Gaming

Our gaming tests set out to find games that were heavily CPU dependent in order to test for platform differences.  Games at higher resolutions with more emphasis on the GPU won’t show us any differences, if they exist.

These tests were not run in any SLI vs.CrossFire modes as we will be getting to that later.

FEAR v1.03

We ran FEAR at 1024×768 with the CPU settings at maximum and the GPU settings at medium to show any performance differences off of the GPU. 

AMD's AM2 Platform: Athlon 64 FX-62 Processor Review - Processors  60

AMD's AM2 Platform: Athlon 64 FX-62 Processor Review - Processors  61

Call of Duty 2 v1.01

We ran CoD2 at 1024×768 with the GPU settings at Medium.

AMD's AM2 Platform: Athlon 64 FX-62 Processor Review - Processors  62

AMD's AM2 Platform: Athlon 64 FX-62 Processor Review - Processors  63

3DMark06 v1.02

This benchmark is used by many in the enthusiast crowd to compare their systems so we decided it would be good for our readers if we included numbers from our test system here as well.

AMD's AM2 Platform: Athlon 64 FX-62 Processor Review - Processors  64

AMD's AM2 Platform: Athlon 64 FX-62 Processor Review - Processors  65

In FEAR, the FX-62 has a healthy lead over the other AMD and Intel processors with a better average and minimum frame rate — vital to a good gaming experience.  Call of Duty 2, even at this low of a resolution, is very GPU bound as all the processor setups perform very closely.  Finally, the 3DMark06 CPU scores show the FX-62 as the winner over the Intel Pentium 965 XE processor.

« PreviousNext »