Game-Off: Seven Sub-$150 Processors Compared
-
Page 1:Who'se Got Game For Under $150?
-
Page 2:Testing Methodology
-
Page 3:Test System And Benchmarks
-
Page 4:Benchmark Results: 3DMark Vantage
-
Page 5:Benchmark Results: Crysis
-
Page 6:Benchmark Results: Aliens Vs. Predator
-
Page 7:Benchmark Results: Far Cry 2
-
Page 8:Benchmark Results: World In Conflict
-
Page 9:Benchmark Results: DiRT 2
-
Page 10:Multitasking Benchmark
-
Page 11:Conclusion: Three Processors Stand Above The Sub-$150 Crowd
Multitasking Benchmark
In our final benchmark, we're going to do things a little differently. We're going to measure Crysis benchmark performance during the creation of a .RAR file and this should show us the game performance we can expect out of these processors for multi-tasking applications.
These results are interesting in that we can see that the Core i3 processors take a much harder performance hit during multitasking usage models compared to true quad-core options. Indeed, even the budget Athlon II X3 445’s performance is close to that of the Core i3 when running concurrent applications. This is likely because Hyper-Threading isn't as effective as an additional physical CPU core when multiple threads are executed. It's an interesting experiment, and in this case, the Phenom II X4 940/945 shows a definite advantage over all of the other sub-$150 CPUs.
- Who'se Got Game For Under $150?
- Testing Methodology
- Test System And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark Vantage
- Benchmark Results: Crysis
- Benchmark Results: Aliens Vs. Predator
- Benchmark Results: Far Cry 2
- Benchmark Results: World In Conflict
- Benchmark Results: DiRT 2
- Multitasking Benchmark
- Conclusion: Three Processors Stand Above The Sub-$150 Crowd
With that said, there was a mention that the 6MB L3 cache may have helped the Phenom II X4 945, I wonder what would happen with a Phenom II X2 or X3 by comparison if this actually makes a significant impact. It could prove there is a significant advantage to cheaper AMD CPUs then the Athlon IIs in this benchmark.
With that said, there was a mention that the 6MB L3 cache may have helped the Phenom II X4 945, I wonder what would happen with a Phenom II X2 or X3 by comparison if this actually makes a significant impact. It could prove there is a significant advantage to cheaper AMD CPUs then the Athlon IIs in this benchmark.
Uptil a certain price range.
Thx, fixed!
sorry but i must disagree...
the core i3 530 was 8% faster than the athlon X4 and costs $5 less
its a great processor it seems, a nice change from intel. but i admit, my heart sunk after seeing amd's athlon X4 get beat. its like sports, i root for AMD
please dont quote the multitasking benchmark as no sane person compresses stuff while gaming...
yes the athlon would probably be better overall for most people, but not for gaming
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103824
That is why I said real world situations.People use their PCs for stuff other than gaming in most of the part they are turned on.The AMD quad cores clearly have the edge with respect to overall performance.
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103680
LoL currently unavailable.......
Interesting that Aliens Vs Predator can be used as a true benchmark between GPUs and in DX11 games since the CPU differences wont really matter. One question, what if these chips were compared to a Phenom X6 or even a core i7 1366 socket chip? If not, then one can truly compare the 5870 vs the gtx480 head to head.
still, AMD's Phenom II X4 beats the cr*p out of the i3 and that for about 20 dollars more, so i do think AMD's quad cores are the best performers here.
Indeed, gaming on lower resolutions tend to depend not only on GPU but also to the CPU. This is where CPU has the most noticeable effects on gaming performance.