2600k 3GPU vs 3930k 2GPU

[AdamK47]

LOL, I had to laugh when I saw this comment!
I am fairly sure its only seeing 2 and a 5th of a card.
Plus, Do you notice an improvement in overclocking the cards?
I overclocked mine to 822 and my score got lower in the next run. But those tests can fluctuate hundreds of points per run.
You should try taking a card out to see if its just not noticing the card.
Plus, my system was 60mhz faster on my results. That and a couple
points here or there per run and they would most likely be pretty even with my CPU being a bit faster when ran.

Yes

 

[abeeftec]

Using 3DMark 06 to show that 3930 with 2 GTX570s is faster than a 2600k system is pointless since 3dMark06 is a very CPU limited, and not just a GPU limited benchmark. Also, 3dMark 06 performance has nothing to do with real world gaming performance.

Secondly, look at your 3dMark 11 scores, the GT1-GT4 gaming benchmarks are all faster on 3x GTX570 GPUs,which indicates that a 2600k system with 3x GTX570s is faster in games than a 3930 with 2x GTX570s (and this is what was supposed to happen anyway). The overall score is meaningless since its adding the CPU scores (Physics), making it useless for measuring overall performance in games.

Try running some games and you'll see the 2600k on Z68 with 3x GTX570s will destroy 3930K with 2x GTX570s in ANY GAME. So if you are only building a system strictly for games, 3x GTX570s on Z68 even with PCIe being limited to 8x/8x/8x is going to stomp all over the X79 platform with 2 of the same GPUs.

It's already been shown 100x that PCIe 2.0 8x is NOT a limitation for graphics performance by more than 2-3%.

So now, your assertion that 3930 with 2 GPUs is better than 2600k with 3 GPUs (of similar performance level) is incorrect.



Since we already know that Z68 board with an NF200 chip does not have a significant PCIe bottleneck for running even 3x GTX580s in SLI, the only way for your argument to be true is if the CPU advantage of the 3930K is MORE than the performance advantage of adding a 3rd GTX570.

Show gaming benchmarks to prove this. 3dMark is a waste of time.

Before I even start this I want to requote one thing you said in your response that is way off base..

You said "the only way for your argument to be true is if the CPU advantage of the 3930K is MORE than the performance advantage of adding a 3rd GTX570"

let me make this very clear, This is Not my ARGUEMENT. I am clearly only putting up observations, opinions and posting benchmarks. I am sorry you think it is an arguement but I did not come here to argue. I came here to Anadtech to get away from arguementative forums.


1. The X79 is a better faster system, there is no question about that. And those who own both systems know this is true.

2.Everyone keeps talking about gaming. I never once mentioned GAMES in my post or anything about them. I mentioned Benchmarks and performance. And in that, The X79 to this point is the higher performer in most applications.

3.Those are not the only benchmarks I am running. I also made it clear in the original post that there will be more to come but I have to wait to get another board for the X79 because mine blew up. Because the thread is about the 2600k versus the 3930k It wouldn't make sense for me to JUST post up the 3930k results I have without posting the 2600k results with them. I also want to run the 3930k tests again on 3Dmark11 since I did not set the cards in the test.

4. If you had read the rest of the posts you would see that these things have been looked at further and reassessed because 3Dmark11 has changed from earlier 3dmark products and now you have to change the settings per how many cards you have. I was not doing that in the first runs because I did not know you had to.

5. Benchmarks do have their place in showing performance as well as Gaming benchmarks and real world tests.

6. Again, if you had read the other posts you would know that we have already discussed 06 marks and how it doesnt really notice the 3rd card a whole lot possibly. I will run some tests to see if that is true as well very soon.

I just made the post a few days ago. I am still waiting for some new hardware to post more results. Once I get it I see now I will have to edit the first post or else these type responses will cause me to have to repost the same answers over and over again to those who own 1155 socket systems.

The results are what they are. I cannot stress anymore then i have that I am not dissing your system. I am only showing the results. This should not offend people as we are talking about computer hardware. Why is it that some people tend to take this as a personal attack and attack back like what I am posting is misleading? You read the results and were able to see some things I think are not hiding but are in plain site for all to see and are well known.

I dont know where people are getting this Idea that the CPU does not have any affect on running games when game makers clearly mark MINUMUM REQUIREMENTS on games and I dont see any new ones listing the P4 as a minumum requirement. Sure CPU does have more impact on a benchmark then a game but they do have an impact on a video game in some ways.

