Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance

I'm not gonna slam the review, it served a purpose, although I do believe it could have been a bit more thorough. It would have been much better without the part about other sites reviews being hype or biased. Obviously the other reviews serve a purpose just like this one does, otherwise we wouldnt have 30+ pages of ranting about it.
 
nigerian_businessman said:
I'm not gonna slam the review, it served a purpose, although I do believe it could have been a bit more thorough. It would have been much better without the part about other sites reviews being hype or biased. Obviously the other reviews serve a purpose just like this one does, otherwise we wouldnt have 30+ pages of ranting about it.
Click to expand...

We're ranting about the major flaws in this. I'm not quite happy about the conclusion either. Sure, I'm an Intel Fan-b-o-y but so? We are linking graphs from Anandtech becuase there it shows that the Conroe does have more than a 4% or 2 FPS gain or loss against an FX-62, it has a larger gain than that. About 20-50% raw power (yes, low resolutions for more CPU utilization) between the X6800 and the FX-62. In the conclusion, the author suggested to buy AMD processors based on the information he had. But if he was to say to buy current X2s as they can compete in these resolutions with the same specs as his test systems, he should have also included any of the 9 series Pentium Ds. At the resolutions he ran, a PD950 should be sufficient. Last I saw was 160 - 260 USD after the next price drop. Mind you, my friend got his PD950 to 5.0Ghz stable on his 955X board. But there was no mention of that, just a recommendation to go buy an AMD processor. Intel is dropping prices again too.
 
If H is saying SLI is some kind of non-real world, niche product, dont they need to stop pimping SLI/Crossfire GPU reviews as a HUGE part of their site/GPU reviews?

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...


I think H is massively misconstruing his audience. This forum is full of people who angle for every last bit of performance and seem to have money to burn. The amount of SLI rigs among posters here is ridiculous. So yes, a ton of people from these forums are going to rush out and buy Conroe's, we know that. They rush out and buy whatever is fastest.

Is the "average" gamer? No. But that doesn't seem to be the [H] demographic, now does it.

I peruse this forum and B3D regularly for example, there is a big difference to me in the demographic, B3D is extremely technical guys who really know the tech, but dont care what they're running, Hardocp is like a bunch of guys who apply the tech, and just want the biggest fastest rig. The whole site is founded on that sort of machismo right up to the owner. It sounds like I'm being negative against Hardocp but I'm not at all. Just saying they are different.

Hard is like the enthusiant slant, but all focused on the hardware, Anand might be more general and mainstream but less hardcore, etc.

All I'm saying is Conroe is pretty much right up the Hard demographic alley.
 
StealthyFish said:
We're ranting about the major flaws in this. I'm not quite happy about the conclusion either. Sure, I'm an Intel Fan-b-o-y but so? We are linking graphs from Anandtech becuase there it shows that the Conroe does have more than a 4% or 2 FPS gain or loss against an FX-62, it has a larger gain than that. About 20-50% raw power (yes, low resolutions for more CPU utilization) between the X6800 and the FX-62. In the conclusion, the author suggested to buy AMD processors based on the information he had. But if he was to say to buy current X2s as they can compete in these resolutions with the same specs as his test systems, he should have also included any of the 9 series Pentium Ds. At the resolutions he ran, a PD950 should be sufficient. Last I saw was 160 - 260 USD after the next price drop. Mind you, my friend got his PD950 to 5.0Ghz stable on his 955X board. But there was no mention of that, just a recommendation to go buy an AMD processor. Intel is dropping prices again too.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you. I definately concur that the article could have been more thorough. I don't know any 'real world' gamers who have FX62s. In the 'real world', most people don't spend $1000 on a processor.

In fact, most 'real world' gamers I know are still using stuff from 2 years ago, because it still works when you turn the eye-candy down. Most 'real world' gamers I know aren't on a 6 month upgrade schedule, because they have other 'real world' obligations that their money is better spent on.

However, the article did show a real world gaming scenario in the sense that I don't know anyone who plays games at 800x600 unless they have to. I just wish it had been a bit more thorough. However, Kyle is right in saying that theres plenty of those benchmarks floating all over the web if thats your cup of tea.

It definately would have been nice to see some presler and prescott action as well as some single core A64 thrown in for good measure. It definately would have been more of a real-world comparison, anyway.
 
Brent_Justice 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.
Click to expand...

And you guys totally missed the head when you wrote that Gaming review.
What about people who run Xfire and SLi... That community is growing.

