and mutliply it up to get the total power over a year - then folk can work out what that would cost them in their own location. What I would like to know is how much that AMD solution would cost me to run for a couple of years when compared to a comparible Intel solution, and then work out what I could have bought with the money saved - it might not be much but I think it's valid - it could be the difference between a decent cooler or a piece of trash.
Please make these value comparisons tell the whole story by including both platforms within that price bracket - I know that makes life hard for the reviewing team but boo hoo hoo, you're the ones that set out to prove a point, so do a full job please. Tell us the full story, not half of it.
second last page?
I know thats there, but you obviously didn't read all of the last page where it clearly states that power was deliberately factored out for the overall value comparison tables.
- it would give an interesting value over performance overview
- there are still people interested in X79 builds today (like me)
- everyone likes to see them for xmas
It would make it game a fair bit worse, and app performance would be on par or worse than the i7. And there is nothing more you could really spend the extra money on. Maybe a nicer monitor........ but for a gaming build if looking to cut price from the i7, you would just get the i5 for the same price as an 8350.
It would be far more accurate to say that the methodology of this SPECIFIC SBM was not deliberately ALTERED to PENALIZE AMD. The site has too much integrity to pull such a stunt.
By switching to i53570K, 2x7870, CM Hyper TX3, ~$100 + $260 + 10 = $370 could have been saved. Also, do you really need the Barracuda? Not for SBM (I doubt it makes a difference to the performance one way or the other with a 240GB SSD primary) so another $80 saved. There's $450 saved for a great all-around performer and probably decent overclocker (not that I would ever dream of overclocking - system fans get too loud) too. For the price of the CM case, you could probably get a Silverstone PS07 and a couple of case fan upgrades and have a rig that also looks more appropriate in the office.
Look at the scaling for BF3 high settings, from 1280 to 1920. Everything looks good up to that point, in single-monitor testing the problem only occurs at 2560x1600 (though it may also affect high Eyefinity resolutions).
That's so good to read two days after I bought an FX-8120 for the price of an i3! (hoping performance is similar to 8320)
Go AMD!
/fanboymodeoff