TypeO
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2000
- Messages
- 9,533
Thanks for the review Kyle. I appreciate it.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
First off, I understand the scope of the article and what you guys were trying to represent. However, the ways it was tested and represented does make me roll my eyes. First, the way I see it, this was not a processor review. This was a video card review with one set of paramaters for each game, or more to my point, it was a '(processor) Buyers guide for the 7900GTX', but with nowhere near enough data (processor speeds/architectures) to make it anywhere near valid or useful. I know you guys were rushed, but if you did the same exact idea, with SLI setups, and with more processor choices (netburst, more x2) you guys would not be getting this kind of feedback.
I applaud you guys for trying something new, but since you do seem to be taking constructive criticism well, more parameters and more testing would be a huge benefit to get your point across. I am sure that you are planning more tests with P4 architecture and SLI setups, but the mad rush to get this article out really did not give you guys enough time to collect the data to make it relevent and not appear biased.
I am still running a 9700 pro, so I know more than anyone that cpu upgrades will not make a huge difference in gaming performance all the time. However, I use my rig rarely for games, so this review, for someone like me that uses computers mostly for work and business, is somewhat pointless.
It would also be nice to get some kind of feedback on the futureproofing of C2D, as far as when video cards are no longer the limit at the resolutions you are testing, and the difference at that time between Intel and AMD. (i.e, 5-6 months down the line, top of the line video card tested with the same processors, see if AMD is a limit faster than Intel). This is more important for someone like me that is not on the bleeding edge, because I might be able to get longer lifetime out of a C2D than current x2
I applaud you guys for trying something new, but since you do seem to be taking constructive criticism well, more parameters and more testing would be a huge benefit to get your point across. I am sure that you are planning more tests with P4 architecture and SLI setups, but the mad rush to get this article out really did not give you guys enough time to collect the data to make it relevent and not appear biased.
I am still running a 9700 pro, so I know more than anyone that cpu upgrades will not make a huge difference in gaming performance all the time. However, I use my rig rarely for games, so this review, for someone like me that uses computers mostly for work and business, is somewhat pointless.
It would also be nice to get some kind of feedback on the futureproofing of C2D, as far as when video cards are no longer the limit at the resolutions you are testing, and the difference at that time between Intel and AMD. (i.e, 5-6 months down the line, top of the line video card tested with the same processors, see if AMD is a limit faster than Intel). This is more important for someone like me that is not on the bleeding edge, because I might be able to get longer lifetime out of a C2D than current x2
Jesus H Christ, I can't believe some people get so agitated about an article that simple benchmarks differently from the norm. I enjoyed the article, full stop. Conroe is fuc*king fast for everything, AMD is good for gaming too. It just a CPU it isn't life changing stuff!
ToastMaster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2005
- Messages
- 483
I remember the time when I first brought home a truly 3D-capable computer from the store, and installed a game I had anxiously been waiting to play. The very first thing I did after installing the game and running it, was to increase the graphical settings to as high as they could go. Resolution, texture settings, etc. After that, I would try playing it. If it played fine, I'd keep it. If it didn't, I'd have to go back in and adjust it. At the time, I was just a very casual PC gamer, and only cared about the game, not the graphics. The thing is, all of my relatively computer-illiterate friends who play games on their computers, also know to do this.
People only settle for the best settings they can use. Often that means less than the highest, since most GPUs aren't capable of it. It's still a fact however that the GPU is almost all of the time, the limiting factor. So in these situations, Conroe is slightly faster, but it isn't a difference that should make someone go out and buy an all-new Conroe system. Leave that to the enthusiast, most would say.
Now as for Conroe in office applications, encoding, etc., it's considerably faster. Once again however, the general user doesn't care about if it shaves several seconds off the time of encoding, how easily it multitasks, etc. Hell, almost everyone I know, simply uses the system to surf the net, check email, use an IM client to talk to people, and that's about it. The casual gamers might play some games from time to time, but I very, very rarely see any of my more casually-computing friends Tab out of a game. I think most don't realize it's possible.
Now that having been said, I am interested in Conroe, because I do a good bit of encoding, multitasking between intensive applications (Photoshop and Office, Photoshop and gaming, etc.), and because I'm always tempted by what's new.
