![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,772
Mr. Miyagi said:
Yes, and just to be clear on this, they delivered the test kits the last week of June. We were given an embargo date of the 27th. We started moving around the production schedule to be prepped and ready to roll on the 27th. No, we did not immediately start work till July 2nd. With all the leaks that Intel has allowed, there was little to be excited about, so no one tore into it, and quite frankly we had other work to do with the recent AM2 launch. On the 4th of July, Intel noted that "buy popular demand" that that the embargo date was moved to the 13th. So at the drop of a hat, our 25 days of work time turned to 11 days. Yeah, some adjustments had to be made. I still hit my goals that I had focused on with the Conroe articles. Not as in-depth as I would like, but it still got the messae across that I was looking to get out. Conroe does not give you huge gaming benefits as has been hyped by Intel and their cronies for months now.
That is my story and if you don't like it, then I suggest you move along to somewhere that better suits your own agenda.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,772
thedude42 said:I like it
I think it would be a fair assumption that if AMD were to have embarked on a similar marketing campaign prior to the release of one of their their products, the shoe would be on the other foot and the AMD people would be up in arms over the [H] perspective, while the Intel camp would be defending the [H] perspective.
Happens all the time. Somebody is loving us and somebody is hating us. That said, Intel actually had kind words for us today for sticking to our "real world" guns. They are fans of the testing method. I am sure ATI and NVIDIA are lovign all this today. They don't get too many folks saying flat out, "Make your next upgrade a video card instead of a new Conroe CPU if you arlready have a decent processor."
/dev/null
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2001
- Messages
- 15,182
mrjminer said:
Uh, you missed my post entirely if you think those 5 points you listed are the only reasons to like the review.
mi1stormilst
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2001
- Messages
- 1,393
Hey guys love them or hate them you have to admit they keep us thinking. One of my favorite things to do on new product releases is run around and read reviews everywhere else and get all excited like JOJO THE IDIOT CIRCUS BOY. Then before I start reaching into my pocket to grab the CC I hit the [H] ... How many times the [H] has saved me from spending money I would have hated myself for later. Thanks once again guys...I am just gonna wait.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,772
mi1stormilst said:
That is about the funniest thing I have heard all day. Glad we could help you out.
I'm honestly enjoying the outcry over the fact that someone's testing at what settings most people actually play games at rather than skewing the results using lower resolutions to make gaps in performance more profound.
Here's how I see it: I (and I think the majority of most hardcore PC users) upgrade my rig around once a year. Hence, I really don't give a rat's ass about whether Conroe is "future proof" or not, since there WILL be something more awesome a year down the road. It's also not useful to me to simulate this gap using older games at low resolutions and settings. It's more useful to ME to see what my favorite games will play like at resolutions and quality settings I play at. As such, the review succeeded in telling me what I would need to know if I were shopping for a new processor: how the processor would perform in real-world tests, rather than "making the games look like shit to make performance gaps look larger."
I am, however, interested why you chose this review to change your reviewing processes. Is an old style processor review (like this http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTA2NSwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0 ) imminent for Conroe when it hits the streets, or can we expect more processor articles of this nature in the future?
I didn't read through the whole thread (I can only take so much of forum bullshit at one time) so if you addressed that prior to my post, please direct me to that post.
Edit: And to the people who have negative opinions of Hard's new processor review system for gaming, what do you think is the true indication of Conroe gaming performance?
Here's how I see it: I (and I think the majority of most hardcore PC users) upgrade my rig around once a year. Hence, I really don't give a rat's ass about whether Conroe is "future proof" or not, since there WILL be something more awesome a year down the road. It's also not useful to me to simulate this gap using older games at low resolutions and settings. It's more useful to ME to see what my favorite games will play like at resolutions and quality settings I play at. As such, the review succeeded in telling me what I would need to know if I were shopping for a new processor: how the processor would perform in real-world tests, rather than "making the games look like shit to make performance gaps look larger."
I am, however, interested why you chose this review to change your reviewing processes. Is an old style processor review (like this http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTA2NSwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0 ) imminent for Conroe when it hits the streets, or can we expect more processor articles of this nature in the future?
I didn't read through the whole thread (I can only take so much of forum bullshit at one time) so if you addressed that prior to my post, please direct me to that post.
Edit: And to the people who have negative opinions of Hard's new processor review system for gaming, what do you think is the true indication of Conroe gaming performance?
Robstar said:
Or perhaps you missed mine.