 

[RussianSensation]

1. The X79 is a better faster system, there is no question about that. And those who own both systems know this is true. 2.Everyone keeps talking about gaming. I never once mentioned GAMES in my post or anything about them. I mentioned Benchmarks and performance.

What? You talked about Crysis 2 and Portal 2 and then provided 3dMark benchmarks. Those measure video performance with a combination of CPU's ability to do physics calculations, that's it. They do not measure overall platform speed.

Additionally, in your opening post all you keep talking about is X79 with 2 GPUs being better in games than Z68 with 3 GPUs. It's not about X79 being superior in rendering, video encoding, or code compiling. If you are going to run a variety of benchmarks of 3930 vs. 2600k, then don't title your thread "2600k 3GPU vs 3930k 2GPU" because you are going to get people to ask you to show how this is true.

And in that, The X79 to this point is the higher performer in most applications.

On the contrary. X79 is higher in performance only in applications that benefit from multiple cores. If most of the programs you run use more than 4 cores + HT, then for you this statement is true. However, that's not the same as saying X79 has higher performance in most applications, because that's totally not true.

Also, I agree that the X79 platform is the most optimal for running 3 or more GPUs, no question. However, your statement that X79 platform with 2 GPUs is faster for games than the Z68 platform with 3 GPUs of similar performance is not true.

3.Those are not the only benchmarks I am running.

Ok cool. But that doesn't relate to your original comment regarding 2x GTX570s being faster than 3x GTX570s with 2600k. I was only addressing this part of your comments.

I am not attacking you. I am just asking you to show us how 2x GTX570s + 3930 are faster in games than 3x GTX570s with 2600k, because your post shows the opposite (if we were to use 3dMark 11 as an indication of gaming performance, which in itself is questionable to begin with since 3dMark is not a game).

 

[abeeftec]

What? You talked about Crysis 2 and Portal 2 and then provided 3dMark benchmarks. Those measure video performance with a combination of CPU's ability to do physics calculations, that's it. They do not measure overall platform speed.

In no way did I provide the benchmarks as evidence of it being better in games.


Additionally, in your opening post all you keep talking about is X79 with 2 GPUs being better in games than Z68 with 3 GPUs. It's not about X79 being superior in rendering, video encoding, or code compiling. If you are going to run a variety of benchmarks of 3930 vs. 2600k, then don't title your thread "2600k 3GPU vs 3930k 2GPU" because you are going to get people to ask you to show how this is true.

I ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS IN MY RESPONSE TO YOU BY SAYING YOU DIDNT READ THE THREAD AND IT WAS ALREADY DEALT WITH IN THE THREAD



On the contrary. X79 is higher in performance only in applications that benefit from multiple cores. If most of the programs you run use more than 4 cores + HT, then for you this statement is true. However, that's not the same as saying X79 has higher performance in most applications, because that's totally not true.

NOT TAKING THE BAIT


Also, I agree that the X79 platform is the most optimal for running 3 or more GPUs, no question. However, your statement that X79 platform with 2 GPUs is faster for games than the Z68 platform with 3 GPUs of similar performance is not true.



Ok cool. But that doesn't relate to your original comment regarding 2x GTX570s being faster than 3x GTX570s with 2600k. I was only addressing this part of your comments.

I ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS IN MY FIRST REPLY TO YOU WHENI SAID IN MY FIRST REPLY TO YOU THAT IT HAD ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH IN THE THREAD AND THAT WHICH WAS NOT I WOULD BE POSTING MORE BENCHMARKS SOON. NO NEED TO ADDRESS ANYTHING ANYMORE BECAUSE ITS BEEN DEALT WITH ALREADY AND I WILL BE POSTING MORE BENCHMARKS SOON. NO NEED TO ASK ME TO SHOW YOU BECAUSE I PLAN TO AND I SAID I PLAN TO TOO!! IN MY FIRST RESPONSE TO YOU!


