• 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.

Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance

There's no denying the Core 2 is faster, cooler and cheaper than equivalently placed AMD processors. The main issue, and what I think this article tried to bring to light, is that under typical configurations the end user will see no benefit at the moment from switching from AMD to Intel.

This is not Intel's fault; the GPUs simply can no longer keep up with the processors unless you're willing to spend a truckload of money to upgrade to a GX2 or a SLI/XF configuration. In all other scenarios, the FX keeps up with the X6800, the X2's keep up with lower priced Core 2 processors, and so on and so on.

Fruthermore, even with the most powerful gaming cards on the planet at the moment, the Core 2 has only a 15-20% advantage in SOME games. That seems like a lot, but it really isn't. Some users may notice a difference, but most won't (difference between 20 and 23fps.. or 40 and 46fps... or 80 and 92fps.. etc). More significantly, the door is wide open for AMD to play catch up.

I have a 7900GT with a 3200+ A64 at the moment. With the price cuts forthcoming, I see no reason to spend money on a Core 2 + motherboard + memory when I can upgrade to a fast X2 for half the price and get the same performance in games.
 
RunOrDie99 said:
There's no denying the Core 2 is faster, cooler and cheaper than equivalently placed AMD processors. The main issue, and what I think this article tried to bring to light, is that under typical configurations the end user will see no benefit at the moment from switching from AMD to Intel.

This is not Intel's fault; the GPUs simply can no longer keep up with the processors unless you're willing to spend a truckload of money to upgrade to a GX2 or a SLI/XF configuration. In all other scenarios, the FX keeps up with the X6800, the X2's keep up with lower priced Core 2 processors, and so on and so on.

Fruthermore, even with the most powerful gaming cards on the planet at the moment, the Core 2 has only a 15-20% advantage in SOME games. That seems like a lot, but it really isn't. Some users may notice a difference, but most won't (difference between 20 and 23fps.. or 40 and 46fps... or 80 and 92fps.. etc). More significantly, the door is wide open for AMD to play catch up.

I have a 7900GT with a 3200+ A64 at the moment. With the price cuts forthcoming, I see no reason to spend money on a Core 2 + motherboard + memory when I can upgrade to a fast X2 for half the price and get the same performance in games.
Click to expand...

Please explain the line in bold? From everything I've read, FX-62 is a hard sale when compared to even the $350 (Average going pre-order price) E6600. There's no way in hell AMD is about to cut FX-62 prices to compete with it. Sure there's nothing wrong with sticking with AMD, so what its slower, costs more, uses more power and doesn't overclock as well.
 
Donnie27 said:
Please explain the line in bold? From everything I've read, FX-62 is a hard sale when compared to even the $350 (Average going pre-order price) E6600. There's no way in hell AMD is about to cut FX-62 prices to compete with it. Sure there's nothing wrong with sticking with AMD, so what its slower, costs more, uses more power and doesn't overclock as well.
Click to expand...

owned
 
I liked the review, unfortunately I play at 1600x1200 & I play older games. I also have an "older" system (dual opteron 246's on a dual gigabyte board - nforce pro chipset).

I hope Conroe/Woodcrest drop 2xx series prices though.

I also "only" have a 7800GT which seems to run most of what I throw at it pretty well. It would have been nice to see conroe + sli but apparently that config isn't out yet....? Perhaps another review is needed when sli boards are officially out, supported, and stable

I wouldn't buy a conroe until I could run SLI with it.
 
RunOrDie99 said:
There's no denying the Core 2 is faster, cooler and cheaper than equivalently placed AMD processors. The main issue, and what I think this article tried to bring to light, is that under typical configurations the end user will see no benefit at the moment from switching from AMD to Intel.

This is not Intel's fault; the GPUs simply can no longer keep up with the processors unless you're willing to spend a truckload of money to upgrade to a GX2 or a SLI/XF configuration. In all other scenarios, the FX keeps up with the X6800, the X2's keep up with lower priced Core 2 processors, and so on and so on.

