Please, Not all of us are noobs, Max.The whole reason behind benching low res is and high res isnt obvious enough for you?Depends if you want to swing the wieght towards the CPU or the GPU as clearly demonstrated in any benchmark result which is why they are done in different resolutions for instance: testing a GPU you go for higher res.Funny way to read the charts I would say:Let’s look again at clock per clockThat one frame advantage of the 980 that you see is taking place at a lower clock (want to bring TB into the equation?)Lost Planet=20 FPS more with 380X at 4.4 than 2600K at 4.4 and 6 FPS more with 920 at 3.6 compared to 2500K at 3.7 and just 11 FPS less than 2600K at 3.7. Stalker the 980 and 920 wipes the floor with both 2500/2600K clock per clock.Final Fantasy the 3.8 clocked 2600K cant keep up with the 920 clocked the lower at 3.6 Etc...ALL of those results countered the claim YOU made, not to say these chips are not a good or wont be of benefitSelective reading, putting head in sand, not looking at the gauges - It doesn’t really help anyone.

So you're going to stick with your gaming benchmarks at non-gaming resolutions, huh? That's your counter-point?I don't know why I bother.If you ever care to be enlightened, click the link I provided which clearly demonstrates that Sandy Bridge > Bloomfield/Gulftown in games. Your cherry-picked benchmarks with ultra-low resolutions prove nothing.

What we all desperately need now is a benchmark using FSX with different resolutions.

So you're going to stick with your gaming benchmarks at non-gaming resolutions, huh? That's your counter-point?I don't know why I bother.If you ever care to be enlightened, click the link I provided which clearly demonstrates that Sandy Bridge > Bloomfield/Gulftown in games. Your cherry-picked benchmarks with ultra-low resolutions prove nothing.

Uh, because as any junior hardware reviewer would know thats how you correctly and strictly anilyze a CPU over the rest of the hardware involved as everyone from Toms, Guru3D, Anands to Hardocp etc. or anyone else that does this for a living has always done.BTW thank you for the link, maybe you should go back and look more closely at ALL the gaming Benchmarks in the link you provided, >>>clock per clock at higher res there is little difference in the benches I posted, nothing worth jumping over from any decently overclocked 920 or anyother I7 on up.BTW: If you want to quote some obscure site that doesnt have 10% the readership of Anands, HardOCP or Bit-tech, be my guest, but my "cherry picked" benchies were simply in response to your over the top claim that ALL reviews show the SB out front and so those were picked as prime sources, not from some little techy site.What we have is a nice new platform, hopefully it will grow and we will see much mre stable and consistant overclocks in the 4.8-5 Ghz range will be nice especially at this price point, But please cant we hold down the hype?Thanks.

Uh, because as any junior hardware reviewer would know thats how you correctly and strictly anilyze a CPU over the rest of the hardware involved as everyone from Toms, Guru3D, Anands to Hardocp etc. or anyone else that does this for a living has always done.BTW thank you for the link, maybe you should go back and look more closely at ALL the gaming Benchmarks in the link you provided, >>>clock per clock at higher res there is little difference in the benches I posted, nothing worth jumping over from any decently overclocked 920 or anyother I7 on up.BTW: If you want to quote some obscure site that doesnt have 10% the readership of Anands, HardOCP or Bit-tech, be my guest, but my "cherry picked" benchies were simply in response to your over the top claim that ALL reviews show the SB out front and so those were picked as prime sources, not from some little techy site.What we have is a nice new platform, hopefully it will grow and we will see much mre stable and consistant overclocks in the 4.8-5 Ghz range will be nice especially at this price point, But please cant we hold down the hype?Thanks.

Some obscure site? LOL, the fact that you've never heard of computerbase.de and also consider Tom's Hardware to be a valid source of any sort of useful information tells me everything I need to know about you.Oh yeah,also you don't see how an overclocked 570 can be faster than a stock 580 :rolleyes:Have a good day.

You two start arguments in quite a few threads these days. Can you please take it offline especially if we can't stay civilized? This is an interesting thread and I am sure we would all like to keep it that way.Thanks!

You two start arguments in quite a few threads these days. Can you please take it offline especially if we can't stay civilized? This is an interesting thread and I am sure we would all like to keep it that way.Thanks!

Well your right Scott, I appologize to Max or anyone else for anything that maybe uncivil and incourage the Mods to alter anything I have said if thats the caseThanks for keeping the forum clean..