I am not attacking you. I am just asking you to show us( I ALREADY TOLD YOU I WOULD POST MORE BENCHMARKS SO THERE IS NO NEED TO SAY THIS WHICH SHOWS YOU ARE ONLY SAYING IT TO MAKE IT APPEAR THT YOU DID NOT DO WHAT I SAID YOU DID BY ATTACKING ME WHILE YOU ARE NON CHALANTLY ATTACKING ME BY SAYING YOU ARE NOT ATTACKING ME WHILE ASKING ME TO DO SOMETHING THAT I ALREADY TOLD YOU I WAS PLANNING TO DO IN MY FIRST RESPONSE) how 2x GTX570s + 3930 are faster in games than 3x GTX570s with 2600k( I SAID SMOOTHER AND BETTER NOT FASTER), because your post shows the opposite (if we were to use 3dMark 11 as an indication of gaming performance, which in itself is questionable to begin with since 3dMark is not a game).

My responses to your post are above in BOLD TYPE

First off,I REALLY HOPE you see the redundancy of what your post and response is causing in my head when I already told you that It was dealt with in the thread in my first response to your first post and I was going to post more benchmarks. Now let me show you how crazy your post made me....

Listen..
I made a very very very long post and I deleted it because It looks crazy. But I wrote it for a point. If you answer this post and dont get the small form message of what I am saying to you I will post the crazy one so you get it.
seems some people need redundancy to get points in forums.

I told you that half of what you are trying to address was already dealt with.
And the other part where you tell me ALL YOU ARE ASKING IS THAT I SHOW YOU, well, I already told YOU I plan to with more benchmarks. There was NO NEED for your post tearing my words up and making yet another post asking me to do the same thing I already told you I planned to do.

That is just a small portion of how crazy the post was that I planned to respond with. Its sitting on my desktop. I will PM it to you so you can see it if you like.

It does not belong in the forum because its too long just like this post is becoming.

The other things you try to address are just thought mixing. Saying I said things but mixing one of two thoughts together to make it sound like I said something I really did not say. Also, I am entitled to my opinion am I not?

Everyone has been very pleasant in here responding so far and the types of responses you are giving are what turns into a huge arguement and then the person who wrote the offending post usually says I started it.

It seems like you want me to conceed something or else you will not stop tearing down my first post that I already told you to go back and read the thread before you post because the things you TOLD ME I AM WRONG ABOUT were already dealt with. So why STILL try to tell me I am wrong without going back and reading to see? And why tell me you are JUST asking me to SHOW YOU when I already told you I plan to post more benchmarks? I really hope you see my point and just DONT post about the first post again. This is why I said you were attacking. And then you say you are not WHILE IGNORING WHAT I WROTE. This is clearly how arguements get started in forums. And do you even OWN an X79 system?

 

[abeeftec]

After reading the first post by RussianSensation again I though I would read the review he quoted in his first post...

The articles he quoted to say my experience is wrong and I am wrong were using NON SLI systems and were also not using out of the box systems, meaning, they were not just plugging components in, loading drivers and then running benchmarks. Clearly in the reviews they were giving advantage from different settings to different machines. They were doing things to the systems in the reviews that not too many people will even be familiar with let alone set their system up like the system in the review quoted.

And here is a quote from the article he was quoting in Xbit lab which nullifies all of the reasons stated by RussianSensation that my experience is not relatives
Now remember, RussianSensation stated "there is NO EVIDENCE to support that X79 produces a better gaming experience then the Z68 platform" He just forgot to add what the Author of the review did not forget to clarify in his review...

Quote"
The obtained results allow us to conclude that less expensive and less complex LGA 1155 platform will still be a better fit for gaming systems, because this implementation of Core i7 is just as well-suited for gaming load. Although there is one exception. LGA 2011 platform will be a better choice if your graphics sub-system will consist of two(SLI) or more graphics accelerators"
End quote

Now I dont know about you,but i never run a system with ONE video card when gaming because I love SLI and Crossfire scaling. The author agrees with me that the 2011 is a better choice for gaming in the context of SLI which is what I have been running.


Since I am testing with 2 and 3 cards and I am only running BOTH systems in SLI, I would say that this statement(Probably missed by most who own the 1155 platform)agrees with my experience and my findings that when running the 3930k with 2 cards I had a better gaming experience then the 3 cards with the 2600k. The author of the review also states that the Graphics SUB SYSTEM has a lot to do with system performance and ALSO states CPU does.

