Dirt 3 was released in May 2011 and is the third in the Dirt series offering a complete overhaul in terms of graphics for the DirectX 11 platform which extreme lighting effects and reflections as well as showcasing fast moving graphics and using in game physics to bring the most extreme quality in terms of video rendering.
In a Dirt 3, a point goes to AMD with a slight 4FPS advantage over the 2600k, showing that the physical extra cores really does make a difference here.
Would of been nice to see the Phenom II 6X 1100T in the review as well
That is just awesome!
awesome article!
just proves the point that modern games rely heavily on a good GPU rather than an awesome processor once the CPU bottleneck is overcome.
So considering BD is cheaper than a 2600K and so are the decent crossfire/SLI motherboards, maybe BD is, after all, a very good option for gamers as the money saved can go towards a faster GPU, hence better gaming performance!
If you read ANY other gaming performance review of the BD, you will see how terrible this tripe is.
I have no problem with the BD chip, but this "review" is dishonest. The numbers don't correspond with the same games reviewed on ANY other site. I wonder what resolutions were used.
dishonest in what way? We tested the games three times on each system to give the fairest results possible.
We used 1920×1080 on all of our tests, apart from the likes of 3DMark 11 where it has a pre-defined preset.
Settings vary between each game, but we aim to use the maximum settings where possible whilst maintaining a suitable frame-rate. With the likes of Metro 2033, max settings will give you 20FPS ish, which isn't suitable, so instead we use high settings opposed to very high to give that balance between performance and quality.
I am suprised at the 8150's performance considering other websites benchmarks, Although it seems eteknix is a more honest site and these results have just made me want to order a fx 8170.
Thanks, in other general benchmarks the FX does get outperformed by the i7 2600k but in gaming, they rely more on the GPU than the CPU and this is what is shown here.
The Tech Report did an article called "further overclocked" where they used AMD's new water-cooling setup(looks similar to the H70). When comparing the FX-8150 to the i7-2600k, the FX actually out performed the i7 in some areas.
"turning up the clock frequency allows the FX-8150 to put up some really nice numbers, tying or beating a Core i7-2600K overclocked to 4.5GHz in several cases."
When it comes to CrossFire/SLI, only Tweaktown and AlienBabelTech tested the FX8150 in that scenario. Its not looking pretty as it still shows AMD bottlenecking CrossFire/SLI setups.
Why overclock the CPUs? Why not test both using stock settings?
Why weren’t the power consumption and temperature numbers included? At 4.6Ghz, the FX’s power usage is outrageous. In the previous review it was idling at 209W and 439W at full load. That should be included, along with the Core i7-2600k’s numbers, which I know is no where close to that. You even wrote:
“Having a look at the power, we can see that at idle we have a fairly reasonable chip on our hands which shouldn’t run up huge electricity bills, unless of course you overclock where we see some massive hikes in power usage at both idle and especially at load.”
So how does it receive a “Gold” award, when the full review of the FX-8150 did not garner any award?