


We used the fastest single-GPU graphics card available in order to expose any platform-oriented bottlenecks in Metro 2033. With that said, it’s hard to imagine anyone buying a GeForce GTX 580 and gaming at 1680x1050. If they did, they’d see performance start to drop off in a noticeable way starting with AMD’s Phenom II X4 970, continuing on through Intel’s dual-core offerings, and ending with an older Core 2 Quad Q9550.
The moral of the story here seems to be that, as you step up to higher-end graphics, a dual-core processor simply isn’t fast enough.
Also interesting is that the six-core Phenom II X6 1100T, though not the fastest offering, opens up enough headroom to enable the highest minimum frame rate in our Metro 2033 benchmark. That advantage shrinks as you crank resolution up, though, shifting more demand onto the GPU. By the time you hit 2560x1600, eight of 10 platforms fall within one frame per second of each other.
- Core i7-2600K, Core i5-2500K, Core i5-2400, And Core i3-2100 Reviewed
- Inside Of Sandy Bridge: Cores And Cache
- The System Agent And Turbo Boost 2.0
- Sandy Bridge’s Secret Weapon: Quick Sync
- Quick Sync Vs. APP Vs. CUDA
- Blu-ray Playback And Video Performance
- HD Graphics On The Desktop: Intel Trips Up
- Two New Platforms, More On The Way
- Overclocking: Sandy Bridge Changes The Game
- Meet Intel’s Second-Gen Core CPUs
- Hardware Setup
- Benchmark Results: PCMark Vantage
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark11
- Benchmark Results: SiSoftware Sandra 2011
- Benchmark Results: Content Creation
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Benchmark Results: Media Encoding
- Benchmark Results: Metro 2033 (DX11)
- Benchmark Results: F1 2010 (DX11)
- Benchmark Results: Aliens Vs. Predator (DX11)
- Benchmark Results: Power Consumption
- Conclusion
Just this.
i think the author's saying he's a sexually active cyberphile
Fixed, thanks Money!
i think the author's saying he's a sexually active cyberphile
Just this.
Everytime there's a new contest, I see this line. =(
I don't know how AMD's going to fare but i hope their new architecture will at least compete with these CPU's, because for a few years now AMD has been at least a generation worth of speed behind Intel.
Also Intel's IGP's are finally gaining some ground in the games department.
I really wish this weren't the case fakie--and I'm very sorry it is. We're unfortunately subject to the will of the finance folks and the government, who make it hard to give things away without significant tax ramifications. I know that's of little consolation, but that's the reason
Best,
Chris
I believe that says it all. Sorry, Intel, your new architecture may be excellent, but unless the i3-2100 series outperforms anything AMD can offer at the same price range WHILE OVERCLOCKED, you will see none of my desktop dollars.
That is all.
As for overclocking, well it seems a bit odd in the way it is being implemented. But for $216, I can't complain too much about a quad-core with a base clock of 3.3 GHz. Some enthusiasts won't like the limited overclocking features, but others will welcome the simplified approach.
I will be building my brother a new gaming computer for graduation this summer and now I have another viable option to look at. I had planned on going with a P55 + i5 760, but now I will need to consider the P67 + i5 2500K.
Waiting on bulldozer...
Other than that its a great article, and I'm drooling over QuickSync!
QuickSync definitely looks interesting.
This is all very nice, but I'll keep my bclk control for now and maybe move up when I get out of college in seven months and the tech is set in stone and dropping in price a little.
Not a bad chip, and I'm excited to see where they go with it. =]
These things are as fast as the i7 980X and in some cases they're even faster!