This notion that a quad core is just as good as a 6 core and the 6 core is not necessary for a gaming system is actually a bit misleading as well. That is unless I am wrong in my thinking on this...
The statement is usually accompanied by the addtional statement that a game only uses 2 or 3 cores at most anyway.
I would like to submit to you that systems have the Operating system to process, Services, internet, your music you play while gaming and usually some form of team speaking program.
Now I am asking for you to correct me if I am wrong here,
But if the GAME uses 2 or 3 cores and the most, and all these other things are running on the system, Would it not be safe to say NOW that the 6 core is a better CPU for the average gamer? (remember to consider that when a reviewer makes this statement after running tests he normally has just run the game only when he got his results and no other background programs were included in the testing at all)

 

[mrjoltcola]

@OP - RussianSensation was not attacking you, but you seem to be busy attacking him and defending yourself when you could just update your original post with an apples-to-apples comparison (both systems with the same number of GPUs) and/or actual framerates to support your claims, and we'd all have a basis for discussion. Meanwhile, you are well on your way to alienating yourself on this forum, because you are attacking a really good guy, and attempting to defend an apples-to-oranges comparison.

The only actual data I see in this thread is a 2600K Z68 system showing higher graphics scores than the X79, due to it having an extra GPU.

Since you said you saw higher framerates with the 3930K in the games you listed, why don't you post the framerates? Otherwise, this is just subjective heresay.

 

[AdamK47]

Abeeftec, if you're that concerened why don't you clock each CPU to the same, memory the same, and GPUs the same. Run game benchmarks in the same exact manner on each system and post the results. You can do it in a similar manner I did for my Benchmarkapalooza.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2177408

Don't flub the results. Nobody likes a benchmark result flubber.

 

[abeeftec]

@OP - RussianSensation was not attacking you, but you seem to be busy attacking him and defending yourself when you could just update your original post with an apples-to-apples comparison (both systems with the same number of GPUs) and/or actual framerates to support your claims, and we'd all have a basis for discussion. Meanwhile, you are well on your way to alienating yourself on this forum, because you are attacking a really good guy, and attempting to defend an apples-to-oranges comparison.

The only actual data I see in this thread is a 2600K Z68 system showing higher graphics scores than the X79, due to it having an extra GPU.

Since you said you saw higher framerates with the 3930K in the games you listed, why don't you post the framerates? Otherwise, this is just subjective heresay.

I cannot understand why you are commenting on the issue instead of on the topic? And if he was not attacking he was being reduntant when I said those things were dealt with already and he did not read the rest of the thread. I agreed with those who made statements yet he had to post again to try and prove me wrong about things. IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE to me to post about that AGAIN when I said it was dealt with. And I Also said that I PLANNED TO POST MORE APPLES TO APPLES BENCHMARKS but that my system was DOWN and I was waiting to get another motherboard.

I also said that I SAW better frame rates in games. I did NOT RECORD THEM. So again, That will have to wait. I cant believe that I have to say, THAT WILL HAVE TO WAIT, yet people keep saying SHOW IT as if I did not say that will have to WAIT. I can see once saying it because they would have to read the whole thread, Which is why my first response to him was just telling him that. BUT THEN AGAIN to try and justify correction that is UNDUE and also misunderstood?

If I am alienating myself from this forum over an issue that I ALREADY SAID was dealt with while someone keeps telling me to SHOW ME when I said I Planned to. And then they post AGAIN ignoring that I said that and says to SHOW ME yet AGAIN then I guess that is how it goes. For you to say hes a nice guy and therefore is not attacking me, well, your not the one being called WRONG so I suppose to you it doesnt feel very attacking. But to me IT DOES feel that way since I have to repeat myself to someone who I just got done saying something to. The worst part is, You did not read what I wrote in the last post showing clearly that the article he quoted in his post EVEN AGREED WITH ME that its a better gaming system in regards to MY experience.

I am Blown away that the side choosing has already begun and the very blame I said I was going to get has ALREADY happened. This is where i feel like people are teaming up because they know each other instead of taking it for what it is. THIS is what drives me insane about forums. I am NOT attacking him. I AM DEFENDING ME!

 

[abeeftec]

Abeeftec, if you're that concerened why don't you clock each CPU to the same, memory the same, and GPUs the same. Run game benchmarks in the same exact manner on each system and post the results. You can do it in a similar manner I did for my Benchmarkapalooza.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2177408

Don't flub the results. Nobody likes a benchmark result flubber.

How did I FLUB this results? I even admitted that the 3Dmark 11 results were messed up because I did not realize Futuremarks changed the way you run the program after years of running their other benchmark software.

