Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance

[nobody_here]

I'd bet it would be a close count. CRT's are only good for gaming at one thing...high refresh rates that give smoother gameplay.

LCD's are a close second in smoothness but when all advantages are considered...screw CRT's.

wow, how do you do your math?

CRT provides a better IQ, higher refresh, adjustable resolution, lower price etc....

the only advantages to LCD are size/weight (since when did this affect functionality?)

i have been gaming at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 for a very long time now and would nto have it any other way

 

[coldpower27]

wow, how do you do your math?

CRT provides a better IQ, higher refresh, adjustable resolution, lower price etc....

the only advantages to LCD are size/weight (since when did this affect functionality?)

Depends, a CRT also consumes more energy.

They also have the advantage of not needing a higher refresh then 85 HZ to ensure that you don't get a headache.

And you can adjust resolutions on a LCD, it's the issue of the image quality of interpolated resolutions. I have tried my LCD at 10x7 vs it's native 12x10, and it's isn't bad.

 

[nobody_here]

Depends, a CRT also consumes more energy.

They also have the advantage of not needing a higher refresh then 85 HZ to ensure that you don't get a headache.

And you can adjust resolutions on a LCD, it's the issue of the image quality of interpolated resolutions. I have tried my LCD at 10x7 vs it's native 12x10, and it's isn't bad.

okay, true, but i am gonna go out on a limb here and say that 99.9% of users here(enthusiasts everywhere) care about 10% or less about size and power consumption and care mostly about performance, something LCD's don't deliver when compared to CRT's

give me a large/heavy power hog that delivers IQ, resolution flexibility, high refresh rates, etc....anyday for half the cost or less

as far as headaches, i have always used a CRT for years and have never experienced eyestrain or headaches.....

 

[coldpower27]

okay, true, but i am gonna go out on a limb here and say that 99.9% of users here(enthusiasts everywhere) care about 10% or less about size and power consumption and care mostly about performance, something LCD's don't deliver when compared to CRT's

give me a large/heavy power hog that delivers IQ, resolution flexibility, high refresh rates, etc....anyday for half the cost or less

as far as headaches, i have always used a CRT for years and have never experienced eyestrain or headaches.....

Like I said high refresh rates aren't critical for a LCD, it's the ms rating it delivers that is the issue, and this is pretty much only a issue if your gaming with an FPS. We've gotten to the point where we have 8ms so gaming is quite comfortable with an LCD.

Different strokes for different folks, size, weight, power consumption are factors some enthusiasts will take into consideration, I am not accepting an assumption statement like the one you just made.

It depends on what you HZ refresh rate is set at for me personally 60 HZ gave me headaches you have to have 85HZ or else, however for a LCD the refresh rate is tied to it's ms rating more so then the refresh rate listed.

A 8ms could display a maximum of 125 FPS, so were getting there.

I prefer the less heat, energy efficient, sharpness, of a LCD.

 

[Chris_B]

I think some people here really need to take the corn cobs outta their assholes and stop bitching about the article.

36 friggin pages of the same crap page after page and all because this site doesn't do articles that consist of 10 minutes of running timedemos and proclaiming "teh winnar!!".

 

[Ardrid]

I think some people here really need to take the corn cobs outta their assholes and stop bitching about the article.

36 friggin pages of the same crap page after page and all because this site doesn't do articles that consist of 10 minutes of running timedemos and proclaiming "teh winnar!!".

That could be one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that every is extremely disappointed because [H] didn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Wtf was the point of doing a completely GPU limited article when we know what the outcome would be? And then go so far as to call the other articles from IDF and 7/14 a product of Intel and their cronies. All this could've easily been avoided.

 

[talax]

Hi, first post here...

I currently have a AMD 4000+ (single core), with 2 EVGA 7800GT SLI'd on an Asus Nforce 4 SLI motherboard (with 2 raptor drives running RAID 0).

I've had the processor for a while now, working great, but I was thinking of upgrading (first AM2, and then Conroe).

I was excited about Conroe, but the article here has made me rethink whether it's necessary to upgrade, which I guess was the point of the article.