Answer this.... How in the world would I know which CPU is best for gaming when it's being held back? Example.

I look at your review...yada yada yada... I'm thinking of an SLi or Xfire setup and I take a glance at your review and I end up with the FX-62 or something....
Next day my buddy shows up with his E6700 that he paid 1/2 price for and same SLi and Xfire setup and totally blows me out of the water.... IM shocked.

Not only that... but you got all these Noobs thinking Conroe is no better at gaming than AMD when you damn well know it is.

No point in Justifying your flawed review. Do us ALL A FAVOR and run a second, unbiased test using a Xfire setup and same In-Game settings...

Thanks and i'll be waiting for the second review.
 
n19htmare said:
And you guys totally missed the head when you wrote that Gaming review.
What about people who run Xfire and SLi... That community is growing.

Answer this.... How in the world would I know which CPU is best for gaming when it's being held back? Example.

I look at your review...yada yada yada... I'm thinking of an SLi or Xfire setup and I take a glance at your review and I end up with the FX-62 or something....
Next day my buddy shows up with his E6700 that he paid 1/2 price for and same SLi and Xfire setup and totally blows me out of the water.... IM shocked.

Not only that... but you got all these Noobs thinking Conroe is no better at gaming than AMD when you damn well know it is.

No point in Justifying your flawed review. Do us ALL A FAVOR and run a second, unbiased test using a Xfire setup and same In-Game settings...

Thanks and i'll be waiting for the second review.
Click to expand...

i agree, but lets see Aegia PhysX revisited as well now that the CPU can handle things easier
 
n19htmare said:
And you guys totally missed the head when you wrote that Gaming review.
What about people who run Xfire and SLi... That community is growing.

Answer this.... How in the world would I know which CPU is best for gaming when it's being held back? Example.
Click to expand...

Considering that there are no SLI boards for Conroe at this point and the authors did try to run a 7950GX2 and failed (we can slam them for that), I don't see what your point is. I am sure that once there are SLI board, there will be an updated/ new review, but I was under the impression that the HardOCP generally only review stuff that you can buy. Earlier today the top-of-the-line Conroe was in stock at newegg.hardware AMD intel dell ATi nvidia asus seagate samsung xeon compaq serial ata sata ram
 
n19htmare said:
And you guys totally missed the head when you wrote that Gaming review.
What about people who run Xfire and SLi... That community is growing.

Answer this.... How in the world would I know which CPU is best for gaming when it's being held back? Example.

I look at your review...yada yada yada... I'm thinking of an SLi or Xfire setup and I take a glance at your review and I end up with the FX-62 or something....
Next day my buddy shows up with his E6700 that he paid 1/2 price for and same SLi and Xfire setup and totally blows me out of the water.... IM shocked.

Not only that... but you got all these Noobs thinking Conroe is no better at gaming than AMD when you damn well know it is.

No point in Justifying your flawed review. Do us ALL A FAVOR and run a second, unbiased test using a Xfire setup and same In-Game settings...

Thanks and i'll be waiting for the second review.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed where we stated that we tried 7950 GX2 at first and it did not work properly.
 
drizzt81 said:
Considering that there are no SLI boards for Conroe at this point and the authors did try to run a 7950GX2 and failed (we can slam them for that), I don't see what your point is. I am sure that once there are SLI board, there will be an updated/ new review, but I was under the impression that the HardOCP generally only review stuff that you can buy. Earlier today the top-of-the-line Conroe was in stock at newegg.hardware AMD intel dell ATi nvidia asus seagate samsung xeon compaq serial ata sata ram
Click to expand...

lol, what was with the line of invis words at the end of your post? a bunch of companies listed, ahha. Anyway, well, if we're all serious gamers and we all know that our bottleneck is graphic cards, and we all had the money to buy an FX-62 or X6800, I think we've got enough money to buy a 7950GX2 or dual X1900s. =)
 
Brent_Justice said:
Perhaps you missed where we stated that we tried 7950 GX2 at first and it did not work properly.
Click to expand...

The 7950 GX2 works fine on the Gigabyte 965 and Asus 975X boards. Anyway to test those quickly? While understanding the whole test routines at 1600x1200 Max, it was hard to understand the comments about real world performance. Around 73% of the market is on 19" screens or under, if you are testing real world game performance then the resolutions should at least match the majority of the displays in current use before going up the resolution ladder. Also, what is the margin of error on the FRAPs playback? Most playbacks tend to be around 5~7% and any reason why CPU bound games (RTS and Sims as an example, the ones that actually make up the majority of PC game sales) were not used in your testing?
 