I primarily play one game on my current system, WoW , with the occasional game of CS:S and DoD:S thrown in for good measure. Of all of these, the only game I'd see a big difference within Conroe, is WoW, since it easily doesn't max out my GPU, and thus at the moment the CPU is the factor. However, I enable vertical sync in every game that supports it, so all I'm concerned with is maintaining 60fps, which I can easily with WoW. CS:S and DoD:S can't run at all maximized settings (primarily the highest AA and AF), since it dips rather severely under 60 fps with my 7800GT. So my goal, is to buy a E6600 or E6700, e njoy the non-gaming aspects of it, and when R600 comes out from ATI supporting DX10, to buy that.
The point I'm trying to make, is that for even the casual enthusiast, there's no reason to upgrade to Conroe. It's very powerful, and we call can admit that. However, all Kyle was pointing out is that at the high settings most of us run our games at (I run at 1680x1050 on my 20.1" widescreen), you won't see much of a difference. If you have a fully-maxed out system, with Crossfire, you will. But how many people have that? 0.5% of the total computer-owning population? If that? And for those who cry that it's not all about gaming, which it isn't, just remember: Intel-biased sites for years beefed up the P4 by primarily using gaming as the main reason why it is so powerful. Yes, they'd also show the benefits for encoding, DivX, ect, but ultimately, it was all about how great the P4 was for gaming. So please, don't cry now when someone puts importance on the "real world" aspect of gaming.
People only settle for the best settings they can use. Often that means less than the highest, since most GPUs aren't capable of it. It's still a fact however that the GPU is almost all of the time, the limiting factor. So in these situations, Conroe is slightly faster, but it isn't a difference that should make someone go out and buy an all-new Conroe system. Leave that to the enthusiast, most would say.
Now as for Conroe in office applications, encoding, etc., it's considerably faster. Once again however, the general user doesn't care about if it shaves several seconds off the time of encoding, how easily it multitasks, etc. Hell, almost everyone I know, simply uses the system to surf the net, check email, use an IM client to talk to people, and that's about it. The casual gamers might play some games from time to time, but I very, very rarely see any of my more casually-computing friends Tab out of a game. I think most don't realize it's possible.
Now that having been said, I am interested in Conroe, because I do a good bit of encoding, multitasking between intensive applications (Photoshop and Office, Photoshop and gaming, etc.), and because I'm always tempted by what's new.
I primarily play one game on my current system, WoW , with the occasional game of CS:S and DoD:S thrown in for good measure. Of all of these, the only game I'd see a big difference within Conroe, is WoW, since it easily doesn't max out my GPU, and thus at the moment the CPU is the factor. However, I enable vertical sync in every game that supports it, so all I'm concerned with is maintaining 60fps, which I can easily with WoW. CS:S and DoD:S can't run at all maximized settings (primarily the highest AA and AF), since it dips rather severely under 60 fps with my 7800GT. So my goal, is to buy a E6600 or E6700, e njoy the non-gaming aspects of it, and when R600 comes out from ATI supporting DX10, to buy that.The point I'm trying to make, is that for even the casual enthusiast, there's no reason to upgrade to Conroe. It's very powerful, and we call can admit that. However, all Kyle was pointing out is that at the high settings most of us run our games at (I run at 1680x1050 on my 20.1" widescreen), you won't see much of a difference. If you have a fully-maxed out system, with Crossfire, you will. But how many people have that? 0.5% of the total computer-owning population? If that? And for those who cry that it's not all about gaming, which it isn't, just remember: Intel-biased sites for years beefed up the P4 by primarily using gaming as the main reason why it is so powerful. Yes, they'd also show the benefits for encoding, DivX, ect, but ultimately, it was all about how great the P4 was for gaming. So please, don't cry now when someone puts importance on the "real world" aspect of gaming.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,133
squishy said:
Thanks for you compliment
my point was for the people asking for 640x480 benchmarks
and for play new games sure have =p played them all, have you played any games recently at 640x480?! guess not!
and yes if you have an SLI / Xfire system then you can 1) read other reviews or 2) wait for the Xfire Review here ~.~
As others have pointed out why wasn't this done when the amd64s came out? (obviously I know the answer is the methodology hadn't changed yet) Everyone claimed the amd64s were superior to the P4s at the time, but tests back then would have been gpu limited as well. However, no claim was made that P4s were equal to amd64s back then and no one was claiming, hey getting an amd64 system today provides no real world benefit, so the amd64s were all hype.
