Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
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 voilà", i'm satisfied ;) |
Quote:
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 ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:46. |
Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO