Excellent write-up, Albrecht! Love it!

Nice 1, Jr Actually a very nice read

Very interesting and informative read!

I just think you all like the Brewskis sentence (nice piccie btw Jmke )

Well, as a gamer i'd prefer the 5 extra frames but the price of the E8600 is nearly double that of E7400.

I think I'll keep my E6750 (Oc 24/7 to 3.2GHz) until I switch to the i7.

The E7000 series are amazing for the price. I'd much rather go for one of those since all I do is game and some benching.

I would though rule out the E7200/E7300, because after 4.1GHz it takes a lot of Vcore to get anything higher than that.
Regards

Damian

What was the video card used in this review and how ****en amateurish are you clowns for not mentioning it in the review itself, thus necessitating that I waste my time to register here to ask.

Look at this phrase :

Some Game benchmarks

I swapped the 9800GTX for a GTX 285 to avoid having a GPU bottleneck

so only the game benchmarks are done with the 285, 3dmarks and co with the 9800GTX (285 was not available from the start of the test)

Kind regards from the Amateurish Clown

Troll...

there are different ways to ask a question, yours is the "f*ck off" way and it will have the same effect on how we treat you. you are a waste of time.

No need to get arroused guys ( bad for the heart ), it's just hardware and a review... I'm getting pretty used to these atttitudes on forums, is it a new trend ,no idea but it's for sure not the right one

lolz

was intresting to see
awaiting the next test ^^

for one to get respect, one has to have respect, Chad Boga has been banned from the forums;

Nothing new

I hope you get a good one then mate ! this one does 4ghz at 1.31 rock stable ( 500FSB that is ) they are hot heads, not even my modded Vapochill can cool this sucker at 5.2Ghz

Well, I've given up trying to get a max OC.

a) It won't get me higher FPS in FPS games
b) I'm looking for a 24/7 OC so that WinRAR will benefit (too many newsgroup files )

Hi there,

I just registered onto the boards, for what i am feeling as an overreaction.
Just after i saw the Crysis Warhead tests results, i wondered what was the GPU used for the benchs, and so hopped onto the "hardware setup" page. Just to see that the GPU is not even mentioned !
I have to admit i had a pretty similar thought (something like "what the hell is this setup page ?!"). The GPUs should be indicated there (otherwise, what is the purpose of the "hardware setup" page ?), along with explanations about what GPU was used for which tests. Period.

So OK, Chad Boga said it the hard way. Even though i am pretty sure that what he wrote should not be read literally : it sounds humoristic to me. Sarcastic and so, agressive, but with pieces of humour though... ?

I may be totally wrong about Chad, but what about a second chance ?
(no, "essaion" is no new avatar for "Chad Boga", i just was a bit concerned by what seems to me a miscarriage of justice


Thanks for the test though. I am quite impressed that Crysis is so GPU-limited : 72 FPS at 1280x1024 in Gamer mode makes me wonder how it could perform at 1920x1200 in Enthousiast mode !?
OK, i know this ain't the subject, i'll try to figure it out by myself

Cheers,

--
essaion

Well I'm not the boss here and wanted to wait for Chad to respond.

It might have been better to put the GPU specs in the setup page ( my error ) but I mentioned just before the game bechmarks that I swapped the 9800GTX for the GTX285. I know now mostly readers just look at the graphs... won't forget it next time...

Take into consideration for the Crysis test that it benches via the included demo(s). This might NOT reflect real game performance as the demo takes 2 mins or so and there's not much action going on... Farcry2 test is far better and more reliable to me... I didn't bench at the higher res as because you are getting even more GPU bound then

hey essaion, I'm not arguing about whether Chad had a valid point or not, I think he does have a valid point and the article has been updated with the extra VGA info on the "test setup" page; I do have an issue by how he addressed himself to us; what might have been a funny remark in real life, doesn't transform itself nicely into text format and if he had included maybe a smiley here and there we would interpret his post differently; as it stands though, he just came over as a rude person who shows no respect.

Wow ! Thanks for your very quick input, both of you !

leeghoofd > Sure a high-res test only shows the GPU limitation in GPU-intensive games like Crysis. At first i wondered why you didn't test at 800x600, or even 640x480 to get rid of the GPU ! Then i read your conclusion on this bench, and agreed with the tested point : E7400 seems to be close to E8600. Even though it may have been more visible on lower resolutions...

jmke > OK on both points : glad to know the setup page is updated (i didn't re-check this), and yes, spoken and written languages are quite different
It just seemed (to me) a quick and overweighted reaction. But that's your call, so i'm not going to argue anymore.

See ya !

Most users at lans still game at 1280 res max (most own 17-19inch monitors) Only the rich kids lol, have bigger monitors to support higher resolutions...

