# trade a 1055t for a i7 860?



## gifted1 (May 30, 2011)

guys i need your advice,

i can trade my asrock 870 extreme3 with a phenom II X6 1055t for a intel core i7 860 with a Asus p7p55d with 60 euro`s payment from my side...look i`m a gamer and i want to play with as many fps as i can get!!

is this a good deal or not?


----------



## Peter1986C (May 30, 2011)

CPU performance: it seems so. http://nl.hardware.info/productinfo/vergelijk/3/77868;101048;97616 (in Dutch)
Motherboards: close to each other, but for the price you pay it is a good deal. http://nl.hardware.info/productinfo/vergelijk/1/75164;99980 (in Dutch)


----------



## cadaveca (May 30, 2011)

Good deal, IMHO. The added memory performance will help, for sure.


----------



## gifted1 (May 30, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Good deal, IMHO. The added memory performance will help, for sure.



wich added memory performance?


----------



## cadaveca (May 30, 2011)

gifted1 said:


> wich added memory performance?



1156 chips have much higher memory bandwidth, given the same speeds.

For example, with my 870 I pull 10800 MB/s @ 1333mhz, CAS9.

AM3, same memory, same speed, barely pulls 8K.

When you overclock 1156, you can get 20000 MB/s, easy, provided you use good ram. I'm barely getting 10000 MB/s @ 1866 on AM3. Take a look at the Maxxmem thread ChickenPatty has to get a good idea of how things are in that regard.

ADD to that the lower CPU power consumption when overclocked...1156 wins, no question.


----------



## BraveSoul (May 30, 2011)

intels i3/i5/i7 have better ram performance vs amd's phenomIIs,, but thats not as noticable/important for gaming,,, ghz speed and cpu architecture is,,,, and i7 860 will deliver better gaming performance vs 1055t, and it can clock higher,,,, but i would look into sandy bridge,, try either selling ur setup and buying new or looking for a trade with sandy bridge,,,myself just got i5 2500k and running it at 4.8ghz,,, a very noticeable improvement in games vs my previous PhenomIIx4 940 @3.6ghz


----------



## gifted1 (May 30, 2011)

BraveSoul said:


> intels i3/i5/i7 have better ram performance vs amd's phenomIIs,, but thats not as noticable/important for gaming,,, ghz speed and cpu architecture is,,,, and i7 860 will deliver better gaming performance vs 1055t, and it can clock higher,,,, but i would look into sandy bridge,, try either selling ur setup and buying new or looking for a trade with sandy bridge,,,myself just got i5 2500k and running it at 4.8ghz,,, a very noticeable improvement in games vs my previous PhenomIIx4 940 @3.6ghz




but is a i7 860 as future proof as a 1055t..i mean 4 cores vs 6 or is that not important for gaming?


----------



## cadaveca (May 30, 2011)

When you find a game that uses 6 cores properly, then it might be of a concern. Maybe if you crunch, or something?


 860 has HT, so it's kinda 8 cores, anyway.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2011)

Just OC the 1055T and call it a day.


----------



## gifted1 (May 30, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Just OC the 1055T and call it a day.



can you explain why?


----------



## LordJummy (May 30, 2011)

Get the 860. You will thank yourself.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2011)

gifted1 said:


> can you explain why?



To much of a headache for no reason unless you game at 1280x720.


----------



## HossHuge (May 30, 2011)

gifted1 said:


> can you explain why?



My Asrock board has my 1055t running at 3.78.  Before you trade,  O/C it and see if it suits your fancy.


----------



## gifted1 (May 30, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> Get the 860. You will thank yourself.




Well is the game performance of a i7 860 so much higher then a 1055t? Keep in mind that my 1055t runs at 3,7 ghz stable.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2011)

HossHuge said:


> My Asrock board has my 1055t running at 3.78.  Before you trade,  O/C it and see if it suits your fancy.



I agree. For gaming it doesn't make any real difference at high resolution.


----------



## gifted1 (May 30, 2011)

HossHuge said:


> My Asrock board has my 1055t running at 3.78.  Before you trade,  O/C it and see if it suits your fancy.



thats exactly the speed my 1055t reaches  but the question is, is the 860 still faster then?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2011)

gifted1 said:


> thats exactly the speed my 1055t reaches  but the question is, is the 860 still faster then?



Faster in what? Gaming? I doubt it unless you game at low resolution.


----------



## gifted1 (May 30, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I agree. For gaming it doesn't make any real difference at high resolution.



then i`ll think i will save the 60 euro`s for a better videocard...


----------



## LordJummy (May 30, 2011)

The 860 has more power overall, and especially once OC'd. It's now a matter of whether you have the motivation enough to get it and set it up. I don't really think it's a headache. In my opinion it should be fun to set up the new system.

In terms of raw power, yes, the 860 is a very powerful quad core just about on par with the 1366 chips in the 950 / 960 range stock. These chips completely put the 1055T and 1100T to shame. That's a fact. You won't see much of a difference visually in games, no. You will however have power to spare. It is your choice.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> The 860 has more power overall, and especially once OC'd. It's now a matter of whether you have the motivation enough to get it and set it up. I don't really think it's a headache. In my opinion it should be fun to set up the new system.
> 
> In terms of raw power, yes, the 860 is a very powerful quad core just about on par with the 1366 chips in the 950 / 960 range stock. These chips completely put the 1055T and 1100T to shame. That's a fact. You won't see much of a difference visually in games, no. You will however have power to spare. It is your choice.



Games that use more cores like BC2 and BF3 (Rumored) you will get better performance then a quad.


----------



## gifted1 (May 30, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Games that use more cores like BC2 and BF3 (Rumored) you will get better performance then a quad.



thats true but the i7 860 has hypertreading so its really 8 cores against 6 cores or am i wrong here?

damn this is difficult....


----------



## LordJummy (May 30, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Games that use more cores like BC2 and BF3 (Rumored) you will get better performance then a quad.



Do you have actual performance numbers to back that up? I haven't seen any numbers on the internet that indicate the weaker AMD hexa core chip out performs the Quad i7 with Hyperthreading. The 860 is an HT chip. It essentially has 8 threads/cores in multithreaded applications and games. Sometimes even in multi threaded apps 4 stronger cores with HT beats six weaker cores. 

If there are actual numbers where someone tested an identical system with same GPU and RAM and HD etc, then I would believe you.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2011)

gifted1 said:


> thats true but the i7 860 has hypertreading so its really 8 cores against 6 cores or am i wrong here?



Its not "real" cores not that it makes a difference in games. It will make a difference in encoding.

Is the intel an upgrade? IMO no. For you games are what matters and the intel wont make much of a difference. Its all about the GPU at higher resolutions. Use that money to upgrade the GPU.



LordJummy said:


> Do you have actual performance numbers to back that up? I haven't seen any numbers on the internet that indicate the weaker AMD hexa core chip out performs the Quad i7 with Hyperthreading. The 860 is an HT chip. It essentially has 8 threads/cores in multithreaded applications and games. Sometimes even in multi threaded apps 4 stronger cores with HT beats six weaker cores.
> 
> If there are actual numbers where someone tested an identical system with same GPU and RAM and HD etc, then I would believe you.



It depends on the application. Real cores make a difference in encoding situations.


