ok did all my samples for the q6600..
After trying all my bench software theirs nothing i can do to make the minimum fps better. so that is the cpu as at the same res with lower quality the min fps is the same. maximum goes up and obviously as a result so does the average. thats when using fire strike, and if i cant change the settings on that then i will keep the variables as low as possible by using all quality settings at defaults and only changing resolutions.
i chose to use the 3 valley tests at 1080p.
gpu test 2, physics test, and combined test of 3dmark's fire strike bench.
and ice storm Gpu test 1 and physics test, (3dmark)
fire strike is hard on gpu and cpu usage, valley isnt that bad. and icestorm is gentle.
so thats tough, normal, and easy. in terms of gpu/cpu needs. at the same res and same quality settings. (i think thats about as fair as i can make it removing as many variables as possible)
the q6600 results are in for now 8120 will get the same tests when it gets here..
Valley 1920x1080 (full screen)
min:
18.3 (dx11)
15.1(dx9)
15.0 (opengl)
Max:
73.6(dx11)
76.5(dx9)
58.3 (opengl)
average:
42.6 (dx11)
41.2(dx9)
32.1(opengl)
the 3dmark results are in the form of png image(s) so i will post those here directly. 1920x1080 (full screen)
Fire strike:
IceStorm:
i don't like stupid meaningless scores so its min fps max fps and average..
pretty sure that the resolution + settings is a reasonable place to compare. the 3.0ghz "25% oc" on the q6600 should be something every board and even stock cooling can handle, so its a fair place to set it.
if you want different resolutions chose 1 and i will try and do that before this gets packed up.
and if you want the q6600 maxed out then they are already in my 1st post.
When i add the 8120 it will have the same amount of ram And to be fair i will oc it 25% or to the highest safe setting i think every one can achieve without burning the house down or having a home sounding like a wind farm *which ever setting is lowest*
I made a ridiculously basic html page. i may improve on it if i care to do so, but i really probably wont lol.
here is the web page. (has the valley results in html form in there)
http://shambles1980.x10.mx/
Thief 2014 results.
there really is not much i can do with the q6600 clocked at 3.0 and the gpu at stock oc. the game simply cant run at a constant 60fps no matter what settings i change.
Any way the closest i could get to to best graphics balance with acceptable game play "constantly" gave me 60fps dropping as low as 44fps for a short while.
the test was done in the jewelers store early in the game. this handled the low requirements whilst in doors with most lights off (some rooms were left lit for transitional lighting)
and also a quick burst out side in to the rain and lightning where 3 guards find me and start chasing around increasing the action.
This resulted in the drops of 44fps during the high action outside run but only for a second or 2 when running down the open length of the outside alley.
Defiantly more than playable and if i did not have afterburner running to tell me the fps then i doubt i would have noticed..
tried all kinds of settings and resolutions what i ended up settling for as the best all round compromise was:
Full screen: on
Exclusive full screen: on
v-synk: double buffer
res: 1280x720
Refresh rate 60hz
field of view: 90
texture: Normal
4x AA
shadow quality: normal
parallax occlusion mapping: off
ssaa: off
fxaa: off
Contact hardening shadows: off
tessellation: off
the frames of the bench results were.
15.1Minimum and
63.9 max
average of aproximatley 33
(i have to approximate the average by watching msi after burner as the delay start reports min fps as 0. but they are really 15.) the bench reports average as 29.8
(same settings at 1080p gave max frames of 44.8 in the bench test btw.)
That completes all the tests for the q6600. the low drops in game of 44 IMO are cpu bottling as i cant get them higher than that with editing settings. but i was able to get the average speeds to stay higher with the settings i chose. a higer resolution gives me more drops in to the 50's which is then the gpu.
these settings work the best for the gpu. but at the 3.0 ghz of the cpu the lowest frames will never be higer.
this is also further proven by higher low fps points when running at 3.6ghz.
so now I'm off to use one of my core 2 duo systems whilst i wait for my new board to arrive.
the next update will be the 8120 results.
ok so thief bench test. same as before with the settings. the 8120 did a little better but not really enough to warrant much fan fare.
