Conroe= par with AMD in gaming !

D

dajet24

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 23, 2004
Messages
2,296
heh anyone else grin when they read the new conroe gaming review on the main page?

heh grats intel you finally made a good gaming pc.. but its only as good as the stuff already out.

knew those huge canned benchmarks were on the shaddy side of town.

granted Conroe may be great in encoding and other tasks but intel still cant dominate gaming atleast like AMD has.

4x4 for the gaming win soon.

ya its a happy amd fan post but its needed after listenign to intel people say conroe was the 2nd coming :D
 
Well competition is good. Go Intel (says the proud Opteron owner). It keeps them innovating. My loyalties lie with the speed. (Of course I can't always replace stuff)
 
I agree just good to see a huge rift wasnt formed AMD being way ahead of intel like it was before conroe in gaming is ok since INTEL is the big guy and can survive the bad times AMD though does not have the same pockets intel's do just enouigh to stay in the game approach has greatly helped AMD grow its roots.
 
I grinned too.

We been hearing all these Intel zealots bragging about Conroe for 6 damn months. June 23rd, June 23rd!! Well, folks June 23rd has come and gone, where is your Conroe? Here we are several days from official lauch, and where is it now? Only a handfull of sites have a handfull in stock. It'll be sold out in less then a week... Then what? All this time, where has it been? Where is it now? When I said Intel would be LUCKY if it comes in on par, they reamed me. Looks like Intel got lucky.

Well, I told you so....
 
At performance, yes, they are the same. Intel wins at price: the $550 E6700 performs the same as a currently-$1000 (most likely $750 soon) FX-62.

Then again, I don't know why I'm saying this since I can't afford either one anyway. :(
 
wish they had thrown a hi end p4 and hi end x2 in the mix

a x2 4400 or so give a idea of mainstream
 
The "playable settings" on the video card conflict with the review's goal of being a CPU benchmark. It's not surprising that the performance is virtually constant across 3 fast CPUs when the video card is the limiting factor.
 
Meh....

You could probably call me an Intel !!!!!! , but I run both (and always have).......You can bet I'll be pickin up a conroe right away .

conroe eats fx :rolleyes:

That doesn't mean I'm not shopping for an AMD as well tho.I am.The new Intel offerings are good news for everyone , as the bar has been raised.We all benefit.

Cpu shopping has gotten fun again !

:D
 
hmmmm

Conroe is not all I was hoping it would be. Guess I will just wait for the X2 price cuts and build a nice AM2 rig.
 
i wouldn't say that exactly....

but before i start, let me say that i have ONLY had amd chips for the past 5 years (3 of them) and this is my first jump to intel since the Pentium 125... yeah... it was that long ago.

its all nice and well that the benchies are identical in a perfect environment... perfect environment, with no anti-virus, no firewall, no instant messenger, no (fill-in-blank)

in pretty much all the other benchies, Conroe has shown that it will beat AMD by a nice margin. So the way i see it, my PC runs a bunch of stuff in the back ground as i game, if all that stuff runs faster, then i will get better FPS while gamming simply because more of the cpu will be free to do the gaming calculations.

but thats just what i think.
 
I was really considering Conroe for my next build after using AMD's for all my new machines for the last 4 years, but now it looks like AMD might power the next gaming rig too.
 
duby229 said:
I grinned too.

We been hearing all these Intel zealots bragging about Conroe for 6 damn months. June 23rd, June 23rd!! Well, folks June 23rd has come and gone, where is your Conroe? Here we are several days from official lauch, and where is it now? Only a handfull of sites have a handfull in stock. It'll be sold out in less then a week... Then what? All this time, where has it been? Where is it now? When I said Intel would be LUCKY if it comes in on par, they reamed me. Looks like Intel got lucky.

Well, I told you so....
Click to expand...


