![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
nobody_here
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,877
Elios said:
it has already been said that the retail versions will only be better and faster, the ES cores had a few bugs in them still, so don't hold your breath for results that show retail cores failing to deliver equal or better performance
and you dont need to overclock to 4Ghz to see real performance improvements over anything AMD has, 3Ghz is plenty to stay on top in everything but memory bandwidth synthetic benchmarks, and just like your Super PI comparison, nobody is going to use their PC primarily to compute Pi to a million or to measure memory bandwidth
even the $187 MSRP E6300 has been shown to easily achieve a 50% overclock on stock air and no vcore increase, they are an overclocker's dream
Chrissicom said:I mean stuff like CAD and Video Encoding
No ine is denying that Core is the superior CPU. It most definitely is. The point causing so much contraversy is that Core is NOT the magic bullet to make games faster.
As far as I understand, the [H] persepctive is that the low res CPU specific gamming benchmarks are good for people who understand what they mean. But games typically don't tell you the full story, as they are NOT intended to rely wholy on the CPU.
I agree that marketing a CPU based solely on timedemo performance with absolutely no consideration of the appearance of the game is like buying a car based solely on the listed sticker features and not driving it. Sure, the dynamo doesn't lie, but it also doesn't account for how my ass feels in the seat doing 75 on an open streatch of rural highway. And hell, how much does the thing weigh and how efficient is the transmission? 3.0 liter V6 doesn't do much if the gear ratios make me crawl off the line.
The point made over and over and over and over is that this review was simply a preview aimed at helping the would-be pre-order people make a decision: If gaming is your ultimate goal for performance and you have a high end AMD system (and past reviews omply that if your Intel system is comperable to a high end AMD system, the same advice applies) then you won't see the performance gains you might have expected from other reviews, and upgrading your video sub system may be the better move RIGHT NOW.
The other advice given here is that if you are looking for overall system performance gains, including hevy multitasking and other processor hungry applications THAT DON"T RELY ON THE VIDEO SUB SYSTEM, Core is most definitely the hot choice, but you're gonna be waiting another couple weeks, and AMD prices are about to drop.
What boggles my mind to the ends of hell and creation is why do so many people miss this point? Why do people think that [H] is deliberately telling you not to go buy a Core system? Why can't people see that [H] is taking responsibility that other sites are not in that they are telling you not to waste your money if all you want is better game performance? And why don't people see that the other site's low res benchmarks has the A64 averaging 100+ FPS on the tests that the Conroe beats it by 30+%? Is that even relevant? Because it's not to me. They might as well be reviewing the chip with Unreal Tournament (the original one) just to see how high the FPS can get. Oh yeah, they use Quake 3... that's especially relevant to the majority of gamers. Ever since the GeForce4 we've had more power than we need for that game to go 100+ FPS at 1024x768 32 bit.
Show me superPi, show me prime95, show me 3dmark's cpu test, show me encoding and rendering. Hell, I'd be extremely impressed to see a CPU run the 3dmark cpu test at 3 FPS solid the whole way through. But NONE OF THOSE tells me about how a SYSTEM will game at the settings that are woth playing at.
Bottom line: no one is denying that the other site's gamming benchmarks do, in fact, display the raw power of Core, and it most definitely has some power. Why is this so hard to understand?
enelson125 said:
That would definately contradict Kyles view given his BottomLine statement. He urges people to Overclock their current AMD chips to TRY and make up the performance gap. Also encourages them to wait for a price-cut.
Looks like Kyle and yourself have different views on who reads these forums.
Certainly if your willing to spend top-dollar for your hardware you wouldn't care to O/C a 2nd rate CPU. You'd want the faster one which will give you higher performance and can O/C higher. You certainly wouldnt be looking to save money and hold out for some price-cuts.
Heres my thoughts. First off , wow. No FEAR or Quake4 thrown into the mix. Why not? This review left me feeling like Conroe got short changed big time. I have been reading H for a long time now, and I will be the first to give them thanks for the many years of hardcore reviewing that they have done. Thank you H. However, this article made them lose a lot of credibility to me. It just does'nt add up. I think I will look elsewhere for the kind of reviews [H] used to do.
JediFonger said:
Simulator games have lots of pretty taxing physics and AI calculations. Advanced flight models require a lot of CPU power and Aircraft designers for example run their calculations on very powerfulhardware and AFAIK not in real time. The total number of active units in a campaign mission can be several hundred and that's not very many. Falcon4 runs a real time campaign in the background all the time.