Heck, In most articles the reviewers tell you they changed settings on the benchmarks and they tell you what and why they did it and no one accuses them of FLUBBING the benchmarks and even QUOTES THEM. Yet I do one thing I did not realize and here i am again being called on it after it was already dealt with. Im amazed

 

[mrjoltcola]

Well pardon me that I loose track of what you said, maybe trim the posts down a bit and it would be easier. When you post real data, I'll be interested. Thanks.

 

[AdamK47]

How did I FLUB this results? I even admitted that the 3Dmark 11 results were messed up because I did not realize Futuremarks changed the way you run the program after years of running their other benchmark software.

Heck, In most articles the reviewers tell you they changed settings on the benchmarks and they tell you what and why they did it and no one accuses them of FLUBBING the benchmarks and even QUOTES THEM. Yet I do one thing I did not realize and here i am again being called on it after it was already dealt with. Im amazed

Simmer down now. I used it in future tense.

 

[RussianSensation]

OP, all we ask is for you to provide a little bit information to support some of your statements. We aren't attacking you or your system. I strongly believe that X79 platform is superior for people running 3 GPUs or 2 GPUs and SSD PCIe cards, etc. And I would never dispute that it's the premium platform for enthusiast gamers. However, that's not what I am asking you to explain further.

Quote 1: "One thing I have found to be true, The X79 has more bandwidth and can handle 2 GPUs better then the Z68 can handle 3 "Since I am testing with 2 and 3 cards and I am only running BOTH systems in SLI, I would say that this statement(Probably missed by most who own the 1155 platform)agrees with my experience and my findings that when running the 3930k with 2 cards I had a better gaming experience then the 3 cards with the 2600k."."

How is this true?

Quote 2: "My Z68X-UD7 has 2x16 lanes(one of the ONLY Z68 boards with 32 lanes) and with 3 GPUs is running in X16 X8 X8 whereas my X79 with 2 GPUs is running in X16 X16. I do think that there is no way to get around the fact that the 3930k with 2 GPUs is a better gaming machine then a Z68 with 3 GPUs.

How is this true?

Quote 3: "It runs smoother and it is wide open. And there is a noticeable difference between the two when running games. This is my opinion having used both playing games such as,Tribes Vengeance, Tribes Ascend, Crysis 2 And Portal 2. Those are the 4 games I have played on Both systems and though the 2600k is absolutely smooth as can be with never even a hint of stutter in all 4 games with 3 cards, The 3930k seems a bit more fluidly smooth and does get More FPS at the same clock speeds with 2 cards then the 2600k does with 3."

Where is the proof that 3930 with 2 GPUs is faster in games than Z68 with 3 GPUs of the same speed? If you provide benchmarks for any games, or just those 4 games you played, we won't be asking questions.

Otherwise, are we supposed to take this without evidence/benchmarks?

I just don't think you should have stated this in the first place and expected for people to just buy into this. This claim is completely unsubstantiated. So to begin with you set yourself up for significant scrutiny by starting off your original post with claims that X79 platform was actually faster for games with only 2 GPUs vs. 3 on a lower-end SB platform.

 

[mrjoltcola]

@RussianSensation, you have misread my post. I was addressing the OP.

 

[AdamK47]

... in conclusion.

SB-E >>>> SB

/thread

 

[mrjoltcola]

Are we supposed to take this without evidence/benchmarks? So 3930 with 2x GTX570s is faster in games than 2600k with 3x GTX570s?

The OP should have never stated this in the first place and expect people to just buy into this. This claim is completely unsubstantiated. So to begin with he set himself up for significant scrutiny by starting off his original post with claims that X79 platform was actually faster for games with only 2 GPUs vs. 3 on a lower-end SB platform. But if you are fine with those claims, I'll move on then.

Correct, that is the point of a forum. When posting data to a forum, expect to have it critiqued and discussed and debunked. If people cannot handle that in a mature manner, and accept constructive criticism, then a forum isn't the place to go.

 

[RussianSensation]

@RussianSensation, you have misread my post. I was addressing the OP.

Ya, I did! I was editing my post when electricity went out in my area, but now that version is posted as #37. Sorry for not reading your response more carefully.

SB-E > SB. / end thread.

 

[abeeftec]

Where is the proof that 3930 with 2 GPUs is faster in games than Z68 with 3 GPUs of the same speed? If you provide benchmarks for any games, or just those 4 games you played, we won't be asking questions.