July 23?
 
pxc said:
The "playable settings" on the video card conflict with the review's goal of being a CPU benchmark. It's not surprising that the performance is virtually constant across 3 fast CPUs when the video card is the limiting factor.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, but it doesnt really conflict with it being a cpu benchmark. He basically says its a cpu benchmark for gaming using realworld settings. Now if you are a quake kiddy and all you care about are fps and turn it down to 640x480 then conroe is your proc. but basically the article is saying if you are cranking up the res and the eye candy theres no need to rush out and buy a new system if you just upgraded to AMD.
 
I understand what you are saying, but it doesnt really conflict with it being a cpu benchmark. He basically says its a cpu benchmark for gaming using realworld settings. Now if you are a quake kiddy and all you care about are fps and turn it down to 640x480 then conroe is your proc. but basically the article is saying if you are cranking up the res and the eye candy theres no need to rush out and buy a new system if you just upgraded to AMD.
Click to expand...

There was little reason to upgrade from a Pentium D or a single-core A64 to an X2, but he gushed about how much faster it was and gave it a must-have hardware award. Here comes Conroe in almost the same situation and it's like he's trying to downplay the fact that Conroe is indeed faster.
 
I read the reviews and saw the new [H]OCP article.. and even the early benchmarks where it showed conroe supposibly owning AMD, where both were at normal clock rates, AMD was nearly always within 20% of conroe. Now, these real world benchmarks are pretty much official, and seem more realistic. The processor isn't everything in gaming now a days, its more leaning towards graphics cards and ram. (for the most part anyhow) But.. I love how everything about Conroe was overhyped hella bad. Don't get me wrong, the Conroe owns, but not so much for me to justifiy spending the extra money, when I can just build a midrange to higher end AM2 for cheaper, and throw a good graphics card with lots of memory in it. I still might go the Conroe route though, I need to see more benchmarks. I'm waiting another few weeks.
 
Conroe is impressive indeed, but I'm still happy with AMD after switching to them last year after a few P4 systems. I just built a new AM2 rig so maybe I'll take advantage of the price drops and get a nice dual core CPU. ;)
 
dajet24 said:
heh anyone else grin when they read the new conroe gaming review on the main page?

heh grats intel you finally made a good gaming pc.. but its only as good as the stuff already out.

knew those huge canned benchmarks were on the shaddy side of town.

granted Conroe may be great in encoding and other tasks but intel still cant dominate gaming atleast like AMD has.

4x4 for the gaming win soon.

ya its a happy amd fan post but its needed after listenign to intel people say conroe was the 2nd coming :D
Click to expand...

Games:

UT2003 V2225

X6800 FPS: 201
E6700 FPS: 185
FX-62 FPS: 159

HL2 Source 7 BLDG 2707

X6800 FPS: 157
E6700 FPS: 146
FX-62 FPS: 121

Quake 4 v1.2

X6800 FPS: 182
E6700 FPS: 164
FX-62 FPS: 144

Dual Core / Q4 with Adobe Premiere

X6800 FPS: 128
E6700 FPS: 113
FX-62 FPS: 105

On par?
 
Jesus Christ what is wrong with people?

AMD Fan says: Ha ha, look! Conroe isn't any better than AMD at gaming
AMD Fan neglects to mention: At real gamers settings, the CPU will rarely if ever be the bottleneck. Conroe is still much faster at any other computationally intense app.

but watch out, here comes Intel Fan!

Intel Fan says: ZOMG AMD fan boy!!! Look at THESE benchmarks, n00b! Core 2 OWNZ AMD at gaming!!!
Intel Fan neglects to mention: that "his" benchmarks are all at resolutions/settings that nobody would really use.

Seriously guys on both sides, give it a rest. Core 2 is an excellent CPU, and faster than K8 by a respectable margin. Anyone who can't admit that is burying their head in the sand. Likewise, anyone who tries to tell you that a Core 2 will drastically improve your gaming experience is feeding you a line of BS.
 
My P4 gives me respectable gaming performance with the games I play at the resolution I play at.

Who cares what benchmarks say? They both do the same thing and they'll both do it well.

what my P4 CANT do is handle multiple threads with ease, but I cant upgrade for a while *grumble*
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
Likewise, anyone who tries to tell you that a Core 2 will drastically improve your gaming experience is feeding you a line of BS.
Click to expand...