All i know is my 3.8 i7 920 oc is ok, but not good enough, so hopefully the 4.8 ghz oc bundle pared with a 580 will give me 5fps more on the minimum side. Thats all I care about really. I will be happy with that as that will mean I can use complex ac add ons in the complex sceney I fly in. I fly in dx 10 mode, so that helps a little as well. The company doing the oc has bundles at different levels and the system I chose is the top, so hopefuly I will get some sort of decent chip out of it as that would mean less returns and warrnty issues for them. I will watch temps and voltages as this is new technology sort of:) Will post once I get everthing together. My 920 maxs at 3.8; if she did 4.4 I would wait until the next big techno bubble hits with 2011 or Ivy, but we need high clock speed for this game on four cores. That seems to work best.Bests,

All i know is my 3.8 i7 920 oc is ok, but not good enough, so hopefully the 4.8 ghz oc bundle pared with a 580 will give me 5fps more on the minimum side. Thats all I care about really. I will be happy with that as that will mean I can use complex ac add ons in the complex sceney I fly in. I fly in dx 10 mode, so that helps a little as well. The company doing the oc has bundles at different levels and the system I chose is the top, so hopefuly I will get some sort of decent chip out of it as that would mean less returns and warrnty issues for them. I will watch temps and voltages as this is new technology sort of:) Will post once I get everthing together. My 920 maxs at 3.8; if she did 4.4 I would wait until the next big techno bubble hits with 2011 or Ivy, but we need high clock speed for this game on four cores. That seems to work best.Bests,

Probably good choice mate, your I7 was a CO stepping then?

All i know is my 3.8 i7 920 oc is ok, but not good enough, so hopefully the 4.8 ghz oc bundle pared with a 580 will give me 5fps more on the minimum side. Thats all I care about really. I will be happy with that as that will mean I can use complex ac add ons in the complex sceney I fly in. I fly in dx 10 mode, so that helps a little as well. The company doing the oc has bundles at different levels and the system I chose is the top, so hopefuly I will get some sort of decent chip out of it as that would mean less returns and warrnty issues for them. I will watch temps and voltages as this is new technology sort of:) Will post once I get everthing together. My 920 maxs at 3.8; if she did 4.4 I would wait until the next big techno bubble hits with 2011 or Ivy, but we need high clock speed for this game on four cores. That seems to work best.Bests,

I had a C0 stepping 920 model as well. I upgraded to a 950 and it is a lot easier to OC past the 4ghz threshold. I will use my 920 for a VM box.

I had a C0 stepping 920 model as well. I upgraded to a 950 and it is a lot easier to OC past the 4ghz threshold. I will use my 920 for a VM box.

I may torcher this one, turn off HT, tone down the timings etc and see what she can do.Close to 4.5 and climbing...on air

Oh yeah! I'm #209 woohoo!

lol yeah where's my precious AMD6000 listed haha?

Oh yeah,also you don't see how an overclocked 570 can be faster than a stock 580 :rolleyes:Have a good day.

That is one heck of an overclock you have there Max, didnt notice that before! Verynice, you may be somewhat close for sure.This is FSX, kind of a known thing, overclocking yer GPU has little effect on the sims performance.Higher frequencies of a 570 don't quite make up the design-related shortfall even in GPU intensive games when compared to the GTX 580 however since this is FSX it IS all about the 580GTXs architecture, highly overclocked 480s dont touch the performance of a 580 in FSX much less the weaker 570 or I wouldn't have sent mine packing.Not hard to figure out why if you bench FSX often (Seems Hexus graph is similar to the one I posted before, are they wrong too?580/570/480/470

Quote:NVIDIA, too, has made the same architecture trade-offs as with the GTX 480/470. This means that core, shader and memory clocks are reduced; the memory interface is cut from 384 bits to 320 bits; shaders see a snip from 512 to 480, and raster back-ends fall from 48 to 40. It doesn't take an M.I.T. graduate student to figure out that the GTX 570 is going to be between 10-20 per cent slower than the range-topping modelThe loss of 8 rasterops is pretty significant... more cores the better obviously. I would choose the 480 over the 570 for FSX.

But while the 480 has a very slight lead in performance, it also has poor cooling, a loud fan and sucks the power, whereas the 570 is very cool, quiet and more efficient. All the reviews point at getting the 570 over the 480. The little extra performance that the 480 has over the 570, can be made up by OCing the 570 like techguy did. Either way, in FSX, the performance differences between the 480 and 570 are barely noticeable.

Perhaps with advanced AA/AF/Transparency settings the 570 might be able to squeek by... but I run at application control.. I've never been one to sacrifice physics for graphics.