Hows My Computer

[angel_of_death57]

I have a 256MB grpahic card not 128MB, i looked at performaces it is bad but i use UT2004 and Call of duty and they look amazing and run at full graphics correctly fast and smooth

[RGX]

Time now for the gaming and 3D benchmarks. First off we'll start with 3DMark 2001SE. Despite the fact it's getting on a bit now, it still makes for a superb CPU benchmark as it's almost completely CPU limited.

Well the FX51 gets off to a great start here, bringing in a score of over 1500 points more than the Intel Pentium 4 3.2Ghz.

The CPU test of 3DMark 03 forces the vertex shaders to be rendered in software putting massive strain on the CPU. Here the extra bandwidth clearly shows as the FX51 gets oh so close to breaking the 1000 mark.

Quake 3 although a little old now is still a reasonable test for sheer CPU horsepower. Another victory for FX51 but at these kind of frame rates a difference of 40 is rather superficial! Although it's nice to say you've broken 400 fps

Unreal Tournament now, and once again the FX51 steals the show. A 30 fps lead is nothing to be sniffed at here, almost breaking 350 fps.

Our latest addition to the benchmarking suite is Gun Metal. Certainly a graphically intense game and somewhat more graphics limited than the rest of the benchmarks the scores are certainly closer. Not that I need to point out which CPU won as it seems to be making a habit of it....

Finally, Aquamark 3. This is the latest system comparison benchmark to be released onto the internet and offers a superb list of settings and options to benchmark with. The Detonator 51 drivers certainly helped here with the overall scores but once again the FX51 comes out on top but quite a significant margin.

Direct comparison between the two


http://new.bit-tech.net/review/264/6


Image Resized
[img]http://new.bit-tech.net/images/review/264/results.gif' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'>

As you can see, the FX-51 destroys the 3.2 Ghz pentium on almost every benchmark.


Please, prove me wrong.

[RGX]

Originally posted by angel_of_death57@11 April 2004 - 12:35
I have a 256MB grpahic card not 128MB, i looked at performaces it is bad but i use UT2004 and Call of duty and they look amazing and run at full graphics correctly fast and smooth

UT2004 is highly optimized for lower end graphics cards, it also runs fine on an MX440 64Mb. Call of Duty is based on the Quake 3 engine, a 3 year old design. Also, did you use Anti Alisaing or antrioscopic filtering? I bet not.

[angel_of_death57]

I am not trying ot prove you wrong.

I am saying with my experience of the 2 since i have tried both i am saying that Intel was better for my expeirence once Intel produce a 64 bit i will get that. The AMD i had burned out from having my PC for days on end playing games i had to get a enw one so i got a Intel instead. And never had a problem.

Its my opion on paper AMD might be better but i couldnt care i like my Intel 3.2 also cos i do alot of encoding of videos and Intel is faster for encoding.

[angel_of_death57]

Originally posted by RGX+11 April 2004 - 13:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RGX @ 11 April 2004 - 13:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-angel_of_death57@11 April 2004 - 12:35
I have a 256MB grpahic card not 128MB, i looked at performaces it is bad but i use UT2004 and Call of duty and they look amazing and run at full graphics correctly fast and smooth

UT2004 is highly optimized for lower end graphics cards, it also runs fine on an MX440 64Mb. Call of Duty is based on the Quake 3 engine, a 3 year old design. Also, did you use Anti Alisaing or antrioscopic filtering? I bet not. [/b][/quote]
Nai didnt your right i just got it set on Quality instead of preformance. But i am happy my games run great i have space i am happy.

[RGX]

Fair enough, but dont say AMD sucks for no reason, without expecting someone to come along and test your theory.

If you are happy with it, thats fine.

[angel_of_death57]

Originally posted by RGX@11 April 2004 - 13:53
Fair enough, but dont say AMD sucks for no reason, without expecting someone to come along and test your theory.

If you are happy with it, thats fine.

I am not saying they suck, i just had a bad experiece with them. I admit they have alot of power and i know people love them compared to Intel.

I am off now to play Call of Duty Online.

[RGX]

Originally posted by angel_of_death57@11 April 2004 - 12:07

And AMD sucks it burns out and everything Petium may be more expensive but a reason for that.

[Mad Cat]

Yes my burner does DVD RAM.

Anyway, the old "AMDs burn up" is bullshit. You can set, in the BIOS, a temperature cut off point on any good motherboard.

Ok, so in crappy 32 bit your Intel may encode a video 2 seconds faster. Wow.

Just wait till 64 bit encoding software comes, along with the release of 64 bit Windows.

I&#39;m not showing off, but your PC is in no way better than mine.

EDIT: I also don&#39;t give a crap how many add on ports my PC has. If I want more I&#39;ll go buy a powered USB hub.

[angel_of_death57]

Originally posted by Mad Cat@11 April 2004 - 14:15
Yes my burner does DVD RAM.

Anyway, the old "AMDs burn up" is bullshit. You can set, in the BIOS, a temperature cut off point on any good motherboard.

Ok, so in crappy 32 bit your Intel may encode a video 2 seconds faster. Wow.

Just wait till 64 bit encoding software comes, along with the release of 64 bit Windows.

I&#39;m not showing off, but your PC is in no way better than mine.

EDIT: I also don&#39;t give a crap how many add on ports my PC has. If I want more I&#39;ll go buy a powered USB hub.

I didn&#39;t say mine was better than yours. Get facts right bud.

Anyway i am sick of this argument i just haevnt seen anyone post their PC specs that were higher than mine in ages.