General Gaming Article |
- Bug in BitCoin Software Discovered, BitCoin Foundation Refutes Claim
- PC Performance Tested
- The Most Graphically Demanding PC Games
- Bill Gates Talks Condoms, Computers, and Other Topics in Reddit AMA
- Kaspersky Counts Over 10 Million Malicious Android Applications
- Asus VivoTab Note 8 Proves Popular in Microsoft Store, Sells Out at $329
- Microsoft Offers Tips to Tear Your Family and Friends Away from Windows XP
- AMD Ends the Speculation, Gives Radeon R7 250X a Proper Launch
- Newegg Daily Deals: Asus M5A97 R2.0 AM3+ AMD 970 Mobo, AMD FX-8320 Vishera, and More!
- Kingston Introduces New UHS-I U3 SDXC Cards
| Bug in BitCoin Software Discovered, BitCoin Foundation Refutes Claim Posted: 10 Feb 2014 03:43 PM PST
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Posted: 10 Feb 2014 02:46 PM PST
|
Value of BitCoin decreases
| Core i5-4670K | Core i5-3570K | FX-8350 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| POV Ray 3.7 RC3 (sec) | 168.53 | 227.75 | 184.8 |
| Cinebench 10 Single-Core | 8,500 | 6,866 | 4,483 |
| Cinebench 11.5 | 6.95 | 6.41 | 6.90 |
| 7Zip 9.20 | 17,898 | 17,504 | 23,728 |
| Fritz Chess | 13,305 | 11,468 | 12,506 |
| Premiere Pro CS6 (sec) | 2,849 | 3,422 | 5,220 |
| HandBrake Blu-ray encode (sec) | 9,042 | 9,539 | 8,400 |
| x264 5.01 Pass 1 (fps) | 66.3 | 57.1 | 61.3 |
| x264 5.01 Pass 2 (fps) | 15.8 | 12.7 | 15 |
| Sandra (GB/s) | 21.6 | 21.3 | 18.9 |
| Stitch.Efx 2.0 (sec) | 836 | 971 | 1,511 |
| ProShow Producer 5 (sec) | 1,275 | 1,463 | 1,695 |
| STALKER: CoP low-res (fps) | 173.5 | 167.3 | 132.1 |
| 3DMark 11 Physics | 7,938 | 7,263 | 7,005 |
| PC Mark 7 Overall | 6,428 | 5,582 | 4,408 |
| PC Mark 7 Storage | 5,300 | 5,377 | 4,559 |
| Valve Particle (fps) | 180 | 155 | 119 |
| Heaven 3.0 low-res (fps) | 139.4 | 138.3 | 134.4 |
Best scores are bolded. Test bed described in text
Hyper-Threading vs. No Hyper-Threading
Hyper-Threading came out 13 years ago with the original 3.06GHz Pentium 4, and was mostly a dud. Few apps were multithreaded and even Windows's own scheduler didn't know how to deal with HT, making some apps actually slow down when the feature was enabled. But the tech overcame those early hurdles to grow into a worthwhile feature today. Still, builders are continually faced with choosing between procs with and without HT, so we wanted to know definitively how much it matters.
The Test: Since we haven't actually run numbers on HT in some time, we broke out a Core i7-4770K and ran tests with HT turned on and off. We used a variety of benchmarks with differing degrees of threadedness to test the technology's strengths and weaknesses.
The Results: One look at our results and you can tell HT is well worth it if your applications can use the available threads. We saw benefits of 10–30 percent from HT in some apps. But if your app can't use the threads, you gain nothing. And in rare instances, it appears to hurt performance slightly—as in Hitman: Absolution when run to stress the CPU rather than the GPU. Our verdict is that you should pay for HT, but only if your chores include 3D modeling, video encoding or transcoding, or other thread-heavy tasks. Gamers who occasionally transcode videos, for example, would get more bang for their buck from a Core i5-4670K.
| HT Off | HT On | |
|---|---|---|
| PCMark 7 Overall | 6,308 | 6,348 |
| Cinebench 11.5 | 6.95 | 8.88 |
| Stitch.EFx 2.0 (sec) | 772 | 772 |
| ProShow Producer 5.0 (sec) | 1,317 | 1,314 |
| Premiere Pro CS6 (sec) | 2,950 | 2,522 |
| HandBrake 0.9.9 (sec) | 1,200 | 1,068 |
| 3DMark 11 Overall | X2,210 | X2,209 |
| Valve Particle Test (fps) | 191 | 226 |
| Hitman: Absolution, low res (fps) | 92 | 84 |
| Total War 2: Shogun CPU Test (fps) | 42.4 | 41 |
Best scores are bolded. We used a Core i7-4770K on a Asus Z87 Deluxe, with a Neutron GTX 240 SSD, a GeForce GTX 580, and 16GB of DDR3/1600 64-bit, with Windows 8
Click the next page to read about air cooling vs water cooling
Air Cooling vs. Water Cooling
There are two main ways to chill your CPU: a heatsink with a fan on it, or a closed-loop liquid cooler (CLC). Unlike a custom loop, you don't need to periodically drain and flush the system or check it for leaks. The "closed" part means that it's sealed and integrated. This integration also reduces manufacturing costs and makes the setup much easier to install. If you want maximum overclocks, custom loops are the best way to go. But it's a steep climb in cost for a modest improvement beyond what current closed loops can deliver.
But air coolers are not down for the count. They're still the easiest to install and the cheapest. However, the prices between air and water are so close now that it's worth taking a look at the field to determine what's best for your budget.
The Test: To test the two cooling methods, we dropped them into a rig with a hex-core Intel Core i7-3960X overclocked to 4.25GHz on an Asus Rampage IV Extreme motherboard, inside a Corsair 900D. By design, it's kind of a beast and tough to keep cool.