----------



## erocker (May 30, 2011)

I don't think it's going to make much of a difference at all with gaming.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2011)

erocker said:


> I don't think it's going to make much of a difference at all with gaming.



Exactly. Thats all I am saying. Use the money for a better GPU.


----------



## LordJummy (May 30, 2011)

The original post was asking if the 860 was a good deal or not. It is a good deal, to answer your question. 

Will it make a visible difference in games? No. Benchmarks? Maybe, but not much.

Good deal? yes


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2011)

gifted1 said:


> look i`m a gamer and i want to play with as many fps as i can get!!



No its a not a good deal for gaming.


----------



## cadaveca (May 30, 2011)

erocker said:


> I don't think it's going to make much of a difference at all with gaming.


Unfortunately, it does. Quite a large difference, I might add. It's shocking, really



TheMailMan78 said:


> Exactly. Thats all I am saying. Use the money for a better GPU.



I'd not agree here. 



TheMailMan78 said:


> No its a not a good deal for gaming.



Sure it is, but you've never run Intel, so you'd have no idea just how large of a difference there really is.


This was discussed fairly extensively on TS, many months ago, when I made the change. Quite a few apps do much better on Intel, and as newer titles hit, it seems even more important. In specific laods, Thuban @ 3.3 GHz is less than half the speed of SandyBridge, and a bit more like 2/3rds of 1156.


----------



## LordJummy (May 30, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Sure it is, but you've never run Intel, so you'd have no idea just how large of a difference there really is.



Exactly what I was typing. Well said.


----------



## erocker (May 30, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Unfortunately, it does. Quite a large difference, I might add. It's shocking, really



I really haven't seen the proof to back that up... With a single GPU anyway.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> This was discussed fairly extensively on TS, many months ago, when I made the change. Quite a few apps do much better on Intel, and as newer titles hit, it seems even more important. In specific laods, Thuban @ 3.3 GHz is less than half the speed of SandyBridge, and a bit more like 2/3rds of 1156.


 What you are seeing is a placebo effect. He will MAYBE get 10 fps more at higher resolutions with the Intel. Not worth 60 euros. Crossfire is a different story.



LordJummy said:


> Exactly what I was typing. Well said.



My best friend runs an i7. I have used it a great deal. My FPS tears him a new one due to my GPU. I love how people assume everything off of the system specs on the side of the forum.


----------



## cadaveca (May 30, 2011)

erocker said:


> I really haven't seen the proof to back that up... With a single GPU anyway.


F1 2010. Damn game recommends LOW settings on my Thuban rig, gets ULTRA on SB. it's comical.

Not every game matters, but there's quite a few that do show a signifigant difference. Keep in mind I review using a single GPU.



TheMailMan78 said:


> What you are seeing is a placebo effect. He will MAYBE get 10 fps more at higher resolutions with the Intel. Not worth 60 euros. Crossfire is a different story.



I wish. I dropped $200 on this 1100T, because I needed it for reviews. What a waste of cash...

10 FPS, if it pushes you over 60FPS, from just under, is, to me, worth $60, for sure. Maybe not $60 of YOUR dollars, but my wallet would have no problem with that.


Numbers will be in an upcoming review.


----------



## LordJummy (May 30, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> f1 2010. Damn game recommends low settings on my thuban rig, gets ultra on sb. It's comical.
> 
> 
> Not every game matters, but there's quite a few that do such a signifigant difference.



g t a i v


----------



## cadaveca (May 30, 2011)

Well, basically anything using deffered rendering, really.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> F1 2010. Damn game recommends LOW settings on my Thuban rig, gets ULTRA on SB. it's comical.
> 
> Not every game matters, but there's quite a few that do show a signifigant difference. Keep in mind I review using a single GPU.
> 
> ...





You are also running crossfire....which the OP is not. Again the CPU he has is fine. He needs a better GPU. He will see a much larger performance increase with a GPU upgrade then a trade over to Intel.


----------



## cadaveca (May 30, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You are also running crossfire....which the OP is not. Again the CPU he has is fine. He needs a better GPU. He will see a much larger performance increase with a GPU upgrade then a trade over to Intel.



No, I am talking in my rewiew rig(s). Single 6950.


On the GPU front, you are most likely right, if he's running a 5770. With a 5770 there would be very little difference, sure, but that's not what he's got a potential deal for.


----------



## LordJummy (May 30, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You are also running crossfire....which the OP is not. Again the CPU he has is fine. He needs a better GPU. He will see a much larger performance increase with a GPU upgrade then a trade over to Intel.



This thread isn't about a GPU upgrade man. You don't seem to understand that though. He is planning on upgrading his GPU already. He just wanted to know if it's a good deal for $60 to upgrade. The answer is YES.


----------



## Dopamin3 (May 30, 2011)

In the majority of games a Thuban will suffice, but single threaded performance is nowhere close to i7 chips.  So if a game is poorly optimized and isn't multithreaded, you will take noticeable FPS hits.  Take for example Starcraft II.  Keep in mind it only utilizes two cores so the 6 core Phenom II will perform equal to the quad core or even dual core.

With the 860 you will get higher FPS with less large dips.  Again Thuban is usually fine for gaming, but the 860 is better in pretty much all cases of gaming(but most of the time you're already getting way over 60 FPS anyway).  In very few titles you will get big differences like SC2.  

The trade is really up to you.  It's not a bad deal so consider it, but either way you're on a pretty good platform.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> No, I am talking in my rewiew rig(s). Single 6950.
> 
> 
> On the GPU front, you are most likely right, if he's running a 5770. With a 5770 there would be very little difference, sure, but that's not what he's got a potential deal for.





LordJummy said:


> This thread isn't about a GPU upgrade man. You don't seem to understand that though. He is planning on upgrading his GPU already. He just wanted to know if it's a good deal for $60 to upgrade. The answer is YES.



What you don't understand is he already said he could take that extra 60 euros and upgrade his potential GPU options. So no ITS NOT A GOOD DEAL to spend 60 on the CPU because that extra 60 euros will get him more FPS in gaming then the CPU will.



gifted1 said:


> *then i`ll think i will save the 60 euro`s for a better videocard*...


----------



## LordJummy (May 30, 2011)

/yawn, /unscubscribe


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> /yawn, /unscubscribe



Sucks when I'm right huh?


----------



## cadaveca (May 30, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Sucks when I'm right huh?



Not really. I still don't agree. Truly, I think I am considering much more of this than you are. He'll probably save on power alone running Intel. With that factored in, it's still a very good option, to me.

Would be much better to spend that cash on a GPU, or SB, for sure. a 6950 would be a SUBSTANTIAL performance increase, for sure, and much more than a CPU would bring, 100%.

If it is a question of one, or the other, then sure, you are right. Noone should game on a 5770!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Not really. I still don't agree. Truly, I think I am considering much more of this than you are. He'll probably save on power alone running Intel. With that factored in, it's still a very good option, to me.
> 
> Would be much better to spend that cash on a GPU, or SB, for sure. a 6950 would be a SUBSTANTIAL performance increase, for sure, and much more than a CPU would bring, 100%.
> 
> If it is a question of one, or the other, then sure, you are right. Noone should game on a 5770!



Of course you don't agree. Your Dave. If you agreed with me I would board up my windows and prepare for the zombie apocalypse.

My comment was more to LordJummy.