Others have already pointed out the article is leading people to false conclusions, which I know was not the intent. I clearly see the conclusion was that getting a conroe today will provide no benefit over the amd equivalent. I have no problem with that. However, people are drawing the conclusion that conroe is no better than the amd fx and that intel was lying to everyone and they only made a chip which was only equal to amd and not better. How many people back when the amd64s were released would have said the same thing? That the amd64 was all hype and that it's only equal to a P4? I'm going to be guessing not a single person. You can point to the other multimedia benchmarks done also, but people want to ignore those and say conroe = to amd based on the gaming review.
Others have already pointed out the article is leading people to false conclusions, which I know was not the intent. I clearly see the conclusion was that getting a conroe today will provide no benefit over the amd equivalent. I have no problem with that. However, people are drawing the conclusion that conroe is no better than the amd fx and that intel was lying to everyone and they only made a chip which was only equal to amd and not better. How many people back when the amd64s were released would have said the same thing? That the amd64 was all hype and that it's only equal to a P4? I'm going to be guessing not a single person. You can point to the other multimedia benchmarks done also, but people want to ignore those and say conroe = to amd based on the gaming review.
codegrinder
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2005
- Messages
- 1,509
TypeO said:
same here. i like seeing reviews that net results that are out side of synthetic bechmarking programs.
Mr. Miyagi
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,982
There is more drama in this thread than the Gen May combined.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,772
xenogears said:
Actually we did the same thing in a month long project of firming up Pentiums with A64s.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTAwMiwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0
Interesting results. They were certainly not as one-sided as the canned benchmark sites would have you believe. Sorry for not starting earlier.
Thanks Kyle for once again telling it like it is without the BS.
For those that forgot to read the title here it is, "Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance".
Kyle set out to show that in gaming applications at resolutions and settings that most gamers actually use, there isn't a hell of a lot of difference in real world game play between the best of AMD and the best of Intel. Gaming is GPU dependent and it's been proven once again that if you're life revolves around gaming, you're better off investing your extra cash in a faster GPU and not a CPU. All of the people that want to string Kyle up should be sending him a check for the money they'll save next time they upgrade their system.
The new Core Duo is an incredible leap ahead for Intel. Congratulations to them. AMD has been the price / performance leader for a long time now and this new chip is going to force them to drastically cut their prices. It's a win, win situation no matter what you buy so everyone stop bitching and complaining.
For those that forgot to read the title here it is, "Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance".
Kyle set out to show that in gaming applications at resolutions and settings that most gamers actually use, there isn't a hell of a lot of difference in real world game play between the best of AMD and the best of Intel. Gaming is GPU dependent and it's been proven once again that if you're life revolves around gaming, you're better off investing your extra cash in a faster GPU and not a CPU. All of the people that want to string Kyle up should be sending him a check for the money they'll save next time they upgrade their system.
The new Core Duo is an incredible leap ahead for Intel. Congratulations to them. AMD has been the price / performance leader for a long time now and this new chip is going to force them to drastically cut their prices. It's a win, win situation no matter what you buy so everyone stop bitching and complaining.
TypeO
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2000
- Messages
- 9,533
QFT!Mr. Miyagi said:There is more drama in this thread than the Gen May combined.
RedStarSQD
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2005
- Messages
- 305
"These Crossfie numbers really raise the question of how many users really do buy dual high end cards. Up untill now I've lways gone for the ~300$ price category."
Just wanted to say that valve puplished info on all the steam users -- only, something like,
2000 people (out of hundreds of thousands) had SLI (a tiny number used crossfire).
I wish i was one of those people. But, it is just too expensive.
Also will conroe help out in the physics department with the havox physics side supported by video hardware? ... I would imagine the answer is yes.
Just wanted to say that valve puplished info on all the steam users -- only, something like,
2000 people (out of hundreds of thousands) had SLI (a tiny number used crossfire).
I wish i was one of those people. But, it is just too expensive.
Also will conroe help out in the physics department with the havox physics side supported by video hardware? ... I would imagine the answer is yes.
For the first time, last month I read up on CPU's and decided to buy an AMD. However after reading these 20 Core reviews, which award Core the price/performance lead, I've changed my mind to getting Core instead. Yup I actually read through every single one of these review
Unless there is a world conspiracy of web computer reviewers against AMD or all of these reviewers are idiots it looks like Core would be the best choice as of today.