The Budget Class
The Results: At this level, the Cooler Master 212 Evo is legend…ary. It runs cool and quiet, it's easy to pop in, it can adapt to a variety of sockets, it's durable, and it costs about 30 bucks. Despite the 3960X's heavy load, the 212 Evo averages about 70 degrees C across all six cores, with a room temperature of about 22 C, or 71.6 F. Things don't tend to get iffy until 80 C, so there's room to go even higher. Not bad for a cooler with one 120mm fan on it.
Entry-level water coolers cost substantially more, unless you're patient enough to wait for a fire sale. They require more materials, more manufacturing, and more complex engineering. The Cooler Master Seidon 120M is a good example of the kind of unit you'll find at this tier. It uses a standard 120mm fan attached to a standard 120mm radiator (or "rad") and currently has a street price of $60. But in our tests, its thermal performance was about the same, or worse, than the 212 Evo. In order to meet an aggressive price target, you have to make some compromises. The pump is smaller than average, for example, and the copper block you install on top of the CPU is not as thick. The Seidon was moderately quieter, but we have to give the nod to the 212 Evo when it comes to raw performance.
The Cooler Master 212 Evo has arguably the best price-performance ratio around.
The Performance Class
The Results: While a CLC has trouble scaling its manufacturing costs down to the budget level, there's a lot more headroom when you hit the $100 mark. The NZXT Kraken X60 CLC is one of the best examples in this class; its dual–140mm fans and 280mm radiator can unload piles of heat without generating too much noise, and it has a larger pump and apparently larger tubes than the Seidon 120M. Our tests bear out the promise of the X60's design, with its "quiet" setting delivering a relatively chilly 66 C, or about 45 degrees above the ambient room temp.
It may not look like much, but the Kraken X60 is the Ferrari of closed-loop coolers.
Is there any air cooler that can keep up? Well, we grabbed a Phanteks TC14PE, which uses two heatsinks instead of one, dual–140mm fans, and retails at $85–$90. It performed only a little cooler than the 212 Evo, but it did so very quietly, like a ninja. At its quiet setting, it trailed behind the X60 by 5 C. It may not sound like much, but that extra 5 C of headroom means a higher potential overclock. So, water wins the high end.
| Seidon 120M Quiet / Performance Mode | 212 Evo Quiet / Performance Mode | Kraken X60 Quiet / Performance Mode | TC14PE Quiet / Performance Mode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ambient Air | 22.1 / 22.2 | 20.5 / 20 | 20.9 / 20.7 | 20 / 19.9 |
| Idle Temperature | 38 / 30.7 | 35.5 / 30.5 | 29.7 / 28.8 | 32 / 28.5 |
| Load Temperature | 78.3 / 70.8 | 70 / 67.3 | 66 / 61.8 | 70.3 / 68.6 |
| Load - Ambient | 56.2 / 48.6 | 49.5 / 47.3 | 45.1 / 41.1 | 50.3/ 48.7 |
All temperatures in degrees Celsius. Best scores bolded.
Is High-Bandwidth RAM worth it?
Today, you can get everything from vanilla DDR3/1333 all the way to exotic-as-hell DDR3/3000. The question is: Is it actually worth paying for anything more than the garden-variety RAM?
The Test: For our test, we mounted a Core i7-4770K into an Asus Z87 Deluxe board and fitted it with AData modules at DDR3/2400, DDR3/1600, and DDR3/1333. We then picked a variety of real-world (and one synthetic) tests to see how the three compared.
The Results: First, let us state that if you're running integrated graphics and you want better 3D performance, pay for higher-clocked RAM. With discrete graphics, though, the advantage isn't as clear. We had several apps that saw no benefit from going from 1,333MHz to 2,400MHz. In others, though, we saw a fairly healthy boost, 5–10 percent, by going from standard DDR3/1333 to DDR3/2400. The shocker came in Dirt 3, which we ran in low-quality modes so as not to be bottlenecked by the GPU. At low resolution and low image quality, we saw an astounding 18 percent boost.
To keep you back on earth, you should know that cranking the resolution in the game all but erased the difference. To see any actual benefit, we think you'd really need a tri-SLI GeForce GTX 780 setup and expect that the vast majority of games won't actually give you that scaling.
We think the sweet spot for price/performance is either DDR3/1600 or DDR3/1866.
| DDR3/1333 | DDR3/1600 | DDR3/2400 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stitch.Efx 2.0 (sec) | 776 | 773 | 763 |
| PhotoMatix HDR (sec) | 181 | 180 | 180 |
| ProShow Producer 5.0 (sec) | 1,370 | 1,337 | 1,302 |
| HandBrake 0.9.9 (sec) | 1,142 | 1,077 | 1,037 |
| 3DMark Overall | 2,211 | 2,214 | 2,215 |
| Dirt 3 Low Quality (fps) | 234 | 247.6 | 272.7 |
| Price for two 4GB DIMMs (USD) | $70 | $73 | $99 |
All temperatures in degrees Celsius. Best scores bolded.
Click the next page to see how two midrange graphics cards stack up against one high-end GPU!
One High-End GPU vs.Two Midrange GPUs
One of the most common questions we get here at Maximum PC, aside from details about our lifting regimen, is whether to upgrade to a high-end GPU or run two less-expensive cards in SLI or CrossFire. It's a good question, since high-end GPUs are expensive, and cards that are two rungs below them in the product stack cost about half the price, which naturally begs the question: Are two $300 cards faster than a single $600 card? Before we jump to the tests, dual-card setups suffer from a unique set of issues that need to be considered. First is the frame-pacing situation, where the cards are unable to deliver frames evenly, so even though the overall frames per second is high there is still micro-stutter on the screen. Nvidia and AMD dual-GPU configs suffer from this, but Nvidia's SLI has less of a problem than AMD at this time. Both companies also need to offer drivers to allow games and benchmarks to see both GPUs, but they are equally good at delivering drivers the day games are released, so the days of waiting two weeks for a driver are largely over.