----------



## HUSKIE (May 30, 2011)

:d


----------



## erocker (May 30, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> F1 2010. Damn game recommends LOW settings on my Thuban rig, gets ULTRA on SB. it's comical.


There must of been something wrong with your config. Seriously, that isn't right.


----------



## cadaveca (May 30, 2011)

erocker said:


> There must of been something wrong with your config. Seriously, that isn't right.



Can't figure it out, TBH. The difference between SB and Thuban in F1 2010 @ Ultra is really scary...I never figured it for that much. But memory performance is enough to explain the deficit. SB @ ultra, 8xAA, I get abt 65FPS avg, Thuban with HIGH, 8xAA, 55FPS avg. The numbers are right, the recommendation in-game isn't.

All other apps behave as they should. Of course, I have my benches from before I moved to Intel to verify numbers.


Civ5, no difference. 3DM11, minor difference. SPI32M...OMG.


----------



## gifted1 (May 30, 2011)

what i had forgotten to mention is that the money for the upgrade is a little bit of the money i`ve reserved for the gpu upgrade so i think i`ll wont do it just because i think upgrading to a 6950 gives me more fps then switching to the i7 without one and offcourse noone should game on a 5770 but when your gtx460 HAWK is gone for repairs, believe me i was glad that a guy sold me that 5770 for 40 euros so at least i could play my games!!!!  wich are bbc2(vietnam),crysis2,black opps, and cs-source.


----------



## cadaveca (May 30, 2011)

Yeah, if it's money for your GPU, then Mailman IS correct, the GPU will give more FPS overall.

Better board up your doors and Windows, MM.


----------



## Dopamin3 (May 30, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Can't figure it out, TBH. The difference between SB and Thuban in F1 2010 @ Ultra is really scary...I never figured it for that much. But memory performance is enough to explain the deficit. SB @ ultra, 8xAA, I get abt 65FPS avg, Thuban with HIGH, 8xAA, 55FPS avg. The numbers are right, the recommendation in-game isn't.
> 
> All other apps behave as they should. Of course, I have my benches from before I moved to Intel to verify numbers.
> 
> ...



Memory performance may help a little bit, but really it's just that the CPU architecture is much, much faster on Sandy Bridge than Phenom II.  Phenom II is about on par/slower than Core2Quad CPUs clock for clock like the Q9550.  Since Core2Quad, Intel has released Nehalem, Lynnfield, and Sandy Bridge, all which take single threaded performance to an extreme.  Since AMDs have 6 real cores, sometimes they will beat out the Intel variants (4 core with HT for 8 threads) in stuff that is 100% multithreaded like Cinebench. 

F1 2010 is either a) terribly coded or b) not multithreaded or c) a combination of the two.  F1 2010 would be a game similar to what I'm talking about in my last post in this thread.  The vast majority of games run fine on Phenom II, but every now and then you get something that comes along that needs a faster CPU.


----------



## erocker (May 30, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Can't figure it out, TBH. The difference between SB and Thuban in F1 2010 @ Ultra is really scary...I never figured it for that much. But memory performance is enough to explain the deficit. SB @ ultra, 8xAA, I get abt 65FPS avg, Thuban with HIGH, 8xAA, 55FPS avg. The numbers are right, the recommendation in-game isn't.
> 
> All other apps behave as they should. Of course, I have my benches from before I moved to Intel to verify numbers.
> 
> ...



You're numbers are way off for some reason.   Besides, we really aren't talking about Sandy Bridge.


----------



## cadaveca (May 30, 2011)

erocker said:


> You're numbers are way off for some reason.



No, they aren't. Try running just one card, e.  Been doing nothing much more than benching for the past couple of months. Got quite a few reviews up with 1156 numbers for F1 2010, with Ultra settings.

(edit: with Cat 11.2, BTW, newer drivers perform a bit better, and I'm talking at stock CPU speeds, 8GB 1333mhz CAS9 mem.)


----------



## erocker (May 30, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> and I'm talking at stock CPU speeds, 8GB 1333mhz CAS9 mem



Yuck, Running an AMD system stock is less than adequate, though I understand why you do it. Anyways, I'm getting 61fps average, ultra settings with a single card. I would expect SB to be a bit better here.


----------



## cadaveca (May 30, 2011)

erocker said:


> Yuck, Running an AMD system stock is less than adequate, though I understand why you do it. Anyways, I'm getting 61fps average, ultra settings with a single card. I would expect SB to be a bit better here.



It is, but not by much. Like I said, 65FPS. Stock cpu and mem, of course. Running 8xAA? What driver?


----------



## erocker (May 30, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> It is, but not by much. Like I said, 65FPS. Stock cpu and mem, of course. Running 8xAA? What driver?



Fps has been constant pretty much through the 11's.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 30, 2011)

well i can say from comparing results of various members on this forum and discussing performance difference with dave that


Bad Company 2
GTA IV
Shogun II
F1 2010
Dragon Age Origins + Awakening *aparrently with awakening AMD chips are more prone to system crashes from using all cores its a weird bug that wont be fixed
Dragon Age 2
Starcraft 2

all perform far better on Intel then Amd single card the performance difference is smaller but on dual gpu system the performance difference can be as small as 0% up to 50% faster in favor of intel 

a good example is a Q9650 overclocked vs a i7 860 stock in Bad Company 2 with a 5970 the Q9650 got 70fps avg when overclocked on the i7 860 it hits 100fps stock. thats a 30fps difference with the same damn gpu, and the Core 2 Quad series is roughly comparable clock per clock to a Phenom II no matter the core amount,

In Dragon Age origins with the same gpu aka 5870 the difference between intel and AMD is around 40fps when comparing quadcore to 6 core aka i5 760 vs 1055T the 860 improves upon that further.

Sad fact is if your running a 6850 or lower you wont notice a difference if you have something better then that or multi gpu Intel starts to pull ahead and damn quick at that.

for $60 difference Id make the swap personally, as no matter what overclocked Phenom II benches you want to put up an 860 will overclock just as far or even further and still wins in terms of performance in just about everything imaginable.


----------



## cadaveca (May 30, 2011)

erocker said:


> Fps has been constant pretty much through the 11's.



You are also sporting a higher overclock than I am, both on CPU and GPU, as well as using unlocked shaders.

FPS picked up a bit with 11.5, on my gaming rig. Mind you, that could be due to Crossfire improvements, I am not sure.

Seiously, you've gotta be running the same hardware, same speeds, to be able to compare. I don't expect you to flash your cards back to stock, but it all adds up, and is why your numbers are different than my own.

Cinebench, of course, shows quite the difference in the OpenGL tests, too.


----------



## xenocide (May 31, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> <Voice of Reason>



Holy shit, someone on TPU that doesn't immediately reject the reality that a stronger CPU DOES IN FACT contribute to better Gaming Performance!?!1

/sarcasm

In all seriousness, the switch from a 1055t to an i7-860 would result in some decent performance gains, especially for that cheap.  *BUT* if you're planning on buying a new GPU at this moment anyway, getting a better GPU with that money is the better investment.  The deal you were offered is good, it's actually pretty great.  But if you have a weak GPU right now, upgrading that should be your number one priority.


----------



## gifted1 (May 31, 2011)

Maybe i`ll finish the deal when i got my new vidcard, i belive that a gpu upgrade i my case is a better option!!


----------



## Wile E (May 31, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> well i can say from comparing results of various members on this forum and discussing performance difference with dave that
> 
> 
> Bad Company 2
> ...


