Google Search

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Best Gaming CPU: $200 And Up Price Range

Core i5-3570K
Codename:  
Process: 22 nm
CPU Cores/Threads: 4
Clock Speed (Max. Turbo): 3.4 GHz (3.8 GHz)
Socket: LGA 1155
L2 Cache: 4 x 256 KB
L3 Cache: 6 MB
Thermal Envelope:77 W


The Core i5-3570K is  300 MHz faster than the Core i5-3450 at stock speeds,The K-series' unlocked ratio multiplier is a must-have for overclockers looking to unleash significant performance improvements. It is for this reason alone that a gamer should shell out the extra $30 over Intel's slower model. After all, the pricier chip's HD Graphics 4000 is hardly relevant when you plan to use a discrete card anyway.
If you don't plan to overclock, then we think that there's little reason to look past the Core i5-3450.
Read our review of the Ivy Bridge-based CPUs
CPUs priced over $230 offer rapidly diminishing returns when it comes to game performance. As such, we have a hard time recommending anything more expensive than the Core i5-3570K, especially since this multiplier-unlocked processor can be overclocked to great effect if more performance is desired.,it meets or beats the $1000 Core i7-990X Extreme Edition when it comes to gaming.

But now that LGA 2011 is here, there's certainly an argument to be made for it as the ultimate gaming platform. LGA 2011-based CPUs have more available cache and as many as two more execution cores than the flagship LGA 1155 models. Additionally, more bandwidth is delivered through a quad-channel memory controller. And with 40 lanes of third-gen PCIe connectivity available from Sandy Bridge-E-based processors, the platform natively supports two x16 and one x8 slot, or one x16 and three x8 slots, alleviating potential bottlenecks in three- and four-way CrossFire or SLI configurations.

Although they sound impressive, those advantages don't necessarily translate into significant performance gains in modern titles. Our tests demonstrate fairly little difference between a $225 LGA 1155 Core i5-2500K and a $1000 LGA 2011 Core i7-3960X, even when three-way graphics card configurations are involved. It turns out that memory bandwidth and PCIe throughput don't hold back the performance of existing Sandy Bridge-based machines.
Where we do see the potential for Sandy Bridge-E to drive additional performance is in processor-bound games like World of Warcraft or the multiplayer component of Battlefield 3. If you're running a three- or four-way array of graphics cards already, there's a good chance that you already own more than enough rendering muscle. An overclocked Core i7-3960X or -3930K could help the rest of your platform catch up to an insanely powerful arrangement of GPUs.

 while we generally recommend against purchasing any gaming CPU that retails for more than $220 from a value point of view (sink that money into graphics and the motherboard instead), there are those of you who have no trouble throwing down serious money on the best of the best, and who require the fastest possible performance available. If this describes your goals, the following CPU is for you:

Best Gaming CPU for $570:
Core i7-3930K

Core i7-3930K
Codename: Sandy Bridge-E
Process: 32 nm
CPU Cores/Threads: 6/12
Clock Speed (Max. Turbo): 3.2 GHz (3.8 GHz)
Socket: LGA 2011
L2 Cache: 6x 256 KB
L3 Cache: 12 MB
Thermal Envelope:130 W
Take the $1000 Core i7-3960X, remove 3 MB of L3 cache, and drop the base clock rate by 100 MHz. What do end up with? Four hundred dollars and change left over, and an Intel Core i7-3930K.
The 100 MHz difference in clock rate is hardly relevant, given unlocked multiplier ratios benefiting both CPUs. And you'd be hard-pressed to quantify the advantage of 15 MB of shared L3 cache over 12 MB. Moreover, a greater-than-$400 savings lets you buy a nice motherboard and cooler, while still getting the same four-channel memory subsystem and 40-lane PCI Express 3.0-capable controller.