My only real beef with the article as it is written (I'm not a fan of the terms they use to bash other sites, but it doesn't bother me too much) is this:

So I am going through the article, and again and again, it's made clear that changing processors at this time (whether it's AMD OR INTEL) if you mainly game on the computer is rather pointless at this time. I get it. However, the very last statement is:

Lastly, 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.

And at that point, I was like... what the hell? HardOCP brilliantly shows that CPU's really don't matter for gaming, and then they pimp AMD at the end? For what purpose?

What kind of mixed message is that? Don't upgrade your processor, unless you upgrade with AMD?

So I'm left not knowing what the piont of the article was... was it to show that if you want the best way to improve your system's gaming performance is to focus on the GPU, or was it to buy AMD processors?

It should have said (if they wanted to be consistent):

Lastly, I would advise everyone that is thinking of rushing out and purchasing their latest upgrade to focus on upgrading your GPU instead of your CPU.

 

[Donnie27]

That could be one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that every is extremely disappointed because [H] didn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Wtf was the point of doing a completely GPU limited article when we know what the outcome would be? And then go so far as to call the other articles from IDF and 7/14 a product of Intel and their cronies. All this could've easily been avoided.

QFT!

 

[CodeWaste]

That could be one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that every is extremely disappointed because [H] didn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Wtf was the point of doing a completely GPU limited article when we know what the outcome would be? And then go so far as to call the other articles from IDF and 7/14 a product of Intel and their cronies. All this could've easily been avoided.

And yet another way of looking at it was that they couldn't do a fair and proper review because they spent too much time getting IntelliTXT to work right.

And with such a sensationalist article, all that new traffic to the [H], ill bet there'll be bonuses all around this year.

So much for Overclockers Comparason Page....welcome to Opulent Cash Profits...

 

[dark_reign]

My only real beef with the article as it is written (I'm not a fan of the terms they use to bash other sites, but it doesn't bother me too much) is this:

So I am going through the article, and again and again, it's made clear that changing processors at this time (whether it's AMD OR INTEL) if you mainly game on the computer is rather pointless at this time. I get it. However, the very last statement is:



And at that point, I was like... what the hell? HardOCP brilliantly shows that CPU's really don't matter for gaming, and then they pimp AMD at the end? For what purpose?

What kind of mixed message is that? Don't upgrade your processor, unless you upgrade with AMD?

So I'm left not knowing what the piont of the article was... was it to show that if you want the best way to improve your system's gaming performance is to focus on the GPU, or was it to buy AMD processors?

It should have said (if they wanted to be consistent):

I think it's because most enthusiasts are using AMD CPUs. For them it would just make more sense to get a cheap upgrade rather than spend more money on building a Conroe rig. For Intel users it makes perfect sense to get a Conroe.

 

[Met-AL]

I think it's because most enthusiasts are using AMD CPUs. For them it would just make more sense to get a cheap upgrade rather than spend more money on building a Conroe rig. For Intel users it makes perfect sense to get a Conroe.

P4 to Conroe still takes all the same new parts that AMD to Conroe does.

The meaning I got from it was that there are people that are going to go out and upgrade and they should consider holding on a bit and seeing if AMD counters with lower prices to help maintain comparible price to performance ratios.

I didn't take any AMD pimping from that statement. But then again, I wasn't looking for it either.

 

[Ratchet]

The fundamental flaw in this testing approach is that it's impossible to tell someone "this is how this will perform for you" because no one will have the exact same machine as the one used in the test or use the machine the same way or have it set up in the same way any other number of limitless variables that will affect performance, so the "real world" tests are actually meaningless in my opinion.

All you can do is say "this is how this item performs in this situation on our test bench, this is how it performs in another" and so on. Therefore, I think the best approach to reviewing a CPU or a GPU or a RAM module or anything else is to minimize and isolate the effect other components have on the item being reviewed and show how it performs compared to other choices the reader will be faced with, then offer your opinion on things and ultimately let them make up their own mind. If they decide, "sweet jesus the Conroe is a kickass CPU" or "holy crap those AMD CPUs are cheap now!" then they can go from there an look at their options for motherboards, memory, graphics, and whatever else they may need. If they look at this type of article what do they come away with? That CPUs are GPU bound? How does that help them decide which CPU to get?