2x Nvidia GTX 660 Ti vs. GTX 780
The Test: We considered using two $250 GTX 760 GPUs for this test, but Nvidia doesn't have a $500 GPU to test them against, and since this is Maximum PC, we rounded up one model from the "mainstream" to the $300 GTX 660 Ti. This video card was recently replaced by the GTX 760, causing its price to drop down to a bit below $300, but since that's its MSRP we are using it for this comparison. We got two of them to go up against the GTX 780, which costs roughly $650, so it's not a totally fair fight, but we figured it's close enough for government work. We ran our standard graphics test suite in both single- and dual-card configurations.
The Results: It looks like our test was conclusive—two cards in SLI provide a slightly better gaming experience than a single badass card, taking top marks in seven out of nine tests. And they cost less, to boot. Nvidia's frame-pacing was virtually without issues, too, so we don't have any problem recommending Nvidia SLI at this time. It is the superior cost/performance setup as our benchmarks show.
Nvidia's new GK110-based GTX 780 takes on two ankle-biter GTX 660 Ti GPUs.
2x Radeon HD 7790 vs.Radeon HD 7970 GHz
The Test: For our AMD comparison, we took two of the recently released HD 7790 cards, at $150 each, and threw them into the octagon with a $400 GPU, the PowerColor Radeon HD 7970 Vortex II, which isn't technically a "GHz" board, but is clocked at 1,100MHz, so we think it qualifies. We ran our standard graphics test suite in both single-and-dual card configurations.
Two little knives of the HD 7790 ilk take on the big gun Radeon HD 7970 .
The Results: Our AMD tests resulted in a very close battle, with the dual-card setup taking the win by racking up higher scores in six out of nine tests, and the single HD 7970 card taking top spot in the other three tests. But, what you can't see in the chart is that the dual HD 7790 cards were totally silent while the HD 7970 card was loud as hell. Also, AMD has acknowledged the micro-stutter problem with CrossFire, and promises a software fix for it, but unfortunately that fix is going to arrive right as we are going to press on July 31. Even without it, gameplay seemed smooth, and the duo is clearly faster, so it gets our vote as the superior solution, at least in this config.
| GTX 660 Ti SLI | GTX 780 | Radeon HD 7870 CrossFire | Radeon HD 7970 GHz | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 8,858 | 8,482 | 8,842 | 7,329 |
| Catzilla (Tiger) Beta | 7,682 | 6,933 | 6,184 | 4,889 |
| Unigine Heaven 4.0 (fps) | 33 | 35 | 30 | 24 |
| Crysis 3 (fps) | 26 | 24 | 15 | 17 |
| Shogun 2 (fps) | 60 | 48 | 51 | 43 |
| Far Cry 3 (fps) | 41 | 35 | 21 | 33 |
| Metro: Last Light (fps) | 24 | 22 | 13 | 14 |
| Tomb Raider (fps) | 18 | 25 | 24 | 20 |
| Battlefield 3 (fps) | 56 | 53 | 57 | 41 |
Best scores are bolded. Our test bed is a 3.33GHz Core i7 3960X Extreme Edition in an Asus P9X79 motherboard with 16GB of DDR3/1600 and a Thermaltake ToughPower 1,050W PSU. The OS is 64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate. All tests, except for the 3DMark tests, are run at 2560x1600 with 4X AA.
PCI Express 2.0 vs. PCI Express 3.0
PCI Express is the specification that governs the amount of bandwidth available between the CPU and the PCI Express slots on your motherboard. We've recently made the jump from version 2.0 to version 3.0, and the PCI Express interface on all late-model video cards is now PCI Express 3.0, causing many frame-rate addicts to question the sanity of placing a PCIe 3.0 GPU into a PCIe 2.0 slot on their motherboard. The reason why is that PCIe 3.0 has quite a bit more theoretical bandwidth than PCIe 2.0. Specifically, one PCIe 2.0 lane can transmit 500MB/s in one direction, while a PCIe 3.0 lane can pump up to 985MB/s, so it's almost double the bandwidth, and then multiply that by 16, since there are that many lanes being used, and the difference is substantial. However, that extra bandwidth will only be important if it's even needed, which is what we wanted to find out.
The Test: We plugged an Nvidia GTX Titan into our Asus P9X79 board and ran several of our gaming tests with the top PCI Express x16 slot alternately set to PCIe 3.0 and PCIe 2.0. On this particular board you can switch the setting in the BIOS.
The Results: We had heard previously that there was very little difference between PCIe 2.0 and PCIe 3.0 on current systems, and our tests back that up. In every single test, Gen 3.0 was faster, but the difference is so small it's very hard for us to believe that PCIe 2.0 is being saturated by our GPU. It's also quite possible that one would see more pronounced results using two or more cards, but we wanted to "keep it real" and just use one card.
| GTX Titan PCIe 2.0 | GTX Titan PCIe 3.0 | |
|---|---|---|
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 9,363 | 9,892 |
| Unigine Heaven 4.0 (fps) | 37 | 40 |
| Crysis 3 (fps) | 31 | 32 |
| Shogun 2 (fps) | 60 | 63 |
| Far Cry 3 (fps) | 38 | 42 |
| Metro: Last Light (fps) | 22 | 25 |
| Tomb Raider (fps) | 22 | 25 |
Best scores are bolded. Our test bed is a 3.33GHz Core i7 3960X Extreme Edition in an Asus P9X79 motherboard with 16GB of DDR3/1600 and a Thermaltake ToughPower 1,050W PSU. The OS is 64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate. All games are run at 2560x1600 with 4X AA except for the 3DMark tests.