Monday, September 24, 2012

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 2GB

Just a month ago, NVIDIA released its GeForce GTX 660 Ti, which was received to rather critical acclaim. Specs-wise, the card isn't too far off from the GTX 670 which costs $100 more. But at $300, the card wasn't exactly "affordable" by all standards. NVIDIA knew it had a duty to finally deliver a mainstream Kepler part as close to $200 as possible, and that's resulted in the $229 non-Ti GTX 660.
The GTX 660 is equipped with 960 cores, vs. 1344 with the Ti. That comparison alone can give us an idea of what to expect here. Well, it would be easy if NVIDIA, in its usual way, didn't give the core clock a nice boost on the non-Ti edition. Lesser cores, but +65MHz to the clock. An interesting move, and not one that anyone will complain about.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660
Memory density and general architecture layout remain similar between the two cards, although while the 660 Ti is based on the GK104 chip, this non-Ti version uses GK106. Whereas typical GPCs, or Graphics Processing Cluster, have two SMX units per, GK106 splits one right down the middle, as the following diagram shows:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 - GK106
This is an odd design, but won't result in some sort of bottleneck as all SMX modules interface with their respective raster engine rather than each other.
Though this non-Ti edition of the GTX 660 drops the core count quite significantly, its increase in core frequency negates some of the additional power savings we would have seen. For that reason, the non-Ti is rated at 140W, vs. 150W of the Ti.

CoresCore MHzMemoryMem MHzMem BusTDP
GeForce GTX 69030729152x 2048MB6008256-bit300W
GeForce GTX 680153610062048MB6008256-bit195W
GeForce GTX 67013449152048MB6008256-bit170W
GeForce GTX 660 Ti13449152048MB6008192-bit150W
GeForce GTX 6609609802048MB6000192-bit140W
GeForce GTX 65038410581024MB5000128-bit64W
GeForce GT 6403849002048MB5000128-bit65W
GeForce GT 630968101024MB3200128-bit65W
GeForce GT 620967001024MB180064-bit49W
GeForce GT 610488101024MB180064-bit29W
 
Alongside the GTX 660, NVIDIA has also launched the GTX 650, although availability at this point is nil. Despite being briefed on both of these cards at the same time, I haven't found a single review online of the GTX 650, so it's to be assumed that NVIDIA isn't rushing that product out too fast, and if I had to guess, it's a card that exists only to finish off the sequential numbering system. Laugh all you want, but imagine the table above without the GTX 650. That'd look rather odd, wouldn't it?
That aside, for NVIDIA to call it the GTX 650 is a bit of an insult to the GTX name. In no possible way does this GPU deserve it - GTX has traditionally represented cards that could more than handle games being run with lots of detail and at current resolutions. "GTX" is certainly suitable for the 660, but how did NVIDIA deem the 650 worthy when it slots just barely in front of the $100 GT 640? Maybe next we'll see Porsche release a 4 cylinder 911 Turbo S.
Rant side, the vendor to provide us with a GTX 660 sample is GIGABYTE. Unfortunately, it's an "OC Version", which means we are unable to deliver baseline GTX 660 results (I am not keen on forcing turbo adjustments). Making matters a bit worse, the OC isn't that minor. Memory remains the same, but the core gets +73MHz tacked on. An OC like this is great for consumers, but tough on reviewers who'd like to compare GPUs fairly.

With all of the launches NVIDIA's done in the past couple of months for Kepler, it was difficult to explore GTX 660 with anything more than minimal enthusiasm. However, from what we've seen throughout all of our testing, the GTX 660 is actually quite an impressive card, and possibly one of the most important to NVIDIA's entire 600 series line-up.
The reason for that boils down to the affordable price-point, and the performance it delivers. A $229 card that can handle a graphically gorgeous game like Battlefield 3 at Ultra detail at 1080p? Do I really need to explain why that's awesome?
Unfortunately, we didn't have a GPU that was directly comparable to this one, so there's really no apples to apples comparison. AMD's Radeon HD 7850 comes closest, at about $200. In that match-up, we saw the GTX 660 consistently perform better than the HD 7850, with the lowest gains being seen in the heavily AMD-favored DiRT: Showdown. Performance increases of 10-20% were not uncommon. In the also AMD-favored SHOGUN 2, the GTX 660 averaged 50% faster.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

EVGA GTX 680 SUPERCLOCKED SIGNATURE 2

 we are going to talk about a graphics card which is called EVGA GeForce GTX 80 SC Signature 2:
Interestingly, the official EVGA website says that this product can only be ordered singly. Only one device for one buyer. The company seems to regard this graphics card as something special if they take such a careful approach to its distribution. So, let’s see what secrets are hidden under the name of EVGA GeForce GTX 680 SC Signature 2.

Technical Specifications

The detailed technical specifications of the new EVHA GeForce GTX 680 SC Signature 2 card are summed up in the table below side by side with those of the reference Nvidia GeForce GTX 680 (the differences are marked with bold font):
 
 

Performance

3DMark 2011

Metro 2033: The Last Refuge

Aliens vs. Predator (2010)

Total War: Shogun 2

Crysis 2

Battlefield 3