It's my B'day this weekend, maybe I get a bigger screen too lol

but I doubt that for sure, my girlie loaths PC's lol

gamers have 20~22" now Leeghoofd, which means 1680x1050 or 1600x1200 resolution
1280x1024 is passé
those investing €150 in a CPU, €250 in a VGA, can also spend €250 for a 20~22" LCD

enthusiasts are using 24~30" screens, which means 1920x1200 up to 2560x1600, there are only a handful games out there NOT bottlenecked by the VGA ; and even then the difference is raw CPU speed or cache is minimal

Erm. With this argument, one may ask "why did you test with a GTX 285 GPU, since i can't afford it ?". As far as i understand it, the point is "E8600 vs. E7400". So benchs should use low resolutions, to point out the differences between those CPU.

Yes, i'm wondering what performances one can expect at 1920x1200, and yes, tihs wasn't the goal of this article to discuss this. So i have no answer to this question, and that sounds OK to me I'll dig it myself !
FWIW, in Crysis (not Warhead) Natural-modded / XP SP3 / DX9 / Q6600 @ 2.4 GHz / GTX 260 @ 666 MHz, i get about 30 FPS at 1920x1200 in play (no filters applied, since Natural mod is so sweet out of the box). So 72 FPS at 1280x1024 seem consistent. Knowing this, i guess the GTX 285 should output about 35~40 FPS at 1920x1200 (gamer mode / DX9 / XP). "Et voilÃ*", i'm satisfied

Many reviewers, including myself, apply this approach when we want to say something about the difference in 3D performance of a processor. However, in an exchange of thoughts with a fellow hardware enthousiast, it became apparent that this approach doesn't make any sense, simply because no one games at 800x600 or lower. The results obtained via this approach tells us nothing about the performance difference in daily gaming situations. Furthermore, how significant is the difference if you artificially increase the difference? I'd say .. close to nothing.

That's the reason why I won't be 'down-resolution'ing anymore .

it can be fun to see if a certain tweak has any effect on the system overall, you can use 2D benchmarks, 3D benchmarks, or use games at low resolution if the component you are tweaking is not the VGA, it will allow you see some artificial increase in performance in those games; but doesn't relate to real-world performance;

Massman > I totally agree with you, speaking of a specific component review. If i wanna know, say, the performance of a GTX 285 at 1920x1200, i'll look for reviews of GTX 285 cards. But if i wanna know which one pick between, say, the E7400 and the E8600, i'll try to find comparative tests that try to point out the differences, even though it means "artificially increased" differences...
Of course, it's also good to know how it performs with real world usages, but that's a bonus. To say it more precisely : testing games at 640x480 should point out the differences. And another test at 1680x1050 would let anyone know what performances to expect "in real life".

Oh, by the way, i managed to find some GTX 285 reviews :
- Some GTX 285 on Guru3D
- The TrustedReview... review. Well, ya know.

About 37 FPS at 1920x1200 / DX10 / Vista / No-AA : seems like the interpolation i did is quite right

why look so far; 615 hits: http://www.madshrimps.be/index.php?a...D%3A11&hl= en

I had 2 vidcards 9800GTX and the 285 at home... with the 9800GTX I would have hit a brick wall for sure in Crysis (unless I would have gone low detail or res level) And I didn't want to run low res nor detail level. So I picked the 285 for the game test, not to impress users or to show off hardware. I picked these detail settings as users will run that, what's the point ot indicate a 10fps difference at low detail level as not many will play the game like that. I see no absolutely no specific reason to test at 800 x 600, even if it would point out a bigger difference between the two CPU's. As the difference becomes way less at daily used resolutions, be it 1280 or above. 1024 and 1280 are still common, 640 and 800 are for sure not.

Anyway you see the CPU's behave much alike, once the CPU speed is increased and the benefit of the extra cache gets less important.


Each will choose his own approach to review. I prefer to see in a review what I experience daily. One of the reasons I would never want to do GFX cards reviews as readers will always have something to say about detail level chosen, res tested at , driver version etc.... it's never good enough ( surely not for the fanboys )

One cannot satisfy everyone, one can just try... I try to keep my reviews as simple and straight to the point as possible.

Let me put it straight : yes, it is very interesting to know that an E7400 is not a bottleneck on Crysis. But that should not be the plot of the article, since the title let one (me, at least) guess a "pure performance versus match".

That is precisely the plot of a performance match. Isn't it ?

The comments i made are supposed to be constructive... It's up to you to choose whether they are or not Keep up the good work !

Well, this led me to tests on other sites... Was it your intention ?

we don't have an in-house GTX 285 review so yes it was my intention
alternative route is at the forum: http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/s...searchid=86894 (search for 285 in the title)

Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

^^^
http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/s...searchid=86894

Will lend the reviewer my card then, when he's doing the 4890 review...