WEBVTT

00:00:07.520 --> 00:00:15.120
All right, guys. I got a good one for you. I'm going to take the Phantom 2X6

00:00:11.280 --> 00:00:18.400
1100T and I'm going to take two Radeon

00:00:15.120 --> 00:00:21.920
HD 6970s. Okay. Yes. Yes. This is a

00:00:18.400 --> 00:00:24.000
6950, but just to prove that I have

00:00:21.920 --> 00:00:29.760
successfully unlocked the card. You can see here both GPUs are identical under

00:00:26.880 --> 00:00:36.800
GPUZ. So, I do have them performing at 100% 6970 speeds. And I'm going to be

00:00:33.360 --> 00:00:38.559
comparing the 1100T on the 890 FX

00:00:36.800 --> 00:00:44.160
platform. See, I've got a Crosshair 4 formula there. And I'm going to compare

00:00:40.559 --> 00:00:48.719
it against the A75 platform

00:00:44.160 --> 00:00:50.399
and AMD's new A8 APU. So, I'm going to

00:00:48.719 --> 00:00:54.960
find out what kind of a performance difference there is between their new

00:00:52.160 --> 00:00:59.199
APU platform, which does have slightly higher performance per clock than at

00:00:57.360 --> 00:01:03.680
least the Athlon series. So, it should be pretty close to a Phenom 2, okay, in

00:01:02.239 --> 00:01:07.600
terms of clock forc clock performance, but this is a quad core. And on the

00:01:06.080 --> 00:01:11.200
higherend platforms, you can get six cores now and eight cores coming soon.

00:01:09.520 --> 00:01:15.840
So, let's see how this goes. I'm going to be testing a variety of current

00:01:12.799 --> 00:01:18.080
titles including Crisis 2, DirectX11,

00:01:15.840 --> 00:01:23.439
Witcher 2, Dirt 3, Fear 3, Battlefield Bad Company 2, and Civ 5. Don't mind the

00:01:21.920 --> 00:01:27.439
other things on here, that's going to be for something else. Small change to the

00:01:26.000 --> 00:01:33.520
methodology, guys. I'm going to be using my 6990 because Crisis 2, apparently, in

00:01:31.040 --> 00:01:39.119
spite of using the 11.6 six drivers, the latest uh profiles, and the latest patch

00:01:36.640 --> 00:01:43.360
of Crisis 2, including DirectX11 and high-res textures.

00:01:41.280 --> 00:01:48.159
Still doesn't work in Crossfire. Go figure. So, these are all the runs of

00:01:45.920 --> 00:01:52.960
Crisis 2 I did trying to go. Okay, single card, multicard, single card. Oh,

00:01:51.680 --> 00:01:57.119
you guys can't see the results that I'm bringing up. So, you can see that we're

00:01:55.200 --> 00:02:01.200
getting some pretty good consistency there. In spite of the fact that I was

00:01:58.560 --> 00:02:07.680
switching between a single 6T970 and dual 6T970. So, I throw the 6T990 on

00:02:04.320 --> 00:02:08.959
there. All of a sudden, I get 49.5 FPS.

00:02:07.680 --> 00:02:16.160
So, we're going to stick with that for our testing. So, I'll be testing that against the 1100T or with the 1100T

00:02:12.959 --> 00:02:19.120
against the A75 platform. So, I've got

00:02:16.160 --> 00:02:23.680
myself a benchmarking snack bowl. Unrelated to that though, I have

00:02:20.959 --> 00:02:29.440
finished running my tests for the 1100T which was here. So that's running on the

00:02:26.720 --> 00:02:34.560
Crosshair 4 formula with the 6T990. And then on my other platform, I've got the

00:02:31.680 --> 00:02:39.120
AMD Lano A83850 running with exactly the same test bench

00:02:36.560 --> 00:02:43.599
with the 6990. So, I ran a variety of modern games, and what I found is that

00:02:41.360 --> 00:02:49.760
with an identical configuration. Remember, with the APU, we're only

00:02:46.800 --> 00:02:54.959
taking advantage of the CPU component of it because the onboard graphics turns

00:02:51.920 --> 00:02:57.760
off if you install anything higherend

00:02:54.959 --> 00:03:02.560
than about a shoot, what is this? Turks, I think it's 6670.