Very true. The main selling point for alot of us that are/were huge AMD fans was the price difference. Getting FX-62 performance in gaming for less than half the price with an E6700, or for even less with an easily overclockable E6600, was too good to pass up. The extra speed in things like encoding is definately nice as well.
 
lithium726 said:
My P4 gives me respectable gaming performance with the games I play at the resolution I play at.

Who cares what benchmarks say? They both do the same thing and they'll both do it well.

what my P4 CANT do is handle multiple threads with ease, but I cant upgrade for a while *grumble*
Click to expand...


I understand lithium, I am in the same boat with my prescott. btw I bought into the hole AMD Roxers at games once. Then I got one and realized ohh wow its a gpu limition you moron. (I am referring to myself being a moron, and not understanding computers as much as I should have, from then on...).

You can not expect a processor to make a game faster when it is the gpu holding it back. If you want pure speed then go 1024x768 low everything (actually I used to do this everyonce in awhile I don't anymore because I don't play online games anymore).
 
The Conroe is better. Intel didn't release another P IV. Thing is, it's not a huge deal. If you build a new PC, go ahead and put a Conroe in it. But there's absolutely no need to upgrade. Games are too GPU limited to see any benefits from going Conroe. The Conroe will not give you a 50 fps boost in your games. Buy a new GPU. Buy cheap and fast. That's why AMD's been better, not because their high end owned Intel's high end, but because their cheap low end owned Intel's mid-high end. CPUs are one place that you can economize on, especially considering how they over clock these days.
 
kemist1117 said:
I understand what you are saying, but it doesnt really conflict with it being a cpu benchmark. He basically says its a cpu benchmark for gaming using realworld settings.
Click to expand...
:p Kyle is basically saying it's a continuation of the CPU scaling article from several months ago (which unsurprisingly showed pretty much the same with that other set of CPUs). The problem with the "CPU review" isn't that the data is wrong -- no, it shows you exactly how the CPUs play relative to each other with a 7900GTX video card limited resolution. If you buy any of the 3 CPUs and run games as configured by Kyle you'll likely get the same results.

But what happens if you have a 7950GX2? Or XF X1900 cards? Or Quad-SLI? Or R600/G80 XF/SLI? Or, gasp, run at different settings than Kyle chose? You could very well see very different results than Kyle presented, sometimes shockingly with a difference depending on the relative speed of each CPU. Removing the video card bottleneck makes the testing a CPU benchmark. With a video card bottleneck, it's a video card benchmark.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
The Conroe is better. Intel didn't release another P IV. Thing is, it's not a huge deal. If you build a new PC, go ahead and put a Conroe in it. But there's absolutely no need to upgrade. Games are too GPU limited to see any benefits from going Conroe. The Conroe will not give you a 50 fps boost in your games. Buy a new GPU. Buy cheap and fast. That's why AMD's been better, not because their high end owned Intel's high end, but because their cheap low end owned Intel's mid-high end. CPUs are one place that you can economize on, especially considering how they over clock these days.
Click to expand...

I don't think amd will be any cheaper than intel not unless they are going to discontinue the am2 x4200 and down... Anyways tr has theres up.
 
Hardocp is basically bashing Conroe because of it being GPU limited in order to give the AMD crowd something to cheer for.

Anyone that doubts that as a CPU, doing CPU tasks, Conroe is miles ahead of K8 is in denial.
 
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_performance/page8.asp

the top resolution test on this page shows differences in **CPU** power, while the bottom one maxes out the **Video card** and thus, isn't a very good indication of CPU performance at all.....

sure, the [H] guys r saying they want to show "real world" gameplay performance and all that, but their scenarios tell us jack about the computational power of the CPU , which is what the review is supposed to be about....
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
Hardocp is basically bashing Conroe because of it being GPU limited in order to give the AMD crowd something to cheer for.

Anyone that doubts that as a CPU, doing CPU tasks, Conroe is miles ahead of K8 is in denial.
Click to expand...



exactly, K8 is already what 2 years old? Moore's Law, the laws of nature and common sense would expect Conroe to be better. It's a new architechture - not a continuation of the old one.


