Benchmark Results: Skyrim
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is one of the most processor-bound gaming tests we have. So, although it might be tempting to credit AMD's graphics cards for the strong performances from our $500 and $2,000 machines, based on what we've seen in the past, it's more probably that the $1,000 build is lagging as a result of its FX-8350 CPU.
The silver lining is that the frame rates we record using the High detail preset are so high that all three machines are plenty playable. Let's crank up the settings to test for a more discernible difference.
Even with the Ultra preset and FXAA applied, all three machines continue cranking out frame rates in excess of 60. It's probable that the $500 box would have dipped under at 2560x1600, but who buys a $1,000+ monitor and a $500 PC, anyway?
So, even though it's a little embarrassing that the $1,000 box is barely able to outpace Paul's Radeon HD 7850-equipped value gamer, at the end of the day we're happy to report that all three configurations make it through Skyrim's most demanding settings unscathed.
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.