Just take a look
[img]http://media.bestofmicro.com/T/J/207127/original/corei7_vs_athlon.png[/img]
[url=http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-4770,2281-12.html]Radeon 4770 benchmarks Tom's hardware[/url]
32.90 is not the same as 32.51
NICE!
Go amd...
correct me if im wrong but i believe neither of those games are quadcore optimized.
spitesuicide wrote 4 minutes ago »
correct me if im wrong but i believe neither of those games are quadcore optimized.
I'm
(jk)
their probably not but still a 70 dollar CPU getting the same results as a 1000 dollar one is pretty good.
xXxPathogenxXx wrote 13 minutes ago »
32.90 is not the same as 32.51
No, but that's .39 FPS your loosing and if you look Veryyy... closely you can almost make out a little less flicker in the screen.
the i7 965 is still the much better cpu
When will people learn! The cpu has no real affect on moddern games. If you want more frames per second then buy a better gpu....
the only worth getting if someone want's a i7 rig it would be the 920 any i7 other than that will be a major waste of money any
good CPU + awesome GPU = ultimate FTW
The i7s only really outperform other CPUs when they're running cards in crossfire or Tri SLI, not with a damn 4770.
Adobe CS4 Master Suite
I think I'll take the i7. Damn your benchmarks.
Too bad the i7 is held back by that shitty card.
they used a 4770 BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA
oh man where they payed by amd to show off there shitty cpu and shitty gpu
oh god if you used an accutal graphics card gtx 285 the benchmarks would be hella different
Yeah why don't you stick a couple GTX 295s in there and see those results...
Who the fuck would even consider running an i7 965 with a 4770?
ultracombo wrote 47 seconds ago »
Yeah why don't you stick a couple GTX 295s in there and see those results...
Who the fuck would even consider running an i7 965 with a 4770?
exactly my point
pointless bench mark is pointless
if your going to have a cpu like that who in the right fucking mind will use a gpu like that
and cpu barley matters compared to how much gpu matters when gaming
FAIL! tom hard ware GG
xXxPathogenxXx wrote 3 hours ago »
ultracombo wrote 47 seconds ago »
Yeah why don't you stick a couple GTX 295s in there and see those results...
Who the fuck would even consider running an i7 965 with a 4770?
exactly my point
pointless bench mark is pointless
if your going to have a cpu like that who in the right fucking mind will use a gpu like that
and cpu barley matters compared to how much gpu matters when gaming
FAIL! tom hard ware GG
I know but they explain it here
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-4770,2281-12.html
Anywho this is kind of why the 965 is just pointless and I believe that the only place where you would see a difference in gaming performance with it is if you had 3+ 4890s/GTX 285 in Xfire/SLI. Otherwise you'll only improvement on synthetic benchmarks and everyday tasks NOT gaming.
If you're looking to get 60+ FPS ALL THE TIME (not avg. or 90% of the time) the low frames could be a the fault of a slow CPU. not all games utilize as much CPU "power" as others, but some are very CPU intensive. That is where the 965 will come into play.
fucken shitty amd
amd is like the macs
they say there better
but they just suck testicles off a dragon
its "they're".
AMD isn't bad. Its just not insanely good compared to the shit intel releases.
its "they're".
AMD isn't bad. Its just not insanely good compared to the shit intel releases.
fuck this double, please correct.
True, but look at the other results. Crysis is GPU limited.