Regardless, I'm still getting one.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
Hardocp is basically bashing Conroe because of it being GPU limited in order to give the AMD crowd something to cheer for.

Anyone that doubts that as a CPU, doing CPU tasks, Conroe is miles ahead of K8 is in denial.
Click to expand...

No.... HardOCP is bashing the benchmarking used to claim conroe as the ultimate end all in gamming cpu's. HardOCP has been rolling their eyes at the benchmarks from all the other sites that ahve spawned threads like these over the last few months.

The people bashing conroe are either:

A) Trying to make themselves feel better about dropping money on a new AMD system
B) Dedicated AMD fans who will never admit anything good ever came out of Intel

Quite frankly, I never read anything from the [H] editors saying conroe was crap, but I read plenty saying the benchmarks were missleading.
 
This is a site devoted to mostly gamers. Thus the GAMING benchmarks reflected that. Read the rest of the review's sections, and there was no bashing.

Hi res gaming is where its at, not playing super pi, but hey to each his own.

No doubt if I were building a new rig tomorrow the new intel stuff would be at the top of my list, however.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
Hardocp is basically bashing Conroe because of it being GPU limited in order to give the AMD crowd something to cheer for.

Anyone that doubts that as a CPU, doing CPU tasks, Conroe is miles ahead of K8 is in denial.
Click to expand...


Hey cool, I am officially and AMD !!!!!! now because I showed that Conroe does not have the ability to deliver a better gaming experience than AMD on the high end.

But to answer your remark, we showed exactly how the Conroe took the Athlon to the cleaners doing "CPU tasks."

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTExMCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

The thing people are not understanding is that gaming is not CPU dependent anymore. So I thought that it would be interesting to see how gaming played out in the real world since Intel has been propping Conroe up with gaming benchmarks at low res for months now.
 
Wee Pentium D on par with Athlon 64x2 in gaming!!!
biggrin.gif


http://i72.imagethrust.com/images/F12/view-image/benchmarks.html
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
how quickly people forget the past. i remember many accusing you of being intel biased not terribly long ago. so amusing :D
Click to expand...
Yup, I remember when the P4C's came out... [H]OCP recommended the 2.4C over anything avaliable for price, performance, and overclockability.
 
I believe this article is fundamentally flawed. Here's why:

1. FX-62 does not compete with e6700, the 4800+ does. There will still be a big price difference between a e6700 and a FX-62, as well as performance. You can't say AMD is on par with intel if the competing processors are in two different price ranges entirely.

2. Anyone buying an X6800 will most likely be pairing it with a high end SLI setup, just as anyone buying a FX-62 will be. This is the [H] - anyone reading this site KNOWS the video card is much more important than the CPU for gaming, so why the hell would they buy a FX-62 or X6800 and only have a single video card? They'd rather get a 4400+ or E6600 and pair it with a 7950GX2 or two 7900GT's or GTX's and get much more performance for their money. So lets not represent a setup that pretty much the majority of [H] readers wouldn't be using!

3. If you really want to get "real world" have a bunch of background applications running like a regular person would be. And then have the monster SLI x6800/fx-62 system running without them. Anyone with such a monster gaming rig most likely is just using it for gaming, and consequently has pretty much all backgrounds apps nuked. So represent this. This will illustrate that for streamlined gaming machines the extra horsepower won't matter since its GPU limited anyways, but for the average joe an e6700 and a 7900GTX may yield much smoother framerates when applications are running in the background.

Basically I understand that the [H] is aiming for 'real world' but i dont think they're being realistic in their expectations of what an [H] reader would use. We want the best bang for our buck, and these systems they've put together really do not represent systems [H] readers would have at the mid or high end range in my not so humble opinion. Too much emphasis is being placed on the CPU for the mid end and for the high end, the high end cpu is not paired with a high end dual video card setup.

p.s im not an intel fan boy, i own only 1 intel system, my laptop, and about 6 AMD systems ranging from low end to top of the line SLI'd etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top