Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance

[FrgMstr]

Thanks for your reply! I saw some of the Overclocking,

I had to cancel my order of the E6600 It had more to do with motherboards than Processor. Now I'm truely shocked at high prices of the so called Deluxe motherboards but when Budget boards that don't ship with a USB bracket and cost $142. I'm through!

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.

Keep in mind that Intel is not officially launching the CPUs for another 9 days. We are seeing price gouging and a bit of push from suppply/demand. Give it 60 days and the way should be clear to get some deals finally if not before. Obviously it will depend on just how many Conroe's we see on the shelves.

 

[FrgMstr]

Honestly C2D and AM2 are both huge improvements over the s754 2800+ that I'm currently running.

If you are looking to keep your next system for a long time, I would surely move to Conroe....unless of course you are going to wait for next-gen AMD....which may be a LONG wait.

 

[HOCP4ME]

I just reexamined the article more closely and found several statments that prove that Kyle is in fact NOT AMD biased. I guess it's just that these statments are buried and aren't noticed by most people. Check out this quote from the movie and encoding performance article:

I have not found any negative aspects to Core 2 at all. If you are buying a new computer system or doing a major upgrade, Intel Core 2 Duo or Extreme should be at the top of your list.

That's exactly what we've been saying for all of these 42 pages. It seems that Kyle agrees with us.

Now, from the gaming article:

If I had an older system and had to put my foot down and choose a system with the future in mind, I would probably lean toward the Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 platform for “future proofing” if Oblivion were any indication of future games.

Hmm, "future-proofing" sounds very familliar. I think that's what a lot of the discussion on here has been about. It seems Kyle agrees with us.

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.

Once again, that sounds about right. There is no need to switch to Conroe if you already have a high-end AMD system.

The fact of the matter is that real-world gaming performance today greatly lies at the feet of your video card.

Another 100% true statment. Notice that it said "greatly", not "always". Yes, there are some CPU-limited games, but many of them are GPU-limited, as they've shown.

When it comes to playing games, the only persons that need to be even a little concerned with upgrading their CPU to a Core 2 processor might be those with high-end SLI, CrossFire, or GeForce GX2 video cards

Here it is acknowledged that Core 2 could show a difference with CrossFire.

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.

I bashed this comment just a few days ago. While I still think it should be toned down a bit, I guess it is true, because after all, the pricing slashes from AMD were huge on everything except the FX-62; huge enough to make me consider upgrading to a 3800+.

Battlefield 2 showed the Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 to be closer to the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 in performance, though the Intel chip was still edging out the lead.

Once again, an argument that has been stated several times in this topic. "Why buy FX-62 when the E6700 gives better performance?" This too is acknowledged in the article as we see here.

For [apples to apples testing] we turned three games down to 1280x1024 with no AA and no AF

It may not be 800x600, but it is a resolution that is very popular, and no AA + no AF did help remove the GPU bottleneck somewhat. Notice how the AMD chip is on the bottom every time.

You can clearly see that the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 is trailing the Intel CPUs.

There seems to be a larger average framerate difference in this game between the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 and Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800.

Again, the same pattern, the AMD platform is slower and the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 is faster.

Certainly no AMD bias there.

Please be aware we are testing a bit differently from what is the norm. We concentrate on examining the real-world gameplay that each CPU provides.

Hey, what do you know, he does mention that they use different testing procedures. That would do much better in the intro rather than in the "setup" page, and with a little more clarification, but I have to give credit because it's there.

Kyle, after taking a deeper look at the article, and while I still think a bit more clarification couldn't hurt, I apologize for thinking your article was AMD-biased when, in fact, it wasn't. That's what, 9 different quotes that praise Intel? Compared to one or two that praise AMD? Now your article not only makes sense when you explain it, but it makes sense when I read it. Sorry for arguing with you so much to put things into the article that were already there.

To everyone else, I encourage you to reexamine the article and count how many statments praise Intel, how many praise AMD, and how many praise neither. You'll find that most statment praise neither, some praise Intel, and a few praise AMD for what they should be praised for: price cuts. I think the article actually looks a lot less AMD-biased if you read the whole things, word for word. Most people (including me) just skim the article and read the conclusion. That usually works; here it doesn't.

 

[burningrave101]

http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop/shop.cgi?action=thispage&thispage=011003000509_BK12401P.shtml

BLT just dropped the pre-order price for the E6600 to $320.92.

 

[zumzum]

Right now Conroe is a waste of money if you are strictly gaming because of the GPU being the limiting factor.

Then A64, X2, FX series are just more expensive waste.

 

[NorthCaddoRB]

I've read a good bit - NOT ALL - of what has been posted about the review of the Conroe CPU. I haven't read the review as I learned a long time ago to not waste my time reading "reviews" published by this site. Surely no one comes to this site for hardware reviews? (There's a reason that this site is known as [T]ardOCP all over the internet.)

This site is no different than any other site - it has it's good and bad points. You just have to chose which site you get what information from. This one has some very good info from some posters in a few of the forums. I've found that the HotDEALS forum is the best one here and one of the best "deals" forums out there.

There's no use in arguing with the people that run a website. If you don't agree them and voice your opinion you'll most likely be banned by some moderator that makes no meaningful contribution to these forums and has no life other than monitoring these forums for someone bumping a for sale post 15 seconds early.

Just go with the flow guys....... Wait a little while and reviews from retail price paying users will be posted. Then you'll get the "low down" on the Conroe CPU's. Until then, just enjoy this and the other sites for what is posted by people that have no stake in the sites.

 

[Skipper007]

I've read a good bit - NOT ALL - of what has been posted about the review of the Conroe CPU. I haven't read the review as I learned a long time ago to not waste my time reading "reviews" published by this site. Surely no one comes to this site for hardware reviews? (There's a reason that this site is known as [T]ardOCP all over the internet.)