PCIe x8 vs. PCIe x16
PCI Express expansion slots vary in both physical size and the amount of bandwidth they provide. The really long slots are called x16 slots, as they provide 16 lanes of PCIe bandwidth, and that's where our video cards go, for obvious reasons. Almost all of the top slots in a motherboard (those closest to the CPU) are x16, but sometimes those 16 lanes are divided between two slots, so what might look like a x16 slot is actually a x8 slot. The tricky part is that sometimes the slots below the top slot only offer eight lanes of PCIe bandwidth, and sometimes people need to skip that top slot because their CPU cooler is in the way or water cooling tubes are coming out of a radiator in that location. Or you might be running a dual-card setup, and if you use a x8 slot for one card, it will force the x16 slot to run at x8 speeds. Here's the question: Since a x16 slot provides 3.2GB/s of bandwidth in one direction, and a x8 slot pumps 1.6GB/s, is your performance hobbled by running at x8?
The Test: We wedged a GTX Titan into first a x16 slot and then a x8 slot on our Asus P9X79 motherboard and ran our gaming tests in order to compare the difference.
The Results: We were surprised by these results, which show x16 to be a clear winner. Sure, it seems obvious, but we didn't think even current GPUs were saturating the x8 interface, but apparently they are, so this is an easy win for x16.
The Asus P9X79 offers two x16 slots (blue) and two x8 slots (white).
| GTX Titan PCIe x16 | GTX Titan PCIe x8 | |
|---|---|---|
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 9,471 | 9,426 |
| Catzilla (Tiger) Beta | 7,921 | 7,095 |
| Unigine Heaven 4.0 (fps) | 40 | 36 |
| Crysis 3 (fps) | 32 | 37 |
| Shogun 2 (fps) | 64 | 56 |
| Far Cry 3 (fps) | 43 | 39 |
| Metro: Last Light (fps) | 25 | 22 |
| Tomb Raider (fps) | 25 | 23 |
| Battlefield 3 (fps) | 57 | 50 |
Tests performed on an Asus P9X79 Deluxe motherboard.
IDE vs. AHCI
If you go into your BIOS and look at the options for your motherboard's SATA controller, you usually have three options: IDE, AHCI, and RAID. RAID is for when you have more than one drive, so for running just a lone wolf storage device, you have AHCI and IDE. For ages we always just ran IDE, as it worked just fine. But now there's AHCI too, which stands for Advanced Host Controller Interface, and it supports features IDE doesn't, such as Native Command Queuing (NCQ), and hot swapping. Some people also claim that AHCI is faster than IDE due to NCQ and the fact that it's newer. Also, for SSD users, IDE does not support the Trim command, so AHCI is critical to an SSD's well-being over time, but is there a speed difference between IDE and AHCI for an SSD? We set to find out.
The Test: We enabled IDE on our SATA controller in the BIOS, then installed our OS. Next, we added our Corsair test SSD and ran a suite of storage tests. We then enabled AHCI, reinstalled the OS, re-added the Corsair Neutron test SSD, and re-ran all the tests.
The Results: We haven't used IDE in a while, but we assumed it would allow our SSD to run at full speed even if it couldn't NCQ or hot-swap anything. And we were wrong. Dead wrong. Performance with the SATA controller set to IDE was abysmal, plain and simple.
| Corsair Neutron GTX IDE | Corsair Neutron GTX AHCI | |
|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark | ||
| Avg. Sustained Read (MB/s) | 224 | 443 |
| Avg. Sustained Write (MB/s) | 386 | 479 |
| AS SSD - Compressed Data | ||
| Avg. Sustained Read (MB/s) | 210 | 514 |
| Avg. Sustained Write (MB/s) | 386 | 479 |
| ATTO | ||
| 64KB File Read (MB/s, 4QD) | 151 | 351 |
| 64KB File Write (MB/s, 4QD) | 354 | 485 |
| Iometer | ||
| 4KB Random Write 32QD (IOPS) | 19,943 | 64,688 |
| PCMark Vantage x64 | 6,252 | 41,787 |
Best scores are bolded. All tests conducted on our hard drive test bench, which consists of a Gigabyte Z77X-UP4 motherboard, Intel Core i5-3470 3.2GHz CPU, 8GB of RAM, Intel 520 Series SSD, and a Cooler Master 450W power supply.
Click the next page to read about SSD RAID vs a single SSD!
SSD RAID vs. Single SSD
This test is somewhat analogous to the GPU comparison, as most people would assume that two small-capacity SSDs in RAID 0 would be able to outperform a single 256GB SSD. The little SSDs have a performance penalty out of the gate, though, as SSD performance usually improves as capacity increases because the controller is able to grab more data given the higher-capacity NAND wafers—just like higher-density platters increase hard drive performance. This is not a universal truth, however, and whether or not performance scales with an SSD's capacity depends on the drive's firmware, NAND flash, and other factors, but in general, it's true that the higher the capacity of a drive, the better its performance. The question then is: Is the performance advantage of the single large drive enough to outpace two little drives in RAID 0?
Before we jump into the numbers, we have to say a few things about SSD RAID. The first is that with the advent of SSDs, RAID setups are not quite as common as they were in the HDD days, at least when it comes to what we're seeing from boutique system builders. The main reason is that it's really not that necessary since a stand-alone SSD is already extremely fast. Adding more speed to an already-fast equation isn't a big priority for a lot of home users (this is not necessarily our audience, mind you). Even more importantly, the biggest single issue with SSD RAID is that the operating system is unable to pass the Trim command to the RAID controller in most configurations (Intel 7 and 8 series chipsets excluded), so the OS can't tell the drive how to keep itself optimized, which can degrade performance of the array in the long run, making the entire operation pointless. Now, it's true that the drive's controller will perform "routine garbage collection," but how that differs from Trim is uncertain, and whether it's able to manage the drive equally well is also unknown. However, the lack of Trim support on RAID 0 is a scary thing for a lot of people, so it's one of the reasons SSD RAID often gets avoided. Personally, we've never seen it cause any problems, so we are fine with it. We even ran it in our Dream Machine 2013, and it rocked the Labizzle. So, even though people will say SSD RAID is bad because there's no Trim support, we've never been able to verify exactly what that "bad" means long-term.
It's David and Goliath all over again, as two puny SSDs take on a bigger, badder drive.