 

[FrgMstr]

And yet another way of looking at it was that they couldn't do a fair and proper review because they spent too much time getting IntelliTXT to work right.

And with such a sensationalist article, all that new traffic to the [H], ill bet there'll be bonuses all around this year.

So much for Overclockers Comparason Page....welcome to Opulent Cash Profits...

Been nice having you here and your opinions, but when they swing to these baseless bullshit accusations, I wam simply not going to sit here and let you continue your attacks. You are welcome to your opinion, but lies are not allowable...and I know the truth.

 

[FrgMstr]

If they look at this type of article what do they come away with? That CPUs are GPU bound? How does that help them decide which CPU to get?

Has nothing to do with my aricle, CPU are GPU bound when it comes to high end gaming. Since you obviously don't think I have it right, please tell our audience of high end gamers what they shoudl do at this junture.

 

[savantu]

yeah CPUs are GPU bound when it comes to high end gaming. So how does bit of information serve a guy trying to decide which CPU he should get? Shouldn't that be the point of a CPU review? Shouldn't you be advising your your readers which one you think they should get if they are looking to upgrade? CPUs are GPU bound. How does that help?

I second this.

 

[defiant007]

I second this.

I third this.

 

[StealthyFish]

yeah CPUs are GPU bound when it comes to high end gaming. So how does bit of information serve a guy trying to decide which CPU he should get? Shouldn't that be the point of a CPU review? Shouldn't you be advising your your readers which one you think they should get if they are looking to upgrade? CPUs are GPU bound. How does that help?

that's why a lot of us have been requesting that he move this to the video card section. If this benchmark was to show that in high end gaming, CPU power doesn't matter, then why do we see this in the Intel forum and not the video card forum, or the AMD forum, for the statements that were made in the conclusion. Many AMD users would probably benefit from reading such conclusions as the one kyle bennett wrote........

example:

Lastly, 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.

 

[talax]

I think it's because most enthusiasts are using AMD CPUs. For them it would just make more sense to get a cheap upgrade rather than spend more money on building a Conroe rig. For Intel users it makes perfect sense to get a Conroe.

Well let's look at my situation then.. I consider myself an enthusianst, and I upgrade pretty often. As stated above, I have a 4000+ (single core). That's a 2.4Ghz processor with 1MB cache. Since not everything takes full advantage of dual core, I would feel stupid "upgrading to something that is less than that GHz. That pretty much leaves me with the 4600+ or above on the AMD side if I stick with 939, or if I upgrade to AM2, I of course have to get a new processor, and MB and memory as well.

Are those effective ways to increase my gaming performance in the "real world"... I would venture to say no given the article. Since I already have 7800GT SLI, the only thing I can conceivably do is upgrade my video cards, or switch to conroe. On the video card front, I would either have to get 7900GTX (probably SLI), or a 7950GX2 I would think.

Is "waiting for AMD prices to fall" really good advice for me, or is the possible added benefit of extra performance in other stuff (like encoding, etc.) worth the move to conroe?

 

[EpedemiX]

After reading all 30 some odd pages I totally agree this was not a review about a CPU but rather how bound you are by GPUs thus negating the benefit of upgrading. With the bottomline saying wait a bit to for the price cuts to get your AMDs. Althought it forgot to mention AMDs wont benefit you either just cost more.

Also some where stuck in the 30 odd pages he (Kyle) calls INTEL cronies. Very unprofessional period.

I also didnt like how only FPS and 3rd point of view games were the only ones reviewed. What about RTS games with mass battles? They would surely use the CPU more. Rise of Legends has a Record feature. RoL will soon have PPU support so maybe that should have been included or made part of for CPU gaming benching.

 

[dark_reign]

Well let's look at my situation then.. I consider myself an enthusianst, and I upgrade pretty often. As stated above, I have a 4000+ (single core). That's a 2.4Ghz processor with 1MB cache. Since not everything takes full advantage of dual core, I would feel stupid "upgrading to something that is less than that GHz. That pretty much leaves me with the 4600+ or above on the AMD side if I stick with 939, or if I upgrade to AM2, I of course have to get a new processor, and MB and memory as well.