It only makes a difference in benches. If you didn't have a counter going, you never would have noticed. I'm with Mailman on this. New GPU is the way to go.


----------



## Funtoss (May 31, 2011)

i7 860  .. you wont regret INTEL


----------



## xenocide (May 31, 2011)

Funtoss said:


> i7 860  .. you wont regret INTEL



See, I wouldn't say it's just because it's Intel.  It's because it's a better CPU given the use.  He's a gamer, the facts are, the i3/5/7 CPU's are significantly better than AMD CPU's for that purpose. If he weren't using a low-end GPU, I would say there is no reason not to do this.  But if it's the difference between him getting like, and 6850, and a 560Ti or even a 6950, then going with the GPU is definitely a much better idea.  

I think in terms of performance, since he already has the 1055t, just getting a new GPU would result in a better overall gain.  I would say a 1055t + 6950 would probably beat a i7-860 + 6850 a majority of the time.  Getting the GPU now would make for better future-proofing as well, but that relly shouldn't factor into the decision, total performance gain should be.


----------



## gifted1 (May 31, 2011)

xenocide said:


> I think in terms of performance, since he already has the 1055t, just getting a new GPU would result in a better overall gain.  *I would say a 1055t + 6950 would probably beat a i7-860 + 6850 a majority of the time. * Getting the GPU now would make for better future-proofing as well, but that relly shouldn't factor into the decision, total performance gain should be.


 thats not really fair....because a 6850 isnt really a 6950!


----------



## xenocide (May 31, 2011)

gifted1 said:


> thats not really fair....because a 6850 isnt really a 6950!



That was the point.  Context my friend, I was stating that since you were getting a new GPU as well, putting all of your money towards a GPU upgrade would be better than splitting it between the new CPU + the new GPU.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 31, 2011)

Wile E said:


> It only makes a difference in benches. If you didn't have a counter going, you never would have noticed. I'm with Mailman on this. New GPU is the way to go.



actually im sorry to say i would notice,

as im pretty sure id notice the difference between 65% gpu usage vs 100% gpu usage on both cards due to a cpu bottleneck,

and since Shogun II is cpu intensive and melee battles will drop to under 15fps on any Core 2 Quad or Phenom II system but are fully playable on any i5 or i7 id notice in that game as well.

in SHogun II the difference in game is nearly a 100% performance increase from a core 2 quad / Phenom II to an i5 i7,

so while some games you wouldnt notice there are alot i would notice a difference in,


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 31, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> in SHogun II the difference in game is nearly a *100% performance increase* from a core 2 quad / Phenom II to an i5 i7,



Source?



crazyeyesreaper said:


> actually im sorry to say i would notice,
> 
> as im pretty sure id notice the difference between 65% gpu usage vs 100% gpu usage on both cards due to a cpu bottleneck,



Um hes only running one card.


----------



## gifted1 (May 31, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> actually im sorry to say i would notice,
> 
> as im pretty sure id notice the difference between 65% gpu usage vs 100% gpu usage on both cards due to a cpu bottleneck,
> 
> ...



i dont play shogun2 so i dont really care about that...what i do care about what the difference should be between the i7 and the 1055t in BF3, battlefield bad compagny 2 
runs as smooth as a ****** on my 1055t at 3,78ghz


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 31, 2011)

gifted1 said:


> i don't play shogun2 so i don't really care about that...what i do care about what the difference should be between the i7 and the 1055t in BF3, battlefield bad company 2
> runs as smooth as a ****** on my 1055t at 3,78ghz



Dude just get the GPU. There is nothing wrong with the 1055t. The GPU would be a far more worthy investment for a few reasons.

1. You are getting used goods. I don't care how good your friend is the stuff you are getting is used. Something small could make that board or CPU unstable. Something that wasn't relative in his rig. Maybe your PSU is more degraded then his. Stuff like that. Point is you may end up getting an unstable rig for 60 bucks. Why risk a perfectly stable OC on a 1155T for a small gamble of a few FPS? Not worth maybe 10 FPS is it?

2. A new GPU will give you a MASSIVE FPS jump over this CPU. So it comes to a choice as a gamer. Would you rather have 10 FPS (CPU) or 40 FPS (GPU)? I mean this really is a no brainer.


----------



## gifted1 (May 31, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Dude just get the GPU. There is nothing wrong with the 1055t. The GPU would be a far more worthy investment for a few reasons.
> 
> 1. You are getting used goods. I don't care how good your friend is the stuff you are getting is used. Something small could make that board or CPU unstable. Something that wasn't relative in his rig. Maybe your PSU is more degraded then his. Stuff like that. Point is you may end up getting an unstable rig for 60 bucks. Why risk a perfectly stable OC on a 1155T for a small gamble of a few FPS? Not worth maybe 10 FPS is it?
> 
> 2. A new GPU will give you a MASSIVE FPS jump over this CPU. So it comes to a choice as a gamer. Would you rather have 10 FPS (CPU) or 40 FPS (GPU)? I mean this really is a no brainer.



I`ll think i`ll do that..


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 31, 2011)

gifted1 said:


> I`ll think i`ll do that..



Good luck man! Post back when you go to OC that 6950


----------



## gifted1 (May 31, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Good luck man! Post back when you go to OC that 6950



I will, thanks man.


----------



## xenocide (May 31, 2011)

gifted1 said:


> what i do care about what the difference should be between the i7 and the 1055t in BF3, battlefield bad compagny 2
> runs as smooth as a ****** on my 1055t at 3,78ghz



CPU-dependent games, you'd see a noticeable difference using an i7-860 imo.  I do agree putting the extra money into a better GPU is the better purchase, but Crazyeye makes a valid argument.  Although you may not play Shogun 2, he is speaking more to the fact that Intel CPU's offer unparalleled performance in modern games.  AMD CPU's are cheaper, but it's because you have to offset the performance loss with a stronger GPU


----------



## gifted1 (May 31, 2011)

xenocide said:


> CPU-dependent games, you'd see a noticeable difference using an i7-860 imo.  I do agree putting the extra money into a better GPU is the better purchase, but Crazyeye makes a valid argument.  Although you may not play Shogun 2, he is speaking more to the fact that Intel CPU's offer unparalleled performance in modern games.  AMD CPU's are cheaper, but it's because you have to offset the performance loss with a stronger GPU



ive just placed the order for a MSI 6950 power-edition 
so there`s not enough money for the deal anymore, and imho ive made the right choice!
i`ll place benches as soon as ive got the card!!

but thank you guys for the post and the tips!! 

Greetzz da_gifted1


----------



## HossHuge (May 31, 2011)

gifted1 just a quick question off topic.  

You must have your bus speed at 270mhz, is that right?  And if so, what happens if you try to boot at say 271?  With my Asrock board, I'm solid at 270mhz but I can't even get it to boot at 271.


----------



## gifted1 (May 31, 2011)

HossHuge said:


> gifted1 just a quick question off topic.
> 
> You must have your bus speed at 270mhz, is that right?  And if so, what happens if you try to boot at say 271?  With my Asrock board, I'm solid at 270mhz but I can't even get it to boot at 271.


no probs here over 270 i can even go to 4ghz!! but thats only booting up its not stable..
wich bios do you got?


