WEBVTT 00:00:07.919 --> 00:00:14.480 AMD finally has a high-end a truly 00:00:11.559 --> 00:00:22.359 high-end platform this so this is the 990fx Crosshair 5 formula with an 1100t 00:00:19.000 --> 00:00:26.439 8 gigs of RAM a 120 gig SSD it's my 00:00:22.359 --> 00:00:29.800 usual test platform except it has two 00:00:26.439 --> 00:00:33.160 GTX 590s on it so this is pretty much 00:00:29.800 --> 00:00:36.320 the the fastest gaming machine you can 00:00:33.160 --> 00:00:39.160 build on an AMD 00:00:36.320 --> 00:00:43.960 CPU well 6990 would be pretty much equivalent so so it'd be an equivalent 00:00:41.239 --> 00:00:49.039 fastest gaming machine so what I'm going to be doing is I'm going to be looking 00:00:45.399 --> 00:00:53.359 at once and for all which is better for 00:00:49.039 --> 00:00:55.680 gaming AMD or Intel CPUs at least from 00:00:53.359 --> 00:00:59.239 this generation which won't be relevant uh very soon with bulldozzer coming out 00:00:57.480 --> 00:01:04.439 and Intel having a refresh coming but whatever C so we'll know for now so I'm 00:01:01.320 --> 00:01:08.000 going to do the 1100t versus the Intel 00:01:04.439 --> 00:01:11.080 Core i 52500 k now the reason that I'm 00:01:08.000 --> 00:01:13.799 using these two particular chips is that 00:01:11.080 --> 00:01:18.200 they are fairly equivalently priced at this time so there is no uh price to 00:01:16.240 --> 00:01:25.280 Performance ratio argument to be made really I mean the 2500k has to win by 00:01:21.680 --> 00:01:26.640 about 10% just to break even so uh yeah 00:01:25.280 --> 00:01:32.320 let's see how this goes this is going to be mostly Graphics Bound in spite of the 00:01:29.720 --> 00:01:36.439 fact fact that I'm running quad SLI with 590s cuz I am going to be running fairly 00:01:34.960 --> 00:01:41.119 intensive games I may add some more games to the test Suite but let's just 00:01:38.399 --> 00:01:44.560 see how things go and uh this will be interesting I've uh I've wondered this 00:01:42.720 --> 00:01:49.079 for a long time how do these two platforms compare against each other in 00:01:46.520 --> 00:01:56.799 a truly equivalent scenario oh yeah for the Intel uh CPU I will be using the 00:01:52.280 --> 00:01:59.039 z68a gd80 as my motherboard of choice so 00:01:56.799 --> 00:02:05.880 I've loaded on the Intel platform now this is a Z6 68 platform but I will not 00:02:02.320 --> 00:02:07.920 be using the onboard uh 00:02:05.880 --> 00:02:12.920 Graphics at all so I'm going to be disabling it because turning on virtue 00:02:10.080 --> 00:02:18.000 actually will impact graphics performance somewhat while it will 00:02:15.080 --> 00:02:21.360 increase video encoding speed through supported program so I'm just going for 00:02:19.720 --> 00:02:26.319 peer graphics performance we're assuming this is for a gaming system given that 00:02:23.599 --> 00:02:31.200 there are dual GTX 590s in it so I've finished my 1100t results and I will be 00:02:28.640 --> 00:02:35.319 following up now with my 2500k results I wanted to give you guys a little bit of 00:02:33.599 --> 00:02:40.360 info first though so for all of these I'm running at 2560 00:02:37.519 --> 00:02:44.120 x600 and I'm going with my usual settings so that means for example 00:02:42.200 --> 00:02:48.879 Witcher 2 I'm not using the very highest setting I'm using High uh for example uh 00:02:47.040 --> 00:02:54.599 Battlefield Bad Company 2 Forex antialiasing 8times AF uh Fear 3 I had 00:02:52.400 --> 00:02:59.640 to turn off AA even though normally I use it at 2560 x600 I was getting only 00:02:57.400 --> 00:03:03.680 about 12 FPS which is not enough for me to play through my run through with the 00:03:01.400 --> 00:03:06.760 1100t so I'm turning off antialiasing that made a big difference to 00:03:04.799 --> 00:03:12.799 Performance so we'll see how that goes crisis 2 I am using the 00:03:10.599 --> 00:03:16.720 um shoot I can't remember for the life of me oh yeah the the second the second 00:03:14.840 --> 00:03:22.959 highest that's right and then Dirt 3 I have it on Ultra so here we go 2500k 00:03:20.599 --> 00:03:26.799 testing upcoming quad SLI is working let's see how this goes one other thing 00:03:24.519 --> 00:03:33.360 to mention actually Mafia 2 I am using Apex physics on high 8X AF and anti-al 00:03:30.319 --> 00:03:35.879 lasing is set to on so I'm using NVIDIA 00:03:33.360 --> 00:03:40.120 cards might as well crank up the physx all right so I have my results with the 00:03:37.720 --> 00:03:46.200 2500k this is all using the same graphical settings so in Dirt 3 we see a 00:03:43.480 --> 00:03:51.680 12.5% increase in performance so this is about what I would expect given the CPU 00:03:48.599 --> 00:03:53.400 costs about 10 to 12% more okay in 00:03:51.680 --> 00:03:58.879 crisis 2 we see a 35.5% difference in performance I mean 00:03:56.120 --> 00:04:02.879 62.5 frames per second is substantially more playable than 46.8 just due to the 00:04:01.680 --> 00:04:08.360 fact that you're not going to