{"id":4090,"date":"2009-03-20T08:01:53","date_gmt":"2009-03-20T08:01:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/alienbabeltech.com\/main\/?p=4090"},"modified":"2009-03-20T18:14:15","modified_gmt":"2009-03-20T18:14:15","slug":"%e2%80%9cquad-core-vs-dual-core%e2%80%9d-cpu-scaling-with-crossfire-q9550s-vs-e8600-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/alienbabeltech.com\/main\/%e2%80%9cquad-core-vs-dual-core%e2%80%9d-cpu-scaling-with-crossfire-q9550s-vs-e8600-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Quad Core vs Dual Core: Q9550S vs. E8600, Part III – CPU Scaling with CrossFire"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n <\/span>Welcome to Part\u00a03 in\u00a0ABT’s quad-core vs. dual-core series, with\u00a0our emphasis continuing on CPU scaling\u00a0and gaming performance. \u00a0Here we\u00a0continue the battle of Intel’s popular CPUs – overclocked Core 2 Duo vs. Core 2 Quad – E8600 vs. Q9550S. We decided to break our rather extensive review of Q9550S into several standalone but related sections and this is the\u00a0third and final\u00a0part. Up-until-recently, we have always depended on our Core 2 Duo E8600 to set the benchmarks for our video cards. <\/span><\/p>\n

A few weeks ago, Intel provided AlienBabelTech with an engineering sample of Q9550S which is their new 65 watt TDP low-power Core 2 Quad stock-clocked at 2.83 Ghz. We put our then brand-new Q9550S into continuous and extensive testing to finally try to answer the question: “Is a quad core CPU necessary to get the best out of today’s modern PC games, even paired with a powerful video card?”<\/em> Until recently the answer was in doubt as the Core 2 Duo processors are clocked a bit higher than their Core 2 Quad counterparts and often they would get a much higher overclock than the warmer-running quad core CPUs. <\/span><\/p>\n

\"closeup_q9550s\"<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Part One of \u201cQuad Core vs Dual Core\u201d Shootout: Overclocking Intel\u2019s Q9550s with Cooler Master Hyper N520<\/span><\/a><\/em>, <\/em>was a short introductory overclocking article.\u00a0 We wanted to know what effect overclocking the CPU has on graphics performance and ultimately how it affects the frame rates of the newer games we play as we set up for Part 2 benchmarking. Of course, we are\u00a0consistently testing at two of the most popular demanding wide-screen resolutions, 1680×1050 and 1920×1200, 4xAA plus 16xAF and with maximum DX10 details whenever it is available. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

In Quad Core vs Dual Core\u201d Shootout: Intel\u2019s Q9550s vs. E8600, Part Two<\/a><\/em>, we actually compared game benchmarks with the Q9550S and our E8600 both overclocked to 3.99 Ghz.\u00a0We then maxed our Core 2 Duo out at 4.25 Ghz on our then ASUS P5E deluxe motherboard that later suffered a massive failure as detailed\u00a0here<\/a>.\u00a0 We also tested at\u00a0several clocks for Q9550S to try to find the “sweet spot” for a CPU overclock for playing PC games with HD4870 and GTX280 video cards.\u00a0\u00a0We found the results rather inconclusive, with an edge going to Q9550S over E8600.\u00a0We now move on to testing with multi-GPU in this Part 3 with a much expanded 15-benchmark testing suite, and will now also compare both CPUs at 4.0 Ghz.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

We were totally impressed with Intel’s new Q9550S\u00a0as it does everything our E8600 does, and then some!\u00a0 It runs 30 watts lower TDP than the “non-S” Q9550 and our only potential\u00a0issue was its $100 price premium over regular Q9550 CPUs.\u00a0\u00a0However, it\u00a0will find an immediate\u00a0place with OEM builders that specialize in rack-mounted servers as these cooler running Q9550 “S” CPUs are absolutely perfect for these builders. We gave our Q9550S “4-1\/2 Stars” and an Editor’s Choice<\/em> Award and we stick\u00a0by it. Our weeks spent with Q9550S has replaced E8600 as our CPU of choice. We now want to show you how quad core gaming compares with dual core gaming with\u00a0multi-GPU, 4870-X2 and CrossFireX-3. <\/span><\/p>\n

\"1cfx_3\"<\/a>

4870+4870-X2 = CrossFireX-3<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