----------



## HossHuge (May 31, 2011)

ver 1.9.  The reason I was asking is because I'm interested in buying your board but the newer version called the 870 Extreme3 *R2.0*.  It's an AM3+ board.  It sounds like it's not going to give me a higher clock than I already have so I guess I'll look around more.


----------



## gifted1 (May 31, 2011)

HossHuge said:


> ver 1.9.  The reason I was asking is because I'm interested in buying your board but the newer version called the 870 Extreme3 *R2.0*.  It's an AM3+ board.  It sounds like it's not going to give me a higher clock than I already have so I guess I'll look around more.



where do you get 1.9 from i still have 1,60..


----------



## HossHuge (May 31, 2011)

http://www.asrock.com/mb/download.asp?Model=M3A790GXH/128M&o=BIOS


----------



## Peter1986C (May 31, 2011)

HossHuge that is a *way* different board!

This is the TS's board if I'm right: http://www.asrock.com/mb/download.nl.asp?Model=870 Extreme3&o=BIOS


----------



## HossHuge (May 31, 2011)

Chevalr1c said:


> HossHuge that is a *way* different board!
> 
> This is the TS's board if I'm right: http://www.asrock.com/mb/download.nl.asp?Model=870 Extreme3&o=BIOS



I was just answering his question.  I though the fact we had different boards was known.


----------



## gifted1 (May 31, 2011)

HossHuge said:


> I was just answering his question.  I though the fact we had different boards was known.



H`s right , i tought he had the same mobo as me, butta  time for beer you guys cheers!!


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 31, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Source?
> 
> 
> 
> Um hes only running one card.



not that hard Shogun II has a built in CPU bench that tests the stress a melee battle puts on the CPU since the cpu is handling all the animation info for thousands of soldiers

the fact the bench only uses 2 cores, but shows a Phenom II stock at 14fps vs i5 760 at 26fps and i5 2500k at 32fps overclocks take a Phenom II to 22 i5 760 to 34 i5 2500k to 40+

in Bad Company 2 and in BF3 its going to be a cpu killer do to the physics theres no more rinky dink 2 story buildings collapsing its now full blown towers that get dropped,

now if 2x 5850s / 5970 goes from 70 on and overclock Q9650 to 100 on a stock i5 2500k which would be comparable to a i7 860  you overclock the i7 you can hit 120 or so so while that may be a dual card situation near 50fps increase from a god damn CPU upgrade is nothing to sneeze at and since this is on the same game engine as BF3 essentially it kinda proves my point, i am running 2x 6970s and this phenom II barely puts out 65-76 avg in BC2, i can easily feel the difference in performance ive proven it on more then 1 occasion that the higher my frame rate is the better i do online. the lower my frame rate the worse i do,

a new gpu would be a nice upgrade for sure, but in all honestly that i7  will push a gpu and give better performance in Battlefield, no matter which way you want to look at it, and if hes already going to upgrade his gpu why not get the god damn CPU + Mobo etc, wait till BF3 comes out THEN get a new fucking gpu. That would make more sense to me because in all honesty a Phenom II cannot push high end gpus enough in Battlefield. But to each there own, 

and since it seems the OP already bought the GPU all i can say is enjoy the new graphics card.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 31, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> not that hard Shogun II has a built in CPU bench that tests the stress a melee battle puts on the CPU since the cpu is handling all the animation info for thousands of soldiers
> 
> the fact the bench only uses 2 cores, but shows a Phenom II stock at 14fps vs i5 760 at 26fps and i5 2500k at 32fps overclocks take a Phenom II to 22 i5 760 to 34 i5 2500k to 40+
> 
> ...



I DL the demo. Ill check it out now. I didnt know it had a bench. Ill post back. Also thats BS about the AMD CPUs not pushing single GPU in battlefield.


----------



## cadaveca (May 31, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Also thats BS about the AMD CPUs not pushing single GPU in battlefield.




No it's not, unfortunately for you.  I mean, OK, AMD CPUs can play, but Intel definitely adds a substantial performance boost, that even overclocked, AMD cannot match. It's not that AMD is bad...it's only bad when comared to the other options out there.

FYI, on Sandybridge, I am getting Crazy's dualcard FPS with a single, and lesser, card.

20 FPS difference in F1 2010, stock clocks, too. Any engine that uses defferred rendering gets big boosts on the Intel platform. I hope bulldozer changes this situation.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 31, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I DL the demo. Ill check it out now. I didnt know it had a bench. Ill post back. Also thats BS about the AMD CPUs not pushing single GPU in battlefield.



of course its BS, i'm not even overclocked and my phenom will handle Battlefield, i'm sure it'll do battlefield 3 with a mild o/c


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 31, 2011)

really hmm do you really want me to go compare my results to those running an Intel system im pretty sure if i have anyone on this forum running a Intel i5 760 or better with 2 LOWER end gpus i would bet $10 they get higher frame rates and if switch to a single 6970 i can all without a doubt say the performance difference is large.

if you want mailman ill test against anyone you know with an intel i5 or i7 in both single and dual gpu. im willing to put up or shut up on the performance difference

6970x2 vs anything from the GTX 470 sli or 5870 xfire or better, and same as single card

i bet in Battlefield the performance difference will be more then noticeable.

If cadaveca had the free time id post my results next to his own since he has 2x 6950s and we can both easily run 1 card or 2 but hes busy with reviews lately.

my major point is FPS does matter in First person shooters and in Bad Company a Phenom II just dosent push hard enough

again everyone already knows Phenom II is clock for clock on par with socket 775 45nm quads namely Q9000 series, and again if an overclocked Q9000 is 30fps slower then a stock i5 2500k how much more of a difference with BF3 make when an entire skyscraper falls to the city streets.


----------



## cadaveca (May 31, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> of course its BS, i'm not even overclocked and my phenom will handle Battlefield, i'm sure it'll do battlefield 3 with a mild o/c



Point is, it doesn't handle it AS WELL as Intel does.



crazyeyesreaper said:


> if you want mailman ill test against anyone you know with an intel i5 or i7 in both single and dual gpu. im willing to put up or shut up on the performance difference.



I have all three CPUs, and am currently doing compares for my own benefit(I don't review CPU performance). the difference is quite surprising.

BUT...let's talk aobut perceptional differences..differences you notice..that's harder to quantify.



crazyeyesreaper said:


> If cadaveca had the free time id post my results next to his own since he has 2x 6950s and we can both easily run 1 card or 2 but hes busy with reviews lately.



I'm working on one right htis moment, but I will be done in the next day or so, and will be posting compares as I get time to do them. Next review will have numbers from all three platforms(AM3/1155/1156), as well.