Are those effective ways to increase my gaming performance in the "real world"... I would venture to say no given the article. Since I already have 7800GT SLI, the only thing I can conceivably do is upgrade my video cards, or switch to conroe. On the video card front, I would either have to get 7900GTX (probably SLI), or a 7950GX2 I would think.

Is "waiting for AMD prices to fall" really good advice for me, or is the possible added benefit of extra performance in other stuff (like encoding, etc.) worth the move to conroe?

Kyle didn't really address it in full detail. All he said at the end of the review was: "...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." No opinions were given on what the various upgrade options are. It's as if everyone is using AMD CPU's to Kyle, so it comes off like it's pointless to upgrade to Conroe. This only makes sense if all you ever do is play games and have current hardware.

For someone like me with a system that is 3 years old it's quite obvious what to upgrade to. But for someone like you, it may not be worth it RIGHT NOW since you already got fairly current hardware.

If the majority of people that come here are truly hardcore enthusiasts, they're obviously going to ignore Kyle and get a Conroe just to have the very best. Who cares about "real-world gameplay" when there are so many more things you can do with Conroe--and do it faster.

 

[talax]

thanks dark_reign... since I have SLI and want to keep it, I have to wait for the Nvidia 570 or 590 boards anyway to be available, so it's not going to happen too soon. I think I may just wait a few months for everything to settle.

 

[jacuzz1]

I really dont understand what all the hot air is about. The article from the start addressed an issue that I think is very important. The vast majority of gamers are using video cards that are in the 7600gt range. Few people are using cards like the 7900gTX Oc and even fewer are using the 7950 much less Quad sli.

Maybe I missed something but what I got out of the article is that if your a high end gamer that uses something like a 7600GT and 7900GTx or the ATI equivalent then you wont realize a significant enough improvement by emptying your pockets and going Conroe.

The Ultra high end set of people that will go Xfire and SLI may in fact benifit and I Trust there will be a follow up article comparing the performance of Conroe against whatever AMD's flagship will be once Quad SLI is ready ( I suspect about the time Nvidia Conroe chipset baords are readiliy available).

I realize there are those whom are concerned about future proofing and the like and there are articles everywhere that show the un arguable superior raw cpu power the Conroe offers . This article was not meant to provide that data It was meant to show that if you have a robust gaming rig now , you dont have to rush out and get conroe to remain competitive in the gaming arena

Just my .02

P.S. For Goodness Sake people lighten up

 

[Donnie27]

Kyle didn't really address it in full detail. All he said at the end of the review was: "...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." No opinions were given on what the various upgrade options are. It's as if everyone is using AMD CPU's to Kyle, so it comes off like it's pointless to upgrade to Conroe. This only makes sense if all you ever do is play games and have current hardware.

For someone like me with a system that is 3 years old it's quite obvious what to upgrade to. But for someone like you, it may not be worth it RIGHT NOW since you already got fairly current hardware.

If the majority of people that come here are truly hardcore enthusiasts, they're obviously going to ignore Kyle and get a Conroe just to have the very best. Who cares about "real-world gameplay" when there are so many more things you can do with Conroe--and do it faster.

Very well said! QFT!

 

[Riptide_NVN]

lol bullshit

So I'm not a "hardcore enthusiast" if I don't have the very best of the best practically all the time? Percentage wise very few of the people that frequent this site would live up to that.

I guess the rest of us just aren't cool enough.

 

[Tazzman]

My thoughts..
Kyle tested the way he wanted. Did a MAJOR write up on not only gameing but a few other CPU related tasks. "All were well written, I would grade "A" for a school paper. and thank Him as his team.

Bottom line, The CPU is far better than the AMD in most all areas, Most areas Screaming better.
Pound for pound Intel> AMD Knock out.
All the other reviews I have read and the OC's I have seen Put AMD in the dirt..
The scores it is already receiving, Without fully tested and tweaked Mother boards is Insane. When the MB makers get it down and produce mass Boards, This review will be lost in the wind..

This one write up will not stop me from getting the Conroe. I have learned to look from the outside in not the inside out.. [H] is not the final word... Sorry..

I will be buying mine in about 2 months after the tweaks and bugs in the MB's are worked out.The GPU makers release new stuff etc.. I will then be happy to Spend Good Money for a bad ass All Around system.

