• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

core 2 vs amd 64 round 2???

C

calvieee

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
256
remember the core 2duo review? the one that p!ss off alot of ppl? For gaming, core 2 is
not any faster than amd. Well, now that 8800gtx is released, i want to if the people that
bought amd for gaming because of the article will bang their head on the wall or smile all
the way to the bank. Is there any link that compare 8800gtx on amd n intel??
 
I caught something while reading the Anandtech G80 review about GeForce 8800GTX still being the bottleneck over a resolution of 1280x1024.
 
Heh, then I guess I'm set if I go G80, my LCD maxes at 1280x1024. I guess that means 16xAA for me :D
 
xFlankerx said:
I caught something while reading the Anandtech G80 review about GeForce 8800GTX still being the bottleneck over a resolution of 1280x1024.
Click to expand...
ok but SLI 8800GTxs?
 
go read the " real world gaming review' core 2 = amd...not 30% faster...not even 10%
but that's on 7900gtx or x1900... just wonder if its the same on 8800gtx. does cpu really
matter anymore for gaming???
 
But C2D IS way faster then anything AMD has even a E6300 owns a FX-62. Where have you been. How does one benchmark site suddenly become right when all the others for the past 6 months have been going on about how conroe is 30% faster then AMD. You must be a serious AMD fan to say that. C2D is god man!
 
But when the GPU bottleneck comes in, not even BlueGene could make a difference. Conroe is as limited as a A64 X2 when it comes to games because of the videocard. The OP is asking whether the GeForce 8800GTX removed this bottleneck, which, according to Anandtech, it didn't.
 
calvieee said:
go read the " real world gaming review' core 2 = amd...not 30% faster...not even 10%
but that's on 7900gtx or x1900... just wonder if its the same on 8800gtx. does cpu really
matter anymore for gaming???
Click to expand...

I am not sure what planet you are reading articles on, all I know is I just came from a AMD 64@ 2.8 gig and my Conroe has shown a 10-20 FPS improvements in nearly every game I play on a 7950GT..

If you have a higher end GPU you will see an improvement, lower GPU's like the 7600GT, sure no real tangible difference.
 
Read our own beloved (Hah!) [H] article on the Core 2 Duo, and you shall see why the Core 2 Duo won't make an ounce of difference in most games.

EDIT: Found it for you lazy ones.

Clicky. Note that most of the article is AMD fan*boyism, but the benchmarks are real.
 
that's with the 7900gtx running at res that bottleneck that gfx card. we wanted to see if its the same with 8800gtx. 8800gtx might need a FASTER cpu (core2)
 
Haven't you guys been reading everyone's favorite news source, The Inquirer?

The initial 3dMark06 benchmarks showed that the 8800GTX on a non-overclocked CPU was no faster than the 7950GX2 due to a CPU bottleneck. Tested on a massively overclocked Core 2, the 8800GTX blows the 7950GX2 away.

It looks like we're back to being CPU limited.
 
@ calvieee - Yes, I know its on the 7900GTX. But the point of it was to demonstrate that a Core 2 Duo is not some magical monster that will boost your FPS if you simply hold it in your hand. You can hardly say that the 7900GTX is a weak card. But as you can see, at the high resolutions tested, there was no difference between the processors. That's called a GPU bottleneck.

@ Scyles - I don't know if you were kidding here or not. While I regularly read The Inquirer, I'm more likely to believe Anandtech than them.

Something to note though. When Anandtech did their C2D review, they used a Crossfire X1900XTX setup to remove the GPU bottleneck from the C2D processors. That would mean that anything with the power of those videocards should also be able to remove the bottleneck. Heaven knows the 8800GTX gets close, and two of those would definitely do it.
 
xFlankerx said:
But when the GPU bottleneck comes in, not even BlueGene could make a difference. Conroe is as limited as a A64 X2 when it comes to games because of the videocard. The OP is asking whether the GeForce 8800GTX removed this bottleneck, which, according to Anandtech, it didn't.
Click to expand...

Shocking to hear from the Intel fans... actouly admitting no processor matters in games. Thats a 1st... I ever heard from the crowd. :eek: I guess some people have some sense afterall.

