On my aged machine, I get:
116.3 fps
1440x900 No HDR, No AA, No Filter, Reflect World.
70.50 fps
1440x900 HDR, 6xAA, 16xFilter, Reflect All.
----------------------
intel core2 e6600 @ 2.4 GHZ
Radeon x1950 Pro AGP
2GB DDR2 RAM
Printable View
On my aged machine, I get:
116.3 fps
1440x900 No HDR, No AA, No Filter, Reflect World.
70.50 fps
1440x900 HDR, 6xAA, 16xFilter, Reflect All.
----------------------
intel core2 e6600 @ 2.4 GHZ
Radeon x1950 Pro AGP
2GB DDR2 RAM
212.34 with new i3, ATI HD 3850 and 4GB DDR3 1600mhz
@AmiNeo> What do you think of the i3? And which one do you have? I've a 540 and have been really impressed with it for the price. Perfect budget CPU IMO, and I'm just running it with the built in Intel GPU which is perfect for general purpose stuff. Never benchmarked it though, and that could be interesting. Might try later tonight.
Mines the Sandybridge 2100 i3, everythings flying in windows now, its great. Im begining to wonder if I really need to upgrade to an i5 in the future now :lol:
What you don't have you don't miss :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by AmiNeo
lol yeah. But how much better could they actually be... :blink: I'm amazed how much difference the CPU makes TBH vs the Q6600 I wonder if I left thermal throttling on in the bios or something...
---------- Post added at 16:16 ---------- Previous post was at 16:12 ----------
Best part is my whole system isnt drawing more than 250Watts now :D
That is a huge advantage of the i3; very low power consumption, made even better with speedstep so it drops the multiplier when idling (mine idles on x9 at 1.2GHz and at only 20 deg C, and stays there whilst seeding through utorrent, so is great) Plus the i3 has hyperthreading (HT) so the OS sees 4 threads, whereas the i5's don't have HT, so they have that advantage, although obviously only dual core compared to quad with the later. However at the moment most games don't take full advantage of more the 2 cores, so for gaming at the moment stick with your new i3 and upgrade your graphics when needed, and then wait until you start finding it struggling in newer games.. and by that time you should be able to pick up a second hand i5 2500 at a good price.
Some gaming benchmarks here, not sure how accurate they are.
But overall you would get a very nice boost from an i5 with games and apps, but if you don't need it, then no point :lol:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/t...2100-tested/20
In fact that site has lots of tests, even apps.
Good advice Harrison I think I'll do just that :thumbsup:
This is without a doubt the fastest system I have owned up to now. The extra speed from an i5 would be nice ofcourse but I dont see the need to shell out 175 pounds any time soon. Looking at those benchmarks the results are still way over the playable bar and the difference (average of maybe 20fps? ) just isnt worth another 175 pounds when I can pick up a good graphics chip for little over half that. I'll look at picking up a 6770 or something over the summer and that should do me for a year or 2. Its all retro after that :D
---------- Post added at 22:26 ---------- Previous post was at 22:25 ----------
I'm going to stick the 280 in this system and see what shes capable of with this i3 :D.
---------- Post added at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:26 ----------
211.64 with the i3 and the 280, I just realised when I did it with the HD3850 in the game had reset to default values :Doh:
Just doing a gtx280 test on defaults to compare
---------- Post added at 23:26 ---------- Previous post was at 23:22 ----------
213.96... wtf ? lol I only gained 2fps by dropping the resolution and taking off the AA? and AF? There seems to be a limit as to the cpu or something... The 280 should be kicking the HD3850s ass...
---------- Post added at 23:45 ---------- Previous post was at 23:26 ----------
Ideas anyone? I'm stumped :blink:
no idea because i noticed the same minimal decrease between 1024x768 at default valuses vs 1280x1024 everything maxed on my 5770.
I could put the 3870 back in to compare but i put it up for sale on evil bay. so dont wanna do that
Damn I'd have had that off u if I wasnt so short on funds, dont suppose you want to trrade for anything Im selling in this thread? lol
you got postage costs?
Il let you have it for that, i seriously hammer these things but should work well with yours in crossfire.
i think it will drop down to your 3850's specs though.
Its far from standard though.
has thermaltake duorb cooler, new heat synks on the ram and the PWM heat sync had to be bent to get a previous cooler on. il straighten them out for you though..
works prety well really. considering how i treat anything with a bus speed that i can change
My i3 board only has 1 PCI-e slot, built it specially for the power savings, and ironically it outperforms anything I've had up to now so far :D
Well a 3870 is not that much better than your 3850, and with what i do to them probably only preforms the same as a 3850 by now.
Shame you dont have crossfire as it would have worked with your 3850 prety well.
yeah couldnt really afford an uber expensive motherboard with having to buy CPU board and RAM at same time.
Just been playing crysis maxed everything and very playable on this system with the 280 :)
In the future ill be looking for a card that can rival its performance or better with less wattage draw. From what I've read, the 5770 comes close indeed.
On the other hand, the 6870s look very nice , and at 150W max TDP and 19W idle, theyre looking more tastey indeed.
5770 probably uses more power than your 3850 tbh
yeah not by a heck of a lot tho, 3850 is 75W, I think the 5770 was 100W, the 6870s are usually between 130W - 150W depending on OC models or what not. My current GTX280 is about 300W lol.
