Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Q9650@4.05GHz VS E8500@4.05GHz VS i5 2500K@4.04GHz Benchmark results
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Q9650@4.05GHz VS E8500@4.05GHz VS i5 2500K@4.04GHz Benchmark results - Page 26

Poll Results: Are you surprised with these results?

 
  • 38% (28)
    Yes, very much so...
  • 61% (44)
    No, not at all.
72 Total Votes  
post #251 of 257
I don't know what to tell you, other than his scores are broken.

Here's mine at 5GHz, running x8, stock clocks



Here it is again, at 1.6GHz, running x8, stock clocks




A stock i7-920 wouldn't be responsible for his lower frame rates.

Even if I OC the limiting factor is still the gpu, not the i5-2500k @ 1.6GHz


Edited by BallaTheFeared - 10/27/11 at 1:56am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 2500K P8P67 PRO NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 
GraphicsRAMRAMRAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT G-Skill A-Data G-Skill 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
A-Data Crucial M4 64GB + 1TB F3 Spinpoint $155 LS/DL DVD RW $?? Windows 8 64-bit "Epic Registry" Edition 
MonitorPowerCase
ASUS 21.5 1920x1080 2ms $135 CORSAIR HX850 $120 Mother Earth $free 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 2500K P8P67 PRO NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 
GraphicsRAMRAMRAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT G-Skill A-Data G-Skill 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
A-Data Crucial M4 64GB + 1TB F3 Spinpoint $155 LS/DL DVD RW $?? Windows 8 64-bit "Epic Registry" Edition 
MonitorPowerCase
ASUS 21.5 1920x1080 2ms $135 CORSAIR HX850 $120 Mother Earth $free 
  hide details  
Reply
post #252 of 257
Yeah, I was thinking of underclocking my CPU and seeing how it behaves, but it was just something I noticed when I looked at my scores and his, so I always just presumed that was the cause and thought little more of it, and then I saw what you said about CPU sleeping through it and found it odd compared to what I'd seen. Hmm, I'm not sure what to make of his scores then.
post #253 of 257
Here's my GTA IV Benchmark results. All settings maxed out.

E8500 @ 4.27GHz (8.5 x 500), Radeon HD5970 2GB @ 800/1100, 8GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 2000Mhz.

It says "@3.16GHz" in the benchmark, don't know why. The game isnt exactly playable at these settings, the framerates are all over the place, but when I do "auto configure" in the graphics settings, the framerates are more consistent and I average about 50fps in game @ 1920x1200. It's still an unoptimized game, and I can't figure out how to turn anti-aliasing on.

Statistics
Average FPS: 42.49
Duration: 36.86 sec
CPU Usage: 88%
System memory usage: 38%
Video memory usage: 56%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Shadow Quality: Very High
Reflection Resolution: Very High
Water Quality: Very High
Texture Filter Quality: Anisotropic x16
Night Shadows: Very High
View Distance: 100
Detail Distance: 100


Hardware
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate

Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 5900 Series
Video Driver version: 8.17.10.1094
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Creative SB Audigy 2 ZS (WDM))
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8500 @ 3.16GHz
Edited by bigtymer781 - 10/27/11 at 5:32pm
post #254 of 257
I am running an overclocked Q9650 at 1800 FSB, ddr2 900 5-5-5-15, pushing 2 Sapphire toxic 9650s running the 6970 bios. Running Dirt3 at 2560x1600, Ultra settings, 8X MSAA, VSync On I get

average av_fps_ms="16.089470" min_fps_ms="16.862392" av_fps="62.152451" min_fps="59.303566. CPU usage is around the 70-80% mark, 100%while loading. Reading this thread makes me question if I am bottlenecked by the CPU or not? Interestingly running this at lower settings (1920x1080 no vsync I get 90% CPU usage)

DiRT3_Benchmark_09-41-59_on_21-01-2012.xml 2k .xml file

Q9650 settings.PNG 44k .PNG file
post #255 of 257
Here's my DiRT 3 benchmark. All settings maxed of course.

E8500 @ 4.27GHz (8.5 x 500), Radeon HD5970 2GB @ 800/1100, 8GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 2000Mhz.

benchmark directx_version="11"
resolution width="1920" height="1200"
aspect="16:10"
fullscreen="true"
vsync="0"
multisampling="8xmsaa"
refreshRate rate="60"
settings name="aspen"
route="route_0"


av_fps="71.621040"
min_fps="49.583599"


375
post #256 of 257
Too many of those tests are very GPU limited so they will not show the improvement going to a 2500k...

If you was to chuck another GTX 570 in there for SLI you would then see the 2500k pull away from the others by a pretty big margin!!
post #257 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Frosty View Post

Too many of those tests are very GPU limited so they will not show the improvement going to a 2500k...
If you was to chuck another GTX 570 in there for SLI you would then see the 2500k pull away from the others by a pretty big margin!!

For both benchmarks I've done, FarCry 2 and DiRT 3, my results have been lower than when I actually play through the game. What I'm saying is, they make sure to include a good amount of AI as well, in the benchmark, which is more CPU than GPU.

I'm not saying that an E8500 is a better gaming CPU than a 2500k, but until there's a game that I want to play and can't at the very highest settings, and 60fps +, my money goes into other things, like raiding Sandforce 2 SSD drives, power supplies, headphones, whatever else..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Q9650@4.05GHz VS E8500@4.05GHz VS i5 2500K@4.04GHz Benchmark results