WEBVTT

00:00:08.000 --> 00:00:15.160
guys this is the MSI 990 fxa

00:00:12.480 --> 00:00:20.640
gd80 and it is an am3 plus motherboard featuring full support for SLI Crossfire

00:00:17.320 --> 00:00:23.560
X and AMD bulldozer 8 core CPUs this is

00:00:20.640 --> 00:00:28.640
an fx 8150 installed on a Crosshair 5 formula now the Crosshair 5 formula is

00:00:25.880 --> 00:00:32.880
the board that was used by 99% of the reviewers out there for their bulldozer

00:00:30.679 --> 00:00:37.320
launch coverage so what I'm aiming to do here is to find out whether the

00:00:35.280 --> 00:00:41.760
Crosshair 5 formula will perform any different from the MSI equivalent

00:00:40.039 --> 00:00:50.239
high-end gaming skew with a single

00:00:44.600 --> 00:00:55.199
6970 8 gigs of DDR3 memory and an 8150

00:00:50.239 --> 00:00:58.199
FX 8 core CPU from AMD so I have done my

00:00:55.199 --> 00:01:00.719
first set of run throughs now I can't

00:00:58.199 --> 00:01:03.960
get the Witcher 2 running properly right now it's something to do with the game

00:01:01.960 --> 00:01:07.360
updating and my save files won't load and so I'm going to have to examine that

00:01:06.159 --> 00:01:10.799
but for now I want to bring you the results that I can so what I'm going to

00:01:09.600 --> 00:01:17.240
be doing is I'm going to be running the Crosshair 5 the 990 fxa gd80 and then

00:01:14.560 --> 00:01:22.720
for completeness sake I'm going to throw a 2500k into the

00:01:20.079 --> 00:01:28.759
mix and uh that will be on a z68 board right

00:01:26.159 --> 00:01:34.399
there so that's the z68 AG gd80 just to see how the 8 150 Compares against its

00:01:32.320 --> 00:01:39.840
closest competitor price-wise on the Intel side so I've done my run through

00:01:36.560 --> 00:01:41.680
with the 990 fxa gd80 board now can see

00:01:39.840 --> 00:01:45.439
what it's called down there just so you guys know that I'm telling you what it

00:01:43.000 --> 00:01:50.240
is and I've only encountered one very curious result so on the top are my

00:01:48.159 --> 00:01:53.159
numbers with the 990 fxa and on the bottom are my numbers with the Crosshair

00:01:51.600 --> 00:01:58.479
F so you can see these gaming numbers are very close Metro 2033 is within uh

00:01:56.640 --> 00:02:04.799
margin of error Battlefield Bad Company 2 within margin of error crisis 2 within

00:02:01.799 --> 00:02:08.560
margin of error and lost yeah Lost

00:02:04.799 --> 00:02:10.520
Planet 2 is identical and finally Dirt 3

00:02:08.560 --> 00:02:14.360
is well within margin of error but cinebench for some reason performed

00:02:12.520 --> 00:02:19.160
dramatically better on the gd80 so before I put my Sandy bridge where is it

00:02:16.800 --> 00:02:22.959
2500k on the bench I'm going to go and I'm going to throw the Crosshair 5 back

00:02:20.760 --> 00:02:27.120
on there just to give it another shot at that cinebench Benchmark let's see if

00:02:24.680 --> 00:02:34.200
maybe it was just an anomaly looks like it was purely an anomaly guys 5.84 is is

00:02:30.080 --> 00:02:36.360
well within margin of error of 5.82 so

00:02:34.200 --> 00:02:44.519
I'm going to go ahead and say that these boards perform pretty much identically

00:02:40.200 --> 00:02:46.239
with the 8150 at stock speeds now I'm

00:02:44.519 --> 00:02:50.120
going to go ahead and get on with my Sandy Bridge testing well my Sandy

00:02:48.560 --> 00:02:53.840
Bridge numbers are complete so this is with the same test platform except for a

00:02:51.959 --> 00:02:58.920
different CPU and different motherboard obviously and I think the overall

00:02:56.599 --> 00:03:03.920
conclusion is that a whole lot is being made about the bulldozer performance or

00:03:02.040 --> 00:03:07.360
lack thereof against its Sandy Bridge counterparts but looking at the test

00:03:05.879 --> 00:03:12.760
settings that are being used in a lot of places I don't really feel they're all that realistic so for all of the games

00:03:10.480 --> 00:03:16.000
that I'm running I'm running at 1080p which is the full resolution of this

00:03:14.239 --> 00:03:19.440
monitor which most gamers are transitioning towards if they're not

00:03:17.519 --> 00:03:24.239
already using it and then I'm also running at high details with

00:03:22.200 --> 00:03:29.799
anti-aliasing and an isotropic filtering on in most cases and you can see here

00:03:27.120 --> 00:03:33.360
that in most of the games most of the applications I'm running my average and

00:03:31.480 --> 00:03:40.840
my minimum frames per second are very very playable at those settings

00:03:37.080 --> 00:03:43.720
so yeah this is one of the things where

00:03:40.840 --> 00:03:47.879
I'm kind of looking at it going well okay yes the 2500k does perform better

00:03:46.720 --> 00:03:52.799
you can see there are games where it really pulls away such as crisis 2 where

00:03:50.360 --> 00:03:56.400
we're looking at outside the margin of error in terms of the performance

00:03:54.400 --> 00:03:59.760
difference somewhere in the 8% range Lost Planet 2 it does perform a little

00:03:58.079 --> 00:04:04.079
bit better remember that one's a Ken bench mark so that should be fairly

00:04:01.599 --> 00:04:09.159
representative Dirt 3 it does pull ahead this is a CPU limited game and it's

00:04:06.239 --> 00:04:12.519
about 5% better um but it doesn't perform as well in something heavily

00:04:10.720 --> 00:04:16.720
threaded like cinam Ben for example I mean yes it's not that far behind

00:04:14.319 --> 00:04:21.000
considering the fact that the 2500k is a cheaper processor than the 8150 but you

00:04:19.799 --> 00:04:28.759
also have to bear in mind that the platform is more expensive if you want to build a gaming rig like let's say

00:04:24.479 --> 00:04:31.280
dual 6970 gaming rig with uh high-end

00:04:28.759 --> 00:04:38.000
gaming CPU but RAM etc etc you're looking at on the low end a

00:04:34.120 --> 00:04:40.039
970 chipset for AMD or a 990x which are

00:04:38.000 --> 00:04:45.280
both still Crossfire capable whereas with Intel if you want a crossfire or

00:04:42.280 --> 00:04:47.199
SLI ready board you have to use a p67 or

00:04:45.280 --> 00:04:50.880
a z68 boards which are significantly more expensive so you do have to factor

00:04:48.759 --> 00:04:54.440
that in so thank you for checking out my little video where we did establish that

00:04:52.880 --> 00:05:01.960
there's really no difference in performance between one 990 FX board and

00:04:58.039 --> 00:05:04.479
another with the bulldozer 8150 FX chip

00:05:01.960 --> 00:05:10.720
and then that the performance Delta between the 2500k and the 8150 is while

00:05:08.960 --> 00:05:14.840
significant yes it is significant in some cases uh may not be a deal breaker

00:05:13.160 --> 00:05:19.960
especially if you're running at sort of real world resolutions in Real World

00:05:17.720 --> 00:05:25.199
Games don't forget to subscribe to lus check tips for unboxings reviews and

00:05:21.280 --> 00:05:25.199
other computer videos