Otherwise, are we supposed to take this without evidence/benchmarks?

I just don't think you should have stated this in the first place and expected for people to just buy into this. This claim is completely unsubstantiated. So to begin with you set yourself up for significant scrutiny by starting off your original post with claims that X79 platform was actually faster for games with only 2 GPUs vs. 3 on a lower-end SB platform.

First you are mis quoting me yet again without showing where I said it. I never ONCE used the word faster. And then saying I said things I did not say at all.
I said it was SMOOTHER and BETTER. And then I went on to say WHY I felt it was better by saying it was more FLUID and had LESS STUTTER then the 2600k system did. Everything is not about FPS. In fact, no one notices anymore FPS then 60 in games People speak their observations in Reviews all the time and no one says PROVE IT TO ME.

2 times in this post you said I said FASTER and I did not

Second, Again you are saying I need to post Benchmarks of those games. And again if you had read my responses to your posts you would have read that I SAID I WOULD. GEEZ MAN, I am saying the same thing for the 3rd time now. I feel like I have to keep correcting you because you keep saying I said the same thing when I DID NOT SAY FASTER and I DID say I would post Benchmarks as the thread went on because my system was down.

Also, I would hope you read my post with the blue and red quotes because it does show you clearly that the article you quoted did have a variable. And that variable totally related to my experience. The author clearly said that the X79 is the better system for more then two cards. And that they were reviewing with one card.


@ mrjoltcola It is impossible to shorten an answer to a post that is LONG.

I have posted REAL DATA. And I plan to post more. Stay tuned. But its not easy to get another board when most of the boards will not work on a cooler express because of BIOS issues.
Only two board makers will right now. ASUS and GIGABYTE. The others have saftey issues that are causing the CPUs to display TJMAX if any misreading in temp occurs which is causing them not to be able to be ran on LN2 or Cooler Express unless you know the board maker and get a special opened Bios.

 

[abeeftec]

I feel I need to repeat myself here regarding everyone who as told me I need to clarify things.

My first post CLEARLY clarified when I was giving OPINION. I think opinion is something that does not need to be proved.
On the other issues, am I not posting benchmarks? But with regard to the 3dmark11 benchmarks I DID admit they were off. And those posts were not long winded.

I just hope this is over wth now and everyone can wait for more benchmarks.

Also, I CHANGED THE ORIGINAL POST AND PUT A BOLD TYPED RED COLORED DISCLAIMER UNDER THE 3DMARKS SCREEN SHOTS SO THERE SHOULD BE NO MORE MISUNDERSTANDINGS.

 

[Vesku]

I think the clarification in the first post is great. Also, now that I have read how you are talking less about framerates and more about perceived fluidness: Fraps has screen delay info now, Techreport.com has been using it for their Skyrim performance posts. And I believe there are tools to measure PCIe performance although I do not know the software names nor if they are freely available.

 

[Zap]

In every forum dont say something against the mainstream because that will get you hunted by people!

I know what you mean. At another forum (not [ ] ) I had a couple run-ins. One was with the Corsair CX430 PSU. Soon as it appeared on the market everyone started disparaging it. I thought that there was nothing inherently wrong with it. Got so heated that threads were locked. Eventually people "saw the light" and grudgingly accepted it after two well-respected PSU review sites gave the unit positive reviews. In fact, I personally purchased one of them and gave it to one of those sites for review. <-- That's conviction.

Another one was when the V2 GTX 295 came out. Everyone was hating on the cooler. I said (and linked to multiple reviews which agreed with me) that taken alone the new cooler (single axial fan in middle vs blower with rear exhaust) provided lower temperatures in addition to lower noise levels. OMG was I yelled at, even though all the verifiable facts were in my court.

I dont know where people are getting this Idea that the CPU does not have any affect on running games when game makers clearly mark MINUMUM REQUIREMENTS on games and I dont see any new ones listing the P4 as a minumum requirement. Sure CPU does have more impact on a benchmark then a game but they do have an impact on a video game in some ways.

Well, there comes a point of "enough." Even Plants vs Zombies probably has minimum requirements, but nobody would argue that their super overclocked quad GPU socket 2011 setup plays it any better than a Celeron with integrated graphics.

I also said that I SAW better frame rates in games.

How do you know it was frame rates? Maybe you were seeing micro stuttering in the 3x GPU setup, causing you to think it was lower framerates?