The Test: We plugged in two Corsair Neutron SSDs, set the SATA controller to RAID, created our array with a 64K stripe size, and then ran all of our tests off an Intel 520 SSD boot drive. We used the same protocol for the single drive.
The Results: The results of this test show a pretty clear advantage for the RAIDed SSDs, as they were faster in seven out of nine tests. That's not surprising, however, as RAID 0 has always been able to benchmark well. That said, the single 256 Corsair Neutron drive came damned close to the RAID in several tests, including CrystalDiskMark, ATTO at four queue depth, and AS SSD. It's not completely an open-and-shut case, though, because the RAID scored poorly in the PC Mark Vantage "real-world" benchmark, with just one-third of the score of the single drive. That's cause for concern, but with these scripted tests it can be tough to tell exactly where things went wrong, since they just run and then spit out a score. Also, the big advantage of RAID is that it boosts sequential-read and -write speeds since you have two drives working in parallel (conversely, you typically won't see a big boost for the small random writes made by the OS). Yet the SSDs in RAID were actually slower than the single SSD in our Sony Vegas "real-world" 20GB file encode test, which is where they should have had a sizable advantage. For now, we'll say this much: The RAID numbers look good, but more "real-world" investigation is required before we can tell you one is better than the other.
| 1x Corsair Neutron 256GB | 2x Corsair Neutron 128GB RAID 0 | |
|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark | ||
| Avg. Sustained Read (MB/s) | 512 | 593 |
| Avg. Sustained Write (MB/s) | 436 | 487 |
| AS SSD - Compressed Data | ||
| Avg. Sustained Read (MB/s) | 506 | 647 |
| Avg. Sustained Write (MB/s) | 318 | 368 |
| ATTO | ||
| 64KB File Read (MB/s, 4QD) | 436 | 934 |
| 64KB File Write (MB/s, 4QD) | 516 | 501 |
| Iometer | ||
| 4KB Random Write 32QD (IOPS) | 70,083 | 88,341 |
| PCMark Vantage x64 | 70,083 | 23,431 |
| Sony Vegas Pro 9 Write (sec) | 343 | 429 |
Best scores are bolded. All tests conducted on our hard-drive test bench, which consists of a Gigabyte Z77X-UP4 motherboard, Intel Core i5-3470 3.2GHz CPU, 8GB of RAM, Intel 520 Series SSD, and a Cooler Master 450W power supply.
Benchmarking: Synthetic vs. Real-World
There's a tendency for testers to dismiss "synthetic" benchmarks as having no value whatsoever, but that attitude is misplaced. Synthetics got their bad name in the 1990s, when they were the only game in town for testing hardware. Hardware makers soon started to optimize for them, and on occasion, those actions would actually hurt performance in real games and applications.
The 1990s are long behind us, though, and benchmarks and the benchmarking community have matured to the point that synthetics can offer very useful metrics when measuring the performance of a single component or system. At the same time, real-world benchmarks aren't untouchable. If a developer receives funding or engineering support from a hardware maker to optimize a game or app, does that really make it neutral? There is the argument that it doesn't matter because if there's "cheating" to improve performance, that only benefits the users. Except that it only benefits those using a certain piece of hardware.
In the end, it's probably more important to understand the nuances of each benchmark and how to apply them when testing hardware. SiSoft Sandra, for example, is a popular synthetic benchmark with a slew of tests for various components. We use it for memory bandwidth testing, for which it is invaluable—as long as the results are put in the right context. A doubling of main system memory bandwidth, for example, doesn't mean you get a doubling of performance in games and apps. Of course, the same caveats apply to real-world benchmarks, too.
Avoid the Benchmarking Pitfalls
Even seasoned veterans are tripped up by benchmarking pitfalls, so beginners should be especially wary of making mistakes. Here are a few tips to help you on your own testing journey.
Put away your jump-to-conclusions mat. If you set condition A and see a massive boost—or no difference at all when you were expecting one—don't immediately attribute it to the hardware. Quite often, it's the tester introducing errors into the test conditions that causes the result. Double-check your settings and re-run your tests and then look for feedback from others who have tested similar hardware to use as sanity-check numbers.
When trying to compare one platform with another (certainly not ideal)—say, a GPU in system A against a GPU in system B—be especially wary of the differences that can result simply from using two different PCs, and try to make them as similar as possible. From drivers to BIOS to CPU and heatsink—everything should match. You may even want to put the same GPU in both systems to make sure the results are consistent.
Use the right benchmark for the hardware. Running Cinebench 11.5—a CPU-centric test—to review memory, for example, would be odd. A better fit would be applications that are more memory-bandwidth sensitive, such as encoding, compression, synthetic RAM tests, or gaming.
Be honest. Sometimes, when you shell out for new hardware, you want it to be faster because no one wants to pay through the nose to see no difference. Make sure your own feelings toward the hardware aren't coloring the results.
The Most Graphically Demanding PC Games
Posted: 10 Feb 2014 12:46 PM PST
Update: By popular demand, we've added ARMA 3 to our roundup! Read on to see how it does against the competition!
At Maximum PC we love pushing our PCs to their limits by testing high-end games at maximum settings. To reach these limits, you'll need to fire up the most über-demanding games. What are the most graphically-demanding games you ask? We've thrown together a list of the gnarliest PC games that will give your precious gaming rig a kick-ass workout.
Testing Methodology:
We tested each game at maximum settings on a 1920x1080 display. Our modest mid-range test rig consisted of an i7-2700K CPU overclocked to 4.5GHz, a GTX 680 video card overclocked to 1140MHz, and 8GB of G.Skill DDR3 RAM. We first started out disabling motion blur, which is a frame rate crutch, and cranked up all of the other settings as high as they would go. Another setting that was crucial to disable was V-Sync, so that our frame rate was not capped with our 60Hz refresh rate. We played each game for 15 minutes, and recorded its average frame rate using FRAPS. Each frame rate listed below is that of our playthrough and may not be exactly repeatable because the frame rate averages were captured with real-world dynamic testing, which may vary from playthrough to playthrough, even on a rig with the exact same hardware. Still, our tests should provide an accurate measure of relative performance between titles. The rankings are listed from least taxing to most based on average frame rate count.