Brent_Justice said:
Perhaps you missed where we stated that we tried 7950 GX2 at first and it did not work properly.
Click to expand...

Why did you even bother hooking up a 7900GTX?
All you had to do was dig up a 6600 PCI-E and you would have come to the SAME CONCLUSION...... Get my drift?

If you can't run SLI...run Xfire...only reason i said SLi was because i've seen Conroe SLi setups (hacked bios maybe but that would put it out of "stock" catagory)... you could have done Xfire (both Conroe and AMD have Xfire systems available). you KNEW that you would be GPU limited than why did you even bother posting the review.

The only thing your review shows is that the GPU just can't hang with the CPUs and that's already well known.

I ask again, when are we going to see Xfire reviews? obviously you have well extablished basses with manufacturers, I know you can piece it together.
 
This would be a good review if I were trying to decide on which CPU I want to lease for a month. But lets see here I don't plan on swapping out my CPU as often as my video card so showing a bunch of benchmarks bottlenecked by the GPU is lame.

Spending 1000$ on a CPU I would hope it would max out my video card but it would be nice to have an idea of how much more it can do and get an idea of which is going to be more worthwhile over the next year or maybe longer until it's time to upgrade.
 
This is like putting a 40 MPH speed limiter on a Civic and a Corvette and coming to the conclusion that there is no "gain" in going from a civic to a corvette when it comes to Top Speed. for crying out loud, give us all a break.
 
"you KNEW that you would be GPU limited than why did you even bother posting the review."

[h] already answered this:

~--

"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."

~--

*waves AMD flag*
 
RedStarSQD said:
"you KNEW that you would be GPU limited than why did you even bother posting the review."

[h] already answered this:

~--

"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."

~--

*waves AMD flag*
Click to expand...

lol


anyways

"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."
Click to expand...

ok so mister know it all... can you please tell me what video cards were being used in their setup to create this so called hype? They better be using a damn 7900GTX.
 
n19htmare said:
lol


anyways



ok so mister know it all... can you please tell me what video cards were being used in their setup to create this so called hype? They better be using a damn 7900GTX.
Click to expand...

Read the damn article, they were using a 7900GTX.

Why the hell are you even posting in this thread without having read the article?
 
One questions

article said:
The only game that we saw any real-world difference in was Oblivion, and even that was tiny. A little overclocking would clear that difference up.
Click to expand...

Why is this sentance even in here? People who are reading this article know absolutly nothing about how the C2D overclocks. Nothing. Why even mention what performance differences are with overclocking when you don't even try to overclock one of the contenders?
 
nobi125 said:
Read the damn article, they were using a 7900GTX.
Click to expand...

Umm did you even read the quote and my response?

I was responding to that quote by the [H] reviewer... how can he say Intel Hyped something up when HE HIMSELF crippled the system to prove everyone wrong.

He's (by he i mean [H] reviewer) talking about how Intel hyped everything up and i'm asking him... does he know which cards Intel and their Cronies used?.... if he is going to make that statement.. intel better have used a 7900GTX.

Why the hell are you even posting in this thread without having read the article?
Click to expand...

Do not accuse me. You didn't even understand what I was saying. DId you bother to read the WHOLE post i made?
 
really, the bottom line is if you have a nice a64 rig with a high end graphics card, it probably isnt the wisest to jump ship CURRENTLY and go to conroe. how many fps is that gonna give you for the cost?

nobody is debating the fact that conroe is not faster, it has been proven time and time again that conroe is the fastest proc currerntly.

it was not a processor review, some of you ppl have issues.
 
this whole thread and site and review is lame

i think the whole point of this so called "cpu review" was to be inflammatory, this review has spawned a countless number of threads throughout the internet. I can't even fathom how much cash you have made off this one review.

this is disgusting, with your business model you make cash off of stirring the pot instead of delivering real empirical data. You light the fires under the ATI vs NVIDIA & AMD VS INTEL arguments. Hardocp is the rush limbaugh, the michael moore of this culture.

congrats on not having any substance kyle & co
 
Here's an idea for a followup - show which CPU is the most "future proof" by simulating a video card upgrade that a user may do in the future. Rig up some high-end SLI action and retest a handful of the games (same settings). That would be fairly close to a next-gen video card upgrade on each platform.

I don't know about other people, but I go through at least 2 video cards per CPU, so that's always on my mind whenever I build a new system.
 
D4hPr0 said:
Then why come out with a incomlpete review????
Click to expand...