Intel Core Reviews:
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=845&cid=1
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795
http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecentral/reports/article.php/3618741
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6184
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/core2duo_e6700/
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33039
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300.html
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/07/14/intel_core2_duo/
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=272
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/07/14/intel_core_2_duo_processors/1.html
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2/index.x?pg=1
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/9...e_could_it_be_intel_s_day_to_shine/index.html
http://www.gdhardware.com/hardware/cpus/intel/conroe/001.htm
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=470
http://www.planetx64.com/index.php
http://news.com.com/With+Core+2+Duo...status/2009-1006_3-6094293.html?tag=nefd.lede
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1989209,00.asp
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6153900/index.html
Unless there is a world conspiracy of web computer reviewers against AMD or all of these reviewers are idiots it looks like Core would be the best choice as of today.
Intel Core Reviews:
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=845&cid=1
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795
http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecentral/reports/article.php/3618741
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6184
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/core2duo_e6700/
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33039
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300.html
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/07/14/intel_core2_duo/
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=272
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/07/14/intel_core_2_duo_processors/1.html
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2/index.x?pg=1
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/9...e_could_it_be_intel_s_day_to_shine/index.html
http://www.gdhardware.com/hardware/cpus/intel/conroe/001.htm
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=470
http://www.planetx64.com/index.php
http://news.com.com/With+Core+2+Duo...status/2009-1006_3-6094293.html?tag=nefd.lede
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1989209,00.asp
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6153900/index.html
deeznuts said:
Here something to ponder. Most people who upgrade to high end parts know there is always something new and better coming. They buy high end to have the performance now with the idea of upgrading when the next new something comes alone and selling what they have. Don`t you like immediate gratification?
The other point I have is since the GPU first came out I have always gotten more performance in games from a GPU upgrade then a CPU.
Gun_Strife
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 3,343
Well I for one am very interested in going cf, although I've been with nvidia till i got my X1900 cf ed cards
also about this
"It's an IRRESPONSIBLE review because it's very easy for someone who does not understand 'GPU-limited' to misinterpret. "
if you dont understand what the hell are you doing here, i mean do you plan to build your own rig if you dont understand, dont think so you will go to pc club and get rapped out ur ass on prices from guys who dont even get the hardcore gamer
anyways Kyle pm4u
also about this
"It's an IRRESPONSIBLE review because it's very easy for someone who does not understand 'GPU-limited' to misinterpret. "
if you dont understand what the hell are you doing here, i mean do you plan to build your own rig if you dont understand, dont think so you will go to pc club and get rapped out ur ass on prices from guys who dont even get the hardcore gamer
anyways Kyle pm4u
In before the lock
All the debate about the review doesn't change the one simple fact for me. "Standard Joe Purchasee".
I've an AMD 3000+ CPU. For about $169.00 I can purchase a 3800+ X2 after the price cuts at the end of this month and garner close to the same gaming performance as if I were to sell my motherboard and RAM and purchase all three items for Conroe for much more. Much more because to get an SLI capable motherboard would be close to $200, let alone all new RAM.
So "why iNtel" when I can use a 3800+ X2 OC'd for another couple years (figuring the performance results in gaming since I purchased my 3000+ several years back until now).
"Standard Joe Purchasee" doesn't care about the following:
1. Size of e-pensi.
2. FPS that neighbors down the street get provided Purchasee's FPS is more than sufficient for their own gaming experience.
3. Result of playing games at 640x480. Currently the only games at that resolution are Purchasee's kids playing Reader Rabbit and Putt Putt childrens games. These even look good on a 486 so that libraries can also have them for kids.
4. How fast it takes to "encode" video as long as when the DVD is burned and shipped out as a Christmas card to the family that it looks good. Faster "crap edits" are still "crap edits". Another users Athlon XP 2100+ has produced better videos than my faster rig, just because they are more adapt at how they pose their shots in the camcorder and better understanding of editing for overall quality.