Call of Duty Ghosts: #11
Game Engine: IW Engine
The latest installment of Call of Duty isn't too taxing to run as we experienced an average frame rate of 67.9 FPS. In our gameplay session we floated through space and ran around inside a few burning buildings during the game's first mission. COD games aren't very challenging to run because they still use the same game engine as COD 4, which came out over 6 years ago. To put it into perspective, the old engine is easy enough for last gen consoles to run at 60 FPS. Maybe the next installment in the series will finally change the game's outdated game engine so it can rival the graphical capabilities of other modern military shooters.
Battlefield 4: #10
Game Engine: Frostbite 3
We were surprised by the fact that Battlefield 4 landed in 10th place because it's generally considered one of the most demanding shooters out there. To be fair, Nvidia is the original culprit behind BF4's initial low ranking. Since its newer 331.82 driver, we saw a whopping 18% improvement in performance over its older driver. If we had used the older Nvidia driver we would have seen our frame rates at around 47 FPS and BF4 would have been ranked at number six, but instead we experienced a solid 59 FPS, knocking it down to number nine overall. We played through the game's first mission and saw our cover blown up by grenades, bullets, and mortars, causing our frame rate to dip to around 45 FPS at times, but we also saw it go as high as 80 FPS.
Crysis: #9
Game Engine: CryEngine 2
When Crytek made Crysis they wanted to make a "future proof" game and we can say that six years later, they have successfully done so by garnering the 9th spot on this list as we only garnered an average frame rate of 58.2 FPS. What's to blame for the relatively low frame rate for such an old game? Particle effects are hot and heavy in Crysis and they caused our frame rate to dip while testing, throw in some extreme physics (not to be confused with PhysX), and some realistic water effects, and you get a six-year old game that's even hard to run even on an overclocked GTX 680.
Hitman Absolution: #8
Game Engine: Glacier 2
We tested Hitman Absolution by sleuthing around the first level killing foes covertly snapping necks with our bare hands. We then got into a firefight with few of the security guards and killed several dozen more enemies before finishing our benchmark run. The end result was a frame rate that was 53.8 FPS and made Hitman our number six game overall. Hitman is quite CPU heavy, so our relatively low frame rate could have been due to getting bottlenecked by our 2700K CPU not being able to muster physics calculations fast enough to keep up with our overclocked GTX 680 GPU.
GTA IV: #7
Game Engine: Rockstar Advanced Game Engine (RAGE)
Yes, we're upset as anybody for the lack of a PC version of GTA V, but even the fourth game in the series (released in 2008) made our mid-range machine struggle. We only saw an average frame rate of 53.21 FPS, while driving around crazily through Liberty City, where we would eventually end up picking fights with random pedestrians. It's hard to believe that this game came out almost five years ago! GTA IV, however, doesn't look very impressive by today's gaming standards and we blame the game's demanding hardware performance on poor PC optimization. The engine behind the game's demanding performance uses an amalgamation of three different engines, including Rockstar's RAGE engine, Euphoria engine, and Bullet Physics Library. Hitman Absolution, by comparison, looks much better than GTA IV and has almost the same frame rate.
Click the next page for the top five most graphically demanding PC games!
Far Cry 3: #6
Game Engine: Dunia Engine 2
We started our playthrough in Far Cry 3 running through a tropical forest and then proceeded by stealing an abandoned dirt-splattered car. Once we were done joyriding around the island we went for a swim in the ocean and went to visit a neighboring island. We then got into an epic battle with some of the locals blowing up explosive barrels and stabbing our foes straight through the chest with our machete. Far Cry 3 lands at number six on our list with its 41 FPS and this score is likely due to its large amount of particle effects when explosive barrels are, well, exploded, and also due to the fact that there's tons of vegetation to be rendered as you walk around the various islands.
The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings: #5
Game Engine: REDengine with Havok Physics
The Witcher 2 gave us a heavy helping of medieval combat throwing us into a bloody gladiator arena where we faced hordes of enemies. We found one setting enabled which caused our frame rate to be cut down to a meager 32.62 FPS, which was the game's Übersampling option. What's Übersampling? It's Super Sampling Anti Aliasing meaning that The Witcher 2 made our rig render the game at 4K, and then downsize that image to fit our 1920x1080 display. When we turned off Übersampling the game ran at a buttery smooth 60+ FPS.
Crysis 3: #4
Game Engine: CryEngine 3
Like other Crysis games, Crysis 3 does much of the same as its predecessors giving users a heavy dose of particle effects, high-resolution textures, and tons of crazy physics. We ran around the game's first level, which had us going through a rainstorm, while quietly assassinating our foes with a silenced pistol and tactical bow. Exploding barrels of gasoline killed our frame rate in Crysis 3 just like in Far Cry 3 making it dip to an abysmal 13 FPS. In the end we were only able to get 28.08 FPS out of the title, putting it at number three on our graphically-intensive list.
ARMA 3: #3 (Added: 2-10-14)
Game Engine: Real Virtuality 4
In testing ARMA 3, we first disabled motion blur and cranked up depth of field as high as it would go. We then maxed out shadows, objects, and overall visibility. Finally, we put FSAA (Full Screen Anti-Aliasing) to 8X, and Anisotropic filtering to Ultra.
We started up ARMA 3's first mission Drawdown 2035 for our test run. Yes, we understand our frame rate would have been lower if we had jumped into a multiplayer match, but we didn't want connection issues to impact our frame rate score. Our playthrough consisted of a helicopter ride to a dusty-brown military base. From there, we grabbed a Humvee and drove down a grass covered gorge to find one of our fallen comrades. We then got into a firefight with some of the local militia and ended up with an average frame rate of 25.77 FPS, putting ARMA 3 at number three between Crysis 3 and Tomb Raider.
