Finally I can stay at AT for all my benchmark needs instead of straying over to Tom's Hardware *just* for FSX benchmarks. What took you guys so long? There are millions of FS(x) users out there too.
It's pretty amazing to see Intel introduce a whole new native quad core architecture and the first time that they have incorporated the memory controller on die too, and still see overclocks on par with Penryn.
Those are the kind of stable clocks I'm getting on my E8400 using a Thermalright Ultra 120. For a dual core it's great and I've even had it up to 4.5Ghz@1.42v for short periods for benching and such but it just gets too hot. But to be able to get those kinds of speeds with Intel's first crack at a native quad core design is simply amazing!
I hate to sound like a total fanboy (Cause I'm really not) but to see the trouble AMD has gone through trying essentially the same thing just adds to Intel's accomplishment even more IMO.
Well here's to hoping AMD comes out with something amazing themselves to help drive the babies down :).
WTH are you talking about...AMD is NOT competing. Not even even the same league, albeit in VM land (note to intel, throwing cpu cycles at the problem is not the answer).
I'm still waiting on FedEx but what I've read is that with Turbo Mode the 920 can add up to 2 multipliers on the default frequency. So on a light load the 920 would run at 21x133 MHz and under a heavy load at 22x133 MHz. How and if this works overclocking the Core i7 920 and ASUS P6T is one of the many things I hope Gary covers in his full review.
I'm glad to hear that you wouldn't hesitate to purchase a X58 platform now as I couldn't keep my finger off the buy buttons. Your blog left we with a couple of questions. I've got a ASUS P6T Deluxe, Core i7 920 and 6GB of Patriot PVT36G1600ELK ordered along with a Sapphire HD 4870 that I already own. I'd love to get another 6GB but I've already busted the bank! I've noticed that the latest BIOS on ASUS's site is 0804. Is 0901 a beta and do you know when it will be available? Does FSX run better with 12GB or will 6GB be enough? I looked through your motherboard reviews but couldn't find FSX as one of your benchmarks. Is this the first time you've used it?
I'm glad that you started to use some other games; GRID and FSX are a welcome break from the unending string of shooters, RPGs and RTSs.
Even if I'm not playing FSX, I'm a simulation enthusiast and in here usually the CPU is taxed as hard as the GPU.
As someone who also owns a Freezone Elite CPU cooler, I'm curious to know the temperature readings you're seeing with this setup. I'm looking to upgrade to i7 early next year (probably a 920, though I might step up to the 940).
Just curious if we have a recent poll showing the percentage of gamers that overclock their rig's there days. It would seem to me that CPU power is still in abundance given that Pentium 4's are still being spec'ed as minimum requirements on most games. And there is still room to be made up in GPU performance.
You don't actually go by minimum requirements (or even recommended requirements), do you? I know I don't trust them. Mass Effect lists the following:
----------------
Minimum System Requirements for Mass Effect on the PC
Operating System: Windows XP or Vista
Processor: 2.4+GHZ Intel or 2.0+GHZ AMD
Memory: 1 Gigabyte Ram (XP); 2 Gigabyte Ram (Vista)
Video Card:
NVIDIA GeForce 6 series(6800GT or better)
ATI 1300XT or better (X1550, X1600 Pro and HD2400 are below minimum system requirements)
Hard Drive Space: 12 Gigabytes
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card and drivers
----------------
Recommended System Requirements for Mass Effect on the PC
Operating System: Windows XP or Vista
Processor: 2.6+GHZ Intel or 2.4+GHZ AMD
Memory: 2 Gigabyte Ram
Video Card:
NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX or higher.
ATI X1800 XL series or higher
Hard Drive Space: 12 Gigabytes
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card and drivers – 5.1 sound card recommended
----------------
7900 GTX and X1800 XL will play the game, but you'll need to run at probably 1280x1024 tops to get acceptable performance, and possibly 1024x768. It looks like a 9600 GT or HD 2900 would be a better starting point for the GPU, at least if you want 30+ FPS at more than 1280x1024.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
13 Comments
Back to Article
Nfarce - Friday, November 14, 2008 - link
Finally I can stay at AT for all my benchmark needs instead of straying over to Tom's Hardware *just* for FSX benchmarks. What took you guys so long? There are millions of FS(x) users out there too.Mr Roboto - Friday, November 14, 2008 - link
It's pretty amazing to see Intel introduce a whole new native quad core architecture and the first time that they have incorporated the memory controller on die too, and still see overclocks on par with Penryn.Those are the kind of stable clocks I'm getting on my E8400 using a Thermalright Ultra 120. For a dual core it's great and I've even had it up to 4.5Ghz@1.42v for short periods for benching and such but it just gets too hot. But to be able to get those kinds of speeds with Intel's first crack at a native quad core design is simply amazing!