The graphics aren't usually too special, since you don't really get to see things that close, but some really go overboard with it adding 50000 poly aircraft models and pretty detailed ground units. See for example http://www.lockon.ru/index.php?end_pos=982&scr=products&lang=en . The graphics are problematic when you consider that flying at 30000 feet you'd need a viewing distance of perhaps about 100 miles for seamless transitions and that's not really going to happen on modern hardware.
In addition there's stuff like ballistics modeling for every round, detailed damage models and bullet/shrapnel penetration calculations for every plane. If you put a hundred planes in the air at once chances are there will be thousands or tens of thousands of bullets in the air at some time. To properly model some battles you'd need capability for several hundred or perhaps thousands of planes in the air at any given time, not to mention the huge number of ground units you can fit on a map that's several hundred kilometers from side to side. You don't usually see this kind of numbers in reality, since computers just can't cut it. If you had ten times as much CPU power sim makers would gladly take it all and ask for more.
This is a bit off-topic, but perhaps could be considered a suggestion to include some simulators into the benchmark suite.
Every other review site lowers the resolution so we can see the difference. Or god forbid uses games that are heavy CPU users.....flight sims or RTS games.
This review is like reviewing $200,000 sport cars with those 50mph or less spare tires on all 4 wheels....to see which one will finish a 1 mile track.
Once games went to DX9...true DX9 enabled all the way....then the GPU took the load or in the case of a flight sim...shared the load. Most people new this. I know plenty of people that build budget PC's with 2.6ghz Celerons with a gig of ram and the fastest video card they can buy so they can play games like BF2 with medium to high video settings.
Why do a review if your not going to do it right???? I was linked here by another review while reading a forum in post by some AMD !!!!!!.
This review is like reviewing $200,000 sport cars with those 50mph or less spare tires on all 4 wheels....to see which one will finish a 1 mile track.
Once games went to DX9...true DX9 enabled all the way....then the GPU took the load or in the case of a flight sim...shared the load. Most people new this. I know plenty of people that build budget PC's with 2.6ghz Celerons with a gig of ram and the fastest video card they can buy so they can play games like BF2 with medium to high video settings.
Why do a review if your not going to do it right???? I was linked here by another review while reading a forum in post by some AMD !!!!!!.
JediFonger said:
Go to www.simhq.com and read their CPU reviews. In simple terms DX9 allowed programers to do good graphics using the latest GPU hardware. DX9 brought with it HLSL or High Level Shader Language....which made it alot easier to write games so that they would use the GPU hardware. Prior to DX9 (DX8..DX7) you had to use machine language to unlock the GPU hardware features.....or make games look good the old fashion way with raw CPU power and pixel fill.
Example UT2003 is extremely CPU bound...because it was mostely DX7 with a little DX8. Today most all games have moved over DX9 and need a great video card. Try putting a NVIDIA GeForce 5200 into a FX-62 rig with 2gigs of memory and see how poorly it runs BF2 at high detail.
Flip that around and put a 7900GT in a rig with 2gigs of ram and a 2.66ghz celeron and it will run BF2 at high settings much better.....because the game only needs about 2ghz of CPU before adding more does nothing to improve performance. FPS games by nature dont track alot objects and so the CPU does not need to be powerful.
RTS and Flight sims have all kinds of "units" (massive armies against massive army or lots of ground and air objects) to keep track of....which is all done by the CPU. The CPU must still tell the GPU what to do....but let the GPU do the work. With a flight sim or RTS if the CPU is super busy then it does not have alot of time to tell the GPU what to do....so the game can seem to have video lag with even the best GPU.
Skipper007
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
- Messages
- 185
I'm glad HardOCP applies is applying it's real world test philosophy to CPUs. I've known for years that the video card is usual the cap in a system (and in my experience, usually the first part to need upgrading as well), so it's nice to see someone getting the message out. And of course real world tests do matter... that's the reason why HardOCP is my number 1 go to site when someone talks about upgrading their computer for gaming, because with [H]'s graphics board tests I know what sort of results they'll really get.
The review could have picked better games as some have mentioned, but I doubt it would have changed much... the graphics board is still a bigger cap in a system in a lot of cases, and based on what I've seen either Intel or AMD's current CPUs can deliver more then enough horsepower to run a lot of the games people keep mentioning.
