conroe benchmarks dont make sense

[trek554]

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=185555

those benchmarks just dont make sense. in FEAR the Conroe gets 100% better peformance than Opteron at 1600x1200 where it should be gpu limited but only gets 14% better performance at 1024x768 where it should be cpu limited. then in the Source stress test the Conroe only gets 3% better fps than the overclocked Opteron. i thought the cpu made a big difference in Source games.



FEAR Stress Test:
1024x768, 4xAA 16xAF, all max:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: Min 60 | Avg 142 | Max 370
Conroe @ 3GHz: Min 78 | Avg 162 | Max 485


1600x1200, 4xAA 16xAF, all max:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: Min 25 | Avg 43 | Max 172
Conroe @ 3GHz: Min 53 | Avg 86 | Max 310


Source Stress Test:
1600x1200, 4xAA 16xAF, Everything Maximum
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: 134.15fps
Conroe @ 3GHz: 138.41fps

 

[osalcido]

ok

why are you telling us? go tell them

 

[trek554]

ok

why are you telling us? go tell them

well this is the intel forum and i figured someone could maybe make sense out of it. a link to those benchmarks has been posted on here before and no one has made any comment on it not making sense. i think a lot of these conroe benchmarks are bs anyway.

 

[belmicah]

I don't think all of the Conroe benches are BS. The way some of them are benchmarking is sometimes however. I think that certain games are coded differently, and some are more CPU bound than GPU and vice versa. The numbers shouldn't look THAT different though, so I don't know.

 

[dandragonrage]

where it should be gpu limited

How about you not assume that? It makes an ass of you and... you.

 

[trek554]

How about you not assume that? It makes an ass of you and... you.

how would a higher resolution not be more gpu limited? isnt that why they normally test a cpu at lower resolutions. in those benchmarks the conroe wasnt much better at lower resolutions but at higher resolutions it made a huge difference. sorry but that makes no sense.

i guess i am in the wrong place and wasted my time making a post here. i thought i was dealing with educated adults but i guess i was wrong.

 

[dandragonrage]

i thought i was dealing with educated adults but i guess i was wrong.

I recommend you use punctuation and proper capitalization before you try that argument.

 

[trek554]

I recommend you use punctuation and proper capitalization before you try that argument.

wow you really are a useless pos.

 

[CEREAL_KILLER]

well according to their post they had SLi 7900GT. i have no idea what kind of power that is as far as high res, but it does stand to reason that at a higher res, you put more stress on the video card than the cpu. i would really think more people would want to look into this more because thats not how i would imagine the results would turn out.

 

[ToastMaster]

I recommend you use punctuation and proper capitalization before you try that argument.

And I recommend you actually approach his post with a seriuos counter-arguement, instead of saying "while you assume..." and then go off and insulting him.

He posted a question concerning some information that he provided a link for in terms of evidence, and his "assumption" concerning the gpu being the limiting factor at high resolutions is correct, given what we've seen from reviews of past high-end cards with F.E.A.R.

Thus, respond with an informed counter-point, and prove him wrong, instead of essentially saying "you're an ass for making an assumption". That doesn't help him, this thread or anyone else at all.