Fruthermore, even with the most powerful gaming cards on the planet at the moment, the Core 2 has only a 15-20% advantage in SOME games. That seems like a lot, but it really isn't. Some users may notice a difference, but most won't (difference between 20 and 23fps.. or 40 and 46fps... or 80 and 92fps.. etc). More significantly, the door is wide open for AMD to play catch up.

I have a 7900GT with a 3200+ A64 at the moment. With the price cuts forthcoming, I see no reason to spend money on a Core 2 + motherboard + memory when I can upgrade to a fast X2 for half the price and get the same performance in games.
Click to expand...

I feel exactly the same way. Well said.
 
InorganicMatter said:
The thing is, despite their price cuts AMD still does not hold the price/performance ratio. I'll quote StealtyFish from another thread:


The E6300 consistently beats the X2 3800+. It's only $20 more.
The E6300 semi-consistently beats the X2 4200+. It's $60 less.
The E6600 annihilates the X2 5000+. It's $100 less.
Please note: all prices are MSRP, retail prices are usually $30-$50 more for both AMD and Intel.

You can't argue with these numbers. Intel now holds the same position AMD held for years: they are cheaper, they are faster, they use less power, and they overclock better. The only position AMD holds now, is the ultra-cheap poor-man's solution ($90 for a 3000+), previously held by Intel's Celeron.
Click to expand...

You forget that for alot of people who bought systems in the last couple of years they already have 939 systems and a drop in cpu replacement is cheaper than new memory, board + cpu.

Even on new systems, what is a cheap conroe compatible board? You can buy 939's that are decent for sub $100 and 1G ddr pc3200 for $75.

There is one stick of 1G DDR2-800 stick under $100 on newegg.
 
Robstar said:
You forget that for alot of people who bought systems in the last couple of years they already have 939 systems and a drop in cpu replacement is cheaper than new memory, board + cpu.

Even on new systems, what is a cheap conroe compatible board? You can buy 939's that are decent for sub $100 and 1G ddr pc3200 for $75.

There is one stick of 1G DDR2-800 stick under $100 on newegg.
Click to expand...
This argument is flawed because, as many people have said, there's no reason to jump from s939 to Conroe. Anyone considering Conroe is either a) someone who must have the absolute best, or b) coming from s478, s754 or worse (like me).
 
Good article...it speaks the truth.

The bottom line is this
If you have a higher-end AMD Athlon 64 system platform right now though, there really isn’t any need to go scrambling to Intel Core 2 at this particular time for gaming. I’d wait it out and see what the future brings.
Click to expand...
However, for somebody like me who is upgrading from an older platform, I think Core2 is the best choice.

Also, I would have loved to see some benchmarks from SMP enabled games, like Quake 4 especially.
 
I think people are misunderstanding the point of the review. How many FPS`s about 90 do you need to play a PC game? The standard use to be 60 fps. There is no question the Conroe is the better buy if you have to upgrade once two things happen: The first is availability of motherboards like the Nforce 5 series which supports Nvidia SLI and two, the
availability of the Conroe chips at the MSRP.

What Kyle is trying to show is directly related to the need to upgrade since playable frame rates can be obtained using what you have now. He demonstrates the real world difference based on today's single graphics card solutions and resolutions we would use during normal game play.

When will people wake up to the fact low resolution benchmarks are only used to sell processors.
 
InorganicMatter said:
This argument is flawed because, as many people have said, there's no reason to jump from s939 to Conroe. Anyone considering Conroe is either a) someone who must have the absolute best, or b) coming from s478, s754 or worse (like me).
Click to expand...

Well if you have a 754 you already have ddr at least....and afaik the 939 boards are cheaper than the conroe boards. I remember seeing an Asus board for $250'ish but that might have since changed. The other problem is with a conroe you can't run SLI, right? At least not yet. I'd love to see an FX-62 with quad sli vs a crossfire conroe at dell 30" and 24" as well as 1600x1200 benchmarks with all details on and see how goes.
 