For the graphics, we will be using two multi-GPU configurations\u00a0this time; last time it was not\u00a0so clear with single-GPU\u00a0powerful cards, HD4870 and GTX280.\u00a0We are now benchmarking with \u00a0HD4870-X2\u00a0and CrossFireX-3 which pairs the 4870-X2 with a 4870 to link\u00a0all\u00a0three 4870 graphics cores together.\u00a0\u00a0Here we will\u00a0show the effects of\u00a0increasing core speeds of both our\u00a0Q9550S and E8600 with today’s most demanding games. For this Part 3,\u00a0 we will use our full benchmark suite: \u00a0Call of Juarez, Crysis, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. – Clear Sky, PT Boats: Knights of the Sea demo, FarCry2, World-in-Conflict,\u00a0 X3 Terran Conflict, Enemy Territories: Quake Wars, F.E.A.R.,\u00a0Lost Planet: Extreme Condition, HalfLife 2 Lost Coast Demo,\u00a0 Unreal Tournament 3 and Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare <\/em>– plus 2 synthetic Futuremark tests, 3DMark06 and Vantage.\u00a0 So, let’s head for the testing bench and check out full disclosure.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Next<\/a>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Test Configuration<\/strong><\/span>
\n <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Test Configuration – Hardware<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/span>*Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550S (engineering sample reference 2.83 GHz; overclocked to 3.40 Ghz,\u00a0 and\u00a04.0 Ghz – i.e. 471 FSB: Pl<\/em><\/span>ease note:\u00a0only for Clear Sky, FarCry2 and TC:X3, we used 469 FSB with CrossFireX-3 because of thermal\/stability issues.<\/em><\/span>
\n *<\/span>Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 (reference 3.33 GHz; overclocked to\u00a04.0 Ghz and 4.25 Ghz ).
\n * ASUS Rampage Formula (Intel X48 chipset, latest BIOS. PCIe 2.0 specification; CrossFire 16x+16x).
\n * 4 GB DDR2-PC8500 RAM (2×2 GB, dual-channel at PC6400 speeds or as close as possible using CPU:RAM dividers).
\n * ATi Radeon 4870-X2 (2GB, reference clocks) byVisionTek
\n * ATi Radeon 4870 (1GB, reference clocks) by ASUS
\n * Onboard SupremeFX-II (ASUS P5e Deluxe motherboard daughter-card)
\n * 250 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 hard drive<\/span><\/p>\n

Test Configuration \u2013 Software<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

* ATi Catalyst 9-2, highest quality mip-mapping set in the driver; Catalyst AI set to \u201cStandard\u201d
\n * Windows Vista 32-bit SP1; very latest updates
\n * DirectX November 2008.
\n * All games patched to their latest versions.<\/span><\/p>\n

Test Configuration \u2013 Settings<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

* vsync is off in the\u00a0control panel\u00a0to \u201capplication decide\u201d and is never set in-game.
\n * 4xAA enabled in all games and “forced” in Catalyst Control Center for Crysis <\/em>and UT3<\/em>; all in-game settings at “maximum” or “ultra” with 16xAF always applied
\n * All results show average, minimum and maximum frame rates except as noted.
\n * Highest quality sound (stereo) used in all games.
\n * Vista32, all DX10 titles were run under DX10 render paths<\/span><\/p>\n

We found with later testing that our last tested Catalyst 8.12hotfix<\/em> drivers and 9-1 are quite similar so\u00a0in Part\u00a03 we start with Catalyst 9-2 and with a much larger sample of actual game benchmarks than we presented in Part 2.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Previous<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Next<\/a>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

3DMark06<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

3DMark06 still remains the number one utility used for a system benchmark. The numbers it produces aren\u2019t indicative of real-world gameplay – or any gameplay in general – and for that reason we really dislike using it to compare different systems. However, as long as the rest of the tech world uses it to evaluate gaming performance, we will too. We find that it is mostly useful for tracking changes in a single system, what we are mostly doing now. There are four \u201cmini-games\u201d that it uses for benchmarking graphics, as well as two CPU tests. The scores are \u201cweighed\u201d and added together to give an overall number and there is a further breakdown possible with these mini games that we are charting for you<\/span>.<\/p>\n

\"3dmark06-2008-12-13-08-06-08-61\"<\/a>
<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Here is a scene from one of the four benchmark \u201cmini games\u201d used to benchmark GPU performance. It will give your PC a real workout even though\u00a0its default resolution is only 1280\u00d71024.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here are the results of our 3DMark06 benchmark comparison using the benchmark at its default settings:<\/span><\/p>\n

\"3dmark1\"<\/a><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Just as in our last testing with single GPUs,\u00a0we also see almost linear scaling with CPU frequency. If all games are like this, we would all overclock and use quad-core CPUs as it is consistently “outperforms” the Core 2 Duo – even when it is clocked +260 Mhz higher than the Core 2 Quad. Well, now let’s look at the mini-game frame rates:<\/span><\/p>\n

\"3dmark_mini1\"<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Here is the identical situation exemplified in the mini-game’s frame rates. ‘Playing’ the 3DMark06 Mini-games would require an overclocked quad core CPU to get the best performance out of our 4870s and then more core speed the better, it appears, so E8600 clocked +260 Mhz higher edges out Q9550s. So, lets move on to to our\u00a0second synthetic benchmark, Vantage.<\/span>
<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Previous<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Next<\/a>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Vantage<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Vantage is\u00a0Futuremark\u2019s latest test. Of course, we feel the same way about Vantage as we do about 3DMark06 – it is really useful for tracking changes in a single <\/em>system – especially driver changes. As it has become the new de facto standard for measuring PC video gaming performance, we will use it also. There are two mini-game tests: Jane Nash<\/em> and Calico<\/em>. Also, there are two CPU tests but we are still focusing on the graphics performance.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here is a scene from Vantage’s second mini-game.<\/span>
<\/p>\n