Tomb Raider (2013): #2
Game Engine: Modified Crystal Engine
Crystal Dynamics brought everyone a Tomb Raider game that rebooted the franchise, and gave gamers stunning hair effects with AMD's TressFX setting. We tested Tomb Raider thinking that TressFX would be the reason behind its super low frame rate, as we barely were able to scrape together 24.8 FPS. We looked at the game's settings to find that it uses Super Sampling just like The Witcher 2 which made our GPU work extra hard to render the game at 4K to have it then downscaled to 1920x1080.
Our benchmark run consisted of killing many rabid wolves with our bow and arrow, while running through a dark, dense green forest. We tested the game with 2xSSAA and found our frame rate was increased to 45 FPS. The lesson learned from our testing is that SSAA is very demanding and by disabling it, yes, you'll get some jagged edges, but you can receive a massive performance boost by either disabling it or scaling it back just a bit.
Metro Last Light: #1
Game Engine: 4A Engine
When the first Metro game came out it was a difficult title for PCs to play and made frame rates drop hard and fast. The second title, Metro Last Light, isn't very different, as it takes the top spot for the Most Demanding PC Game on our list.
The game's extreme PhysX effects and vast amount of tessellation are the culprits behind our low frame rate, which was an unplayable 22.3 FPS. With PhysX turned up, we saw tons of particle and water effects, which made everything sluggish, as we ran through the Russian swampland of the first level in Metro Last Light. We maxed out AA to 4XAA on top of that, which amplified how many times PhysX was rendered and ultimately this led to the demise of our rig's precious frame rate.
Benchmark Chart:
Here's a bar chart measuring average frame rate for each title.
Bill Gates Talks Condoms, Computers, and Other Topics in Reddit AMA
Posted: 10 Feb 2014 12:18 PM PST
Microsoft co-founder makes his second Reddit AMA appearance in a year
It was almost a year ago to the day when Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates jumped into an AMA (Ask Me Anything) session on Reddit. There have been a lot of changes since then culminating in the promotion of Satya Nadella to Chief Executive Officer, who replaced outgoing chief Steve Ballmer. Bill Gates addressed that topic and more in another Reddit AMA today, and also revealed his "most expensive guilty pleasure purchase."
"Owning a plane is a guily pleasure," Gates said. ""Warren Buffett called his the Indefensible. I do get to a lot of places for Foundation work I wouldn't be able to go to without it."
One of the first questions he answered was whether or not he was having any luck with his Foundation's condom design competition. Gates called it a "sensitive topic," adding that one the grantees is currently using carbon nanotubes to the reduce the thickness of condoms.
When asked about his new role at Microsoft, Gates sidestepped the question.
"I am excited about how the cloud and new devices can help us communicate and collaborate in new ways," Gates said. "The OS won't just be on one device and the information won't just be files - it will be your history including being able to review memories of things like kids growing up. I was thrilled Satya asked me to pitch in to make sure Microsoft is ambitious with its innovation. Even in Office there is a lot more than can be done."
However, later on in the session Gates said he plans to divvy up his time by devoting around two-thirds to his foundation, and one-third to Microsoft, the latter of which will mostly be focused on "product work."
For more of what he had to say, head over to Reddit.
Kaspersky Counts Over 10 Million Malicious Android Applications
Posted: 10 Feb 2014 11:44 AM PST
Android is by far the biggest target of mobile malware
Security firm Kaspersky says it has logged 10 million dubious Android applications to date. It comes down to a numbers game for cyber criminals, and since Android is the most popular mobile operating system on the planet -- market research firm Canalys estimates that Android accounted for 80 percent of smartphones shipped in 2013 -- it attracts the most attention from malware writers.
"In most cases malicious programs target the user's financial information. This was the case, for example, with the mobile version of Carberp Trojan that originated in Russia," Kaspersky explains. "It steals user credentials as they are sent to a bank server."
Kaspersky also notes that over 98 percent of mobile malware is aimed at Android -- no other OS gets anywhere close, the security firm says. While Android's market share plays a big role, the prevalence of third-party app stores and Android's open architecture both play roles in the reason why it's such a popular target.
"We do not expect this trend to change in the near future," Kaspersky says.
SMS Trojans lead the way, followed by backdoor malware. Furthermore, Kaspersky says 62 percent of malicious applications are elements of mobile botnets.
So, what can you do? Kaspersky offers up a handful of tips, such as recommending against activating the "developer mode" on Android devices. The security outfit also warns against installing applications from third-party sources and carefully studying the rights that seemingly legitimate apps request. And of course Kaspersky recommends using protection software.
Asus VivoTab Note 8 Proves Popular in Microsoft Store, Sells Out at $329
Posted: 10 Feb 2014 10:05 AM PST
Price is right for Asus's VivoTab Note 8
One of the items Asus unveiled at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas last month was its upcoming VivoTab Note 8 tablet. Apparently there were a fair number of buyers waiting for this slate -- Microsoft began offering the VivoTab Note 8 online for $329 over the weekend and it now shows as being out of stock. That's pretty impressive, assuming Microsoft didn't start off with just a small quantity.
Asus's VivoTab Note 8 (M80T) features an 8-inch IPS display with a 1280x800 resolution and 5-finger multi-touch support. It also has an Intel Atom Z3470 processor clocked at 1.33GHz (up to 1.86GHz via Turbo Boost), 2GB of LPDDR3-1600 RAM, 32GB of eMMC storage, micro SD card slot, micro USB 2.0 port, headphone output/microphone input combo port, 1.2MP front-facing camera, 5MP rear-facing camera, 802.11n Wi-Fi (Miracast enabled), Bluetooth, Windows 8.1, and a 1-cell lithium-ion battery good for up to 8 hours of run time.
Adding to the value of its $329 price tag is the fact that it comes pre-loaded with Microsoft Office Home and Student (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote). It also comes with a digitizer pen and 8GB recovery micro SD card.