4. How fast DivX and other codes "decode" provided there are no dropped frames even at 1080P resolution. Since all shipping GPU's from both ATI and nVIDIA have H.264 decoding support, what's the big about the CPU in this? Oh yeah.... onboard video in low end integrated video-chipset motherboards like the ViiV
That said, I'll outlay a small bit-o-cash (kinda like bit-o-honey, it's both sweet when it's not too much) and have a system that in "games" with current Gen cards yields about a 1FPS difference than those that dump all and go conroe but keep their current GPU. Just don't really care about the rest, as even with my Anti-virus, encoding and multi-tasking now I'm more than satisfied. Guess it depends on Vista, and if Vista dumped all over my AMD I suspect even Intel owners would be upset at the diminished performance. I'll likely switch to Vista in Christmas of '07 as a "gift" since I'll not spend anything on it this next spring, no compelling app's at this time.
And if you don't like the logic of my argument, nor care for my opinion, that's ok because I don't care for yours...
pffffpffffftttbbbl (virtual raspberry for y'all).
All the debate about the review doesn't change the one simple fact for me. "Standard Joe Purchasee".
I've an AMD 3000+ CPU. For about $169.00 I can purchase a 3800+ X2 after the price cuts at the end of this month and garner close to the same gaming performance as if I were to sell my motherboard and RAM and purchase all three items for Conroe for much more. Much more because to get an SLI capable motherboard would be close to $200, let alone all new RAM.
So "why iNtel" when I can use a 3800+ X2 OC'd for another couple years (figuring the performance results in gaming since I purchased my 3000+ several years back until now).
"Standard Joe Purchasee" doesn't care about the following:
1. Size of e-pensi.
2. FPS that neighbors down the street get provided Purchasee's FPS is more than sufficient for their own gaming experience.
3. Result of playing games at 640x480. Currently the only games at that resolution are Purchasee's kids playing Reader Rabbit and Putt Putt childrens games. These even look good on a 486 so that libraries can also have them for kids.
4. How fast it takes to "encode" video as long as when the DVD is burned and shipped out as a Christmas card to the family that it looks good. Faster "crap edits" are still "crap edits". Another users Athlon XP 2100+ has produced better videos than my faster rig, just because they are more adapt at how they pose their shots in the camcorder and better understanding of editing for overall quality.
4. How fast DivX and other codes "decode" provided there are no dropped frames even at 1080P resolution. Since all shipping GPU's from both ATI and nVIDIA have H.264 decoding support, what's the big about the CPU in this? Oh yeah.... onboard video in low end integrated video-chipset motherboards like the ViiV
That said, I'll outlay a small bit-o-cash (kinda like bit-o-honey, it's both sweet when it's not too much) and have a system that in "games" with current Gen cards yields about a 1FPS difference than those that dump all and go conroe but keep their current GPU. Just don't really care about the rest, as even with my Anti-virus, encoding and multi-tasking now I'm more than satisfied. Guess it depends on Vista, and if Vista dumped all over my AMD I suspect even Intel owners would be upset at the diminished performance. I'll likely switch to Vista in Christmas of '07 as a "gift" since I'll not spend anything on it this next spring, no compelling app's at this time.
And if you don't like the logic of my argument, nor care for my opinion, that's ok because I don't care for yours...
pffffpffffftttbbbl
(virtual raspberry for y'all).KaReeM oF WHeat
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 539
slightly off topic but i wonder if kyle has been able to accomplish anything today other than defendig the core 2 reviews?
StealthyFish
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,591
RunOrDie99 said:
dad11345 said:
jweller13 said:
how many more times do we have to repeat ourselves? The reviewer intentionally ran a benchmark where he openly admitted to bottlenecking the performance, and yet still recommended to buy AMD at the very end. How biased can this review get? The reviewer made a conclusion off benchmarks that were CLEARLY bottlenecked by the graphics card. Look at all of those credible reviewers? Why do they all say differently? Because they didn't have a graphics card bottleneck or they would have dropped resolutions and stated that they had a single card solution. I'm not sure what kind of credible review site openly admits the bottleneck and yet continues to benchmark and make a conclusion as to which processor to buy. You can't say the graphs in any of these or the ones that were posted before were invalid, becuase they aren't. They don't have a graphics bottleneck. There are too many flaws to make any conclusion.
If you were using a single card solution, then yes, have fun bottlenecking your performance at 1600x1200, but we're all not graphics whores. Especially, if you've got enough money to buy an FX62 (which debuted at 1500 and costs around 1200 now), you certainly have enough money to atleast buy a 7950GX2 or Dual X1800XTs (seriously, that's like 400 bucks for Crossfire X1800XT). Now why with only one GPU then? No offense, but I think this review didn't tell us anything at all, in fact, we may have been better off without it. If i were the editor, I'd retract this and continue testing and take into consideration the suggestions we've given him through out this thread.