Definately, if I was coming from an older platform I would get a Conroe. No doubt about it. Have you seen the price of the Abit Conroe boards though?, jesus £118 or £145 here in the UK. That according to my calculations is $216 and $266 respectively. DDR 2 looks cheap-ish
 
InorganicMatter said:
The thing is, despite their price cuts AMD still does not hold the price/performance ratio. I'll quote StealtyFish from another thread:

The E6300 consistently beats the X2 3800+. It's only $20 more.
The E6300 semi-consistently beats the X2 4200+. It's $60 less.
The E6600 annihilates the X2 5000+. It's $100 less.
Please note: all prices are MSRP, retail prices are usually $30-$50 more for both AMD and Intel.

You can't argue with these numbers. Intel now holds the same position AMD held for years: they are cheaper, they are faster, they use less power, and they overclock better. The only position AMD holds now, is the ultra-cheap poor-man's solution ($90 for a 3000+), previously held by Intel's Celeron.
Click to expand...
In addition on July 23rd Intel will have these Single Core gems.

Pentium 4 524 for 64US
Pentium 4 531 for 74US
Pentium 4 541 for 84US.

All of them with HyperThreading technology for a better multitasking expereince over AMD's Single core. All AMD will have with Single Cores is somewhat better thermals.
 
Robstar said:
You forget that for alot of people who bought systems in the last couple of years they already have 939 systems and a drop in cpu replacement is cheaper than new memory, board + cpu.

Even on new systems, what is a cheap conroe compatible board? You can buy 939's that are decent for sub $100 and 1G ddr pc3200 for $75.

There is one stick of 1G DDR2-800 stick under $100 on newegg.
Click to expand...

Not if you drop in an FX!

You might want to wait until after Conroe goes on sale and AMD cuts prices. There are i945 Conroe boards for as little as and get this, $61.
Asrock 1775i945

Asrock ConRoeXfire

There's a group of them that range from $75 full size i945 to $133 i965. I just bought 2GB of GSkill DDR2 800 4-4-4-12 for $194 shipped. Got it in the mail yesterday.

I hope AMD comes up with a fairly priced kick-ass processor to keep Intel from getting Cocky and Lazy. The problem is, current K8 aren't it ;) I got a 3500+ and after the games stop it's not so great. I do more Music and Video stuff than Game.
 
dad11345 said:
I think people are misunderstanding the point of the review. How many FPS`s about 90 do you need to play a PC game? The standard use to be 60 fps. There is no question the Conroe is the better buy if you have to upgrade once two things happen: The first is availability of motherboards like the Nforce 5 series which supports Nvidia SLI and two, the
availability of the Conroe chips at the MSRP.

What Kyle is trying to show is directly related to the need to upgrade since playable frame rates can be obtained using what you have now. He demonstrates the real world difference based on today's single graphics card solutions and resolutions we would use during normal game play.

When will people wake up to the fact low resolution benchmarks are only used to sell processors.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it has surprised me how many people either fully ignore what the conclusion actually says, or just don't read it or assign their own assumptions as my own.

Oh well, not a biggy. I fully stand behind what we published and you will see more of this type of testing in the future. I personally want to really know what experiences computer hardware will facilitate. It is also interesting how many people total ignore our other artilce that looks at CPU bound applications and has a different conclusion.

Anyway, I do not expect everyone to "get it." This is the first time this has been done by a website and we met with much the same resistance when we moved to our system with video cards 3 years ago or so.

I still find it amazing how many people get upset when there are 20 other sites that do it the way they want it to be done. That little red X in the upper corner is your friend. ;)
 
Donnie27 said:
Not if you drop in an FX!

You might want to wait until after Conroe goes on sale and AMD cuts prices. There are i945 Conroe boards for as little as and get this, $61.
Asrock 1775i945

Asrock ConRoeXfire

There's a group of them that range from $75 full size i945 to $133 i965. I just bought 2GB of GSkill DDR2 800 4-4-4-12 for $194 shipped. Got it in the mail yesterday.

