View Single Post
  #2 (permalink)  
Old February 12, 2013, 07:59 AM
great_big_abyss's Avatar
great_big_abyss great_big_abyss is offline
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,188

My System Specs

Default

Hmm, AMD's chips are actually fairly competitive. With some exceptions, anyone who's buying a <$200 chip wouldn't buy a GTX680. They're more likely to buy a GTX660 or GTX660Ti, or a 7870/7950. Therefore I think they would be a little more gpu bound than with the GTX680 that they tested with. So, for the price, yes, I would consider that AMD's chips are keeping up with Intel quite nicely on the gaming front. Now, this test doesn't account for the 3570K, which once overclocked will give much higher framerates than the 3550 in the test. However, the 3570K is usually $40 more expensive than an 8350, so more expensive chip = more performance.
__________________



HTPC: Z77A-G45; 3770K; Coolermaster GeminII; 2x4GB Kingston HyperX 1600Mhz; MSI R7-260X; 2x 128GB Crucial M4 SSD; 1TB WD Green, 2x 2TB WD Green; PC P&C 750W PS; Fractal Design Node 605;
Son's Rig: M5A97; 1055T; CNPS20LQ; 2x4GB Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz; ASUS GTX650Ti Boost; 80GB Intel 520 SSD; 320GB WD Black HDD; SPI 700W; Bitfenix Shinobi;
Reply With Quote