Now, that said, I do agree that the Apples to Apples parts should have been done 800X600. Current games may not give you a perfect picture of next gen performance, but they do give you some idea... and I'd say the picture is much clearer when testing CPUs then with graphics cards. However, it doesn't bug me too much... like with video cards, there are plenty of sites that do theoretical stuff, so you can speculate all you want from that. Meanwhile, [H] can provide an excellent picture of what you're getting for your money now.
The review could have picked better games as some have mentioned, but I doubt it would have changed much... the graphics board is still a bigger cap in a system in a lot of cases, and based on what I've seen either Intel or AMD's current CPUs can deliver more then enough horsepower to run a lot of the games people keep mentioning.
Now, that said, I do agree that the Apples to Apples parts should have been done 800X600. Current games may not give you a perfect picture of next gen performance, but they do give you some idea... and I'd say the picture is much clearer when testing CPUs then with graphics cards. However, it doesn't bug me too much... like with video cards, there are plenty of sites that do theoretical stuff, so you can speculate all you want from that. Meanwhile, [H] can provide an excellent picture of what you're getting for your money now.
don't 800x600 tests of current games show how a cpu will perform in a couple years? Like when the GPU's catch up, your 2 year conroe is actually 25% faster in games than a two year old fx-62? I don't see that as something [H]ard should have missed in their review. honestly, it seem's a little amd weighted to me
ToastMaster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2005
- Messages
- 483
jblue42 said:
At best, it can give a rough estimate, and that's only if the succeeding future processor designs bear a rough resemblance to the previous generation. Thus, if Intel makes drastic changes to their Core architecture, then using low-resolution benchmarks on current CPUs and GPUs cannot give a very accurate idea of what is to come.
And even though low-resolution benchmarks depends more on the CPU, the architecture of the graphics solution must be taken into play, and thus advancements in GPU design can lead to performance increases as well, that cannot be depicted by current low-resolution tests.
Chrissicom
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 37
Lol I really don't get you guys..... you argue because this test showed that Core 2 Duo doesn't improve Game Performance... well first of all the smaller Conroe you tested costs 400 EUR here and the FX-62 costs 1000 EUR and they show same gaming performance hmmm.... also you don't really mention in your test that it doesn't really matter with these CPUs which one you have because all depends on your graphics card and when you use the same graphics card in the AMD and Intel system with a good Mobo for both platforms you will OF COURSE have very similar results in frame rates. This whole review and argument here is bugged by the fact that you took "benchmarks"/tests suitable for graphic cards to compare CPUs.... no wonder your results are causing arguments I am waiting for a review where you compare things like how fast does my Windows boot, how fast can I convert MP3s, how quickly do apps like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, AutoCAD, Cinema, Maya etc. work.... then I think we know which is the better CPU
p.s. the fact that Conroe (Extreme exempt from this) requires only about 18W in idle mode is also interesting, I wonder what is possible with undervolting and other measures to reduce power wasting
I am waiting for a review where you compare things like how fast does my Windows boot, how fast can I convert MP3s, how quickly do apps like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, AutoCAD, Cinema, Maya etc. work.... then I think we know which is the better CPU p.s. the fact that Conroe (Extreme exempt from this) requires only about 18W in idle mode is also interesting, I wonder what is possible with undervolting and other measures to reduce power wasting
I'll stick with my $80 single cores and my $150 dual core AMD's. No one plays quake 3 at 640x480, or any other game for that matter at a resolution under 1024x768 unless they are not a real gamer, enthusiast, or monitor limits. If your buying a conroe for gaming your video card and monitor are more than likely capable of reaching 1280x1024 easily and thats what you will be playing at and that is the point of the benchmark. If you buy a $500 CPU to play games at low, unacceptable resolutions, then thats your own choice and its a stupid one.