ME said:
Let me know if you find any other inconsistencies in my post or if you, or any one for that matter, feels like addressing the statements made within the Conroe review that I pointed out. Just be sure to read it first
By the way, the point you mentioned, about having an older system and upgrading, is valid and is usually covered within point one/two/fivefive, but it is not a complete categorization; it would not be plausible to cover all of the bases when simply making a list of subjective possibilities. That's why I put the disclaimer there
Anyways, the end paragraph I write mentions ignorance--and I probably should have included that in my categories. Here's one to add to the list:
6. Choosing to remain ignorant about Conroe's true gaming ability in comparison to current AMD processors.
(note: "choosing" includes both people who know the true gaming ability of Conroe, but ignore or disregard it, and those who do not, as the information is readily available for those wishing to not be ignorant)
Hasn't this always been the case? You take at the time a P4 Prescott up against an A64 at gaming resolutions and aren't they basically the same? I don't see any ground breaking evidence, other than what I already concluded to myself many moons ago. Take the CPU out of the equation enough and they are going to perform pretty much the same. I am not saying you take a PII vs a FX-62 they are the same, comperable processors yes.
thecoldanddarkone
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2005
- Messages
- 345
Neither did amd processor and their cronies, and yet I can't count how many times I heard don't get a pentium d it sucks at games.
JetUsafMech
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2001
- Messages
- 724
dad11345 said:
You mean things like "I told you Intel's benchmarks were fake" when we have YET to see proof otherwise?
Good point!
JetUsafMech
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2001
- Messages
- 724
GForce64 said:
So let's write a 11 page article about it?? They made that point months ago with the CPU gaming/scaling article, didn't they?
JetUsafMech
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2001
- Messages
- 724
GForce64 said:
I'll play your silly game, who?
JetUsafMech said:
From the actual article in question:
"This article is specific to gaming, so if you are wondering about synthetic or video and music encoding and Core 2, we have covered that as well in a separate article . Be sure that HardOCP is supplying you with the definitive information you need in order to plan your next upgrade when it comes to investing in a system to play games on."
I agree with those saying this is a GPU review, and not a CPU review. Many would have liked to have seen crossfire results to better show the difference in cpu performance. However, when [H]ardOCP does this the results will likely be the same. Want to know why? Because their testing methodology is to crank up the display resolution and game setting as high as possible until they get minimum framerates that are barely tolerable, like in the 30's. A crossfire version of this review would likely be done at 1920x1200 or 2560x1600...and guess what...the GPU will still probably end up being the limiting factor...it's intrinsic to the testing methodology.
Added a few more comments (yes I read the whole review):
I like the way [H] does video card reviews..they offer a real gaming perspective different from other sites..I like having access to both styles of review. In this case, however, I thought the gaming review for the Conroe introduction was a bit lame...I think most people know that if you currently game at higher resolutions and quality settings that the GPU is the limiting factor if the rest of the system is reasonably decent. No need for a big article to conclude that. As other people have said, most of us want to know the raw "horsepower" comparisons of different processors. [H]'s other articles on Conroe, and other site's reviews pretty much show Conroe beating AMD by a substantial margin. AMD has been top dog for the last few years, now it's Intel's turn. Eventually it'll probably be AMD's turn again. If you're building a completely new system you'll likely want to go Intel this time around. Even overclocking the best AMD processors isn't going to match what can be done with Conroe. On the other hand, for your games today, you're likely limited by your GPU if the rest of your system is reasonably good...no surprise there. I'm continually upgrading my video card to get better performance, but I upgrade the rest of my system much less frequently.
Added a few more comments (yes I read the whole review):
I like the way [H] does video card reviews..they offer a real gaming perspective different from other sites..I like having access to both styles of review. In this case, however, I thought the gaming review for the Conroe introduction was a bit lame...I think most people know that if you currently game at higher resolutions and quality settings that the GPU is the limiting factor if the rest of the system is reasonably decent. No need for a big article to conclude that. As other people have said, most of us want to know the raw "horsepower" comparisons of different processors. [H]'s other articles on Conroe, and other site's reviews pretty much show Conroe beating AMD by a substantial margin. AMD has been top dog for the last few years, now it's Intel's turn. Eventually it'll probably be AMD's turn again. If you're building a completely new system you'll likely want to go Intel this time around. Even overclocking the best AMD processors isn't going to match what can be done with Conroe. On the other hand, for your games today, you're likely limited by your GPU if the rest of your system is reasonably good...no surprise there. I'm continually upgrading my video card to get better performance, but I upgrade the rest of my system much less frequently.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
dekard said:
You are welcome, I pulled a couple of sleepless nights getting all this done
It was fun though, I do enjoy gaming, and wow can these high-end platforms push games nice and fast.Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
savantu said:
Timedemos do not play back gameplay physics and AI, two very important components for determining gameplay performance.