\"3dmarkvantage-2008-12-13-08-15-42-25\"<\/a><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Lets go right to the graphs and first check the Basic Tests with the default benchmark scores<\/span>:<\/p>\n

\"vantage1\"<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

In this synthetic test,\u00a0Q9550S at default beats the E8600’s highest overclocked performance. But, let’s look at Vantage’s mini-game frame rates:<\/span>
<\/p>\n

\"vantage_mini1\"<\/a>
<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Here the Quad core is faster.\u00a0 Let’s move on to real games and real world situations and see what advantage – if any – quad core has over dual. Still, nothing really even in Vantage that you would notice actually playing these benchmarks as if they were games and nobody will play this “title”. Enough of the synthetics, as we move on to PC games!<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Previous<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Next<\/a>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Call of Juarez<\/strong><\/span><\/span>
<\/p>\n

\"coj_dx10-2008-12-13-08-20-42-38\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Call of Juarez <\/em>is one of the very earliest DX10\u00a0games that was released as a fast-paced Wild West Epic Adventure Shooter. Techland’s Call of Juarez<\/em> is loosely based on Spaghetti Westerns that become popular in the early 1970s. Call of Juarez <\/em>features its Chrome Engine using Shader Model 4 with DirectX 10.\u00a0Our benchmark\u00a0isn\u2019t built into Call of Juarez, <\/em>but is an official\u00a0stand-alone that runs a simple flyby of a level that is expressly\u00a0created to showcase its\u00a0DX10 effects. It offers great repeatability and it is a good stress test for DX10 features in graphics cards, although it is not quite the same as actual gameplay because the game logic and AI are stripped out of this demo.\u00a0However, it is very useful for comparing video card performance.<\/span><\/p>\n

Performing Call of Juarez<\/em> benchmark is easy. You are presented with a simple menu to choose resolution, anti-aliasing, and two choices of shadow quality options. We set the shadow quality on \u201chigh\u201d and the shadow map resolution to the maximum, 2048\u00d72048. At the end of the run, the demo presents you with the minimum, maximum, and average frame rate, along with the option to quit or run the benchmark again. We always ran the benchmark at least a second time and recorded that generally higher score.<\/span><\/p>\n

Call of Juarez<\/em> DX10 benchmark at 1920×1200:
\n <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"coj_191\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Call of Juarez<\/em> DX10 benchmark at 1650×1080<\/span>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"coj_161\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

There is a lot more variance here than with using single GPUs.\u00a0 We see Q9550S at 2.83 Ghz absolutely choking 4870-X2 across-the-board whereas E8600 at 3.33Ghz – or Q95550s at 3.40 Gh-\u00a0seems to be sufficient.\u00a0 CrossFireX-3 manages to overcome it a bit which may also show an issue with drivers and CrossFireX.\u00a0We also note that the quad core is generally faster in the maximum frame rates but it is not so clear at the average or minimums where the slightly higher-clocked E8600 wins.\u00a0It seems you are OK with CrossFireX-2\/X-3 using\u00a0either a E8600 or Q9550 as long as your core speed is\u00a0about 3.33Ghz. <\/em>Frame rates are completely satisfactory with only short dips down into the 20s.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

\"Previous<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Next<\/a>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CRYSIS<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"crysis\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

N<\/span>ow we move on to Crysis<\/em>. It is one of the most demanding games released to date for the PC. Crysis <\/em>is a science fiction first person shooter by Crytek. Crysis <\/em>is based in a fictional near-future where an ancient alien spacecraft is discovered buried on an island near the coast of Korea. The single-player campaign has you assume the role of USA Delta Force, \u2018Nomad\u2019 in the game. He is armed with various futuristic weapons and equipment, including a \u201cNano Suit\u201d which enables the player to perform extraordinary feats. Crysis<\/em> uses DirectX10 for graphics rendering.<\/span><\/p>\n

A standalone but related game, Crysis Warhead<\/em> was released last year. It is notable for providing a similar graphical experience to Crysis<\/em>, but with less graphical demands on the PC at its highest settings. CryEngine2 is the game engine used to power Crysis<\/em> and Warhead <\/em>and it is an extended version of the CryEngine that powers FarCry<\/em>. As well as supporting Shader Model 2.0, 3.0, and DirectX10\u2019s 4.0, CryEngine2 is also multi-threaded to take advantage of SMP-aware systems. We know it takes advantage of two cores and soon we will see how it does on four-cores. Crysis <\/em>also comes in 32-bit and 64-bit versions and Crytek has developed their own proprietary physics system, called CryPhysics. However, it is noted that actually playing the game is a bit slower than the demo implies.<\/span><\/p>\n

G<\/strong>PU Demo, Island<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

All of our settings are set to ‘maximum’ and for the first time in our shootout series, we force 4xAA in Catalyst Control Center. Here is Crysis\u2019 Island Demo <\/em>benchmarks, at 1920\u00d71200 resolution, and then at 1680\u00d71050.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"crysis_191\"<\/a><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

We sense a further disappointment here, perhaps. We see Crysis <\/em>apparently <\/em>only uses 2 CPU cores. Core speed is king. Let’s look at 1650×1080:<\/span><\/p>\n