see those same dips um Witcher two we saw just a 00:04:06.360 --> 00:04:13.280 very insubstantial increase in performance so we're obviously not very 00:04:10.360 --> 00:04:17.759 CPU bound here uh fear three now this one's funny I'm going to go back I'm 00:04:14.840 --> 00:04:21.880 going to put the 1100t with the 990 FX back on the test bench and I'm going to 00:04:19.160 --> 00:04:26.479 run it again just to be sure but I did run into some weirdness on the AMD 00:04:24.000 --> 00:04:29.240 platform with fear 3 where when I was running 00:04:27.320 --> 00:04:33.800 anti-aliasing uh the performance was about a third of this it was very very 00:04:31.360 --> 00:04:39.280 low and just turning off AA brought us up to here whereas on the Intel platform 00:04:37.000 --> 00:04:42.560 with with zero times anti-aliasing I didn't see any any weirdness in terms of 00:04:41.160 --> 00:04:48.160 performance Fear 3 is not a super demanding game so even at 2560 x600 I 00:04:46.120 --> 00:04:52.600 was expecting more like this number and that's what I got so I'll rerun it just 00:04:49.960 --> 00:04:57.479 to just to see Battlefield Bad Company 2 it's about par for the course and then 00:04:54.160 --> 00:04:59.720 Mafia 2 uh maybe due to the processor 00:04:57.479 --> 00:05:04.199 intensive nature of it with all the articles and whatnot and the CPU still 00:05:01.560 --> 00:05:09.360 has to help out the GPU with that so we ended up seeing a 40 approximately 40% 00:05:07.160 --> 00:05:17.320 increase in gaming performance going to a 2500k from an 1100t with GTX 00:05:15.240 --> 00:05:21.000 590s so let's um you know what I'm actually going to since I have to go 00:05:18.560 --> 00:05:24.800 throw the other platform back on anyway what maybe what I'll do is I'll run uh 00:05:22.880 --> 00:05:28.840 I'll run one more game here just cuz it's not quite super super late yet so I 00:05:27.199 --> 00:05:34.440 can do a little bit more testing for you guys so thinking maybe I'll do um Lost 00:05:32.120 --> 00:05:41.000 Planet 2 yeah let's do Lost Planet 2 so I made myself a smoothie and still at 00:05:37.000 --> 00:05:44.280 work here so I ran Metro 2033 and Lost 00:05:41.000 --> 00:05:46.759 Planet 2 so Metro 2033 actually showed 00:05:44.280 --> 00:05:53.120 the 2500k losing this is the first time I've seen that and then Lost Planet 2 00:05:49.120 --> 00:05:56.759 showed a 20% victory for the 2500k now 00:05:53.120 --> 00:05:58.919 Fear 3 I I put that back on Fear 3 has 00:05:56.759 --> 00:06:04.080 um exhibited exactly the same behavior second time around so the 2500k even 00:06:01.759 --> 00:06:08.800 with four times anti-aliasing still manages a better frame rate than fear 3 00:06:05.880 --> 00:06:13.479 on the 1100t without anti-aliasing so thinking I mean SLI support is pretty 00:06:11.639 --> 00:06:16.759 new for AMD platform so maybe there's an issue with the SLI driver what I think 00:06:15.400 --> 00:06:23.160 I'm going to do well not I think I'm going to do what I'm going to do right now is I'm going to take a 68 oh 68 I 00:06:21.120 --> 00:06:27.360 don't even have a 68 well I do have a 6870 but I don't have it on me so 00:06:27.479 --> 00:06:33.560 6970 there we go so I'm run 69 70s In 00:06:31.479 --> 00:06:36.960 Fear 3 alone with the same graphic settings 0 x anti-aliasing a single card 00:06:36.080 --> 00:06:43.160 I don't think it's going to run that well anyway and then I'm going to run that on both platforms and I'm going to 00:06:39.840 --> 00:06:46.160 see if it's CPU related or if it's 00:06:43.160 --> 00:06:48.520 related to the quad SLI driver all right 00:06:46.160 --> 00:06:52.360 well it seems to be a weird driver issue in retrospect maybe I should have chosen 00:06:50.160 --> 00:06:59.120 a more normal Graphics configuration like maybe uh GTX 580 SLI or something 00:06:56.160 --> 00:07:02.800 like that I couldn't use 6970 Crossfire because I know crisis 2 behaves very 00:07:01.080 --> 00:07:07.720 strangely with it from some other benchmarking I did this weekend anyway 00:07:04.800 --> 00:07:14.520 you can see here the 1100t with the 6970 gets 86.2 00:07:10.080 --> 00:07:16.479 FPS uh uh at that setting at 2560 x600 00:07:14.520 --> 00:07:20.199 with this yeah so so that's a substantially less powerful 00:07:17.879 --> 00:07:24.960 configuration it has like about one qu the GPU processing power so now we're 00:07:22.400 --> 00:07:29.120 going to take the 2500k run it with the 6970 see how it comes out and that is 00:07:27.520 --> 00:07:34.400 what we will take to be our performance difference for fear 00:07:31.599 --> 00:07:40.479 3 well that was rather anticlimactic after all that fear 3 is a dead tie so 00:07:37.680 --> 00:07:48.479 thank you for checking out my coverage of the 2500 K versus the 1100t in Quad 00:07:44.560 --> 00:07:50.159 SLI and In Fear 3 running a 6970 don't 00:07:48.479 --> 00:07:56.280 forget to subscribe to Linus Tech tips for more unboxings reviews and other 00:07:52.879 --> 00:07:56.280 computer videos