Yeah this test has a limit somewhere, most of us maxed out at the same average of around 270 or something. I think it has a 300fps cap as I was hitting 300 on the test.
I'm plodding along at ~90FPS on the Lost Coast test.
GT440 (GDDR5) and 2x Opteron 285's @ 2.4GHz.
It's an old machine, but it's perfect as a home server / workstation.
Just run it on my i3 laptop... 113FPS :lol: :D
Back when this was released my amd 3.0 ghz and radeon 9800se would not play this at a frame rate quicker than a slide show :-(
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjnurney
Yeah and now a laptop with no dedicated graphics chip can run it over 100fps :D
Gotta love how fast tech evolves ;)
i7 2600k@4300, 16gb
Nvidia 480GTX
win7x64
279fps
my bottle neck is VGA but cant afford or see the need for anything faster, all my games max detail 1920x1080 run smoothly
nice, but can your eyes tell the difference between my laptops 113 and your 279? :lol: Not that its not awesomely impressive.
I wonder how the i7 would fare alone....
Installing lost coast on MACOSX now (Macbook Pro 13" 2012) will post back with results for OSX and Windows. :D
HD4000 73.5 fps under MacOSX
Had to have resolution at 1280 x 800 though as was closest it supports. Will download for Windows now.
I'll give this a try using the specs Harrison posted in the first post
- Resolution 1280x1024 (LCD)
- Normal Aspect (4:3)
- Full Screen
- Water Detail: Reflect All
- Color Correction: Enabled
- AA: 4x MSAA
- Filtering: Anisotropic 4x
- HDR: Full (if available)
Back soon...
Windows came in at 66.8fps.
OSX FTW! lol.
My results were 299.22fps with the following spec:
Core i5 3570K (stock 3.4GHz)
3GB HIS Radeon 7950 Boost (running stock)
8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600
I'm now going to try again with everything maxed :)...
I wonder how the i5 alone would compare... :lol:
I got 288.91fps with everything maxed (1920x1080, 16x anisotropic filtering, 8x MSAA etc...)... Not much lower than the previous score using lower settings. I'll also mention that i have everything set to maximum quality in the Radeon Catalyst drivers too!, so really my scores should be higher if i set the driver to default (not that i'd actually notice the speed increase anyway).
I doubt there will be much (if any) difference between the i5 and i7 when running an old game like this... The i7 chips don't usually offer much of an improvement when it comes to gaming anyway. I know the integrated GPU on my i5 3570k will be better than the integrated GPU found on the i7 2600K (HD4000 vs HD3000).Quote:
Originally Posted by AmiNeo
Yeah. This Macbook Pro has a mobile i5 Ivybridge. I was curious how the desktop model would differ. :unsure:
Of course you'd probably need to have the settings identical too.
I will try later with the i7 4770
its mad as my i5 750 with sli gtx660s
beat my i5 2500k with sli gtx760s
270 vs 280
both had 8gb ram
and the 750 had mechanical hd and 2500k had ssd
what gives
122 fps 1920x1080
i7m 2.4
16gb ddr3 ram
Nvidia 680m 4gb
benching the built in HD4000 gives similar results so cpu limited.
I'm thinking HL2 is not great with multi-GPU setups... You should be getting a higher score than me with those cards in SLI :o. SSD will only give faster loading times, i don't think it affects GPU & CPU benchmarks or gameplay. Are both machines using the same OS and same nvidia driver version? I find those results a bit strange too :unsure:.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnim
EDIT: I'm going to benchmark my ex's PC (which used to be my living room PC :roll:) when i go over and pick up my daughter. It's running a Core i5 2500, 8GB Avexir DDR3 1333 RAM and a 2GB KFA2 GTX 660Ti... Would be interesting to compare the results :).
yeah I'll update later with benchmarks of my system... still the same 2600K setup but with a 3GB/660ti instead of a 560ti
yes both systems have same drivers and both win 7 64 ultimate
I will try the both systems with sli disabled
using the intel 4600 in the i7 4770
i got 87fps on high settings
and 110fps on low settings
eg model,texture,shader and shadow
what do you need to set it to
that will prob do me tbh. Based on that I can say that the HD4500 on an i7 desktop is about 12 frames faster than the laptop i5 HD4000. Its a modest improvement. Could go either way for more modern games. I imagine its a significant difference either way. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by johnim
i also tried full everything at 1920x1080
and got 30fps
Not too bad for full HD maxed out. :thumbsup:
just re-did the test on the same pc but with a 3GB 660ti card this time: I got 295.12 fpsQuote:
Originally Posted by keropi
Just run the test on a PC with a Core i5 2500 (stock 3.3GHz), 8GB DDR3 1333 RAM and a 2GB GTX 660Ti... It scored 287.35fps using the settings in the first post and then 280.32fps with everything maxed out at 1920x1080 (8xMSAA, 16x Anisotropic filtering etc.). All nvidia driver settings were set to default.
300 seems to be the peak for todays tech. I wonder if anyone can get to 400... :lol:
I'm thinking maybe the stress test is limited. Does anyone here have an overpriced e-peen GPU like a GTX Titan or Radeon 7990? Would be interesting to see how much higher the score would be :). Can anyone here try it with an AMD crossfire setup? We know it doesn't appear to work well with nVidia SLI.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmiNeo
It could be that due to age of the software it just doesn't support multi GPU setups at all. If I recall correctly, the multi-core support for CPUs was added in post release.