\"crysis_161\"<\/a><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Again, E8600 edges out Q9550S. However, the difference is usually by a single frame rate or two. Crysis<\/em> does not appear to take advantage of Core 2 Quad’s “extra” two cores<\/span>.\u00a0 However, through much of the game we note that it is quite playable with 4870 CrossFire even with 4xAA\/16xAF, if you are willing to tweak your settings a bit downward.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Previous<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Next<\/a>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Clear Sky<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"xrengine-2009-01-04-18-55-22-35\"<\/a><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

We are now running Prologue:<\/em> S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Clear Sky. <\/em>The original Shadows of Chernobyl<\/em> was our previous benchmark <\/em>and\u00a0when GSC Game World released a prequel story expansion last year, it naturally become a brand new DX10 benchmark for us. Both games have a non-linear storyline\u00a0which feature role-playing gameplay elements such as trading and allying with NPC factions. In <\/em>both games, the player assumes the identity of a S.T.A.L.K.E.R.; an illegal artifact scavenger in \u201cThe Zone\u201d which encompasses roughly 30 square kilometers. It is the location of an alternate reality story surrounding the Chernobyl Power Plant after another (fictitious) explosion.<\/span><\/p>\n

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.<\/em> & Clear Sky<\/em> feature \u201ca living breathing world\u201d with highly developed NPC creature AI. S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Clear Sky <\/em>uses the X-ray Engine – a DirectX8.1\/9\/DX10\/10.1 Shader model 3.0 & 4.0 graphics engine featuring HDR, parallax and normal mapping, soft shadows, motion blur, weather effects and day-to-night cycles. As with other engines using deferred shading, the original DX9c X-ray Engine does not support anti-aliasing with dynamic lighting enabled. However, the DX10 version does. <\/span><\/p>\n

Our new 12 minute, stand-alone “official” benchmark by Clear Sky’s <\/em>creators is far more detailed and way better than the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. <\/em>bench we were using previously. As an expansion to the original game, Clear Sky<\/em> is top-notch and worthy to be S.T.A.L.K.E.R’<\/em>s successor with even more awesome DX10 effects which help to create and enhance their game’s incredible atmosphere. But DX10 comes with a steep HW requirement and this new benchmark really needs multi-GPU to run at its maximum settings – even below 1650×1080! We pick the most stressful test out of the four that are run by the benchmark.\u00a0 “Sun shafts” approximating a bright sunny morning, brings the heaviest penalty due to its extreme use of shaders to create DX10 and even DX10.1 effects. We ran this benchmark\u00a0fully maxed out in DX10.0 with “ultra” settings but did not apply edge detect MSAA which kills performance even further.<\/span><\/p>\n

S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Clear Sky<\/em> DX10 benchmark “Sun shafts” at 1920×1200 and 1650×1800, side-by-side:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"cs1\"<\/a>
<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong>
<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Since we do not have CrossFireX-3 benchmarks with E8600, we included all of the benchmarks on one chart for each resolution.\u00a0 We do note that Clear Sky<\/em> finally runs very well on CrossFireX-3 and with excellent scaling.\u00a0 Another surprise; an engine that takes advantage of multi-core CPU still does\u00a0not give a big practical advantage over Core 2 Duo!\u00a0 In fact, E8600 at 4.25 Ghz scores about the same as its\u00a04.0 Ghz Core 2 Quad counterpart except in a couple of instances where they trade blows and Q9550S wins. We do see CPU scaling clearly, however.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Previous<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Next<\/a>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

PT Boats: Knights of the Sea<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong>DX10 benchmark<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"pt-boats-2008-12-20-21-46-29-69\"<\/a>
<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

PT Boats: Knights of the Sea <\/em><\/span>is a stand-alone DX10 benchmark utility released by Akella, last year. It is a benchmark-friendly tech demo of their upcoming simulation-action game. This DX10 benchmark test runs reliably and apparently provides very accurate and repeatable results.<\/span><\/p>\n

We set the only settings options available to us as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n

DirectX Version: DirectX 10
\n Resolution: 1920\u00d71600 and 1680\u00d71050 at 60 Hz
\n Image Quality: High
\n Anti aliasing: 4x<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

PT Boats<\/em> DX10 benchmark at 1920×1200:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"pt_191\"<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

PT Boats<\/em> DX10 benchmark at<\/strong> <\/span>1650×1080<\/span>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"pt_161\"<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

We see\u00a0some mixe<\/span>d results as no one is probably optimizing for this yet as it is unreleased. But generally we see CPU scaling\u00a0with\u00a0advantage usually\u00a0going to 4 cores over two in this benchmark when we compare both CPUs at 4.0 Ghz. We are really looking forward to this game’s release, later this year.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Previous<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Next<\/a>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

FarCry 2<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"farcry2\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

F<\/em><\/span>arCry 2 <\/em>uses the name of the original FarCry <\/em>but it is not connected to the first game as it brings you a new setting and a new story. Ubisoft created it based on their Dunia Engine. The game setting takes place in an unnamed African country, during an uprising between two rival warring factions: the United Front for Liberation and Labor <\/em>and the Alliance for Popular Resistance.<\/em> Your mission is a simple one, to kill \u201cThe Jackal\u201d; the Nietzsche-quoting mercenary that arms both sides of the conflict that you are sent into.<\/span><\/p>\n