Bottom line Intel takes a Huge lead. I am sure AMD will not let it rest. Welcome to Buisness, and money makeing....

 

[3leggedcow]

I have mixed feelings about this "real-world" benchmarks. While as a gamer that's what I really care about but I also want to see which CPU is better without anything else affecting it and doing that requires one to test at 800x600.

As seen on the first page, I think "real-world" benchies just open up the door to !!!!!!s stating Intel over-hyped their new CPU. They didn't and every site listed their settings. It flat out beats the living shit out of AMD's current offerings... are you going to see that while gaming at 1600x1200? I don't give a crap. It's just nice to Intel finally getting their act together.

Props to HardOCP but I would much rather see tests that place the stress on the CPU itself. But there are other sites to visit.

 

[RedStarSQD]

"Has nothing to do with my aricle, CPU are GPU bound when it comes to high end gaming. Since you obviously don't think I have it right, please tell our audience of high end gamers what they shoudl do at this junture."

Perhaps you should define what your high end gamers are then....

We have an idea by your test setup of: ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe/ AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 2.8 GHz CPU. 2GB of fast DDR2 800 Corsair RAM/ 7900 gtx with 512 mb ram. (1600*1200 res or better) These same gamers also no doubt use sli and if they don't....well then . It also means they have already recently upgraded and would have no reason to upgrade so soon again.

from the valve survey --updated in april:

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

.4% use the amd fx 62 2.8 gig (less than 2% of gamers have dual core anything [amd x2 tech for example])
.03% use 2 gig of ram
around 3% use 1600*800 or above resolution.
we have no statistically significant numbers on those using the 512mb 7900 gtx vid card yet.

combine this with a drop in overall sales last few months (blamed on people waiting for conroe) and we pretty much have the current picture.
But, lets just all round it up to 5% of gamers are high end and then double it to 10% to avoid any arguments.

So i have no trouble with you renaming your article:
conroe gaming performance for high end gamers. That and a few other changes mentioned in the poll would settle this situation.

----

also telling that other person he is full of bull and may be banned should tell you how it is bad for you to say every other site is lieing and they are intel cronies

 

[burningrave101]

So Kyle, are you saying that Conroe has more power than AMD, but with today's most popular hardware and settings, the games will be GPU-bound, so it wouldn't be worth it to upgrade to Conroe if you're just looking for an increase in framerates in your games?

I think people need to stop and look at a simple graph and be able to decide for themselves if it is worth it for them to spend on an upgrade for Conroe. This same question keeps getting asked over and over and the same answer keeps being given over and over. If you thought it was worth it to upgrade to an Athlon 64 from a Pentium 4 for gaming then it is definitely worth it to upgrade to Conroe from an Athlon 64. I personally wouldn't suggest spending a ton of money to upgrade though if all your going to do is game and you aren't upgrading your graphics hardware as well. Almost every game is going to be GPU bound. Some games are more CPU intensive then others but your primary focus for a gaming system is to upgrade the video card first and get the fastest you can afford.

 

[Firebat]

I third this.

I quad this

 

[Yraen]

I've refrained from posting about the review, taking the time to order my thoughts on it. Like most of the posts here I can't agree with the way you reviewed the CPU. Contrary to all of those who call this something other than a CPU review, if it was something else it would not have been titled Intel Core 2.

You will see a lot of gaming benchmarks today that just simply lie to you.

Opening with this as the second sentence of the introduction implies that you're going to show results other than what everyone else is showing. Other sites don't lie to you when they report what FPS they got at a lower resolution. If you had ran at those resolutions you would have achieved close to the same results (varied depending on other hardware). Stating that other gaming benchmarks are a lie without trying to duplicate and prove them wrong is bad business.

As alluded to above, we can easily remove the GPU as the bottleneck in the system, but this requires running low resolution benchmarks at 640x480 or 800x600, and we all know that people that are looking at buying a new processor are not using these resolutions to game at.

Benchmarking with a bottleneck implies that you're not too concerned about the outcome of the results, that you don't want the whole story, just a small sampling of the area you like. The double standards are troubling also, since recently you've reviewed AMD AM2 processors with a standard that showed the power of the processor and not the video card.