Anyways GPU of that power limited? What are you expecting you can get 200+ FPS from the most demanding games. I'd hardly call that a bottleneck when the Videocard can run on max res with everything maxed out in the game and it hardly put any stress on it. You can get what 90+ FPS from oblivion... thats insane, oviously nothing to do with anything hardware related with it. All games are maxed out and software limited. The GPU doesn't brake a sweat in anything so I just don't understand what your talking about. It can't get any better for the games until real DX10 is used with the card.
 
Serge84 said:
Shocking to hear from the Intel fans... actouly admitting no processor matters in games. Thats a 1st... I ever heard from the crowd. :eek: I guess some people have some sense afterall.

Anyways GPU of that power limited? What are you expecting you can get 200+ FPS from the most demanding games. I'd hardly call that a bottleneck when the Videocard can run on max res with everything maxed out in the game and it hardly put any stress on it. You can get what 90+ FPS from oblivion... thats insane, oviously nothing to do with anything hardware related with it. All games are maxed out and software limited. The GPU doesn't brake a sweat in anything so I just don't understand what your talking about. It can't get any better for the games until real DX10 is used with the card.
Click to expand...

Actually, processors DO matter in games - just not the ones [H] selected to benchmark.

Flight simulators and real time strategy type games are actually quite CPU dependant, as are some online FPS shooters and MMORPGs.
 
xFlankerx said:
@ calvieee - Yes, I know its on the 7900GTX. But the point of it was to demonstrate that a Core 2 Duo is not some magical monster that will boost your FPS if you simply hold it in your hand. You can hardly say that the 7900GTX is a weak card. But as you can see, at the high resolutions tested, there was no difference between the processors. That's called a GPU bottleneck.

@ Scyles - I don't know if you were kidding here or not. While I regularly read The Inquirer, I'm more likely to believe Anandtech than them.

Something to note though. When Anandtech did their C2D review, they used a Crossfire X1900XTX setup to remove the GPU bottleneck from the C2D processors. That would mean that anything with the power of those videocards should also be able to remove the bottleneck. Heaven knows the 8800GTX gets close, and two of those would definitely do it.
Click to expand...

Sure it will, it has the potential to do you not deny that? With the 8800gtx removing the bottle neck it will achieve higher fps than the amds
 
Matrix said:
Sure it will, it has the potential to do you not deny that? With the 8800gtx removing the bottle neck it will achieve higher fps than the amds
Click to expand...

Yes but both of those guys know no one uses Max setting anyway. ;) Yup, better video cards will put more pressure on the CPU and I'll get better returns on a C2D than any of the Athlons or etc..
 
Something just doesn't seem right with those results. They all seem really low compared to other postings. Anyone can draw a graph, doesn't mean that it's correct.
 
Of course, this is largely irrelevant in the not too near future.

Currently games are "CPU bound" due to their non-support of multi-threading/multi-core, the additional cores don't account for much in the games performance. This is where you see the GPU being the deciding feature in performance.

Now, leave this thread and read the post about Valve's multi-threading preview. Once this upgrade to Source occurs in Q1 2007, you'll see AMD owners (such as myself, checkout my specs) not garnering the same gaming performance as the Core 2 Duo gamers.

So in Summary:

Currently, for gaming there's more performance to be squeezed with the GPU selected than the CPU.

Near Future, for gaming it'll be a combination of the number of cores in the CPU and the GPU together that yield "extreme gaming".

All of us ethusiasts that prowdly strut will need to purchase new hardware (Kentsfield for the Intel crowd and K8L Quad-Core for the AMD crowd) to strut in the same manner.

So shortly you'll see Intel trounce AMD unless their quad-core offerings really perform outstandingly when released.
 
xFlankerx said:
@ calvieee - Yes, I know its on the 7900GTX. But the point of it was to demonstrate that a Core 2 Duo is not some magical monster that will boost your FPS if you simply hold it in your hand. You can hardly say that the 7900GTX is a weak card. But as you can see, at the high resolutions tested, there was no difference between the processors. That's called a GPU bottleneck.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty impressive turnaround, don't ya think? ;)
 
MC FLMJIG said:
That is an intersting review... How accurate is that? Can that guy be trusted?
Click to expand...