It's not clear when Microsoft have more stock, but if it's something you're interested in, you can keep an eye on the VivoTab Note 8's product page at the Microsoft Store.
Microsoft Offers Tips to Tear Your Family and Friends Away from Windows XP
Posted: 10 Feb 2014 08:24 AM PST
Redmond wants to rid the world of Windows XP
Support for Windows XP will end in less than two months, and if you know of family members or friends who are still running the legacy operating system, Microsoft has some tips. In a recent blog post, Microsoft's Brandon LeBlanc suggested ways you can help your loved ones rid themselves of Windows XP before support officially ends on April 8, 2014. One of those ways is to upgrade their PCs to Windows 8.1.
Provided they meet the minimum system requirements -- 1GHz or faster processor, 1GB (32-bit) or 2GB (64-bit) of RAM, 16GB (32-bit) or 20GB (64-bit) of HDD space, and a DX9 or above GPU with WDDM driver -- Microsoft suggests downloading and running the Windows Upgrade Assistant on their PCs and then making the switch.
If that doesn't work out, LeBlanc's next tip is to "get a new PC," plain and simple as that.
"We hope that this end of support page for Windows XP on Windows.com and all the resources there is helpful to you and can be something you can use to help your friends and family get off Windows XP," LeBlanc states. "As we get close to April 8th, we'll continue to publish blog posts about the latest offers on new devices and resources for to help people get off Windows XP."
In case you haven't heard, after April 8, Microsoft will no longer provide updates to Windows XP, nor will technical support be available. Though this has been know for some time, a large number of users continue to cling to the legacy OS -- Net Applications figures some 29 percent of all desktops are running XP, while Stat Counter says it's about 18 percent.
AMD Ends the Speculation, Gives Radeon R7 250X a Proper Launch
Posted: 10 Feb 2014 07:57 AM PST
A sub-$100 graphics card for 1080p gaming
AMD today formally introduced the Radeon R7 250X, an affordable graphics card aimed at gamers looking to play their titles at Full HD 1080p. Some vendors already had the new SKU listed as early as last week, though it should be a lot easier to find starting today and going forward. It's a $99 card, give or take a few dollars depending on what AMD's hardware partners do with the reference design -- the chip designer says custom cooled designs are ready to launch.
The card itself is basically a rebranded Radeon HD 7770 with a new price (the Radeon HD 7770 debuted at $159). It sports a 28nm Cape Verde Graphics Core Next (GCN 1.0) GPU with 640 stream processors, 40 texture units, 16 ROPs, and 1GB or 2GB of GDDR5 running at 4.5GHz (effective) on a 128-bit bus; the engine clock runs at 1,000MHz.
AMD is going after Nvidia's GeForce GTX 650, a slightly higher priced part that doesn't quite keep up with the R7 250X, or so that's what AMD's own benchmarking shows. For example, AMD offers up the following benchmark comparisons:
- Call of Duty: Ghosts: R7 250X = 42.6fps, GTX 650 = 28.2fps
- Counter Strike: Global Offensive: R7 250X = 130fps, GTX 650 = 96.5fps
- DOTA 2: R7 250X = 77.6fps, GTX 650 = 41.7fps
- Starcraft II: R7 250X = 72.6fps, GTX 650 = 62.6fps
- World of Tanks: R7 250X = 39fps, GTX 650 = 29fps
Keep in mind those are AMD's benchmarks, not ours. It's also worth pointing out that the R7 250X doesn't support AMD's new TrueAudio technology. However, it does support Mantle, along with DirectX 11.2 and OpenGL 4.3.
Newegg Daily Deals: Asus M5A97 R2.0 AM3+ AMD 970 Mobo, AMD FX-8320 Vishera, and More!
Posted: 10 Feb 2014 06:24 AM PST
Top Deal:
It's time to put that Prescott system out to pasture. Sure, it was a good run, but in order to get with the times, you have to pull it off life support and give life to a new rig. Don't have a big budget to play with? You could try going with AMD this time. One route is to start with today's top deal for an Asus M5A97 R2.0 AM3+ AMD 970 ATX Motherboard for $80 with free shipping (normally $90 -- use coupon code: [EMCPHPD39]). This board has modern day amenities like a UEFI BIOS, SATA 6Gbps ports, USB 3.0 support, and the list goes on.
Other Deals:
Asus VN279Q Black 27-inch 5ms Monitor w/ Built-in Speakers for $250 with free shipping (normally $270 - use coupon code: [EMCPHPD52]; additional $30 Mail-in rebate)
Asus VS Series VS247H-P Black 23.6"-inch 2ms Monitor for $140 with free shipping (normally $160 - use coupon code: [EMCPHPD99]; additional $20 Mail-in rebate)
Fractal Design Define R4 w/ Window Black Pearl Silent ATX Mid Tower Case for $90 with free shipping (normally $100 - use coupon code: [EMCPHPD34])
AMD FX-8320 Vishera 3.5GHz Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core Desktop Processor for $150 with free shipping (normally $160 - use coupon code: [EMCPHPD36])
Kingston Introduces New UHS-I U3 SDXC Cards
Posted: 09 Feb 2014 10:46 PM PST
Speedy cards mean speedier transfers
Kingston is introducing a brand new line of super-quick SD cards that will transfer your data in the blink of an eye. The new lineup includes models with part numbers SDA3 and range from 16 GB to 64 GB. Denoted by red stickers, these new SD cards match the SD Association's latest specification of UHS-I U3, and can read and write at 90 MB/s and 80 MB/s.
These new cards, at the U3 specification, guarantee at least 30 MB/s for both reading and writing, but you need a card reader that's capable of speeds coming from USB 3.0. Both the 16 and 32 GB cards are SDHC cards with FAT32 formatting, and the 64 GB card is an SDXC card formatted via exFAT.
Check out Kingston's official site here for additional information.
| You are subscribed to email updates from Maximum PC - All Articles To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
