Maximum PC x3 RSS Feed

Freeware Files: Five Punishing Game Benchmarks for your GPU!

David Murphy — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:00:00 -0500

What's the first I did upon hearing the numbers for ATI's new HD Radeon 5870 graphics card? I scrambled for benchmarks, because that's the one thing an announcement and subsequent review of a smokin' new piece of hardware can do for a rabid enthusiast: inspire.

It's been a while since I've actually sat down and crunched the numbers for my killer custom PC (that's killer as in legendary, not NICs). I'm not lazy. Rather, I don't have access to the expensive system benchmarks that magazines and Web sites typically use to analyze the all the new hardware that comes out. I don't have all-in-one benchmarks like PCMark Vantage, GPU-punishing titles like Crysis, and--worst of all--preconfigured demo runs for any number of titles that would help ensure the validity and repeatability of the delivered scores.

In short, I have nothing. You might not have nothing, but odds are good that you are similarly ill-equipped to benchmark your graphics card (and any tweaks or modifications you make) in the style of a professional review. Nothing... until now.

This week's freeware roundup will show you five different games that you can use to punish your poor graphics card into frames-per-second submission. They might cost a grand total of zero dollars, but these tests are repeatable and easy to use--the perfect combination of characteristics for aspiring benchmarkers who might not want to get their hands dirty, but still want some kind of way to determine exactly how powerful their graphics card really is.

X3: Terran Conflict

This demo for the open-ended space simulation game X3: Terran Conflict is like having the Four Horsemen pay a visit to your house and kick your graphics card. It's a DirectX 9 benchmark, which isn't as ideal of a scenario as you'll find in some modern titles that support DirectX 10 functionality. Still, the point of a benchmark is to tax your system to its limits. To that extent, X3: Terran Conflict is a free, fire-starter of a test for your GPU

Download it here!

Resident Evil 5

Killing zombies is fun. Killing zombies at a maximum framerate is even more fun because, er, it accelerates the killing. Right. Although it was original designed, in-part, to test out the 3D capabilities of the game for those equipped with Nvidia-based graphics cards, the Resident Evil 5 benchmark demo is still a solid solution for testing your graphics card's capabilities regardless of manufacturer. Better yet, the RE 5 benchmark comes with the option to run in both DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 modes. It's the ideal solution for those looking to test on either a current or legacy architecture... or both.

Close your eyes and download it here!

BattleForge

Okay, everyone who's a DirectX 10-or-higher benchmark, raise your right hand.

*A number of different games raise their hands*

Now everyone who's a DirectX 11-compatible benchmark, raise your left hand.

*BattleForge shoots its second hand in the air and screams as if it was on a rollercoaster*

'nuff said. This game is as graphically punishing as it is future-proofed, for this is the only title on the market as of this article's writing that now supports DirectX 11 functionality. Of course, that's slightly hampered by the fact that there are only two DirectX 11-compatible graphics cards right now. But. Er. The benchmark is free, as BattleForge itself is one of EA's "Play4Free" titles--downloading the game itself costs nothing, as the various bits and pieces that flush out the title's main RTS experience come as microtransactions. Boo those, but yay for free DX11 benchmarks!

Download it here!

Tom Clancy's HAWX

You'll appreciate the GPU benchmark found in Tom Clancy's HAWX in part because the game is just so damn pretty. Watch as your death-from-above aircraft soars over beautifully rendered satellite-generated terrain... provided your graphics card can handle the punishment, that is. This DirectX 9- and DirectX 10-compatible benchmark isn't quite as challenging on the former as it could be, but it's a real killer if you crank the settings on the latter. Can your system handle this game's intense aerial combat? Or will you long for the days of the less graphically robust A-10 Tank Killer?

Download it here!

Crysis

This is the biggie. It's the age-old retort to any video card boast: "Yeah, but can it run Crysis?" There's only one way to find out, and this is it. Install the Crysis demo, then be sure to grab the third-party Crysis Benchmarking Tool. This helpful little utility auto-detects whether you're running the full game or the demo. It also opens up access to a wealth of configurable options that you can set prior to the run--and believe me, you'll be doing a lot of tweaking. This is the end-all be-all of current graphics benchmarks, save for the aforementioned BattleForge DirectX 11 test. But that game just uses the new APIs; Crysis bends your videocard over its knee and slaps it right on the bottom.