More troublesome is the fact that the review kit shipped with a Bad Axe motherboard, yet you chose to use the Asus. Yes the Asus has the newer chipset, but it's not the chipset of choice for high-end gaming simply because it does not support crossfire. This board has been shown to support the 7950 you wanted to use.

In your apples to apples section you drop the resolution down on every game except Oblivion. Wouldn't a better apples to apples have been achieved dropping that resolution down slightly also?

It is very interesting that in all of our testing, both “what is playable” testing and “apples-to-apples” testing, the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 and Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 are very close in performance. In fact, in some games they are dead even. The price difference between the two is very extreme with the Core 2 Extreme X6800 costing $999 and the Core 2 Duo E6700 at $530. Does it look like the price is justified between the two for gaming? We can safely say “no” as far as gaming goes with this gameplay testing we have performed.
As for the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62, all of our testing shows that it does trail the two new Intel CPUs in gameplay performance. So, if you wanted to point one out as being a “winner” then for sure it is the new Intel Core 2 X6800 and E6700. But, if you look at the amount of difference between the AMD and Intel CPUs, you will see that it isn’t enough to amount to anything. 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. Overall, the performance difference isn’t enough to amount to any gameplay experience differences in these games. One thing is certain: these are very fast platforms and they all provided a very enjoyable high-end gaming experience in every game.

This probably should have read more along the lines of “The Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, Core 2 Duo E6700 and the AMD Athlon FX-62 show that they are more than capable of ensuring that your video card is the bottleneck for high-end gaming. The price difference is very extreme, point to the E6700 being the best buy for a gamer at this point in time.”

The funny thing is, while you compare the price between the X6800 and the E6700, the price of the FX-62 is never mentioned. Shouldn't it have been?

And bringing up overclocking, wouldn't a CPU review bring up overclocking of all of the processors and not just the one lagging behind?

As for the “real world” settings used, shouldn't they be more based on what the majority of people are using and not what an elite few use? A sampling of the Steam survey will show you just how different that majority is compared to what is used here as real world. That survey is only about three months old, so it is current enough information to go by. Yes, most of those people need to upgrade seeing that most have less than 1GB of ram and lower end video cards. Wouldn't a review that showed them how much they could benefit by a system upgrade have been a better use of time rather than a review of how the 7900GTX performs the same regardless of whether you have Intel or AMD? Also, since it is “real world” shouldn't the virus scanner, firewall, etc we all must use be installed and enabled when testing?

This review system works great for video cards but it is severely lacking when it comes to other parts of the computer. To stay away from the “canned benchmarks” you're going to have to come up with individual systems for all the parts of a computer and not simply rely on the system that works for one part.

I don't know if you have any bias towards Intel and ATI or now, and it's none of my business. But this review reads like you do and you let it slip into your work.

There is a poll here asking for you to change the review, but I'm against it. I think the review is wrong and was poorly done but it is your work and you must stand by your work. Should you feel a change is needed, a new review would be needed.

 

[thedude42]

I've refrained from posting about the review, taking the time to order my thoughts on it. Like most of the posts here I can't agree with the way you reviewed the CPU. Contrary to all of those who call this something other than a CPU review, if it was something else it would not have been titled Intel Core 2.

I can't beleive this is still going on.

The tittle is:


"Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance"

Notice, it's short ant to the point. The article is a few pages, and specifically to debunk the marketing rhetoric that says "Hey, put a Core CPU in your machine, and you will r0x0r! Your machine will never play games faster and better after you have an Intel Core chip in your machine!"

The review is completely missing ALL CPU SPECIFIC BENCHMARKS. Do you think [H] is going to do this and assume people won't notice? Oh, no, that's right, they specifically stated it was NOT a CPU review.

It boggles me that people can't understand this, not can people read when the editors are saying the full review will be out LATER.

 

[Terra]

I can't beleive this is still going on.

The tittle is:


"Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance"

Notice, it's short ant to the point. The article is a few pages, and specifically to debunk the marketing rhetoric that says "Hey, put a Core CPU in your machine, and you will r0x0r! Your machine will never play games faster and better after you have an Intel Core chip in your machine!"