JetUsafMech
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2001
- Messages
- 724
Brent_Justice said:
"These tests arent designed to tell you how fast these CPUs are at running these games, but rather how quickly they can run through the physics and AI code when not waiting on the graphics card at all."
From: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=17
So.......what am I missing here?
bmg said:
Did you READ the article? If yes, are you just saying this to get people to start arguing? Because if you are, that's pretty smart! Alot of people who are ready to defend AMD's superiority (perceived or otherwise) haven't read the article either and will jump all over a statement like that.
But you're right, the conclusion of this piece is definitely that no microarchitecture platform available today will increase your gaming experience as much as a graphics upgrade. [H] has always been critical on marketing claims concerning gaming performance, an example given at the [H]ardware forum at QuakeCon 2004 (I mention that as an example because I was there) where Kyle asks the audience why they want a 512MB video card, and there was almost absolute silence, except for the "so we can watch pr0n at higher resolutions" comment. The point there was that with all the marketing hype, what are you really getting? That's what this article addresses.
Okay, I think I see what the problem is. Now I see why everyone is complaining.
The article does what it was meant to do: show the real-world performance of Conroe at real-world resolutions with today's games. However, just because the results turned out to be equal with those (GPU-limited, as you said) games, the article seems to imply that Conroe is no better than AMD's processors, and after the price cuts, you'll be able to match Conroe's performance for much cheaper, so there's no reason to get a Conroe.
This is obviously not the case.
As I said before, I think it's great that you decided to try a different approach than other review sites. However, that does not mean that other website's benchmarks are bogus, and AMD is still better than Intel "with a little overclocking" (Conroe overclocks too). It simply means that today's games are too GPU-limited with a single video car to benefit from an upgrade to Conroe.
Now, you guys do have the other article, which clearly shows Conroe's advantages when it comes to raw processing power. But the gaming article hardly mentions this. Someone could get a completely different view of Conroe depending on which article he reads.
Bottom line: as I said before, there are two things to any CPU review: raw power, and real-world performance. You guys have done a great job as the only ones to test the real-world performance. The problem, however, is that the article seems to imply that it is measuring raw power, when it is indeed only measuring real-world performance. It claims that, because there is no difference in GPU-bound games, Conroe has no more power than AMD. That's just not true. Whether you meant for it to or not, that's what many people are interpreting your atricle as.
My suggestion: fix the article so that it plainly states that it is a measure of real-world performance in today's games, not a benchmark of raw power. Mention that the differences might be greater when using a Crossfire/SLI setup. Remove that line about overclocking (as I said, Conroe can be overclocked too). Mention that users looking for raw-power benchmarks can find them at other sites, and explain why you didn't do them (because everyone else already did, and you wanted to try something different). Also, change the conclusion from "Conroe is no better than AMD for gamers" to "although Conroe does have more raw processing power than AMD, because we've shown that most games today are more GPU-bound, the performance gain you'd see when upgrading to Conroe is not what you may expect, at least with a single video card."
That way, everyone is pleased. You did a great job on the review, you just need to be a little more clear on what type of review it is (raw power vs real-world performance).
Don't change the way you do video card reviews though. I don't think you can beat that.
The article does what it was meant to do: show the real-world performance of Conroe at real-world resolutions with today's games. However, just because the results turned out to be equal with those (GPU-limited, as you said) games, the article seems to imply that Conroe is no better than AMD's processors, and after the price cuts, you'll be able to match Conroe's performance for much cheaper, so there's no reason to get a Conroe.
This is obviously not the case.
As I said before, I think it's great that you decided to try a different approach than other review sites. However, that does not mean that other website's benchmarks are bogus, and AMD is still better than Intel "with a little overclocking" (Conroe overclocks too). It simply means that today's games are too GPU-limited with a single video car to benefit from an upgrade to Conroe.
Now, you guys do have the other article, which clearly shows Conroe's advantages when it comes to raw processing power. But the gaming article hardly mentions this. Someone could get a completely different view of Conroe depending on which article he reads.
Bottom line: as I said before, there are two things to any CPU review: raw power, and real-world performance. You guys have done a great job as the only ones to test the real-world performance. The problem, however, is that the article seems to imply that it is measuring raw power, when it is indeed only measuring real-world performance. It claims that, because there is no difference in GPU-bound games, Conroe has no more power than AMD. That's just not true. Whether you meant for it to or not, that's what many people are interpreting your atricle as.