Because there's ALWAYS a deadline, and competition in the media is to get the most accurate story out the door as soon as possible.

Would you rather they do right or not do it at all? If [H] hadn't posted anything about this ont he day it dominated hardware review sites, this forum would be full of "Wehre's [H]'s coverage? Why did they drop the ball? blah blah"

I mean, there are PLENTY of other "complete" reviews out there right now. [H] isn't trying to please everyone, period.
 
Hmm..I wonder what happened to this....


http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=Nzg3LDQsLGhuZXdz
"As usual, we use low-resolution benchmarks to take the video card as far out of the equation as possible. Do not think that the below benchmarks represent a true gaming experience. Today's games are terribly dependent on video cards for their performance, but that does not mean that your CPU still does not play a growing role in your gaming, especially as newer games arrive."
Click to expand...

Oh..seems like it's still here lol...


;)
 
Jason711 said:
yes, cry babies unite.
:D
Click to expand...

w00t!

i wish Kyle would put up the OC benches of the Conroes soon.
I think that would shut a lot of these cry babies up.



:rolleyes:
........ who am i kidding!?
 
1119532395EBwmSnavBu_4_2.gif



lol..wow that FX57 sure is a beast..........

:p
 
I guess what bothers me about these benchmarks is that a 200mhz+ clock difference in Conroe itself didn't make a lick of difference in the final benchmarks. Even if we somehow accept that every single benchmark was GPU limited, even in the Apples-to-Apples comparisons, we should have seen some difference. Is the Front Side Bus design just holding Conroe back that much?
 
Saist said:
I guess what bothers me about these benchmarks is that a 200mhz+ clock difference in Conroe itself didn't make a lick of difference in the final benchmarks. Even if we somehow accept that every single benchmark was GPU limited, even in the Apples-to-Apples comparisons, we should have seen some difference. Is the Front Side Bus design just holding Conroe back that much?
Click to expand...
That's the point we are trying to convey, when your GPU limited the only differences you will see are within the typical margin or error +/- 1 or 2 FPS.
 
n19htmare said:
Ofcourse that doesn't apply when it comes to benching Intel chips :(

Can I ask why this review didn't take the VIdeo card as far out of the equation as possible?

Anyone... anyone at all?
Click to expand...
The reasoning they provided was that the 7950GX2 didnt function correctly in the P965 motherboard they utilized plus they couldn't aquire a 975X motherboard in time.
 
coldpower27 said:
The reasoning they provided was that the 7950GX2 didnt function correctly in the P965 motherboard they utilized plus they couldn't aquire a 975X motherboard in time.
Click to expand...

HUH? that has nothing to do with it.... they just have to turn down the resolution WAY LOW like they did for the AMD tests... It has nothing to do with a "better" card... but their settings...


It's lame when they try to test an AMD chip with NO GPU bottlenecks and then when it's Intel's turn they add the GPU bottle neck to make everything look all pretty for AMD.
 
n19htmare said:
HUH? that has nothing to do with it.... they just have to turn down the resolution WAY LOW like they did for the AMD tests... It has nothing to do with a "better" card... but their settings...


It's lame when they try to test an AMD chip with NO GPU bottlenecks and then when it's Intel's turn they add the GPU bottle neck to make everything look all pretty for AMD.
Click to expand...
Oops, my bad I thought I was answering why they didn't use a more powerful GPU sub system, so the bottleneck was alleviated.

Well it has been said several times in this thread this apparently, supposed to be representitive of what kinda "real world" gaming experience. You would never play at 800x600 no AA or AF with a 7900 GTX would you. I am just reporting what has been said.
 
coldpower27 said:
Oops, my bad I thought I was answering why they didn't use a more powerful GPU sub system, so the bottleneck was alleviated.

Well it has been said several times in this thread this apparently, supposed to be representitive of what kinda "real world" gaming performance. You would never play at 800x600 no A or AF with a 7900 GTX would you. I am jsut reporting what has been said.
Click to expand...

like many of you guys have said, if you've got the money for an FX-62 or X6800, you've got enough money for a 975 board and dual graphic cards or a single 7950GX2. the i965 may not have ran the 7950GX2 right, but you've got 2 high end 1000 dollar processors, and you've got a 7950GX2, why not go out and get a 975 board that will run the 7950. There, an almost no bottlenecked review. All you need is the RAm, which you've already got. There. Was that hard Kyle?
 
