Originally Posted by Durquavian
Originally Posted by Ezk
Hate to burst your bubble but i did see 100fps increase. On firing range while standing upon top wood i would get 162 fps with my 1090t. With my then newly 2500k at 4.8ghz i seen 262+fps same settings even approaching an unstable 280fps. I seen on average 45fps stable increase everywhere (hell even managed to record an fps of 880, but that came with some extreme measures). I had the pictures to prove it, saved with the rest of my tweaked configs, dvar lists, and dvar command ranges for that game. If i would have kept my feet off my tower and stopped using it as a foot rest i would have this proof. A fricken sad day that was having lost months of work and believe me I spent a long time trying to make a broken game run like its predecessors.
Regardless, I compared past hardware and games with my personal experience that people refute as impossible and then get extremely mad. Therefore, failing to see the bigger picture I believe. This being this new technology barely beats current technology. And yet they (and you) are going to pay 700+ for this? And people are alright with that? That's what gets me. I can buy a 780 and just about match this upcoming release of the R9 290X? Yeah, to me doesn't make sense.
"There’s also just no looking past Intel’s ability to achieve similar or better performance without pushing their architecture to its absolute limit " Can't ignore this fact which is what i was going off of as a general idea that has been true since the days of Athlon cpu's. Intel has consistently delivered better performance. Because of this they can charge a higher premium. Which is the whole dang point im trying to make. Take your anger out on something else.
Your ignorance and ability to communicate limit you greatly. 100 fps does not = 45 fps. And you also made it sound like a stock 2500k made that jump, yet now we see it was a grossly over clocked one rather. You are as bad as most fanbois , biased writers for reviews, or the completely ignorant. Leaving out information to make the difference more sensationalized is just poor. And one game doesn't make every game see the same results. Your opinion is nothing more than that, an opinion. It no way is it fact and your thinking it is won't make it so.
He actually stated Black Ops, and I specifically had a similar setup 1090T with 5870 and switched to 580s and a i7 980x then a i7 2600K. It was a ridiculous boost in performance for MW3. Primarily because 5870 was god awful the first six~nine months of life, with the notorious Grey-Screen of Death.
I then managed to buy a 2500k and seen a 100fps increase in black ops alone
The performance difference from 1090T @ 4.2 GHz vs. a 2500K @ 4.8GHz was huge, especially in DX9 titles.
He also went from a "5780" which I assume is a 5870, to a GTX 580. That was a hell of an upgrade for me.
CPU Comparisons by Anandtech 2500K vs 1090T:
Of course before overclocking, but the 2500K can floor the 1090T at overclocking.
For comparison sake of a stock i7 920 vs 1075T.
i7 920 @ 2.66GHz ~ 93 fps avg
1075T @ 3.00GHz - 63 fps avg
With a 30 fps gap in average, is it really hard to believe that a CPU with another 2.2GHz frequency and killer IPC improvement over i7 9xx, wouldn't reach even higher in the same tests? Just goes to show that the GPU was bottlenecked at stock pretty bad by AMD.
Link: http://www.techspot.com/review/336-cod-black-ops-performance/page8.htmlEdited by RagingCain - 10/22/13 at 3:08pm