Chrissicom said:Lol I really don't get you guys..... you argue because this test showed that Core 2 Duo doesn't improve Game Performance... well first of all the smaller Conroe you tested costs 400 EUR here and the FX-62 costs 1000 EUR and they show same gaming performance hmmm.... also you don't really mention in your test that it doesn't really matter with these CPUs which one you have because all depends on your graphics card and when you use the same graphics card in the AMD and Intel system with a good Mobo for both platforms you will OF COURSE have very similar results in frame rates. This whole review and argument here is bugged by the fact that you took "benchmarks"/tests suitable for graphic cards to compare CPUs.... no wonder your results are causing arguments
p.s. the fact that Conroe (Extreme exempt from this) requires only about 18W in idle mode is also interesting, I wonder what is possible with undervolting and other measures to reduce power wasting
Holy fuck, the gaming article wasnt the only one the [H] published. Go spend some time reading up and you'll see Kyle came to the conclusion that Conroe kills the athlon in all above statments. This is hilarious, everyone says "how fast does my Windows boot, how fast can I convert MP3s, how quickly do apps like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, AutoCAD, Cinema, Maya etc. work.... then I think we know which is the better CPU
" which by this point everyone should know is Conroe, EVEN KYLE BECAUSE HE STATED IT IN HIS OTHER ARTICLES.Stinkfist said:Holy fuck, the gaming article wasnt the only one the [H] published. Go spend some time reading up and you'll see Kyle came to the conclusion that Conroe kills the athlon in all above statments. This is hilarious, everyone says "how fast does my Windows boot, how fast can I convert MP3s, how quickly do apps like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, AutoCAD, Cinema, Maya etc. work.... then I think we know which is the better CPU
I know, if you even open the article on the first page you see a link right there! People just jump to conclusions too fast.
Killa_2327 said:
I think real gamers, enthusiasts are not only interested in certain selection of GPU limited benchmarks, real gamers are also interested in real CPU limited game tests.
And its not like newest games are always playable @ 1600x1200 with all the eye candy options on with AA and AF without SLi/CF setup.
I have just finished Prey. A good part of the game dip to steady 20-ish fps on my 6800GT @ just 1024x768, I dont see how I would like to play it @ 1600x1200 even if I upgrade my GPU that double the fps.
My 6800GT also cannot handle doom3 @ 1600x1200 smoothly either. I suppose one should not be called real gamer if he does not have SLi/CF setup.
iviustang50h
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2004
- Messages
- 13
enelson125 said:
Better prices? Wha? The 6600 is 320 bucks and is as fast as the FX-62 which is over $1000. What are you talking about? Amd is suppose to adjust their prices, but the FX-62 is still selling for $1000 or more. For the best performance for the price ration, Core Duo is the way to go. And lets now forget that the tests weren't run with a crossfire setup or the 7950 (due to a possible issue with the motherboard). Finally, don't forget that the new Core Cuo owns the AMD in app and real world benchmarks. I truly wanted to purchase AMD; I like giving the little guys money, but I would be an idiot to do so now based on the benchmarks.
Edit; FYI, anandtech didn't use only canned demos (especially in Oblivion) when testing the Core Duo. With a SLI/Crossfire setup or when using a 7950, the Core Duo owns the overpriced AMD's.
rahavsmt said:
I didn't realize that Kyle worked for AMD
I appreciate what hard ocp did, but I wouldnt only use them as the basis for your purchasing decisions. The Core Duo clearly wins in performance, and when you factor in price it becomes a no brainer. If you are an AMD fan boy, well by all means keep on purchasing AMD. But as of now, Intel own AMD.
it's funny! When A64 came out and CRUSHED the P4, every intel !!!!!! said that the difference at real gaming resolution was small. Then there was the HT argument.
Now it's the conroes turn to shine, and Kyle gets bashed for running real world resolutions. No doubt the Conroe is an exciting architecture and certainly an attractive product for alot of people. Honestly, I think this is one of the better reviews H has done as far as I'm concerned. I think they well layed out their limiting factors in the review and tried to be fair and clear. Why no sims/fear/quake4? I don't think 99% of you know how much time and work go into a review. I've done reviews in the past so I can appreciate not doing everything. Well done Kyle.
I'm getting some Conroes, but that doesn't mean I'll ditch all my A64 stuff. What I would love to see review wise, is clocking of similar price cpus ie 3800+ when it drops in $ and whatever conroe in that area, along with budget, mid-level and high end DDR-2. Try to keep mobo prices somewhat reasonable too . Oh and XP-64/Vista benches
thx
Now it's the conroes turn to shine, and Kyle gets bashed for running real world resolutions. No doubt the Conroe is an exciting architecture and certainly an attractive product for alot of people. Honestly, I think this is one of the better reviews H has done as far as I'm concerned. I think they well layed out their limiting factors in the review and tried to be fair and clear. Why no sims/fear/quake4? I don't think 99% of you know how much time and work go into a review. I've done reviews in the past so I can appreciate not doing everything. Well done Kyle.