The FarCry 2 <\/em>game world is loaded in the background and on the fly to create a completely seamless open world. The Dunia game engine provides good visuals that scale well and it runs on a wide range of PC hardware. The FarCry 2<\/em> design team actually went to Africa to give added realism to this game and it does work very well. One thing to note, is FarCry 2’s <\/em>very realistic fire propagation by the Dunia engine that is a far cry from the scripted fire and explosions that we are used to seeing up-until-now. We notice\u00a0recent improvement in performance by ATi’s Catalyst Team\u00a0after this AAA title was released. <\/span><\/p>\n

FarCry 2<\/em> benchmark at 1920×1200 first with AI disabled<\/span>:<\/strong>
<\/p>\n

\"fc2_19_dis1\"<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

FarCry 2<\/em> benchmark at 1920×1200 first with AI enabled<\/span>:<\/strong>
<\/p>\n

\"fc2_19_en_1\"<\/strong>FarCry 2<\/em> benchmark at 1680×1050 first with AI disabled:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"fc2_16_dis1\"<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong>
<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Now at 1680×1050 with AI enabled:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"fc2_16_en1\"<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Very interesting. This time our Q9550S shows a distinct and solid\u00a0\u00a0advantage over E8600; even its extra +260 Mhz do not compensate. We do definitely see quad core gaming and CPU scaling advantages over dual, yet in no place do we see a place where the dual core is “slow”.\u00a0 However, this is the future of gaming in our opinion.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Previous<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Next<\/a>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong>World in Conflict<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

\"wic\"<\/a>
<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

World In Conflict<\/em> is set in an alternate history Earth where the Cold War did not end and Russia won in 1989. The game is set after Russia invaded the USA and the remaining Americans decide to strike back. World in Conflict (WiC)<\/em> is a real-time tactical\/strategy video game developed by Massive Entertainment. The expansion, World in Conflict: Soviet Assault <\/em>by Ubisoft is expected very soon. It features the ability to play as the Soviet Union, against which the player fought in the original World in Conflict<\/em>. Although it is generally considered a real-time strategy (RTS) game, World in Conflict <\/em>includes gameplay typical of real-time tactical (RTT) games. WiC<\/em> is filled with real vehicles from both the Russian and American military. There are also tactical aids, including calling in massive bombing raids, access to chemical warfare, nuclear weapons, and far more.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here is yet another amazing and very customizable and detailed DX10 benchmark that is available in-game or as a stand-alone. The particle effects and explosions in World in Conflict<\/em> have taken first place in my heart away from F.E.A.R.<\/em>, finally! Every setting is fully maxed out.<\/span><\/p>\n

First, World in Conflict at 1920×1200:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"wic_191\"<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

World in Conflict at 1650×1080<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"wic_161\"<\/a><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

This time we\u00a0see Q9550S pulling ahead over E8600. We would have to give the edge again to the quad core CPU and in some cases it is completely playable on Q9550 in rather sharp contrast to E8600’s big slowdowns at the minimums.\u00a0 Q9550 wins!<\/span>

<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Previous<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Next<\/a>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

X3-Terran Conflict<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/strong>
<\/p>\n

\"x3tc\"<\/a>
<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

X3:Terran Conflict<\/em> is another beautiful stand-alone benchmark that runs multiple tests and will really strain a lot of video cards with its extra-high polygon count. X3:Terran Conflict (X3:TC) <\/em>is a space trading and combat simulator from Egosoft and is the most recent of their X-series of computer games. X3: Terran Conflict<\/em> is a standalone expansion of X3: Reunion<\/em>, based in the same universe and on the same engine. It was also developed by several members of the X-Tended Mod team and features assets from it. It complements the story of previous games in the X-Universe and especially continues the events after the end of X3: Reunion<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Compared to X3: Reunion, Terran Conflict<\/em> features a larger universe, more ships, and new missions. The X-Universe is huge. The Terran faction was added with their own set of technology including powerful ships and stations. Many new weapons systems were developed for the expansion and it generally received good reviews. It has a rather steep learning curve.<\/span><\/p>\n

X3:Terran Conflict at 1920×1200:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"x3tc_191\"<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

X3:Terran Conflict at 1650×1080:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"x3tc_161\"<\/span><\/strong>Here we see some decent CPU scaling. There is some variation as this benchmark is divided up into many sub tests, yet for maximum performance,\u00a0\u00a0core speed appears to be king where the fastest CPU wins.\u00a0 Here you simply want your maximum CPU overclock.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Previous<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Next<\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"etqw-2008-12-20-20-44-52-34\"<\/a>
<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars <\/em>is an objective-driven, class-based first person shooter set in the Quake universe. It was developed by id Software and Splash Damage for Windows and published by Activision. Quake Wars<\/em> pits the combined human armies of the Global Defense Force against the technologically superior Strogg, an alien race who has come to earth to use humans for spare parts and food. It allows you to play a part – probably best as an online multi-player experience – in the desperate battles waged around the world in mankind\u2019s war to survive.<\/span><\/p>\n