The review is completely missing ALL CPU SPECIFIC BENCHMARKS. Do you think [H] is going to do this and assume people won't notice? Oh, no, that's right, they specifically stated it was NOT a CPU review.

It boggles me that people can't understand this, not can people read when the editors are saying the full review will be out LATER.

QFT...

Terra...

 

[FrgMstr]

There is a poll here asking for you to change the review, but I'm against it. I think the review is wrong and was poorly done but it is your work and you must stand by your work. Should you feel a change is needed, a new review would be needed.

Thanks for your thoughts, they are noted.

 

[Elios]

i would just like to say that the way [H] did there review makes sence to me

sure you could bench at low res and show that CPU A has more raw power then CPU B
but that doesnt matter if you the vid card you use limits what you actuly get.

realy who here plays games at 800x600? not me i play has high as i can get
now if CPU A lets me get better framrates at a higher res or lets me turn on more eyecandy or physics then thats some thing i want to know and thats some thing that benching at low res cant show

imho

 

[Chrissicom]

AMD is dead! An Athlon FX-62 costs 1000 EUR in Germany compared to 534 EUR a 5700 C2D costs. And then someone mentioned an X2 3800+ for 170 EUR being good... well the smallest C2D costs the same price and is definitely show MUCH better performance in real world applications and for games where the graphics card is the limit at least show equal performance. I would never ever ever buy any AMD CPU until they have reduced their prices at least 75% for the FX-62 for example.

 

[RedStarSQD]

and for a start the title should have instead been:

<br /><font size="5">&quot;Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance for High End Gamers&quot ;</font><br />

edit: bah

 

[HOCP4ME]

It boggles me that people can't understand this, not can people read when the editors are saying the full review will be out LATER

Does it really say that? Where?

 

[burningrave101]

realy who here plays games at 800x600? not me i play has high as i can get
now if CPU A lets me get better framrates at a higher res or lets me turn on more eyecandy or physics then thats some thing i want to know and thats some thing that benching at low res cant show

Well once again increasing the resolution and eye candy isn't really increasing the load on the CPU like it is on the graphics card. The fps really starts to drop because the video card is having a lot harder time keeping up at 1600x1200 w/ high IQ vs 800x600 and low IQ. The performance differential between CPU's should be much the same regardless of resolution or eye candy if the graphics cards were fast enough to crank out really high fps. The Central Processing Unit when gaming is mostly responsible for physics, basic 3D stuff (i.e. clipping, collisions), managing memory, game data accessed from the CD/DVD or hard drive, AI, scripts, in some cases sound (especially if you have on-board sound), network stuff, and other OS operations that you have running in the background. The CPU is responsible for many tasks but IQ settings are only impacting the performance of the graphics card and thus bottlenecking the CPU from achieving higher fps.

 

[rolo]

Funny how for years GPU's have been bounding forward with performance at an alarming rate, while CPU's have been relatively steady. Developers have rallied to move more and more computation to the GPU as a result. Now we have some CPU's that are actually significantly faster, and suddenly it's the GPU's that are "too slow"

I think it would be interesting to compare performance at the mainstream level: grab the 2.13ghz Core Duo, an Athlon of the same price, put in a GeForce 7300 and 7600 (or ATI equivalent), and see how the gaming performance is at 1024x768. Honestly that's closer to where most of the world's "gaming" gets done. Or even compare integrated graphics: 965G vs. nForce 6xxx. Can the 965G run WoW better? I don't know, but I'll bet a lot of people would like to know (albeit maybe not the typical readers of [H]).

 

[dark_reign]

lol bullshit

So I'm not a "hardcore enthusiast" if I don't have the very best of the best practically all the time? Percentage wise very few of the people that frequent this site would live up to that.

I guess the rest of us just aren't cool enough.

No. You've just got more brains than money or have other priorities.

I just think Kyle should have told people that Conroe was worth the upgrade regardless of the gaming benchmarks. Instead, he basically is telling people to hold off on it becuse of the upcoming price cuts from AMD. For even the extreme hardcore types, this makes little sense because of SLI/Crossfire and other things one can do on a PC. The current and definitely FUTURE benefits of Conroe outweigh anything in that review.