StealthyFish said:
like many of you guys have said, if you've got the money for an FX-62 or X6800, you've got enough money for a 975 board and dual graphic cards or a single 7950GX2. the i965 may not have ran the 7950GX2 right, but you've got 2 high end 1000 dollar processors, and you've got a 7950GX2, why not go out and get a 975 board that will run the 7950. There, an almost no bottlenecked review. All you need is the RAm, which you've already got. There. Was that hard Kyle?
Click to expand...
I agree completely, hence why their review hasn't provided me with much useful information. It's allright though there are so many Core 2 reviews, that I got the information i needed regardless of what information was provided here.
 
n19htmare said:
HUH? that has nothing to do with it.... they just have to turn down the resolution WAY LOW like they did for the AMD tests... It has nothing to do with a "better" card... but their settings...


It's lame when they try to test an AMD chip with NO GPU bottlenecks and then when it's Intel's turn they add the GPU bottle neck to make everything look all pretty for AMD.
Click to expand...

Um, which review did you read? Are you comparing their ACTUAL CPU REVIEW to the current REAL WORLD GAMING PERFORMANCE ONLY REVIEW? Is that what all this drivel is about?

I mean seriously, when you're out to review a single CPU you're going to look at the review one way, but when you have a specific agenda to review a particular aspect of one CPU versus another, you're going to do something completely different. Yes, [H] had an agenda: to show that the series of benchmarks used to hype Conroe is not indicative of real world gaming experience.

This quote from the article says it all:

"Having more CPU power is a very cool thing, but being able to utilize it is not an easy thing to do nowadays."
 
cupholder2.0 said:
Nice find destroyo. [H] has lost all their credibility now. Look at how [H] is quick to turn the resolution down for AMD to show the lead on the K8 system.

They use this argument to defend their reviews that used low resolutions. :

"As usual, we use low-resolution benchmarks to take the video card as far out of the equation as possible. Do not think that the below benchmarks represent a true gaming experience. Today's games are terribly dependent on video cards for their performance, but that does not mean that your CPU still does not play a growing role in your gaming, especially as newer games arrive. (Please check out our article on CPU scaling and your video card from last summer.) Your CPU still has many calculations to do in order to address such things as in-game world physics and AI, plus many other things. Our benchmarks below are designed to show you what CPU can give you the greatest power benefit when gaming although that may not always turn up in a frames per second graph of actual gameplay."



When they switched to a Conroe they suddenly contradicted themselves and stated:

"Let's just cut to the chase. You will see a lot of gaming benchmarks today that just simply lie to you. That is right, you will see frames per second numbers that are at best total BS, and at their worst a terrible representation of what difference a new Intel Core 2 processor will make in your gaming experience. The old ways of video game benchmarking do little to tell you about exactly how a new CPU will affect how you play your games or what experience your system supplies to you. Having more CPU power is a very cool thing, but being able to utilize it is not an easy thing to do nowadays.
"


It looks like [H] changes testing methods based on how they want to depict a product. As expected, AMD is portrayed as a miracle and is often congratulated for their “hard work”, but when Intel makes a revolutionary CPU, [H] talks about upcoming price cuts from AMD. Need I say more? Or is the bias clear enough for you to see.



Don’t forget what [H] said:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When core 2 launched:


"I would advise everyone that is thinking of rushing out and purchasing their latest upgrade that we are sure to see HUGE pricing slashes out of AMD before the end of the month."


When athlon 64 launched:


"The Athlon 64 3200+ and Athlon 64 FX 51 should be considered AMD engineering marvels. Kudos to the engineers at AMD for their hard work on the K8 core; they certainly deserve it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

read that. He's got a great point
 
Did this review do anything other than state the obvious? You might as well tested an AMD64 against a Pentium 4 D, you would have came to the same conclusion! Yet AMD64 rocks? It rocked 3 months ago and got an editors choice? It is bound by the very same GPU bottlenecks that we see on Conroe.

Intel says it rocks in gaming, and it does! In CPU bound scenarios, do you expect it to suddenly increase the fillrate on your GPU? Come on at least be logical. You do not need a Conroe CPU to come to the conclusion that current games are GPU bottlenecked at 1600x1200 4x/16x with a 7900GTX.

I also love how [H] completely contradicted all of their previous AMD reviews. I mean look at this!
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTA2NSw3LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

That is 3 months old! At the very least be fair!

So why benchmark a game in the most GPU bottlenecked situation? Do we test GPU's with 256MB of system ram? How about with testing a 7950GX2 with a Celeron CPU?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top