----------



## gifted1 (May 31, 2011)

i`d had to make a choise because i didnt had the cash for both, but i talked to the guy and in a week or 3/4 i`ve got the money for the deal...so it will be done then at least i want to see some benches live in his computerroom and check the components for any damage.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 31, 2011)

well i can honestly say i can easily notice a difference at the following fps rates in BC2

at 45-50fps i get around a .85 K/D average thats with my AA settings maxed in control panel you know maximum pretty factor, at 65-70 i hit 1.0 K/D if i turn off AA, and lower a few other settings down 1 notch i can hit 85-90 where my K/D tops out at around 1.25

so in the Battlefield games over the course of its release to know ive changed from a 4870x2 to 5850x2 to 6970x2 and each time i gained more and more performance and with each change my overall gameplay improved and it didnt improve over time it quite literally jumped up like steps but at the 90fps range it dosent scale any more for me, my K/D and overall ability to play tops out at that frame rate.

another person who can easily vouch for the change in game performance from a CPU change is Triptex, who went from a heavily overclocked Q9650 to an i7 2600k or was it a 2500k i think a 2600k but his frame rate went sky high from the change and the smoothness was easily evident. I remember him bitching how shitty his 5970 was but after upgrading to the new SB chip he dosent bitch about the gpu anymore since it now has proper cpu muscle behind it.

again some games CPU dosent matter,   Metro 2033 for example a core 2 duo does just as good as an i7 980x at 4.4ghz theres no difference at all. but for the Battlefield series again FPS does matter and CPU is a huge part of that performance,


----------



## cheesy999 (May 31, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Point is, it doesn't handle it AS WELL as Intel does.



40fps is good enough for me

i've been leaving movies playing in the background to try to increase my 0.4 kill to death ratio into a number above 1


----------



## cadaveca (May 31, 2011)

gifted1 said:


> i`d had to make a choise because i didnt had the cash for both, but i talked to the guy and in a week or 3/4 i`ve got the money for the deal...so it will be done then at least i want to see some benches live in his computerroom and check the components for any damage.



You made the right choice, IMHO. the 6950 is more than twice as powerful as teh 5770 you are currently rocking.

Adding teh platform change will icnrease the perforamcne boost.



crazyeyesreaper said:


> well i can honestly say i can easily notice a difference at the following fps rates in BC2
> 
> at 45-50fps i get around a .85 K/D average thats with my AA settings maxed in control panel you know maximum pretty factor, at 65-70 i hit 1.0 K/D if i turn off AA, and lower a few other settings down 1 notch i can hit 85-90 where my K/D tops out at around 1.25
> 
> so in the Battlefield games over the course of its release to know ive changed from a 4870x2 to 5850x2 to 6970x2 and each time i gained more and more performance and with each change my overall gameplay improved and it didnt improve over time it quite literally jumped up like steps but at the 90fps range it dosent scale any more for me, my K/D and overall ability to play tops out at that frame rate.




And i now understand why things are differnt for us, in the BC2 scoring...one card plays @ about 60FPS avg, with very few dips below 60. Dualcard, on the other hand, doesn't exactly double FPS, and leads to a bit of input lag for me, beucase my CPU is much faster than yours, so doesn't affect gameplay with a singlecard, whereas your lesser CPU DOES affect gameplay for you, with a singlecard.



cheesy999 said:


> 40fps is good enough for me



My son too. He plays on a 4870 1GB card, medium details, no AA, 1080p. but for me, I am too sensitive to that low of a framerate, and I can notice very easily when framerates drop below monitor refresh. In fact, it gives me motion sickness, and headaches, to play ANY GAME with less than 60FPS.

This problem is why I made my way into the high-end performance segment, becuase gaming is no fun, when it makes you puke.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 31, 2011)

pretty much you might be spot on dave with a higher cpu the difference in input lag might be more noticeable since the CPU isnt the component holding back performance anymore, eitherway i can deal with input lag easy enough, that dosent actually affect my ability, Frame rate and smoothness of frame rate does.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 31, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> You made the right choice, IMHO. the 6950 is more than twice as powerful as teh 5770 you are currently rocking.
> 
> Adding teh platform change will icnrease the perforamcne boost.
> 
> ...




i did the entire crysis + warhead single player at 20fps on The highest difficulty, unfortunatly i started playing multiplayer games on battlefield Bad company 2 last week and i'm not as good at playing real people


----------



## cadaveca (May 31, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> i did the entire crysis + warhead single player at 20fps on The highest difficulty, unfortunatly i started playing multiplayer games on battlefield Bad company 2 last week and i'm not as good at playing real people



I played Crysis @ 1280x720, and lowered details, because of how lower framerates affect me. I wish I wasn't so sensitive...because then my gaming would cost me far less!


----------



## cheesy999 (May 31, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I played Crysis @ 1280x720, and lowered details, because of how lower framerates affect me. I wish I wasn't so sensitive...because then my gaming would cost me far less!



have you tried using a slightly smaller screen?

intrestingly i'm ok with low fps on an lcd or plasma but the normal flicker of a crt gives me really bad eye strain even if its at a solid 60fps

i'm so lucky i was born into a world of flat panels


----------



## cadaveca (May 31, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> have you tried using a slightly smaller screen?



Yes, i have. Doesn't matter, unfortunately. I am almost better on CRTs than on LCD's, but they do not make CRT's large enough for my own preference.


----------



## erocker (May 31, 2011)

Let's look at it this way:

1055T = $160

i7 860 = $300-ish

$160 + $80 = $240 (Converting 60 euros to dollars)

Good deal for a trade.


----------



## cadaveca (May 31, 2011)

erocker said:


> Let's look at it this way:
> 
> 1055T = $160
> 
> ...



Thanks, erocker, as that was exactly my slant at the beginning. It was a good deal, not considering the GPU change.

however, you haven't considered board prices, too.


----------



## gifted1 (May 31, 2011)

erocker said:


> Let's look at it this way:
> 
> 1055T = $160
> 
> ...



Youre right but i`m not sure in wich condition the i7 and mobo are, and i know my mobo and 1055t are ok, that was also a reason that i went for a (new) video card, the guy from the deal told me there was no waranty on cpu or mobo and mine still has waranty both cpu and mobo, so if i went for the deal and something broke down i`ll be in a world of PAIN...


----------



## erocker (May 31, 2011)

gifted1 said:


> Youre right but i`m not sure in wich condition the i7 and mobo are, and i know my mobo and 1055t are ok, that was also a reason that i went for a (new) video card, the guy from the deal told me there was no waranty on cpu or mobo and mine still has waranty both cpu and mobo, so if i went for the deal and something broke down i`ll be in a world of PAIN...



Meh, sell your old stuff and buy new. Sounds a little sketchy.


----------



## gifted1 (May 31, 2011)

Thats no option if youve spend like 260 euro`s on a 6950 power-edition two hours ago,,,,i do not have a tree growing euro bills (wich sucks) but if you have a limited budget the gpu upgrade is the best choise imo with my setup as it now is. and selling my old (well there not that old 1/2 a year)
wil not bring me that much cash to go for a sandy-solution witch is my goal eventualy..


----------



## erocker (May 31, 2011)

Keep what you got then, or it just comes down to weather you can trust this guy's hardware or not. Up to you.


----------



## xenocide (May 31, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> again everyone already knows Phenom II is clock for clock on par with socket 775 45nm quads namely Q9000 series, and again if an overclocked Q9000 is 30fps slower then a stock i5 2500k how much more of a difference with BF3 make when an entire skyscraper falls to the city streets.



I think even 30 might be a bit low for some games.  I know the difference between my Q6600 and the i5-2500k I have now was a lot more in most games.  I went from Rift on Medium getting 30fps, to Rift on High getting 60-70 fps.  I also was able to switch from BC2 being on high with no AA getting 40-50 fps, to high with max AA getting 70-80.  Granted the Q9xxx series and Q6xxx series alone are a generation apart, so maybe 30 is about accurate.