Look at all the links above, read those, and ask, why do they all contradict the information here on HardOCP. Because they reviewed it in a way where they tried to eliminate bottlenecks, not intentionally benchmark with them.
Core 2 Duo 6300, 6600, X6800 Can All Compete With an FX-62. The E6600 goes for 1/4th the price of the FX-62 but can equal it in performance btw. Just a heads up.
ToastMaster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2005
- Messages
- 483
jweller13 said:
If you are building a system today, noone ever said Core 2 Duo wouldn't be the best processor to get based upon price, performance, etc.
The main deal is between the Intel fans who think all A64s are obsolete over-night, and those who already have X2's and such, seeing that as far as high-resolution gaming is concerned, unless they own a Crossfire (or eventually SLI for C2D) system, they're not getting much of an improvement in the way of games. Are there improvements elsewhere? Obviously, and at times very large. Is it something the casual computer user, or even many people here would likely notice? I highly doubt it.
Hell, I have a X2 3800+, and I'm going for a E6600 or E6700.
Mr. Miyagi
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,982
One of the main reasons the article wasn't as thorough as Kyle and the gang wanted was because Intel cut their testing time short. This was mentioned earlier.
StealthyFish
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,591
Mr. Miyagi said:
but he still made this as a conclusion? I would have been happy if he wrote, although I have reached this conclusion, I will further test this processor before I release the rest of the benchmarks. I'm not quite sure how Intel cut his time short either. The NDA expired yesterday. NDA is a non disclosure agreement, how does that cut his time short? Anyone can release any kind of benchmark out now at any time. What's the limitation?
JetUsafMech
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2001
- Messages
- 724
Mr. Miyagi said:
Did Intel just do this with [H]ardOcp? It appears that way.
StealthyFish
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,591
Terra said:
I'd like to see AMD continue to make a profit after pushing down their whole CPU line down about 30%. Intel can produce more processors. Larger yield = cheaper cost. AMD doesn't quite have the number of fab plants to produce as much as Intel, and Intel is a larger company. I want to see a 100 dollar dual core processor from AMD. Intel's already got there. Intel's 9 series up to the 955 is hitting around 100-200 dollar range later this month. Can AMD match it?
LstBrunnenG
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 6,676
Wow! What good news for me as a consumer! But wait, this must all be lies, because...Anand said:
O rly?Kyle said:
Kyle said:
So if I were still using my little PIII Gateway I would have no reason at all to upgrade to a Core 2 Duo? Even with its lack of AGP slots limiting me to (at the time) a GeForce2 MX 32MB?
If you look at the upcoming AMD price cuts linked earlier in this thread, you'll see that the FX-62 is staying exactly where it is. So there's no difference, if I decide to upgrade (but you say I shouldn't!), whether I were to buy an E6600 or an FX-62? I see $700 of difference.
I see what you're trying to say here, but it only applies to a relatively narrow cross-section of a very varied enthusiast market. This was only exacerbated by separating the bona fide CPU benchmarks (DivX, LAME, what have you) from the gaming benchmarks.
About four years ago I was in that position I mentioned above, coming from a Gateway PIII with PCI graphics. I read HardOCP's articles and found them useful because they clearly showed what CPUs, GPUs, and motherboards were the best my money could buy, and gave me enough data to draw my own conclusions as to where the sweet spot was as to price/performance. This review centers on only the high end processors and would have, had I been in that position, failed to highlight any differences sufficient enough for me to come to any conclusions.
xenogears said:
Ok, I'm tired of having to say this, but I will again: as far as gaming goes Core 2 > A64 > P4. The A64 was not all hype, just like Core 2 is not all hype now. Why do I say that? Because of low-res benches, which, believe it or not, are a bit more useful than some here would have you believe. Now, you're going to say what relevance do low-res benches have at all? It's very simple: they show you what the processor is capable of when you're not GPU LIMITED. It might be hard for some of you to believe, but that doesn't change when you start increasing the resolution, again, so long as you're not GPU limited. I've used it earlier, but I'll use it again, look at the Oblivion results in AT's review. And before anyone starts bitching and moaning about timedemos and canned benchmarks, Oblivion DOESN'T have a timedemo feature. All tests must be done MANUALLY. For those of you who are too lazy, I'll help you out:
What do we have in this graph? We have a high-res situation that isn't GPU limited thanks to CrossFire. And what does this graph show? Exactly what low-res benches told us to begin with: that Core 2 > A64 > P4. Moreover, we're looking at a 26% improvement in performance (E6800 vs FX-62), which is strangely in-line with the "canned" results from IDF and those websites that spout "BS". If you don't understand, then we have nothing else to discuss.