I hate to sound like a total fanboy (Cause I'm really not) but to see the trouble AMD has gone through trying essentially the same thing just adds to Intel's accomplishment even more IMO.
Well here's to hoping AMD comes out with something amazing themselves to help drive the babies down :).
JonnyDough - Friday, November 14, 2008 - link
Intel is more than ten times the size of AMD. The fact that AMD can even compete puts them on a whole other level. You did sound QUITE fanboyish.Thund3rb1rd - Saturday, November 15, 2008 - link
WTH are you talking about...AMD is NOT competing. Not even even the same league, albeit in VM land (note to intel, throwing cpu cycles at the problem is not the answer).samw5 - Thursday, November 13, 2008 - link
I thought the 920 had the multi locked at 20!msgclb - Thursday, November 13, 2008 - link
I'm still waiting on FedEx but what I've read is that with Turbo Mode the 920 can add up to 2 multipliers on the default frequency. So on a light load the 920 would run at 21x133 MHz and under a heavy load at 22x133 MHz. How and if this works overclocking the Core i7 920 and ASUS P6T is one of the many things I hope Gary covers in his full review.msgclb - Thursday, November 13, 2008 - link
I'm glad to hear that you wouldn't hesitate to purchase a X58 platform now as I couldn't keep my finger off the buy buttons. Your blog left we with a couple of questions. I've got a ASUS P6T Deluxe, Core i7 920 and 6GB of Patriot PVT36G1600ELK ordered along with a Sapphire HD 4870 that I already own. I'd love to get another 6GB but I've already busted the bank! I've noticed that the latest BIOS on ASUS's site is 0804. Is 0901 a beta and do you know when it will be available? Does FSX run better with 12GB or will 6GB be enough? I looked through your motherboard reviews but couldn't find FSX as one of your benchmarks. Is this the first time you've used it?Looking forward to your full review.
geofelt - Saturday, November 22, 2008 - link
I have just built the same system and am wondering what is fixed in 0901? The motherboard came with 0703, and there is no documentation about that.Barbu - Thursday, November 13, 2008 - link
I'm glad that you started to use some other games; GRID and FSX are a welcome break from the unending string of shooters, RPGs and RTSs.Even if I'm not playing FSX, I'm a simulation enthusiast and in here usually the CPU is taxed as hard as the GPU.
Keep'em coming!
Devo2007 - Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - link
As someone who also owns a Freezone Elite CPU cooler, I'm curious to know the temperature readings you're seeing with this setup. I'm looking to upgrade to i7 early next year (probably a 920, though I might step up to the 940).9nails - Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - link
Just curious if we have a recent poll showing the percentage of gamers that overclock their rig's there days. It would seem to me that CPU power is still in abundance given that Pentium 4's are still being spec'ed as minimum requirements on most games. And there is still room to be made up in GPU performance.JarredWalton - Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - link
You don't actually go by minimum requirements (or even recommended requirements), do you? I know I don't trust them. Mass Effect lists the following:----------------
Minimum System Requirements for Mass Effect on the PC
Operating System: Windows XP or Vista
Processor: 2.4+GHZ Intel or 2.0+GHZ AMD
Memory: 1 Gigabyte Ram (XP); 2 Gigabyte Ram (Vista)
Video Card:
NVIDIA GeForce 6 series(6800GT or better)
ATI 1300XT or better (X1550, X1600 Pro and HD2400 are below minimum system requirements)
Hard Drive Space: 12 Gigabytes
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card and drivers
----------------
Recommended System Requirements for Mass Effect on the PC
Operating System: Windows XP or Vista
Processor: 2.6+GHZ Intel or 2.4+GHZ AMD
Memory: 2 Gigabyte Ram
Video Card:
NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX or higher.
ATI X1800 XL series or higher
Hard Drive Space: 12 Gigabytes
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card and drivers – 5.1 sound card recommended
----------------
7900 GTX and X1800 XL will play the game, but you'll need to run at probably 1280x1024 tops to get acceptable performance, and possibly 1024x768. It looks like a 9600 GT or HD 2900 would be a better starting point for the GPU, at least if you want 30+ FPS at more than 1280x1024.
Pok3R - Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - link
Excelent news!FSX is great for testing multithreating in core i7's and ddr3 ram.
Gary it would be great if you add in the screenshots the CPU % load and the in-game fps (you can configure it from inside FS options to display it).
Great job and thanks!