Quake Wars<\/em> is an OpenGL game based on id\u2019s Doom3 game engine with the addition of their MegaTexture technology. It also supports some of the latest 3D effects seen in today\u2019s games, including soft particles, although it is somewhat dated and less demanding on video cards than many DX10 games. id\u2019s MegaTexture technology is designed to provide very large maps without having to reuse the same textures over and over again. For our benchmark we chose the flyby, Salvage Demo<\/em>, from Enemy Territory:Quake Wars<\/em>. It is one of the most graphically demanding of all the flybys and is very repeatable and reliable in its results. It is fairly close to what you will experience in-game. All of our settings are set to ‘maximum’ and we also apply 4xAA\/16xAF in game.<\/span><\/p>\n

Salvage Demo<\/em> fly-by at 1920×1200:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"etqw_191\"<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Now at 1650×1080 resolution:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"etqw_161\"<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

No contest!\u00a0 Quad core scores significantly higher across-the-board – yet there is no place where E8600 would be considered slow with this game even at 1920×1200.\u00a0 You might consider enabling CrossFire filtering.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Previous<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Next<\/a>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

F.E.A.R.<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"fearxp2-2008-12-20-19-53-42-10\"<\/a>
<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

F.E.A.R. – First Encounter Armed Assault<\/em> – is a DX9c game by Monolith Productions that was originally released in October 2005 by Vivendi Universal Production. Later, there were two expansions with the latest, Perseus Mandate<\/em>, released in 2007. Although the game engine is aging a bit, it still has some of the most spectacular effects of any game. F.E.A.R. showcases a powerful particle system, complete with sparks and smoke for collisions as well as featuring bullet marks and other effects including \u201csoft shadows\u201d. This is highlighted by the built-in performance test, although it was never updated. This performance test will tell you how F.E.A.R.<\/em> will run, but its first and second expansions, Extraction Point<\/em> and Perseus Mandate,<\/em> are more demanding on your PC graphics and will run slower than the demo. We always run at least 2 sets of tests with all in-games features at \u2018maximum\u2019.\u00a0 F.E.A.R.<\/em> uses the Jupiter Extended Technology engine from Touchdown Entertainment.<\/span><\/p>\n

We test with the most demanding settings. Fully maxed details with 4xAA\/16xAF; soft shadows ‘off’, as they do not play well with AA; first at 1920×1200:<\/span>
<\/p>\n

\"fear_191\"<\/a>
<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Finally we test at 1650×1080 with 4 AA\/16xAF and with Soft shadows again disabled:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"fear_161\"<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Quad core wins. Here the E8600 drops its mimimums\u00a0into the high-20s to finally match our stock-clocked<\/em> quad; even when\u00a0our dual-core\u00a0is overclocked to\u00a0its maximum. <\/span><\/p>\n

\"Previous<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Next<\/a>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Half-Life 2: Lost Coast<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"hl2-2008-12-20-20-27-34-16\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Half-Life 2<\/em> is still a popular game and it is the oldest game we review for this series. Half-Life 2: Lost Coast<\/em> is an additional level for this 2004 game. Lost Coast<\/em> was released October, 2005 as a free download to all purchasers of Half-Life 2. Lost Coast<\/em> was developed as a playable tech demo, intended to showcase the newly-added high definition range lighting – HDR – features of the Source Engine. Lost Coast<\/em> features some very minor storyline details that were scrapped from Half-Life 2<\/em>. A flyby of this level is played during the HL2<\/em> video stress test and it is very repeatable and quite accurate. All in-game settings are maxed out, including 4xAA\/16xAF.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"hl2_191\"<\/a>
<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Now at 1650×1080 resolution:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n


\"hl2_161\"<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Although all of our configurations\u00a0breeze through this benchmark, quad-core\u00a0has\u00a0a notable\u00a0advantage over dual when they are clocked about the\u00a0same.\u00a0You may notice that the game’s 300 FPS cap will also influence the average scores, as many setups are hitting that ceiling.\u00a0 But no matter how you look at it, quad wins.<\/span>
\n <\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"Previous<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Next<\/a>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Lost Planet DX10 benchmark<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"lostplanetdx10-2008-12-20-20-31-08-22\"<\/a>
<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Lost Planet: Extreme Condition<\/em> is a Capcom port of an Xbox 360 game which became the first DX10 game. It takes place on the icy planet of E.D.N. III which is filled with monsters, pirates, big guns, and huge bosses. This frigid world makes a great environment to highlight the benefits of high dynamic range lighting (HDR) as the snow-white environment reflects blinding sunlight, while DX10 particle systems toss snow and ice all around. The game looks great in both DirectX 9 and 10 and there isn\u2019t really much of a difference between the two versions except perhaps shadows. Unfortunately, the DX10 version doesn\u2019t look that much better when you\u2019re actually playing the game and the DX10 version still runs slower than the DX9 version.<\/span><\/p>\n

