So I’ve made criticism of the component choices in the Pyro – but does it reflect itself in the performance results? To compare we ran the result against our reference nVidia graphics test platform which consists of an Athlon FX-60 with two GeForce 7900 GTX cards running at reference card speeds and two sticks of 1GB Corsair CMX1024 3500LLPRO memory.
Before we started though, we noticed that the nVidia drivers had been set to Performance, which increases performance as the expense of image quality. nVidia are said to be second best to ATI in image quality at default settings, so there’s no way that we’d accept running at anything less. We therefore set it back to default.
A good move on Wired2Fire’s part is that it has created a second login called gaming, the intention being that you would only install game related features in that Login in order to reduce load on the system and increase gaming performance.
At the reference 3DMark06 test of 1,280 x 1,024 the Wired2Fire fails to take the prize, coming in slightly behind our reference platform with a score of 8740. However, at the higher resolutions it manages to keep ahead. This is because at 1,280 x 1,024 the test is still CPU and memory limited and as such highlights the poorly set up Wired2Fire. Above this, the graphics card comes into play and as the BFGs are clocked higher than our reference cards they take the lead.
We see this again with Call of Duty 2. At 1,280 x 1,024 and at 1,600 x 1,200 our reference system leads. But as soon as the resolutions increase the test ceases to be CPU and memory limited and the BFGs extra clocks kick in. Counter-Strike: Source is also clearly CPU and memory limited all the way, which is why it lags behind the reference platform. Quake 4 shows the same story.
So the machine is certainly fast but our benchmarks clearly show then that Wired2Fire pays the price for its choice of memory and the set-up, which means that it’s not getting the best out of the hardware supplied.
At the price we have to say we expected more from this system, in terms of both performances, component choice, set-up and the finish. It’s far from a terrible PC, but if you’re spending this sort of money you deserve something a bit special and due to the flaws we’ve highlighted we don’t think this qualifies.
Unlike other sites, we thoroughly test every product we review. We use industry standard tests in order to compare features properly. We’ll always tell you what we find. We never, ever accept money to review a product. Tell us what you think - send your emails to the Editor.