I'm getting some Conroes, but that doesn't mean I'll ditch all my A64 stuff
. What I would love to see review wise, is clocking of similar price cpus ie 3800+ when it drops in $ and whatever conroe in that area, along with budget, mid-level and high end DDR-2. Try to keep mobo prices somewhat reasonable too . Oh and XP-64/Vista benches thx
JNavy89GT said:it's funny! When A64 came out and CRUSHED the P4, every intel !!!!!! said that the difference at real gaming resolution was small. Then there was the HT argument.
Now it's the conroes turn to shine, and Kyle gets bashed for running real world resolutions. No doubt the Conroe is an exciting architecture and certainly an attractive product for alot of people. Honestly, I think this is one of the better reviews H has done as far as I'm concerned. I think they well layed out their limiting factors in the review and tried to be fair and clear. Why no sims/fear/quake4? I don't think 99% of you know how much time and work go into a review. I've done reviews in the past so I can appreciate not doing everything. Well done Kyle.
I'm getting some Conroes, but that doesn't mean I'll ditch all my A64 stuff
thx
That's bogus! Find one of those old threads? Mony folks on this side of the forum didn't have a chance to complain, they used low res benchmarks
It was the same AMD leaning folks complaining that now one plays at Hi res where limited by GPU Games made many P4 not look so bad! Find some of them, you'd be shocked![H] made many references to Intel cheating/lying and even Webmasters' canned benchmarks. How when Intel and many of the others used Crossfire or SLI? Overclock the FX-62 a little? How about overclock the almost half priced E6700 at lot? Wait for price cuts, NO, AMD will not cut prices to a competitive Performance to Price Point. If they did, that would leave the FX-62 casting about $360. Read twenty other forums or sites and that's where the performance falls. In fact, the E6600 is FASTER in more apps LOL! Talking about multimedia not being much different, yes it is! You'll be able to get better performance with a processor that costs a third of the FX-62s current price even if the performance isn't day and night, even slightly faster is a GREAT deal.
No $1000 processor is a good deal but the E6600 and E6400 are steals at their Pre-Order price points or MSRPs.
My other gripe. Since a low power 3800+ was thrown in there, where the hell were the other Conroes?
AMD should have CUT prices before Conroe then I could have updated my 3500+ and put off my Conroe purchase.
RedStarSQD
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2005
- Messages
- 305
"it's funny! When A64 came out and CRUSHED the P4,..."
Not at all..most everyone was saying AMD crushed the P4...now we find out that it was all bottle necked by the GPU at extreme resolutions anyways (-sli) and you if don't multi task. So, infact, there was no gaming difference between the two then. It was all AMD hype!!
the liars
Not at all..most everyone was saying AMD crushed the P4...now we find out that it was all bottle necked by the GPU at extreme resolutions anyways (-sli) and you if don't multi task. So, infact, there was no gaming difference between the two then. It was all AMD hype!!
the liars
burningrave101
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Messages
- 11,825
JNavy89GT said:it's funny! When A64 came out and CRUSHED the P4, every intel !!!!!! said that the difference at real gaming resolution was small. Then there was the HT argument.
Now it's the conroes turn to shine, and Kyle gets bashed for running real world resolutions. No doubt the Conroe is an exciting architecture and certainly an attractive product for alot of people. Honestly, I think this is one of the better reviews H has done as far as I'm concerned. I think they well layed out their limiting factors in the review and tried to be fair and clear. Why no sims/fear/quake4? I don't think 99% of you know how much time and work go into a review. I've done reviews in the past so I can appreciate not doing everything. Well done Kyle.
I'm getting some Conroes, but that doesn't mean I'll ditch all my A64 stuff
thx
Alright first off, when the A64 first came out it didn't CRUSH the Pentium 4. The Northwoods were what the Athlon 64's went against at their launch and the fastest CPU then was the Athlon FX-51. The Athlon 64's were faster in around 60% of the benches done in reviews but their lead overall was marginal in most areas. The high-end Pentium 4 Northwoods were still good processors and offered better multitasking performance with HyperThreading since all Athlon 64's were single core. AMD has gained more performance over the last several months with the release of dual core and higher-end K8 cores while Intel actually dropped the ball with Prescott. Also remember that GPU's were slower then as well so the differential at high resolutions between high-end CPU's was within a few fps at best in most games. Now Conroe has released and it is the same story when you are benching mostly GPU intensive games at higher resolutions, especially with only a single 7900 GTX. The story changes though when you start benching truly CPU intensive games like flight sims and RTS's or you get more GPU power with a SLI/Crossfire setup. If you will look at the Anandtech, Firingsquad, Tech Report, ect. reviews that did high resolution benches with SLI/Crossfire you will see a larger gap between Conroe and the Athlon 64/FX.