Hell no he can't be trusted and this line "Here it's the same again. When we change to 1600x1200 the AMD is matching the Intel system. Unfortunately Splinter Cell doesn't support HDR+AA so I couldn't enable AA."

AMD is matching because the system is being choked LOL! If DX-10 does Improve performance and that GAP widens for C2D. Saying AMD does something because the Video card is choking the system is a joke. Sheesh!
 
Matrix said:
Sure it will, it has the potential to do you not deny that? With the 8800gtx removing the bottle neck it will achieve higher fps than the amds.
Click to expand...

This is true. If the bottleneck is removed, then there is nothing to hold back the Conroe and it will indeed cream any other series of processor out there. But back to the question of the thread - Can a single 8800GTX videocard remove the bottleneck on its own? And if so, up until what performance level?

Spudsdude said:
Something just doesn't seem right with those results. They all seem really low compared to other postings. Anyone can draw a graph, doesn't mean that it's correct.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with those results. From the looks of it, they are 100% accurate.

At lower resolutions, the GPUs don't have to work as hard. At that point, the CPUs are the deciding factor as to the performance. As you can see, in the lower resolutions of those benchmarks, the Conroe easily dominates the benchmarks. But as you raise the resolutions, the GPUs have to work harder, while the load on the CPU is not increased significantly. This means that if the GPU is already overloaded by the incoming instructions it recieves, increasing that load by the means of a faster processor will not affect the outgoing performance at all. There is your GPU bottleneck.

Although I have to agree with Donnie's comment that saying AMD is better just because it is keeping up is absolutely false. There is no basis there for such a comment. If the person was competent, he would've identified the GPU bottleneck as such.

MatDef said:
That's a pretty impressive turnaround, don't ya think? ;)
Click to expand...

I read your post about 7-8 times, and then had to look at your name to understand it.

No, its no turnaround. Regarding the benchmark, it's as BS as it was back then. What a convenient time to switch to a new form of benchmarking, eh? The discussion regarding that topic is old and buried, no point in revisiting it. The benchmarks themselves are real, there's no arguing that. But the intent of the benchmark is stupid and despicable.

If you were referring to my admission of the GPU bottleneck and that Conroe wouldn't help it, you may recall that I made a whole thread explaining it and why different processors weren't making a difference.

...and then I got called an Intel fan*boy for it by some half-assed noob. :rolleyes: Or was it "Intel employee." Same matter.
 
Flubber said:
So well finally start seeing improvement with faster processor!!!
Click to expand...

NO! With a faster or more Optimized Video Cards, the C2D hands the AMD processors their ass=P If 10 sites say one thing and this one says otherwise, I think I'll stick with the 5.
 
I don't think he even mentioned AMD in his post. All he said was that if we buy a faster processor now, we can actually expect to see a performance increase in our games. And he definitely didn't mention anything about websites. Stop being so argumentative.
 
I've taken away from this precisely what I've always thought. Games and Apps are not being 1) Optimized and 2) Not making use of dual/multi core processors.

The publication of Valve re-tooling Source to make use of dual/multi-core was a wake up call for me to upgrade to Conroe (personally). But as it stands dual-core (the concept) for gaming isn't rewarding currently. However, Conroe's architecture (itself) IS beneficial.

So next year sometime I should see 1) Optimized games 2) Multithreaded apps 3) Conroe architecture all coming together to make for a more balanced gaming system.
 
xFlankerx said:
I don't think he even mentioned AMD in his post. All he said was that if we buy a faster processor now, we can actually expect to see a performance increase in our games. And he definitely didn't mention anything about websites. Stop being so argumentative.
Click to expand...

WTF? Do you have short term memory of what's posted, WOW!

xFlankerx said:
There is nothing wrong with those results. From the looks of it, they are 100% accurate.
Click to expand...

Only a hopeless AMD worshiper could read that reveiw and say something that far from the truth. Got a link to any other review to back that up? Oh wait, since he's not talking about AMD, he's not talking about Intel either, right? Then you beeiyotch about folks calling you names, no wonder:)

Flubber: So well finally start seeing improvement with faster processor!!!