as usuall the game reports min fps as 0 because of delayed start but msi after burner repoted it as 14.5 (.6 slower than the q6600)
but through out the test the 8120 was able to be consistantly higer and ended up with 63.5 max (lower than the q6600)
and aproximatley 36 avarage (which is quite a bit better) given the lower max frames (but same 0 frames reported) to achieve this the 8120 had to be more consistant or with less low drops during the test.
the actual avarage reported by the bench was 33.9 (4.1fps better than then q6600 achived with higer max frames)
so it looks prety good for the 8120 so far for being more consistant..
the actuall game..
again it was reasonably close. with the 8120 being slighjtly more consistant at staying in the 60fps requested of it. but it too suffered some drops mostly in to the 50's but 1ce diped down to 41.5 (slightly lower than the q6600s lowest point) i must stress however that this was for one small second once, where as i could repeat the 44fps drop with the q6600 every time i ran down the open length of the court yard. the 8120 only did it once and managed to stay at 60.1 fps when i ran down the same path again a few times (possibly throtteling due to the vrm)
The only conclusion i can take from this is that with this board and cpu you would notice no reall difference gaming at the settings using this cpu at stock vs a over clocked q6600 at 3.0
Again i need to stress that this is a slighjtly unfair test due to the fact that this board is 3+1 and will occasionally throttle the cpu to 2.8 when under load.
on to the synthetic tests.
valley bench
min:
15.1 (dx11)
15.4(dx9)
14.6 (opengl)
Max:
74.1(dx11)
78.1(dx9)
66.1 (opengl)
average:
41.6 (dx11)
40.3(dx9)
32.5(opengl)
from here we again see that these 2 processors are again very close provided the q6600 is over clocked to 3.0. and the fx-8120 is locked to 3.1ghz and gets throttled down due to stupid 3+1 power phase.
(how often it gets throttled to 2.8 however i dont know. but if we assume it never does. and was always running at 3.1 with turbo mode off. then the 8120 is atleast on par with a q6600)
As i said earlier this test is very biast in favour of the q6600 due to the stupid 3+1 power phase board which I will be replacing..
any way 3d mark.
here the 8120 seems to do prety much exactly the same as the q6600 in the gpu test. which would imply that the gpu is the limiting factor in this test.
Suprizingly (atleast to me) the 8120 actually performs the physics tests better than the q6600 even when hindered.
and in the combined test its a more even playing feild but the 8120 at 3.1 seems to be able to keep the frames at a more consitsnat rate compared to the q6600..
the q6600 performs quite a bit better here in terms of actuall raw numbers but the graph seems to show the 8120 is more consistant even when hindered..
but in the physics test the 3.0 q6600 is outright better than the 8120 at 3.1..
Which is strange as in the previous physics test it was the other way arround. (again this could be due to throtteling)
so.. wit this set up and the 8120 Locked at 3.1ghz with occasional throtteling down to 2.8ghz "due to stupid mother board" and being unable to utilize built in features such as turbo mode.
the 8120 and 25% oc q6600 seem to be about even...
this is actually a better result for the 8120 than i expected when i found out i was stuck with a 3+1 phase board and it throttled down under load.
If the 8120 had been allowed to use its turbo mode then the q6600 would not have kept up at 3.0 but at 3.6.. I think it probably would have.
so in the end.. i have to say that a stock 8120 would be better than a 25% oc'd q6600. because it would be able to use its turbo mode and hit 4ghz.
unfortunatly i cannot test that out untill i get atleast a 6+2 board.
but these cpu's running at very similar clock speeds are really close in terms of power per mhz. I would have to say the q6600 has slightly better performance for its mhz, but the 8120 on the right board can surpass the q6600 in terms of over clocking.
and if we are looking at stock cooling all round with the correct boards for each cpu then the 8120 would be the winner simply due to the higher clock speeds.
Is it an upgrade?
Well if you did like me and simply swapped your q6600 for the 8120 then yes i guess it is..
if you would need to pay more for the 8120 setup than you could get for your Q6600.. Then probably not Unless you cannot over clock your q6600
hope to get the new board soon and update this with more valid results..