When the X2 3800+ drops in price and Conroe is released the E6300 will be the closest in price with a MSRP of around $183 until the E6200 is later released and the E6300 easily beats the 3800+ in every benchmark, especially if you factor in overclock potential. DDR2 speeds make no real difference at all except in bandwidth limited areas like encoding. It doesn't matter if you're running DDR2 667, 800, 1066, your fps in most every game will be within a couple fps on average.
Okay, how about an even simpler solution. This one is much shorter than even my 5-point list. In fact it is only one sentence - twenty words - and it would not take any extra time to do in future reviews if you remove the current "apples to apples" tests. Ready? Here it is, the way to avoid 40 pages of arguing the next time you write a CPU review:
If some people like real-world, high-res benchmarks, and some people like raw-power, low-res benchmarks, then WHY NOT DO BOTH?!!!
If some people like real-world, high-res benchmarks, and some people like raw-power, low-res benchmarks, then WHY NOT DO BOTH?!!!
ElMoIsEviL
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 792
Yeah well... I'm not an AMD or an Intel Fan.boy. The Real World difference is there. You will notice it under many circumstances. But of course as always, your system is only as fast as it's slowest component. If you bottleneck your video card, then a Core 2 Duo will do you no good. If you own a Crossfire x1900XT rig on an Athlon64 2800+ then of course you won't reach the Crossfire rigs full potential. For someone looking towards a new complete system, Core 2 Duo is the way to go Performance, Price and Heat wise. For someone already on an AMD platform and in need of a CPU upgrade then of course.. cost wise an Athlon64 X2 would be the better buy, because going Core 2 Duo you'd need a new motherboard and maybe even DDR2 (assuming you're running a current socket 939 and not AM2 rig).JNavy89GT said:it's funny! When A64 came out and CRUSHED the P4, every intel !!!!!! said that the difference at real gaming resolution was small. Then there was the HT argument.
Now it's the conroes turn to shine, and Kyle gets bashed for running real world resolutions. No doubt the Conroe is an exciting architecture and certainly an attractive product for alot of people. Honestly, I think this is one of the better reviews H has done as far as I'm concerned. I think they well layed out their limiting factors in the review and tried to be fair and clear. Why no sims/fear/quake4? I don't think 99% of you know how much time and work go into a review. I've done reviews in the past so I can appreciate not doing everything. Well done Kyle.
I'm getting some Conroes, but that doesn't mean I'll ditch all my A64 stuff
thx
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,115
ElMoIsEviL said:
Fully agreed. But the fact is that unless you have a super high video card, and you are a gamer, Coroe will likely be a current waste to you. And I think that is exactly what we said in the conclusion that upset so many people.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2004
- Messages
- 7,456
iviustang50h said:
Um.......those with AGP cards fall into the full system upgrade catagory and therefore that would not apply.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,115
Donnie27 said:
I still stand by exactly what we published in regards to AMD CPUs and gaming in March.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,115
ElMoIsEviL said:
If you are doing a full system build there is no reason I can find to not build a Core 3 Duo system. I know the next time I do a full build, I will surely build a Conroe system. The fact of the matter is though, I don't see any reason to pull the trigger on that today.
I am waiting to get our hands on some OEM/Retail samples of the Core 2 Duo at the low end and see what they hold. With dual core AMD 3800+ dropping to the $150 neighborhood, it surely makes them very attractive especially if you can drop them into a current 939 socket which many of our readers can. Yes we were advised on these price decreases and it is the reason we made the statements we did. I built a new system two weeks ago and put a 3800+ in it, I wish I would have waited and saved some big coin.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,115
I say with full confidence that AMD's FX-62 is just as GPU bound as the new high end Core 2 processors when it comes to gaming.
And as for your next post about, "Well why did you say this about AMD's AM2?" with a quote from the article....you are right. It should have been evaluated differently.