I hope AMD comes up with a fairly priced kick-ass processor to keep Intel from getting Cocky and Lazy. The problem is, current K8 aren't it ;) I got a 3500+ and after the games stop it's not so great. I do more Music and Video stuff than Game.
Click to expand...


Cool, that Asrock Conroe board looks excellent. I would go for one of those if I was upgrading to a Conroe. ASrock - superb value and rock solid stable.
 
what i think would be interesting is a similar article such as this but using the next-gen graphics cards when they come out. would be interesting to see if the results are similar. and maybe even an SLI/crossfire setup for comaprison?
 
Donnie27 said:
Not if you drop in an FX!

You might want to wait until after Conroe goes on sale and AMD cuts prices. There are i945 Conroe boards for as little as and get this, $61.
Asrock 1775i945

Asrock ConRoeXfire

There's a group of them that range from $75 full size i945 to $133 i965. I just bought 2GB of GSkill DDR2 800 4-4-4-12 for $194 shipped. Got it in the mail yesterday.

I hope AMD comes up with a fairly priced kick-ass processor to keep Intel from getting Cocky and Lazy. The problem is, current K8 aren't it ;) I got a 3500+ and after the games stop it's not so great. I do more Music and Video stuff than Game.
Click to expand...

That is sweet. $61 for a stable conroe board would be a boon to conroe sales. I stand corrected, thanks for the info.
 
WOAH WOAH WOAH...

Shame on HardOCP.

What the hell are are guys thinking? Few FACTS need to be pointed out.

If you use settings that render the game you're playing limited by the video card (as HardOCP did) then of course no amount of CPU power will help.

This is like running the rigs with 256MB of ram in Battlefield 2 on high settings and then claiming both Core Duo 2 And Athlon64 equal.
I haven't a clue what you guys were thinking. The point of reviewing the CoreDuo2 is to detect the CPU performance. If you bottleneck the system at the video card.. you're of course then conducting a Video Card review.

This article has SERIOUSLY reduced the amount of respect I hold for HardOCP. Who plays a game that runs at 20-25FPS? Seriously...
 
RunOrDie99 said:
There's no denying the Core 2 is faster, cooler and cheaper than equivalently placed AMD processors. The main issue, and what I think this article tried to bring to light, is that under typical configurations the end user will see no benefit at the moment from switching from AMD to Intel.
Click to expand...

Really ? What if I play games , but I also do some work on the PC ? What if I do multimedia stuff ?

This is not Intel's fault; the GPUs simply can no longer keep up with the processors unless you're willing to spend a truckload of money to upgrade to a GX2 or a SLI/XF configuration. In all other scenarios, the FX keeps up with the X6800, the X2's keep up with lower priced Core 2 processors, and so on and so on.
Click to expand...

You sound like the US Patent office in 1890 : everything that could be invented was invented.

Hear this : in one year you'll have GPUs 2x as powerfull as today.R600 is a monster and is only a few months away.They will unlock Conroe's potential.
Having a Conroe means you are future-proof.
 
Get the GPU out of the picture and see who's the boss :D :

quake3.jpg

ut_2003.jpg

ut_2004.jpg


:D :D

Sharky

This review is the closest I can think to Kyle's , Sharky uses a 7800GTX card but everything else is the same.Too bad the conclusions are a world apart.


*I have the system in my sig as a remember from the golden age :) , but I'm using a 540+925XE+2GB now.
 
savantu said:
Really ? What if I play games , but I also do some work on the PC ? What if I do multimedia stuff ?



You sound like the US Patent office in 1890 : everything that could be invented was invented.

Hear this : in one year you'll have GPUs 2x as powerfull as today.R600 is a monster and is only a few months away.They will unlock Conroe's potential.
Having a Conroe means you are future-proof.
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks anything is future proof in the world of computers is sadly misguided
 
This futher proves what I have been stating in several threads on this forum with an P4 2.4Ghz FSB400 combined with a Gainward 7800GS Bliss:

GPU > CPU in gaming!

