nvm... edit: if i compare my current cpu to that preview article then it really doesnt look so good. 3dmark 2011 my score 6340P, physics part 5320 vs 6540 (with a 580gtx), physics 7200 (2000P more) RE5 I assume its test 2 - fixed bench 97.2FPS vs 109FPS So far not a worthy upgrade.. But it could be a lot better in final review, well hopefully.. 3 days to go :infinity:c1:
Well looks like AMD is going round reviewers asking how they going to present how well BD performs :3eyes:
I have no problem believing this review. Everytime there´s a major launch, there´s always someone that breaks the NDA and puts online the review. Also the guys at Lab501 say this is a preview, like the one a site published one or two weeks ago for the new I7 3xxx series from Intel. Not only that but numerous rumours were saying exactly what we saw in this review, that the BD performance was not on par with current Intel CPUs. For me the worst is the gaming performance, so week it hurts. I hope that was on low resolutions and that on higher resolutions it delivers almost the same performance as Intel... Either way, we only need to wait 3 more days.
OMG BD FAILED. I knew something was up when they started to hide benchmarks and performance a couple of months ago and they kept postponing the launch over and over again , i was hoping for a healty competition between AMD and Intel this time around , but nop Intel still the best perfomer. Thank you for the article.
Wow....never took you for one to post false information. The PhotoWorxx result was falsified. Core i7 2600K only gets into the 49000 range on the PhotoWorxx test at stock clocks. Always the best idea.....especially when a site is known to fudge numbers.... And I can't help noticing that the PhotoWorxx score is roughly 17K higher than the reference i7 2600K score....which isn't possible at stock clocks. Do some research, you'll find out that some "results" are completely false....thus, meaning none of the other results should be believed.
2600k wasn't at stock though was using turbo upto 3.8GHz btw i just tested my 2600k @ 3.8GHz on photoworxx an got 68k so i dunno what you on about mate
well tbh, those gaming benches dont mean dick to me because i use vsync. so i wont be getting any more than 75fps anyways. handbrake, cinebench, 3dmark 11 and heaven are close enough.
you squashed a conspiracy theory against amd with 1 screenie. good job bro. I thought it was widely known that both chips were tested in turbo mode?
I get 64044 at 4.2Ghz (1600MHz ram) so it's probably really ram limited test. In FPU SinJulia test I get 5614. I'm using the latest stable version.
I have said this so many times. AMD will not reach the performance they want until they drop backward compatibility.