Donnie27: NO! With a faster or more Optimized Video Cards, the C2D hands/ the AMD processors their ass=P If 10 sites say one thing and this one says otherwise, I think I'll stick with the 5.
Click to expand...

Put another way, "No we don't need a faster processor, we need either better Video cards or better optimized Games.

Not argumentative at all there Buck-O. Conroe kicks the current AMD processor lines ass. That site's review sucked and no, wasn't anywhere close to "100% accurate as you implied. :rolleyes: Even HardOCP's review didn't show what that one did. Add in Tom's, Anand's, PCperspective, Hot Hardware, BE-Hardware and tons of others that showed different than that one LOL!
 
GPUCommando said:
I've taken away from this precisely what I've always thought. Games and Apps are not being 1) Optimized and 2) Not making use of dual/multi core processors.

The publication of Valve re-tooling Source to make use of dual/multi-core was a wake up call for me to upgrade to Conroe (personally). But as it stands dual-core (the concept) for gaming isn't rewarding currently. However, Conroe's architecture (itself) IS beneficial.

So next year sometime I should see 1) Optimized games 2) Multithreaded apps 3) Conroe architecture all coming together to make for a more balanced gaming system.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Let's say a that there is a a breakthrough in the Video Processor market. Let's put its performance at 1600 X 1200 with Full AA and AF similar to current cards at 1024 X 768. This puts the Bottleneck back on the Processor. Then, what if there is a GT/XTE model that moves that scale down to 800 X 600? Sorry, I'd rather have a C2D than the Competition. Besides, I do more than just play games.
 
Donnie27 said:
Only a hopeless AMD worshiper could read that reveiw and say something that far from the truth. Got a link to any other review to back that up? Oh wait, since he's not talking about AMD, he's not talking about Intel either, right? Then you beeiyotch about folks calling you names, no wonder:)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get called an Intel fan*boy all the time. And here you are, calling me an AMD fan*boy. Does that make any sense? And only a hopeless Intel worshiper would look at those benchmarks and toss them out. I don't care about what the website says in it's analysis; I'm looking at that chart. And looking at the chart, the benchmarks are perfectly fine in showing the GPU bottleneck. I don't care about their review of the Conroe, I didn't even read the review. But the charts are fine.

Donnie27 said:
Conroe kicks the current AMD processor lines ass.
Click to expand...

Did I ever say they didn't? Just not in most games they don't. Regardless of who's fault it is, the fact remains that you aren't likely to see improvement in games with any GeForce 7 card. Whether GeForce 8 or R600 removes the GPU bottleneck remains to be seen, but Anandtech seems to think that it does not. If it does, then no one is arguing that the Core 2 Duo won't kick the Athlon 64's ass.

Donnie27 said:
That site's review sucked and no, wasn't anywhere close to "100% accurate as you implied. :rolleyes: Even HardOCP's review didn't show what that one did. Add in Tom's, Anand's, PCperspective, Hot Hardware, BE-Hardware and tons of others that showed different than that one LOL!
Click to expand...

Yeah, that review site sucked. But they sure as hell didn't fake their benchmarks. If you think they faked theirs, then I guess the [H] review was just as fake as it showed an even smaller difference between the processors. The review wasn't even close to accurate, but the benchmarks were perfectly fine, Buck-o.

All the other websites that were fair to the Core 2 Duo used Crossfire X1900XTX or SLI 7900GTX GPUs to remove the bottlenecks and let the Conroe flex its muscles. All [H] did was demonstrate the already-known GPU bottleneck.
 
I am sorry, but the people still harping on about Core 2 Duo not making much of a difference need to just be quite. Unless you've gone from an AMD to C2D with the exact same specs, you can't talk.

I went from a 939 2.6ghz 3500+ CPU to my Core 2 Duo and noticed speed gains even at stock. When I overclocked to 3.2 it is no contest. Games run so much better its really still surprising me.

BF2: 40% increase.
Oblivion: 50% increase
FEAR: 35% increase
GTR2: 50% increase
3Dmark05: 25% increase

This is at 1280x1024, but that is all many monitors can support. Switching from the A64 to the C2D, the difference was better for games than going from my old 6800GT to my old 7800GT.

