View Single Post
Old 08-16-04, 09:26 PM   #53
Blacklash's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Old Vizima
Posts: 3,679
Default Re: Far Cry benchmark

I have taken A LOT of time to review articles showing 1024x768 and up with stock AMDs vs Intel in games like Far Cry. At the low res you have a 5FPS advantage at most and I see no more than 3FPS at 1600x1200 with similiar graphics cards. My own personal experience bears this out as well.

Check the recent CPU scaling article at HardOcp. I play greater than 1024x768 with the highest detail so I can't really see getting a high end athlon or worse an intel extreme. Mid range Intel's with large FSBs are good rigs.

I'd advise folks that enjoy overclocking to go intel 2.4-3.0c and possibly 3.2. If you do have extreme cooling go on and try a Prescott. I have seen those things do incredible OC's when tamed. Over all though I'd say go the former.

If you don't oc and want a very good gaming rig to keep for awhile and upgrade on I would say the AMD 939 with a 3500.

I am no fan boy of intel I just think they are unduly shat upon and the AMD edge exaggerated. I think a 220usd processor or less that does 3800 type performance is impressive.

Have JakUp run the Bench'all Fortdemo from 1024x768 to 1600x1200 and the other fellow do the same. I serious doubt there will be anymore than 3-5FPS at any of those resolutions.

I just don't think 3-5FPS in the latest games at very high detail is worth 400-600 dollars to AMD or up to 800 dollars to Intel for the extreme.
Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.96GHz (1.36v)|Mushkin 998681 XP3-12800 (3x2GB)
ASUS TUF Sabertooth (X58)|ASUS GTX 580 DirectCU II (980|4604)|ASUS PA246Q
WD VelociRaptor 150GB HD (x2)|Pioneer DVR-2920Q|LG GH22LS30|Klipsch PM20 2.0
SilverStone OP1000-E|SilverStone TJ10-B|Thermalright U-120 Extreme|Win 7 HP x64
Blacklash is offline   Reply With Quote