But combine that with the fact the the Conroe Creams AMD in encoding ect, I know wich is the best buy.

Terra - Not surprised :D
 
Robstar said:
That is sweet. $61 for a stable conroe board would be a boon to conroe sales. I stand corrected, thanks for the info.
Click to expand...

No biggie, you're welcomed.

There will be plenty of budget systems out there. Wait until Intel ships the 4000 series maybe in the 4th Quarter and Conroe L/Core 2 Solo Q1- 07. What's up with this "L" stuff all of a sudden?
 
dark_reign said:
No good for me. VIA chipset = trash. Give me a sweet 975 or 965 board. :)
Click to expand...

QFT.
Only chipset I would use for an Intel CPU is an Intel chipset.

Terra...
 
spicey said:
Cool, that Asrock Conroe board looks excellent. I would go for one of those if I was upgrading to a Conroe. ASrock - superb value and rock solid stable.
Click to expand...

They can be a good start for a budget/Value system. The competition in that sector will become a battle!
 
Terra said:
QFT.
Only chipset I would use for an Intel CPU is an Intel chipset.

Terra...
Click to expand...

i945 is proven and i965 is already looking good, no need for VIA. Now that high end ATI R600 gets some Drool points! They licensed amuch Intel tech as possible and then looked to do more.
 
Donnie27 said:
i945 is proven and i965 is already looking good, no need for VIA. Now that high end ATI R600 gets some Drool points! They licensed amuch Intel tech as possible and then looked to do more.
Click to expand...

I am sure there is a killer board out(with Intel chipset) by the time I am going to go PCI-E, Core Dou, DX 10 and Vista.
Wich won't be untill sometime after the first Service Pack for Vista.(late 2007, early 2008)

Terra - It would take a small wonder to get me away from Intel on a Intel chipset ;) *L*
 
Terra said:
I am sure there is a killer board out(with Intel chipset) by the time I am going to go PCI-E, Core Dou, DX 10 and Vista.
Wich won't be untill sometime after the first Service Pack for Vista.(late 2007, early 2008)

Terra - It would take a small wonder to get me away from Intel on a Intel chipset ;) *L*
Click to expand...

Hehehe! All I need is for Tank Guys to ship and a Motherboard. I already have the rest.
 
Donnie27 said:
Hehehe! All I need is for Tank Guys to ship and a Motherboard. I already have the rest.
Click to expand...

You got a DirectX 10 card, and Vista SP 1? :eek:

Terra - :p ;) :D
 
And for all the people slamming the review:

I like it.
It shows the REAL WORLD PREFORMANCE...as a GAMER would se it!
Remember, you have to add this to your conclusuion too:
Intel Core 2 Music, Images, & Movie Performance

Combine those 2 reviews and you have the REAL WORLD PREFORMANCE of the Core Duo 2...the [H]ard way :D

And then the Core Dou 2 is a clear winner...

Terra - Timedemo's and 800x600 is worthless to me...I am a gamer :p
 
ElMoIsEviL said:
WOAH WOAH WOAH...

Shame on HardOCP.

What the hell are are guys thinking? Few FACTS need to be pointed out.

If you use settings that render the game you're playing limited by the video card (as HardOCP did) then of course no amount of CPU power will help.

This is like running the rigs with 256MB of ram in Battlefield 2 on high settings and then claiming both Core Duo 2 And Athlon64 equal.
I haven't a clue what you guys were thinking. The point of reviewing the CoreDuo2 is to detect the CPU performance. If you bottleneck the system at the video card.. you're of course then conducting a Video Card review.

This article has SERIOUSLY reduced the amount of respect I hold for HardOCP. Who plays a game that runs at 20-25FPS? Seriously...
Click to expand...

Another person that did not actually read the article, but rather reacts to what others say. I have no respect for you either coming in here filling this space with jibberish not based on the facts of the article. But thanks for at least looking at a couple pages. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top