00:03:00.640 --> 00:03:06.239
So, if you install anything higherend than something that looks about like

00:03:03.840 --> 00:03:10.319
this, it is going to turn itself off because it's not going to provide any

00:03:07.760 --> 00:03:15.680
additional benefit in dual graphics mode. Okay. So, we're looking at its

00:03:12.959 --> 00:03:19.920
performance strictly as a gaming CPU against the 1100T, which is AMD's cream

00:03:18.319 --> 00:03:23.760
of the cream. Now, I think you'll find that in terms of price toerformance

00:03:21.680 --> 00:03:28.319
ratio, it's pretty darn impressive. So, the games I tested were Crisis 2. This

00:03:26.000 --> 00:03:33.200
is DirectX11 with the high resolution texture pack. So, everything is maxed

00:03:30.080 --> 00:03:35.920
out in this game. In fact, if I bring up

00:03:33.200 --> 00:03:39.599
my little email that I made for myself outlining all of my benchmarking

00:03:37.760 --> 00:03:45.920
settings. Uh, yeah, there we go. Okay, I don't have Crisis 2 in there, but whatever. It's It's all maximum uh with

00:03:43.760 --> 00:03:50.080
the DirectX11 in the high-res pack. Actually, no, I think I'm at Okay, give

00:03:47.599 --> 00:03:56.560
me a sec. Okay, sorry guys. For Crisis 2, I'm using all extreme presets and

00:03:52.959 --> 00:04:00.720
then um I'm running at obviously 1920x

00:03:56.560 --> 00:04:03.120
1080 and DirectX11 is enabled and the uh

00:04:00.720 --> 00:04:09.519
uber high-res textures are enabled. So for Crisis 2, the 1100T performed about

00:04:06.400 --> 00:04:11.680
10% faster than the A8 APU with exactly

00:04:09.519 --> 00:04:15.680
the same configuration. The Witcher 2 was much closer. It was only about a 5%

00:04:13.920 --> 00:04:19.600
difference, which is pretty much, I'd say, within the margin of error because

00:04:17.199 --> 00:04:24.400
I am doing game runthroughs. I am not doing canned benchmarks on Crisis 2,

00:04:22.320 --> 00:04:28.400
Witcher 2, Fear 3, and Battlefield Bad Company 2. So, there is some variance,

00:04:26.880 --> 00:04:34.320
although I do my best to run through exactly the same way every time. Now,

00:04:30.639 --> 00:04:37.919
Dirt 3 was one where the 1100T just blew

00:04:34.320 --> 00:04:41.120
away the A8PU. It performed about 30%

00:04:37.919 --> 00:04:42.479
better. So, 25 30% better. And Fear 3

00:04:41.120 --> 00:04:45.759
was one where they were very close. So, we start to see a pattern here. Uh, come

00:04:44.400 --> 00:04:52.400
in and have a closer look at the graph. So, we start to see a pattern here that says 76.2, 2 by the way, sorry guys,

00:04:49.680 --> 00:04:56.639
where any game that is CPUbound or very multi-core aware is going to perform

00:04:54.320 --> 00:05:00.320
better on the 1100T platform, whereas any game where we're already quite

00:04:58.080 --> 00:05:04.080
graphically bound, such as The Witcher 2 or Fear 3, we're not going to see much

00:05:02.320 --> 00:05:09.680
of a difference in performance. Battlefield Bad Company 2, um, perhaps

00:05:06.720 --> 00:05:14.240
due to the increased CPU, uh, load in that game, it does a lot of physics

00:05:11.360 --> 00:05:20.160
effects on the CPU, performed about 20 22% better on the 1100T. And finally,

00:05:17.199 --> 00:05:25.120
Civ 5 performed about 10% better. And Civ 5, I was using a late game view uh

00:05:23.280 --> 00:05:29.840
of a game that I actually played. I have about 40 cities. So, what I do is I

00:05:28.240 --> 00:05:34.160
center it over one of my cities and then pull out all the way and see what the

00:05:31.280 --> 00:05:38.400
frame rate is in the corner. So, thank you guys for checking out my little

00:05:35.919 --> 00:05:44.560
gaming performance showdown between AMD's highestend CPU and then their new

00:05:42.479 --> 00:05:49.440
just phenomenal, although I can't really call it phenomenal because it's not even

00:05:46.160 --> 00:05:52.000
a Phenom. Um, wa that's mind-blowing,

00:05:49.440 --> 00:05:56.400
right? And their new APU. So, stay tuned for more APU content around the 3850.

00:05:54.880 --> 00:06:00.800
And don't forget to subscribe to Linus Tech Tips for more unboxings, reviews,

00:05:57.919 --> 00:06:00.800
and other computer