100 CPUs tested

[thilanliyan]

http://www.matbe.com/articles/...if-de-100-processeurs/

In French but you can read the graphs.

 

[OCGuy]

I cant wait until there are comprehensive charts like that which include i7 + Deneb.

 

[thegimp03]

Wow, extensive.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I cant wait until there are comprehensive charts like that which include i7 + Deneb.

+1

Great find, thilan29!


That crysis chart is pretty sweet.

 

[Cogman]

This makes me happy about my quad purchase. Its Q6600 is one of the best bang - for - buck cpus available

 

[thilanliyan]

Damn my 9850 has a case of e-peen envy.

Oh well, at least I don't play games at 800x600.

 

[myocardia]

Magnifique!

Originally posted by: thilan29
Damn my 9850 has a case of e-peen envy.

Oh well, at least I don't play games at 800x600.

At 1920x1200, your 3Ghz Phenom is having to wait for your 8800GT, in nearly all games.

 

[dguy6789]

Nice benchies.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Magnifique!

Originally posted by: thilan29
Damn my 9850 has a case of e-peen envy.

Oh well, at least I don't play games at 800x600.

At 1920x1200, your 3Ghz Phenom is having to wait for your 8800GT, in nearly all games.

Well...the 8800GT at 700/925 is actually doing much better than I thought it would at 1920x1200. I'm playing Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway (great game by the way...more fun than Farcry 2 for me) right now with almost everything maxed and it does really well. Farcry 2 is also pretty good at that res...I just have to tweak a couple of settings to do it though. No doubt Crysis would kill it but I don't play that anyway.

I wonder how Fallout 3 will run?

EDIT: Stalker: Clear Sky also kills my 8800GT

 

[myocardia]

Well, my point wasn't that an 8800GT is a bad or slow card, only that at that res., your 3Ghz Phenom is actually a bit faster than an 8800GT. If you upgraded to a GTX280, or 4870X2 (or were just running lower res), it would be the opposite, with the video card spending most of it's time waiting on the CPU, as we saw in the link.

edit: BTW, my 8800GT SC kicks ass @ my monitors' native res, 1280x1024, even in Crysis.

 

[tim924]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Well, my point wasn't that an 8800GT is a bad or slow card, only that at that res., your 3Ghz Phenom is actually a bit faster than an 8800GT. If you upgraded to a GTX280, or 4870X2 (or were just running lower res), it would be the opposite, with the video card spending most of it's time waiting on the CPU, as we saw in the link.

edit: BTW, my 8800GT SC kicks ass @ my monitors' native res, 1280x1024, even in Crysis.

Yea,Phenom and 8800GT together make a great couple,they belong to the same class in their specific catagory:laugh:

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Well, my point wasn't that an 8800GT is a bad or slow card, only that at that res., your 3Ghz Phenom is actually a bit faster than an 8800GT. If you upgraded to a GTX280, or 4870X2 (or were just running lower res), it would be the opposite, with the video card spending most of it's time waiting on the CPU, as we saw in the link.

edit: BTW, my 8800GT SC kicks ass @ my monitors' native res, 1280x1024, even in Crysis.

Oh okay...I thought you were making fun of my GT...for which I would take offense! I'm actually itching to upgrade but will probably wait till boxing day or something.

Originally posted by: tim924
Yea,Phenom and 8800GT together make a great couple,they belong to the same class in their specific catagory:laugh:

I DO take offense to that...lol, who am I kidding...I'll be the 1st to admit Phenom isn't much of a phenom but hey...the only really CPU centric thing I do is a bit of encoding which I do overnight anyway so I never notice how long it takes.

 

[nerp]

Makes me feel good about my E8400 @ 3.6.

 

[nyker96]

Q6600 still holds its own in the bunch.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Hmm ... My 939 x2 4200+ seems to be towards the bottom of the chart .... not too bad for a 2+ year old rig though ....

 

[lifeobry]

i knew i should have gone with the e7200... looks like the e5200 is behind ~15 fps at equal clocks

 

[GrJohnso]

Nice list... That's definitely one of the most thorough comparisons... Nice to see how the Quads compare to the Duals when the software is there to take advantage of them. Still, makes me feel good about my decision to go with a fast dual for now...

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: thilan29
http://www.matbe.com/articles/...if-de-100-processeurs/

In French but you can read the graphs.

babelfish translated

google translated

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: lifeobry
i knew i should have gone with the e7200... looks like the e5200 is behind ~15 fps at equal clocks

Yeah but do you play at very low resolutions? If you don't then it's not a big issue.

 

[judasmachine]

great find!


/looks at my e6300 in a different light now

 

[nyker96]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: lifeobry
i knew i should have gone with the e7200... looks like the e5200 is behind ~15 fps at equal clocks

Yeah but do you play at very low resolutions? If you don't then it's not a big issue.

what sets e7200 apart from e5xxx isn't the added 1mb cache but rather sse4.1. making encoding job that much faster. If you into that type of things ;]

 

[FalseChristian]

I'm surprised how the Core2Duo and Core2Quads blow away AMD's CPUs. I knew intel was faster but by this much? Just imagine the performance of our near 4GHz+ Duos and Quads. They should last us 5 more years at least.:shocked:

 

[ghost recon88]

Originally posted by: FalseChristian
I'm surprised how the Core2Duo and Core2Quads blow away AMD's CPUs. I knew intel was faster but by this much? Just imagine the performance of our near 4GHz+ Duos and Quads. They should last us 5 more years at least.:shocked:

If you're comparing them against AMDs then yes they should last 5 years, however when you're comparing them against other Intel products, then no

 

[n7]

Great find!

 

[ericlp]

Funny how the E8400 holds the top 4-6 bracket in most tests...