StealthyFish
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,591
StealthyFish said:
Gaming Performance - Oblivion v1.1
Gaming Performance - Oblivion v1.1
Gaming Performance - F.E.A.R.v1.03
Gaming Performance - Rise of Legends v1.0\
The first 2 were oblivion. Though they ran dual Ati graphics, it still shows a performance change The X6800 is faster by a great amount. In fact, the benchmarks of oblivion ran by Anandtech were even higher res. RTS use more CPu power also. Look at the difference in rise of legends, an RTS game. We see this great performance, but why do we only see a 3 fps difference in the tests that HardOCP made? These benchmarks were made at a high resolution too.
Ardrid said:Ok, I'm tired of having to say this, but I will again: as far as gaming goes Core 2 > A64 > P4. The A64 was not all hype, just like Core 2 is not all hype now. Why do I say that? Because of low-res benches, which, believe it or not, are a bit more useful than some here would have you believe. Now, you're going to say what relevance do low-res benches have at all? It's very simple: they show you what the processor is capable of when you're not GPU LIMITED. It might be hard for some of you to believe, but that doesn't change when you start increasing the resolution, again, so long as you're not GPU limited. I've used it earlier, but I'll use it again, look at the Oblivion results in AT's review. And before anyone starts bitching and moaning about timedemos and canned benchmarks, Oblivion DOESN'T have a timedemo feature. All tests must be done MANUALLY. For those of you who are too lazy, I'll help you out:
What do we have in this graph? We have a high-res situation that isn't GPU limited thanks to CrossFire. And what does this graph show? Exactly what low-res benches told us to begin with: that Core 2 > A64 > P4. If you don't understand, then we have nothing else to discuss.
Are you guys disputing the multiple graphs and multiple reliable sources we've all given you? So everyone is wrong except for HardOCP? the sources above all say that the Core 2 duo line is better than the A64 and P4.
JetUsafMech
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2001
- Messages
- 724
Jason711 said:wow, lots of cry babies in here.
you mean to tell me some of you are shocked that games are gpu dependant? lol...
grow up.
PLEASE explain that to these people:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1075842
StealthyFish
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,591
dad11345 said:
What I was saying is that you can hold your review instead of rushing it. If he got it from Intel and Intel wanted the processor back, he could pick one up. The review looks old enough to be able to afford both of those processors. Go give us a thorough review. The "we didn't have enough time" excuse doesn't work.
Every other review site was able to give a thorough review of the processor but hardOCP was the only one tight on time?
LstBrunnenG
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 6,676
AMD's fine. It's just like when all the cool kids were buying Northwood-Cs and AMD fans were evangalizing about Clawhammer, when all they had to play with at the time were their Athlon XPs.
JetUsafMech
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2001
- Messages
- 724
jweller13 said:
AMD isn't going anywhere, you're talking about a company that survived many, many quarters posting huge losses back in the day. Now that they have Germany, they'll be fine. But from now until Q1, they have nadda on the CPU front.
TypeO
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2000
- Messages
- 9,533
I'm not disputing the graphs and are merely taking the review for what it is. A review from OCP just like the others have theirs. I'll read those as well. People are making way too much of this. They didn't HAVE to put up a review at all and then you would be complaining that there was no review. Also, do you know what OCP's time schedule's are? Didn't think so. Maybe they didn't have a lot of time. Accept their comments and move on. Before long, you'll have your own Conroe with which to bench until your hearts content. Post it up and I'll read that one as well.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,772
StealthyFish said:
That took almost 45 days to produce. Thanks for you notes again on how bad you think our "CPU review" sucked. IT IS NOTED. I highly suggest you not read it any more. And just to note, had your read the title you would have realized it was not a CPU review.
You can get those anywhere today.