My suggestion: fix the article so that it plainly states that it is a measure of real-world performance in today's games, not a benchmark of raw power. Mention that the differences might be greater when using a Crossfire/SLI setup. Remove that line about overclocking (as I said, Conroe can be overclocked too). Mention that users looking for raw-power benchmarks can find them at other sites, and explain why you didn't do them (because everyone else already did, and you wanted to try something different). Also, change the conclusion from "Conroe is no better than AMD for gamers" to "although Conroe does have more raw processing power than AMD, because we've shown that most games today are more GPU-bound, the performance gain you'd see when upgrading to Conroe is not what you may expect, at least with a single video card."
That way, everyone is pleased. You did a great job on the review, you just need to be a little more clear on what type of review it is (raw power vs real-world performance).
Don't change the way you do video card reviews though. I don't think you can beat that.
Manchester
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7
well said.
Mr. Miyagi said:
There's BIAS in that statement as well. Some reviewers complained about AMD not wanting Conroe compared to AM2. DO I need to dig Quote's?
IMHO, it would have caused much less of a Brew-Haha and maybe not 600 posts had the conclusion at the end of the Game review had been different. Wait for AMD Price Cuts????
Is FX-62 worth more than E6600? I already asked will AMD price match? I don't think so. FX-62 will still cost too frackin' much hehehe! Why wait to find that out? SO the secrete weapon is price cuts? Oh boy the folks buying AM2 must feel AMD really loves them now
The whole realworld game portion of the review could be seen by many as a waste. They could have said, "We're skipping Game benchmarks since they're bound by the GPU." Yet, there are many posts out the 600 where several posters, say they weren't graphics limited as if the processor was the reason for the close scores. Then when folks argue, examples are given for something unrelated, oh well.
Erum guys, AMD got whacked worse than when X2 launched and Whacked Prescott. The beat goes on. With luck AMD will return the favor and folks don't have to make excuses for AMD. My last post on this thread.
HOCP4ME said:
One of the best posts so far. Like I said before the review was not bad. I just pretty much ignored the video game section. How can you test the top of the line CPU without running the best video card setup??? I will come to my own conclusion as soon as I get home.
HOCP4ME said:
Go back and look at my post. I might have to post this again:
From the article:
"This article is specific to gaming, so if you are wondering about synthetic or video and music encoding and Core 2, we have covered that as well in a separate article. Be sure that HardOCP is supplying you with the definitive information you need in order to plan your next upgrade when it comes to investing in a system to play games on."
Is thart plain enough for you?
I personally do not find the gaming performance review to be interesting, but I feel it has a valid point. Basically, if you already have a nice video card and you are all about playing games, then don't freak out and worry about upgrading. However, I also don't feel it is fair to dismiss the other CPU reviews out there. I personally find the raw compute performance of these chips to be very interesting.
HOCP4ME said:
Best post so far. No one has a problem with the way the review was done and saying that conroe provides no benefit in today's games with today's gpus. The problem is the statements of wait for amd price cuts and a little overclocking will match conroe. These statements imply that conroe and amd are equal and that if a person was coming from an older generation processor and bought either of these processors today, they would see no difference between the two today or 2 years from now. It implies that they are equal processors so it's not a great leap for someone to conclude that since they are equal today, they will be equal with each other 2 years from now or 5 years from now. It's no different than someone saying a P4 3.2ghz and a P4 3.0 ghz are about equal processors and this will remain a constant fact no matter how much time passes. The conclusion of the article implies the conroe and amd processors are also equal and that this is a constant that won't change over time either.
RedStarSQD
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2005
- Messages
- 305
well this quote sums it up
"still got the messae across that I was looking to get out. Conroe does not give you huge gaming benefits as has been hyped by Intel and their cronies for months now."
Intel cronies is it!? ...Clearly, the agenda is [H]'s
Congrats you have had me fooled all this time as i thought this was an objective site.
I guess you are no different than the register.
"still got the messae across that I was looking to get out. Conroe does not give you huge gaming benefits as has been hyped by Intel and their cronies for months now."
Intel cronies is it!? ...Clearly, the agenda is [H]'s
Congrats you have had me fooled all this time as i thought this was an objective site.
I guess you are no different than the register.
I'm going to offer my thoughts on the article so that they can either be noted or ignored.
The article succeeds in demonstrating the real-world performance of various CPUs in games today. As mentioned at the beginning of the article, that was its purpose.