----------



## yogurt_21 (May 31, 2011)

when he was stating just the amd vs intel it seemed like a good deal. However when you factor in 60 euro's extra towards a gpu budget? that's the difference between a 6850 and a 6950. 

taking a look at w1z's lated benches there's overall a 25-30% performance difference between the two cards.

I don't care how slow you all feel phenom 2 is compared to 1156. There is no way in hell an i7 860 is going to make up that amount of difference. Period!


so all in all I'm with The mail man on this. Gaming wise putting 60 euros towards the gpu budget makes more sense.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 31, 2011)

and again this build was for games like Battlefield 3 how far off is BF3 oh thats right its still  5 months away  hmm if someone cant save money for a GPU in 5 months maybe they shouldnt be buying new hardware lolz


----------



## yogurt_21 (May 31, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> and again this build was for games like Battlefield 3 how far off is BF3 oh thats right its still  5 months away  hmm if someone cant save money for a GPU in 5 months maybe they shouldnt be buying new hardware lolz



cmon you know hardware budgets come and go. If he's anythgin like me in 5 months he'll be broke and barely able to afford the game. That's whether or not new hardware is purchased now.


----------



## gifted1 (May 31, 2011)

yogurt_21 said:


> cmon you know hardware budgets come and go. If he's anythgin like me in 5 months he'll be broke and barely able to afford the game. That's whether or not new hardware is purchased now.



well i`m not broke in 5 months thats for sure, social security is better aranged here then in the US thank god!!


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 31, 2011)

lol   That is all !


----------



## gifted1 (May 31, 2011)

LOLz cheers buddy!!


----------



## Wile E (Jun 1, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> actually im sorry to say i would notice,
> 
> as im pretty sure id notice the difference between 65% gpu usage vs 100% gpu usage on both cards due to a cpu bottleneck,
> 
> ...



With an LCD, you absolutely would not notice a single frame above 60fps. That's all your LCD can display.


----------



## xenocide (Jun 1, 2011)

Wile E said:


> With an LCD, you absolutely would not notice a single frame above 60fps. That's all your LCD can display.



That's not necessarily true for a number of reasons, the most obvious being a lot of LCD Monitor's are 75hz meaning given the logic you are applying you wouldn't see a noticable difference over 75fps.


----------



## gifted1 (Jun 1, 2011)

xenocide said:


> That's not necessarily true for a number of reasons, the most obvious being a lot of LCD Monitor's are *75hz* meaning given the logic you are applying you wouldn't see a noticable difference over 75fps.



Some lcd`s do even 85 hz correct me if i`m wrong here


----------



## Wile E (Jun 1, 2011)

xenocide said:


> That's not necessarily true for a number of reasons, the most obvious being a lot of LCD Monitor's are 75hz meaning given the logic you are applying you wouldn't see a noticable difference over 75fps.





gifted1 said:


> Some lcd`s do even 85 hz correct me if i`m wrong here



Nope. Some do 120, but not his. All those other LCDs that accept 75hz or higher still only put out at 60hz.


----------



## gifted1 (Jun 1, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Nope. Some do 120, but not his. All those other LCDs that accept 75hz or higher still only put out at 60hz.



you sure *all* those other lcd`s put out 60 hz? source?


----------



## xenocide (Jun 1, 2011)

Some list 85hz at lower resolutions I believe, but 60/75/120 are the norm for LCD's.  I am interested to see some conclusive evidence to back that up Wile E, I have never heard such.


----------



## erocker (Jun 1, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Some list 85hz at lower resolutions I believe, but 60/75/120 are the norm for LCD's.  I am interested to see some conclusive evidence to back that up Wile E, I have never heard such.



Check the specifications of monitors, all of the info is there.


----------



## xenocide (Jun 1, 2011)

erocker said:


> Check the specifications of monitors, all of the info is there.



Let's take this one for example;

Acer G235HAbd 23'' 5ms  1920x1080 WideScre...

It claims it operates up to 75hz as I said, but what Wile E is saying is that it still only runs at 60hz, despite everything saying it's operating at 75hz.  I have not seen or heard anything to back up such a claim.  I know some games will force monitors into funky refresh rates, but between drivers and various settings you can easily override this.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 1, 2011)

i dont care what the max fucking frame rate is on the god damn monitor it dosent change the fact that the higher the frame rate the better i do in FPS games, you can say i cant see it i cant see it i cant see it all you fucking want fact is dosent change the fact that the game plays and feels better at higher frame rates.


----------



## gifted1 (Jun 1, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> i dont care what the max fucking frame rate is on the god damn monitor it dosent change the fact that the higher the frame rate the better i do in FPS games, you can say i cant see it i cant see it i cant see it all you fucking want fact is dosent change the fact that the game plays and feels better at higher frame rates.



wow dude chill  hehehe


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 1, 2011)

i am chill i just get tired of bs statements of you can see it... of course i cant see the difference i didnt say i could  what i said was i could feel the difference and my overall performance aka kill/death score per minute, and in general is higher the higher my frame rate is.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 1, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> i dont care what the max fucking frame rate is on the god damn monitor it dosent change the fact that the higher the frame rate the better i do in FPS games, you can say i cant see it i cant see it i cant see it all you fucking want fact is dosent change the fact that the game plays and feels better at higher frame rates.



And if you go higher the the maximum frame rate of your monitor you tend to get tearing. Then you put on vertical sync and guess what frame rate you are with this on? The maximum frame rate of your monitor. Ideal gameplay is keeping a constant maximum frame rate of the monitor you are using. Anything less or more can hamper your gameplay experience.


----------



## gifted1 (Jun 1, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> And if you go higher the the maximum frame rate of your monitor you tend to get tearing. Then you put on vertical sync and guess what frame rate you are with this on? The maximum frame rate of your monitor. Ideal gameplay is keeping a constant maximum frame rate of the monitor you are using. Anything less or more can hamper your gameplay experience.



Well the refreshrate for my monitor is 66.? hz at 1920x1080 so lets say 60 hz, With v-sync on my framerate will be 60 fps then, thats fine by me!! and with v-sync on youve got less tearing..so i seems that gaming with v-sync on is better then v-sync off...again correct me if i`m wrong... crazyeyesreaper, is your k/d ratio optimal at 60 fps?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 1, 2011)

No crazyeyesreaper k/d ratio is optimal when his trailer has heat.


----------



## gifted1 (Jun 1, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> No crazyeyesreaper k/d ratio is optimal when his trailer has heat.



dude whats wrong with a trailer? lolz


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 1, 2011)

uh for one i dont use vsync so herp derp durrr also Bad Company 2 dosent tear that badly at all the texture flicker from having AA on is much more distracting. so you can shit can vsync limiting my frame rate genius.

and i dont live in a trailer I live in a 3 bedroom 1 bath home on US Route 1. with a Gambrel Garage and a secondary 600 square foot workshop. Although it would be nice to take down 
the old workshop put a trailer there for my white trailer trash buddies to live in. then i could collect rent and make some extra cash....

my K/D and score per round tends to be Optimal around 90fps or better  at anything below 60 i do terrible, but at 60 im still not playing my best. 90-100fps is my sweet spot. and tearing only really bothers me in RPGs. namely Oblivion Fallout 3 and New Vegas the gamebryo engine suffers from tearing to an extreme, where as Frostbite engine it dosent phase me at all.

but Vsync does remove tearing it can cause input lag in some titles,  Dead Space in one where its extremely noticeable in the menus etc. at least when it was first released no idea if they fix that or not.  for some people 30fps is enough others its 60fps for me it depends on the game title

in RTS games 30fps is fine  in RPGs i like a solid 60fps but for First Person shooters i want the highest possible frame rate i can get.