So anyone saying there is not much difference is quoting nothing but reviews and hasn't experienced the change. Going from an average of 45 in FEAR to ~80fps is quite a difference. Going from a 9300 to a 11733 with just a CPU change is further proof
 
Well here we have one exception, going up against major review websites. Not to mention our very own. Dethred, produce some benchmarks, or explain this. Sure doesn't look like 40% to me.

EDIT: And yes, we know a really fast CPU can make a different in 3DMark scores. But 3DMark is not a game, it is a benchmark.
 
xFlankerx said:
Well here we have one exception, going up against major review websites. Not to mention our very own. Dethred, produce some benchmarks, or explain this.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I can only produce Core 2 results. Of course even posting them won't make any difference considering I don't have my AMD parts anymore.

YOU JUST ASKED ME TO PRODUCE BENCHMARKS, AND YOU WON'T ACCEPT ONE AS PROOF? :rolleyes:

PS: Those benchmarks are at high resolutions, something which any gamer with a 19" LCD (most at least) or 17" CRT monitor will never have to deal with.
204787764.jpg
 
It's a wonder to me why intel still choose to use the Front Side Bus system. Why not move to on-die memory controllers like AMD? Would be a much faster conroe.
 
Here's the records I took (not proof, but what I am basing my personal claims off of). Copied directly from my wordpad doc.



7900gt + Athlon64@2.6ghz:

05’ 500/750: 8,379
06’ 500/750: 4,213

05’ 535/760: 8,798
06’ 635/830: 5,051

05’ 540/770: 8,856
05’ 635/810: 9,059
05’ 650/850: 9,300

FEAR 655/820: 48 Average, 23min, 97max
_____________________________________________________
7900GT + C2D@3.2ghz

05' 650/820: 11,200
06' 650/820: 6337 CPU: 2674

05' 650/850: 11,500
06' 650/850: 6525

FEAR 655/820: 88 Average, 44min, 207max

_____________________________________________________
7900GT + C2D@3ghz

05' 690/850: 11565
05' 710/870: 11777
06’ 690/850: 6393 (2800mhz)
 
The FEAR results are spot-on for a high-end system like yours.

Your A64 chart shows nothing but fluctuating framerates. Have you ever seen the [H] reviews? The fluctuating framerates make the chart look like a bad saw.

And like I already said, 3Dmark scores get a big boost from a faster processor, and a 3.2Ghz Conroe sure as hell is fast.

What you're proposing would mean that the CPU is the bottleneck. I just happened to come across this 5 minutes ago. Discuss it with them if you wish.
 
I would click on your links but there is no need. I have seen the results firsthand by changing over. Have you? If your answer is no, then why are you posting in here? Not to be mean, but that'd be like me saying ATi GPU's suck when I haven't owned one since my AIW 7200.

This thread is pointless. If you have switched over then you can possibly talk, and even then experiences will be different. Some will have drastic changes, such as myself, and some won't. Either way there is a difference, unless you're playing at high resolutions, which most people don't.

PS: My framerate chart for BF2 shows an average of about 40FPS, with drops into the teens. After I have gotten my C2D, It averages almost 80FPS in the same maps/population and never drops below 40.
 
In certain games where the CPU has to kick into high gear because of AI or Character Mapping or something, the CPU will show an increase in performance. But it won't be anywhere near double the performance.

So just because you have experienced something, you have become blind to all arguments against it? Obviously human psychology dictates that you do not wish to see anything against your beliefs, but this is f**king ridiculous man.

No, I have not owned a damn ATi card. But that is what we have review sites for. So we don't have to buy every damn piece of hardware that comes out to see for ourselves just to see how it performs, compared to others. If you really believe that a faster processor doubled your framerates then consider yourself a freakish exception and be happy. But do not think that you can expand that to try to persuade anyone else unless you have something worth looking at, and no "your word" is not worth the decisions that many people will make regarding their systems.

The link is to a thread titled Once and for all, CPU is NOT A BOTTLENECK!!!! over at the Anandtech Forums. I suggest you read up on it and stop the babbling on this end. They even mention our beloved [H] review in their discussion. <3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top