For people such as myself, GPU bottlenecking is not new or interesting information. When I purchase a new CPU one of my primary concerns is how it will perform in the future when coupled with unreleased video cards. Obviously this requires tests where the GPU isn't limiting performance (be it SLI or lower resolutions, etc.). These sorts of tests aren't definitive, as no one can predict the future, but they are a good indicator.
I know many (if not all) other sites have done testing in this manner, but I think it would be a valuable addition to H if they focused a little more on these sorts of tests. I say this because despite my disagreement with the usefulness of the particular tests run, I do have a very high level of trust in their accuracy (compared to other sources).
That should be taken as a compliment.
The article succeeds in demonstrating the real-world performance of various CPUs in games today. As mentioned at the beginning of the article, that was its purpose.
For people such as myself, GPU bottlenecking is not new or interesting information. When I purchase a new CPU one of my primary concerns is how it will perform in the future when coupled with unreleased video cards. Obviously this requires tests where the GPU isn't limiting performance (be it SLI or lower resolutions, etc.). These sorts of tests aren't definitive, as no one can predict the future, but they are a good indicator.
I know many (if not all) other sites have done testing in this manner, but I think it would be a valuable addition to H if they focused a little more on these sorts of tests. I say this because despite my disagreement with the usefulness of the particular tests run, I do have a very high level of trust in their accuracy (compared to other sources).
That should be taken as a compliment.
jimmyb said:
Noted
Honestly, most people aren't reading all the threads and all of the [H] staff's responses. If they were, they would have seen that, in fact, the Conroe reviews are not complete, and that more in depth reviews are scheduled for the actual release date. Also, there is the fact that Intel gave in to pressure to release testing reviews early (yesterday) and that is the reason these articles look so incomplete, because they are.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
HOCP4ME said:
That is EXACTLY the point, you hit the NAIL ON THE HEAD.
Depending on what your needs are, CPUs differ for those needs. If you want to game, read our gameplay evaluation to see which CPU is best for that. If you though are trying to make a decision based on using other apps, then read our other articles. It all depends on what YOU need the CPUs to do for you.
thedude42 said:Noted
Honestly, most people aren't reading all the threads and all of the [H] staff's responses. If they were, they would have seen that, in fact, the Conroe reviews are not complete, and that more in depth reviews are scheduled for the actual release date. Also, there is the fact that Intel gave in to pressure to release testing reviews early (yesterday) and that is the reason these articles look so incomplete, because they are.
Then why come out with a incomlpete review???? I remember when [H] came out with some reviews late a while back. And their excuse was. " Its out when its done!!" which a lot of us admired. The reviews rocked...even though they were late, but they were very thorough and thats what counted. Its not like the 975X boards with Conroe support where not out yet.....Im sure [H] could of got their hands on them if they really wanted to be thourough or if they really cared to.
Even though 965X was developed for Conroe in mind, its a lesser chipset IMO compared to the 975X.
Anyone buying the X6800 or the E6700 will be buying the 975X board. They may not be running dual GPU yet , but they will have that option and a lot of them will go that route.
Why buy a $500 or $1000 CPU if you will not try to compliment it with the very best the video department has to offer???
fixed that for you.mrjminer said:
On another note: why are people hotlinking images on Anad's site? I was under the impression that this was against the [H]'s rules?hardware AMD intel dell ATi nvidia asus seagate samsung xeon compaq serial ata sata ram
thedude42 said:
Okay, that said "this article is specific to gaming". What the article should say, however, is "toady's games are GPU-bound, which means a better processor isn't going to get you better framerates. This could change with future GPUs, however, or a more powerful GPU setup (i.e. Crossfire/SLI).". What is does seem to say is "since toady's games show no difference in framerates, buying Conroe would be a waste of money for a gamer, as AMD is just as powerful".
Yes, I do agree with that. It was a good idea to write seperate articles.
There are just a few statments in that review that are obviously biased and should be removed. First is the statment that a little AMD overclocking will clear up the slight performance difference. You say that like Conroe can't overclock. It has been shown that it can, perhaps even more than AMD. Second is the statment that AMD's huge price cuts will make their processors a much better deal for gamers. Well, AMD processors may be cheaper, but the price/performance still won't be better than Conroe, especially if you consider the extra power available for future games that may utillize it. Finally, don't say that the other reviews are lies. They just test more raw power and less real-world performance. Instead, explain the difference between their testing methods and yours and tell why the results are different.
The rest of the review is great and very well-written.