There are two versions of this benchmark. One was released as a stand-alone demo and the other is in-game. We chose the in-game demo from the retail copy of Lost Planet<\/em> and updated through Steam to the latest version for our benchmark runs. This run isn\u2019t completely scripted as the bugs spawn and act a little differently each time you run the demo. The benchmark is more of a scripted flyby of the level with \u201cnoclip\u201d turned on. This means the benchmark won\u2019t make an absolutely perfect comparison between different hardware setups, even with identical game settings. So we ran it many times. Lost Planet\u2019s Snow<\/em> and Cave<\/em> demos are run continuously in-game and blend into each other. <\/span><\/p>\n

Here are our benchmark results with the more demanding, Snow<\/em>. All settings are fully maxed out in game including 4xAA\/16xAF – first at 1920\u00d71200 resolution:<\/span><\/p>\n

\"lp_192\"<\/a>
<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

And Now at 1680×1050<\/span><\/strong>:<\/p>\n

\"lp_161\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Clock speed is king here.\u00a0\u00a0Here you want to keep either of your CPUs over 4 Ghz to avoid falling below 30 FPS, often accepted by gamers as an acceptable minimum. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"Previous<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Next<\/a>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Unreal Tournament 3<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"ut3-2008-12-20-20-49-02-46\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Unreal Tournament 3 (UT3)<\/em> is the fourth game in the Unreal Tournament series. UT3<\/em> is a first-person shooter and online multiplayer video game by Epic Games.\u00a0 While many games share the same Unreal 3 engine, the developers can decide how high the system requirements will be by increasing the level of detail. Unreal Tournament 3<\/em> provides a good balance between image quality and performance, rendering complex scenes even on lower-end PCs. Of course, on high-end graphics cards you can really turn up the detail. UT3<\/em> is primarily an online multiplayer title offering several game modes and it also includes an offline single-player game with a campaign.<\/span><\/p>\n

For our tests, we used the very latest game 2.0 patch for Unreal Tournament 3,<\/em> released last week with its ‘Titan’ pack. The game doesn\u2019t have a built-in benchmarking tool, however, so we used FRAPS\u00a0and did\u00a0a fly-by of a chosen level. Here we note that performance numbers reported are a bit higher than compared to in-game. The map we use is called \u201cContainment\u201d and it is one of the most demanding of the fly-bys. Our tests were run at resolutions of 1920 x 1200 and 1680 x 1050 with UT3\u2019s<\/em> in-game graphics options set to their maximum values. One drawback of the way the UT3 engine is designed is that there is no support for anti-aliasing built in.\u00a0 This time, we forced\u00a04xAA in Catalyst Control Center.\u00a0 We use the \u201ctimedemo-style\u201d of benchmark for UT3<\/em> where a\u00a0demo is recorded in the game and a set number of frames are saved in a file for playback. When playing back the demo, the game engine then renders the frames as quickly as possible, which is why you will often see it playing it back more quickly than you would actually play the game.
\n <\/span>
\n Containment Demo at 1920×1200:<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"ut3_191\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Wow!\u00a0 Big difference. And now at 1680×1050:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"ut3_161\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Although our GPUs can easily handle this game with fully maxed out details,\u00a0quad core simply walks away from\u00a0its dual counterpart.\u00a0\u00a0Quad wins.<\/span>
<\/p>\n

\"Previous<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Next<\/strong><\/a>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n

Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare<\/span><\/span>
<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"iw3mpcod4\"<\/a><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (CoD4) is a\u00a0first person shooter running on a custom engine.\u00a0 There are nice graphics but the engine is somewhat dated compared to others and it runs well on modern PCs.\u00a0It is the first CoD installment to take place in a modern setting instead of in World War II.\u00a0 It differs from the previous Call of Duty games by having a more film-like plot that uses intermixed story lines from two perspectives; that of a USMC sargent and a British SAS Sargent. There is also a variety of short missions where players control other characters in flashback sequences to advance the story. Call of Duty 4’s move to modern warfare introduced a variety of modern conventional weapons and technologies including plastic explosives.<\/p>\n

There are currently 20 multiplayer maps in CoD4. It is very popular and there is a new expansion for it.\u00a0 For multiplayer, it includes five preset classes and introduces the Perks system. Perks are special abilities which allow users to further customize their character to suit their personal style of play.\u00a0 Our timedemo benchmark was created by ABT’s own Senior Editor and lead reviewer, BFG10K.\u00a0 It is very accurate and totally repeatable. Note that we probably exceeded the game’s maximum frame rate cap of 94 FPS in all cases.
\n <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"cod4_191\"<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n

And now at 1650×10<\/span>80:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"cod4_16\"<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n

We do see scaling but it is miniscule, no matter how perfectly linear and regular is it.\u00a0 There is no practical difference playing CoD4<\/em> with either of our CPUs even at stock speeds.<\/em> We call a tie here.<\/span><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

\"Previous<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Next<\/strong><\/a>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Conclusion <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n