----------



## gifted1 (Jun 1, 2011)

*Although it would be nice to take down 
the old workshop put a trailer there for my white trailer trash buddies to live in. then i could collect rent and make some extra cash....*

LMFAO


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 1, 2011)

trolling can go both ways and theres no fun in it unless i roll with it right mailman?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 1, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> trolling can go both ways and theres no fun in it unless i roll with it right mailman?



Taken like a champ!


----------



## gifted1 (Jun 1, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Taken like a champ!




i agree, taken like a champ, and by the way its time for beer!! whats the time now in the US where you guys live..


----------



## erocker (Jun 1, 2011)

gifted1 said:


> i agree, taken like a champ, and by the way its time for beer!! whats the time now in the US where you guys live..



It's late enough for a beer.  I think I'll have one at work.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 1, 2011)

but yea mailman i noticed it when moving from the 4870x2 to 5850 in xfire in some FPS games i just did WAY better.  also noticed the change from 5850 xfire to 6970 xfire in BC2 not so much other games but in Bad Company the 6970s allow me to hit around 90fps avg.  where as my 5850s tend to top out around 65-70  

5850s would dip down to the 20s while the 6970s drop down to only around 55-60

and with no vsync theres no input lag compared to it being on. so its definetly helped my performance in game in general by a large margin since im still using the same guns now at rank 40+ as i did at rank 10

but in reality i need the above + a stable server... and stable BC2 servers for me are few and far between. feels like alot of the servers are only running 15-20fps so hit detection is screwy in some situations


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 1, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> but yea mailman i noticed it when moving from the 4870x2 to 5850 in xfire in some FPS games i just did WAY better.  also noticed the change from 5850 xfire to 6970 xfire in BC2 not so much other games but in Bad Company the 6970s allow me to hit around 90fps avg.  where as my 5850s tend to top out around 65-70
> 
> 5850s would dip down to the 20s while the 6970s drop down to only around 55-60
> 
> and with no vsync theres no input lag compared to it being on. so its definetly helped my performance in game in general by a large margin since im still using the same guns now at rank 40+ as i did at rank 10



My SINGLE 5850 never drops down to 20 FPS in BC2.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 1, 2011)

well again that comes down to the CPU bottleneck Phenom IIs encouter with dual gpus... which is why i pushed so hard for the upgrade to an i7 with a good gpu.

this is where dave and I have both noticed the same in certain games which i pointed out earlier.

Bad Company 2 is one of those games.. it stresses the CPU so much and with the limited system memory bandwith the Phenom II cant feed the GPUs enough to offer good stable frame rate at least not at my settings..

in essence at the settings i play at my 2x 6970s should give me 140-150fps  not 80-90 but im so heavily limited by the phenom IIs performance per core and bandwidth it holds me back.. Its why im waiting to see what Daves results are as once i move to either sandybridge or bulldozer. Ill be doing a performance test with multiple games stock vs stock 965be vs 2500k so no tinkering no nothing just straight performance change. with both single and dual card. problem is i have to wait for the P67 board to arrive  or for bulldozer to come out swinging eitherway. only a few weeks till i can put my experiences down into a review

much like my 5850 xfire review and 6970 single and Crossfire review along with comparisons I did between 5850xfire and 6970 xfire


----------



## gifted1 (Jun 1, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> My SINGLE 5850 never drops down to 20 FPS in BC2.



even my 5770 doesnt!


----------



## erocker (Jun 1, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> My SINGLE 5850 never drops down to 20 FPS in BC2.





gifted1 said:


> even my 5770 doesnt!



This is where the 6 core makes a difference. I went from a PII 965 to a PII 1100t and noticed a difference. While I didn't drop down to 20 fps like crazy, I got drops when a lot was happening, smoke, etc. I've tested as well and my results weren't nearly as bad as both crazyeyes and cadaveca have gotten. Maybe it has to do with the motherboard. I know I would never bother with a Gigabyte 7xx series board. Gigabyte + AMD have always been garbage for me.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 1, 2011)

My results are based on STOCK numbers. Overclocking can give varied results, as memory contoller speed, memory speed and timings, and actual CPU frequency can all affect performance in different ways. More than likely it's that, and NOT the board, that has us seeing different numbers. Drop back to stock, and your numbers will be very close to my own, provided you use the same ram speed, and the same GPU, again with the same speeds, and shader config. 

For example, using F1 2010, and the same GPU, stock give me ~45 FPS, OC gives ~55FPS; I7 870 @ stock i get 55FPS, OC 60; I7 2600K I get 60FPS stock, and OC gives about 5-8 more.

Keep in mind, all these numbers are run with a 6950 @ stock, with stock shader config, and 1333 MHz CAS9 mem.


----------



## erocker (Jun 1, 2011)

If I wanted to run stock I wouldn't of bought AMD in the first place. It's pretty obvious that Intel has had the superior archetecture since Core2.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 1, 2011)

erocker said:


> If I wanted to run stock I wouldn't of bought AMD in the first place.



Sure, and that's a very valid point here...because stock on AMD cpus really does affect game performance. Oc provides a slightly different picture, but still, my 1100T when OC'd, barely reaches the stock Intel numbers.

I'm also posting average FPS from testing across many different boards for each CPU, here.

back when Core2 was Intel's thing, AMD was quite competitive, but since then Intel has released a couple(well, OK, a few) new product lines, while AMD is still pushing the same tech from years ago, so comparisons of these products is kinda silly. Bulldozer should be compared with current Intel chips, only, but Bulldozer isn't out yet.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 1, 2011)

eitherway trolling and good fun aside i stand by my point

if your getting a good gpu get a cpu that can do the job to..

a balanced rig tends to be the better idea then either cpu heavy or gpu heavy. right now im gpu heavy with no power to push them so i dont get the performance i should where as if i was running a 5770 for instance id have plenty of cpu power in comparison but be highly limited by the gpu  theres a balance of where things make sense  right now my system is in the this shit dosent make sense category in terms of GPU to CPU balance


----------



## gifted1 (Jun 1, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> eitherway trolling and good fun aside i stand by my point
> 
> if your getting a good gpu get a cpu that can do the job to..
> 
> a balanced rig tends to be the better idea then either cpu heavy or gpu heavy. right now im gpu heavy with no power to push them so i dont get the performance i should where as if i was running a 5770 for instance id have plenty of cpu power in comparison but be highly limited by the gpu  theres a balance of where things make sense  right now my system is in the this shit dosent make sense category in terms of GPU to CPU balance



isnt it something for you that deal?


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 1, 2011)

huh? dont quite understand that question care to rephrase?


----------



## gifted1 (Jun 1, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> huh? dont quite understand that question care to rephrase?



forget about it...i wasnt thinking strait, i didnt take my ritalin yet


----------



## Wile E (Jun 2, 2011)

gifted1 said:


> you sure *all* those other lcd`s put out 60 hz? source?



None have shown otherwise as of yet. Here's a couple of articles to get you started. Google for more.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/overdrive_at_75hz.htm

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/specs.htm (scroll down to the refresh rate section)


----------