Download Crysis here!

Download the Crysis Benchmarking Tool here!

David Murphy (@ Acererak) is a technology journalist and former Maximum PC editor. He writes weekly columns about the wide world of open-source as well as weekly roundups of awesome, freebie software. Befriend him on Twitter, especially if you have an awesome app or game you're dying to recommend!

AMD Releases Three New Tri-Core Processors and Some Price Cuts

Paul Lilly — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:02:05 -0500

It can be argued that AMD didn't start to build an enthusiast following until the Barton days. Back then, the company's efficient processors not only held their own in performance, but destroyed Intel when it came to the bang/buck factor, both in regards to processor pricing and the overall platform (you could pick up a high end AMD motherboard for under $200). Ever since Intel finally responded with its Core 2 architecture, AMD has had a tougher time competing on the performance front, forcing AMD to slash prices, and that's what happening again. In addition to price cuts, AMD is also expanding its tri-core line.

The newly announced Phenom X3 8450e comes clocked at 2.1GHz and the Phenom X2 8250e putters at 1.9GHz. Both processors sport 512KB of L2 cache and 2MB of L3 cache, and both also come rated with a 65W TDP, compared to 95W for AMD's standard Phenom tri-core line. No pricing information has yet been announced for either model.

On the higher end, AMD's Phenom X3 8750 Black Edition will bring an unlocked multiplier to the table and cruise along at 2.4GHz. It will come with the same amount of L2 and L3 cache as the 8450e and 8250e processors, but rated at the aforementioned 95W TDP. Pricing has been set to $134 for bulk orders.

So what about the price cuts? AMD will drop it's X3 8450 (without the 'e' designation) down to $104 and X3 8650 down to $119, both in bulk.

Anyone plan on upgrading?

Image Credit: AMD

Hands-On Review of AMD’s New X3 Tri Core

Gordon Mah Ung — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:03:44 -0500

There are two ways to look at AMD’s new tri-core. The first: Why would I buy a tri core when I can get a quad core? The second (the one that AMD would prefer you use): Why buy a dual when I can get a tri?

That’s the fine line AMD is trying to walk with its tri-core 2.4GHz Phenom X3 8750 proc. It can’t fight Intel’s quads head on, but it’s hoping that people who are considering dual-core procs will see the value in having one more core.

Of course, that was all before Intel slashed prices on its quad-core procs. On April 20, Intel cut the prices of two of its elderly quad cores. The 2.66GHz Core 2 Quad Q6700’s price dropped from $530 to $266 when purchased in bulk. The real trouble for AMD, however, is the 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad Q6600, which took a 16 percent price cut to $224. Just two months ago, the chip was priced at $299. With prices for the Q6600 already dropping to $224, this budget quad core will likely be available for $200 in a few weeks.

With that in mind, we fired up AMD’s X3 on an Asus M3A32-MVP with 2GB of Dominator RAM at 1,066MHz data rates, a 150GB WD Raptor, Windows XP SP2, and a GeForce 9800GX2 GPU. For comparison, we populated a new 45nm Penryn Core 2 Quad Q9300 and a Core 2 Quad Q6600 in an EVGA nForce 790i Ultra motherboard with the same GeForce GX2, WD 150GB Raptor, and Windows XP. The nForce 790i Ultra board features DDR3. Some will argue that the inability to run DDR3 is not Intel’s fault—it’s AMD’s. There is simply no way to run DDR3 on AMD chips right now. And while we could have tested the Intel chips using DDR2, we felt that it wouldn’t be fair to the Intel chips. Instead, we represent the chips on the best platforms available. DDR3, while exotic at the intoxicating high speeds of 1,800MHz and 2,000MHz, is almost affordable at 1,333MHz.

The chip itself should be familiar to AMD fans. It’s a 2.4GHz CPU with the same cache sizes as AMD’s top gun, the 2.5GHz Phenom X4 9850. Each core in the Phenom line features its own 512KB of L2, and all three cores share 2MB of L3 cache. As a 50-series chip, it’s free of the TLB errata that the original Phenoms had. All retail versions of the X3 series will be free of the TLB bug that hurts performance. AMD, however, is selling OEM-only tri-cores that still have the bug.