From our previous single-GPU\u00a0testing with Q9550S compared with E8600, we noted that the Core 2 Quad does not as yet have a huge advantage in the games that we explored over Core 2 Duo – especially if you can get a nice overclock. However, we did see that there are several games where the quad core has a definite advantage and we expect devs to program for more cores as newer games are released.\u00a0 We can see that quad core will become much more important for single GPUs in future – especially as they get faster.\u00a0 However, things are quite different if you are using multi-GPU right now<\/em>.\u00a0 Although\u00a0some games get a nice boost from overclocking the CPU whereas others are far more GPU-dependent, we definitely see the Q9550S offering solid advantages over\u00a0E8600 – especially when both are overclocked to their maximums.\u00a0 It does not appear to matter\u00a0that we have completely maxed out the details at relatively high resolutions. We\u00a0also see that “stock” 2.83 Ghz at times does hold back performance and it can make the difference between playable, or not.\u00a0 We find that\u00a0at least a modest overclock to 3.40 Ghz does make some practical difference in the framerates. However, if you can push your CPU even further, we also see that some games continue to benefit from the very highest overclock you can manage.<\/span><\/p>\n

We are definitely going to recommend quad core over dual core today<\/em> if you want the very most out of your PC gaming and have a fast multi-GPU setup.\u00a0\u00a0We\u00a0still want to see if an even\u00a0faster CPU benefits fast graphics and we expect to compare the maturing Intel Core i-7 CPU platform with our currently maxed out Penryn system. Eventually, we expect to also explore Nvidia GTX280\/285 SLi on an X58 motherboard.\u00a0 And we will prepare for it by upgrading to Vista 64-bit from Vista 32\u00a0next week\u00a0to give you a gaming comparison between the two operating systems.\u00a0 However, next up is another article on CPU scaling – this time, comparing Athlon’s 6000+ against Phenom II using GTX280 SLi for the graphics. <\/span><\/p>\n

Our “Shoot-out Series” <\/em>has been a steady progression examining Intel’s Penryn platform and\u00a0we have been upgrading it as necessary, to maximize our PC’s gaming performance and to chart those improvements for you. \u00a0Part IV, The Summary<\/a>,<\/em> showed this\u00a0by comparing drivers\u00a0all the way\u00a0back to August when we first began benchmarking, even before ABT launched on October 1st, 2008.\u00a0 And we focused on the progress the vendors have made since then, right on through the beginning of 2009, bringing us up to date with this current CPU shootout. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In our<\/span> installment of Part III, Big GPU Shootout, PCIe 1.0 vs. PCIe 2.0,<\/a> <\/em>we especially focused on the motherboard’s effects on video card performance. We used the extremes – P35 PCIe 1.0 vs. X48 PCIe 2.0 with double the bandwidth and a full 16x + 16x PCIe crossfire lanes – verses the much more bandwidth-constricted 16x + 4x crossfire lanes used in the older motherboard. We saw how limiting the older motherboard’s PCIe bandwidth can be in certain situations and so we upgraded to X48.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Part II<\/span><\/span><\/a> – The Big GPU Shoot-Out – Setting New Benches –<\/em> demonstrated the need for overclocking our E8600 CPU from its stock 3.33 Ghz to 4.0 Ghz to take full advantage of our new video cards. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Part I<\/span><\/span><\/a>, The Big GPU Shootout: Upgrade Now or Wait?<\/span><\/span><\/em> we examined the performance of five video cards. In our conclusion, we realized that the last generation\u2019s video cards are not sufficient for today\u2019s DX10 maxed-out gaming – even at 1650 x 1080 resolution. We even started by comparing Core 2 Duo E4300 at it its overclock of 3.33 Ghz to E8600 at its stock 3.33 GHz and found the older CPU rather lacking in comparison. We then continued on for the rest of our series with our E8600.\u00a0 We now use Core 2 Quad Q9550S and recommend it highly!\u00a0 We also started to bench with CrossFireX-3 in Part I which ran on fairly immature Catalyst 8-8 drivers and we have continued to chart its progress until now.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Stay tuned. We think we will have some very interesting articles for you to read very shortly as you plan your own coming upgrades. Well, we are done with our benches and this part of our “Shootout” Series and we\u00a0are already\u00a0working on our next articles for you. In the meantime, feel free to comment below, ask questions or have a detailed discussion in our <\/span><\/span>ABT forums<\/span><\/span><\/a>. We also want to let you know we are running a brand new promotion with nice prizes and a contest\u00a0shortly in our forums. Look for an announcement this weekend on the main ABT page. There are many good articles to be published here shortly. We want you eventually to join us and Live in Our World.<\/em> It is going to expand and we think you will like what you progressively discover here.<\/span><\/p>\n


Mark Poppin<\/p>\n

ABT editor
<\/p>\n

\"Previous<\/strong><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Please join us in our Forums<\/a><\/p>\n

Follow us on Twitter<\/a><\/p>\n

For the latest updates from ABT, please join our RSS News Feed<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":4721,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7814,7],"tags":[171,159,392,545,546,190,215],"class_list":["post-4090","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","category-technology","tag-4870-x2","tag-4870-x3","tag-cpu-scaling","tag-e8600","tag-multi-gpu-scaling","tag-q9550s","tag-quad-core-vs-dual-core"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/alienbabeltech.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4090","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/alienbabeltech.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/alienbabeltech.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/alienbabeltech.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/alienbabeltech.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4090"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/alienbabeltech.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4090\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/alienbabeltech.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4721"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/alienbabeltech.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4090"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/alienbabeltech.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4090"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/alienbabeltech.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4090"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}