I am Blown away that the side choosing has already begun and the very blame I said I was going to get has ALREADY happened. This is where i feel like people are teaming up because they know each other instead of taking it for what it is. THIS is what drives me insane about forums. I am NOT attacking him. I AM DEFENDING ME!

You are getting carried away. You are defending your assertions, not your SELF. There is a distinction.

 

[Pacman4]

I remember reading a 3D Guru article or someone who tested a dual core vs a quad core with XF/TriF and the quad decimated the dual.....so it might be the case that the hex is pumping up lower frames and maxing the scaling of 2 cards thus leading to a subjective assessment of smoother gameplay.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I do understand what you meant I think. And I do believe the bus is the same size either way. I just dont believe there is a limitation that would make a system with 3 cards be at a disadvantage to one with only 2 cards. That would sort of make having the 3rd card pointless and a waste of money.

I do believe that you can only cram so much info down the pipeline but It definately ran better with 3 cards then 2. It scored a higher score with 3 then 2 is what I mean.

My point in the whole thing though(and this may be what you mean) is that the z68 board does not handle the 3 cards the greatest and I do not think it was meant to handle 3 cards like a true express board. I most certainly dont know everything about it. Those are just my thoughts after having ran the board for a year.
It seems they could have given us more lanes on the z68 and they certainly could have at least put an NF200 chip on the upper end X79 boards to get us 4 x16 lanes which Gigabyte has done on their upper end boards until x79.
Just seems to me that they are doing a lot of skimping on the x79 even though it is great to finally have a true express chipset again!
Think of the limitations on the x79 in regards to what upper end X58 boards had. Sort of seems like they are moving backwards to me in features. But who knows!
Maybe Intel had a plan to sell people this series in two different chunks. When I first looked at the features of the X79 it looked like it was going to be a total upgrade of everything across the board. And then all of a sudden some issue came up and everything got stripped to being hardly anymore then the Z68 chipset with the exception of the 40 lanes and quad memory channel. Maybe they are planning to give all that other stuff they cut on the revision. I hear that PCIe 3.0 isnt even in the current 3000 series CPUs.




That was brand new from Newegg! I was able to finagle the price using a few codes and it was on sale with a rebate and I had a 30$ Gift certificate. Before i knew it I had it for 80.00! Of course the way my luck had it I had to wait an additional week to use it in raid0 because my first drive broke the day before this one came in and I had to RMA it. Luckily OCZ had it back to me within a week!

Man I cant stand forums for the most part. It seems everyone is trying to be cool at others expense all the time. In every forum dont say something against the mainstream because that will get you hunted by people!

EDIT: took out a part about another post in another forum. Not necessary.

Sorry for long posts. Thats another thing, Everyone acts like if your post is long then your a troll! Seems lazy to complain about something like a long post that actually explains so no one has to guess what you mean.

First things first . Welcome to the best hardware community on the net.
Second . Zap pretty much nailed it down .

 

[Rifter]

Zap nailed it. As for the OP im not even going to bother to comment untill you post some real world benchmarks to back up your statements.

 

[Grooveriding]

OP do some benches with the 2600K vs the 3930K at identical clocks with both of them using 3 570s.

Those would be some awesome and interesting benches. I think we all know the 3930K system is going to be faster, my guesstimate is 5-10%, but it would be really cool to actually get a look at it.

Don't need to sink too much time into it, use a few games with canned benches; Crysis/Warhead, F1 2010, Metro 2033, Just Cause 2. Just crank the settings as high as they can go in the games.

 

[Denithor]

OP do some benches with the 2600K vs the 3930K at identical clocks with both of them using 3 570s.

Those would be some awesome and interesting benches. I think we all know the 3930K system is going to be faster, my guesstimate is 5-10%, but it would be really cool to actually get a look at it.

Yep, that would be interesting - compare both systems with 3 GPUs (CPUs and GPUs all clocked the same). I originally thought you'd be choked with 3 570s on a Z68 board, hadn't heard of the models that support 2 x16 slots or x16/x8/x8, most are either x16 (single) or x8/x8 and a few offer x8/x8/x4 but those x4 slots truly do hold back modern GPUs.

The reason everyone is asking for actual game benchmarks is that 3dMark xxxx doesn't really match up well with gaming performance. These benchmarks tend to weight the CPU performance more than you see in actual games.