So how does the tri core stack up? Basically, it’s a quad core with one core turned off. From a practical standpoint, that means it’ll perform right between quads and dual cores. In most games, which generally aren’t optimized for quad cores, it’ll run with the quads. In most encoding applications, including video editing and other quad-optimized applications, it’ll attain roughly 75 percent of the performance of a quad-core Phenom and will definitely be slower than any of Intel’s quads. In other words, it’s not a bad performer in the context of where it’s being wedged.

Price, rather than performance, will probably be the deciding factor for anyone considering an X3. And that’s where AMD has a problem. With Intel putting incredible pricing pressure on AMD these days, the prices for AMD’s processors are incredibly compressed, so it probably doesn’t make sense to buy a tri core. At least not the top-end CPU. AMD’s fastest CPU, the 2.5GHz Phenom X4 9850 costs $235. The new 2.4GHz X3 8705 costs $195. Even more confusing, the 2.2GHz Phenom X4 9550 quad core also costs $195.

Of course, the big question is: What will Intel do in the coming weeks? With its preemptive price cut on the 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad Q6600, the price of that chip at retail outlets drops literally every day we’ve checked this week. If the Q6600 pushes into the $190 range, the X3 doesn’t become competitive until you hit the 2.3GHz Phenom X3 8650 at $165.

This doesn’t factor in overclocking results, as everyone’s mileage will vary with overclocking. We can at least say that AMD’s 50 series B3 cores overclock fairly well. We pushed a 2.5GHz X4 9750 to 3GHz on air cooling, similar results should be expected from the X3s.

There’s also the issue of software compatibility. Fortunately, it’s likely a miniscule problem. However, it’s enough of an issue that AMD decided to inform benchtesters that certain test applications that don’t work correctly with tri cores. Some simply don’t work, while others don’t perform as expected because of sloppy coding that allows them to run on only one, two or four cores.

What should you buy? Ultimately, that’s up to you. If performance is king, you should avoid tri core and go straight to a quad. If you’re on the fence between a dual and a tri, we would take a tri-core Phenom over a dual-core Athlon 64 any day of the week, but up against an Intel Core 2 Duo, it gets a little trickier. We’ll visit that subject in a future story.

Speeds and Feeds
	Core 2 Q9300	Core 2 Q6600	Phenom X4 9850	Phenom X3 8750
Clock	2.5GHz	2.4GHz	2.5GHz	2.4GHz
L2	6MB	8MB	512KB	512KB
L3	N/A	N/A	2MB	2MB
FSB	1333	1066	N/A	N/A

3DMark06 Overall	13,990	13,565	13,594	12,420
3DMark06 CPU	4,103	3,856	3,807	2,944
Valve Particle Test	87	76	72	51
Valve Map Build (min:sec)	2:42	2:48	2:57	3:57
CineBench R10	9,622	8,763	8,065	5,893
ScienceMark 2.0 Overall	1,572.21	1,393.57	1,606.46	1,530.95

PCMark05 Overall	9,080	8,948	8,547	7,950
PCMark05 CPU	8,064	7,746	7,396	6,444
PCMark05 RAM	6,012	5,434	4,761	4,485
PCMark05 GPU	15,643	15,806	13,972	13,841
PCMark05 HDD	7,633	7,647	7,766	7,767

Adobe Premiere Pro CS3 (min:sec)	15:45	17:33	18:01	24:39:00
Photoshop CS3 (min:sec)	2:20	2:28	3:35	3:08

FEAR (fps)	199	209	200	202
Quake 4 (fps)	169.7	166.6	165.7	158.9
Unreal Tournament 3 (fps)	119	105	87	71
AutoGK DIVX 6.8 (min:sec)	9:36	10:07	11:44	13:40
AutoGK XVID (min:sec)	11:08	11:38	12:42	15:07
Volume Price	$299	$224	$235	$195
Street Price Retail	$279	$224	$236	Unknown
Street Price OEM	$279	$234	None found	None found