It was only after month's of hype from Intel did I ask myself, "Are we showing our readers what they truly need to know in order to make an intelligent upgrade or full system buying decision?" I and don't think we were. It was time for a change and to put it simply, all of Intel's propaganda about huge gaming performance increases is what made me look at it.
Maybe the GPU/CPU balance will change in the future, but right now I think we are on the right track.
And as for your next post about, "Well why did you say this about AMD's AM2?" with a quote from the article....you are right. It should have been evaluated differently.
It was only after month's of hype from Intel did I ask myself, "Are we showing our readers what they truly need to know in order to make an intelligent upgrade or full system buying decision?" I and don't think we were. It was time for a change and to put it simply, all of Intel's propaganda about huge gaming performance increases is what made me look at it.
Maybe the GPU/CPU balance will change in the future, but right now I think we are on the right track.
LOL, I can already see the next article from [H]......
Conroe Overclocking
Test Setup
Processor : E6600 ( Conroe )
Motherboard : ECS 965pos2
RAM : 3x Kingston Value DDR2 512MB ( Refurbished )
PSU : 250watt Deer
Video Card : 7900GTX
" Other sites would have you believe that Conroe is OC'ing like a mad-man. Dont believe anything they say! In our tests we couldnt get Conroe to even run , much less OC. So there you have it, AMD still has the OC crown, and unless Intel stops spitting out propaganda and actually comes out with a competitive product, they could be in big trouble from the likes of AMD."
lol sorry , couldnt resist im just trying to make light of the recent controversy.
-ToE
Conroe Overclocking
Test Setup
Processor : E6600 ( Conroe )
Motherboard : ECS 965pos2
RAM : 3x Kingston Value DDR2 512MB ( Refurbished )
PSU : 250watt Deer
Video Card : 7900GTX
" Other sites would have you believe that Conroe is OC'ing like a mad-man. Dont believe anything they say! In our tests we couldnt get Conroe to even run , much less OC. So there you have it, AMD still has the OC crown, and unless Intel stops spitting out propaganda and actually comes out with a competitive product, they could be in big trouble from the likes of AMD."
lol sorry , couldnt resist im just trying to make light of the recent controversy.
-ToE
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,115
Or you may be a bit late to that party, but good attempt at a joke.
http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MjAxMjksLCxobmV3cywsLDE=
http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MjAxMjUsLCxobmV3cywsLDE=
http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MjAxMjksLCxobmV3cywsLDE=
http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MjAxMjUsLCxobmV3cywsLDE=
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,115
EpedemiX said:
Thanks for your thoughts, they are noted.
enelson125
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 485
EpedemiX said:
I haven't seen any other benchmarks that run all the games out there right now. I say testing 6 popular games gives a decent sampling of what kind of performance to expect. Quit whining and go read other sites' benchmarks. No one in their right mind would buy a high-end product of any kind without reading reviews from several different sources, that said I'm not bashing HardOCP or anything. If you would make an expensive purchase based on a single review, you sir are an idiot.
I'm sure Kyle is sick of taking all this crap from you guys. I think the gaming review did an okay job, as you're much likely to see a person with a single high-end card rather than one with a SLI setup that costs near or over $1000. The three other reviews posted on HardOCP showed the power that Conroe has. Is that not enough?
Right now Conroe is a waste of money if you are strictly gaming because of the GPU being the limiting factor, unless of course you can afford the very fastest part available (which most of us can't). If you do a lot of the activities used in the other reviews (photoshop, video encoding, etc) you will see a noticeable difference. Perhaps when the G80 and R600 roll around the Conroe will be a more worthwhile purchase in terms of gaming performance.
enelson125
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 485
Donnie27 said:Thanks for your reply! I saw some of the Overclocking,
I had to cancel my order of the E6600
Man I have a hard time paying $248 for something with features that look like a $129 board at best and $142 for one that looks like it should cost $89. By having to spend money I didn't plan for an expensive board, not the RAM or Processor, that broke my budget! Even if I saved $100 and moved to the E6400 it still sucks.
So I'll keep my 2GB of RAM, let the case and Opticals collect dust and wait.
QFT, motherboard prices and availability are the sole reasons I may end up going the AM2 route. And since gaming is really the sole cpu-intensive task I do, an AM2 won't be horrible. Honestly C2D and AM2 are both huge improvements over the s754 2800+ that I'm currently running.