I've heard this anti-[H] stuff a few times. Still have yet to see anyone back up their claims with reasons why HardOCP reviews are crap.

I didn't have a high opinion of this site when I came here due to the comments I'd heard about it. Now I do. Why? Because I find [H]'s testing methodology vastly superior to everyone else's. When I read an Hard OCP video card review, I know that I'm getting a picture of what a card REALLY does - what res it can run, what settings, whether it's a stable of fluctuating framerate, whether it has a lot of bugs... sure, I read other sites to see benchmarks for games HardOCP doesn't do, but Hard's benches are so much more useful.

 

[JMke]

the pricing slashes from AMD were huge on everything except the FX-62;

rumor has it that FX-62 will also be priced lower, from $1000 to $750!

 

[EpedemiX]

It's almost like buying an OEM board. It should cost about $89 LOL! $142 for this?

You want a good MB for under $100? Man I haven't bought a MB under $150 since Pentium 3 Days.

 

[EpedemiX]

rumor has it that FX-62 will also be priced lower, from $1000 to $750!

Still not competetive to E6600 for $350. Even if the MB cost you an outragous $350 for a total $700. Your still getting a much better deal.

Given the Unreal 3 Engine will be widely used in upcoming games. I think its a safe bet.

Tim Sweeney: “"Intel's new Core 2 Duo architecture brings gamers an entirely new level of CPU performance. Its breakthrough dual-core computing performance is ideal for Unreal Tournament 2007 and other Unreal Engine 3 games which exploit multiple threads to accelerate computationally-intensive animation, physics simulation, rendering and AI. We're looking forward to developing and playing our games on Intel's new Core 2 Duo CPUs. Core 2 Duo's performance is unrivaled!"”

 

[ch0s3npimp]

Intel King > AMD Horse

Conroe > AMD

 

[JMke]

Tim Sweeney: “"Intel's new Core 2 Duo architecture brings gamers an entirely new level of CPU performance. Its breakthrough dual-core computing performance is ideal for Unreal Tournament 2007 and other Unreal Engine 3 games which exploit multiple threads to accelerate computationally-intensive animation, physics simulation, rendering and AI. We're looking forward to developing and playing our games on Intel's new Core 2 Duo CPUs. Core 2 Duo's performance is unrivaled!"”

what does this add to the discussion?

 

[Donnie27]

You want a good MB for under $100? Man I haven't bought a MB under $150 since Pentium 3 Days.

To keep from going farther off topic, I'll start a new thread in the Mobo section.

 

[HOCP4ME]

I've read a good bit - NOT ALL - of what has been posted about the review of the Conroe CPU. I haven't read the review as I learned a long time ago to not waste my time reading "reviews" published by this site. Surely no one comes to this site for hardware reviews? (There's a reason that this site is known as [T]ardOCP all over the internet.)

Actually, I like most of this site's reviews. Especially the video card reviews. Their "real-world" approach really shines in the GPU arena. While I guess their tolerance for low framerates is a little lower than most of us, they can't do anything about that, because EVERYONE has a different opinion of what framerates are too low. For me, it's about 40 FPS. For [H], it's about 30 FPS. For the scientists who study the human eye, it's 20 FPS. For movie makers, it's 27 FPS For a trained Air Force pilot, it's as high as 100 FPS.
As you can see, the opinions of acceptable framerates vary widely.

And I don't see a problem with the "highest playable" testing either. After all, if a new card allows you to increase your eye-candy settings, wouldn't you do it? That's what the new card is for, right? To give you better framerates at higher settings.

Then, they do the apples-to-apples testing. This shows you what framerate increases you would get if you didn't change any quality settings. So if you're already getting low FPS, and you just want to improve them, you can get an idea of the improvement you'll see in the apples-to-apples section.

It seems to me like that would please everybody. I don't see why there are so many people that don't like [H]'s video card reviews.

As for the CPU review, while I may not completely agree with it, I do understand it, and the testing methods he used do have some merit. He did do tests at 1280x1024, which is closer to what most people use with a single card. He tried to test SLI, but the card didn't work. By the time he realized the card wasn't going to work, it was probably too late to try Crossfire.

IMO there is nothin wrong with the way this site does reviews. This one just had a few misleading comments in it (which I still think should be removed), but the review as a whole isn't biased at all. There are more pro-Intel comments than pro-AMD comments.

So why do you think all of [H]'s reviews are a joke. Why do you refuse to even read them anymore?

 

[zumzum]

While I guess their tolerance for low framerates is a little lower than most of us, they can't do anything about that, because EVERYONE has a different opinion of what framerates are too low.

Thats why a review should not define and test only ONE *real world* settings for EVERYONE.
But I know, this kind of superior review is just for who they define as *real world gamers*.

 

[Donnie27]

Still not competetive to E6600 for $350. Even if the MB cost you an outragous $350 for a total $700. Your still getting a much better deal.

Given the Unreal 3 Engine will be widely used in upcoming games. I think its a safe bet.

Tim Sweeney: “"Intel's new Core 2 Duo architecture brings gamers an entirely new level of CPU performance. Its breakthrough dual-core computing performance is ideal for Unreal Tournament 2007 and other Unreal Engine 3 games which exploit multiple threads to accelerate computationally-intensive animation, physics simulation, rendering and AI. We're looking forward to developing and playing our games on Intel's new Core 2 Duo CPUs. Core 2 Duo's performance is unrivaled!"”[/QUOTE]

Those prices still suck AMD!

I only care about what leaves my wallet, not how much the competition costs when I have to buy. If it didn't matter, I would have bought a $700 X2. I didn't because not only did I think $700 was too much but even that 3800+ @$375 and a $175 mobo was too much. That's why I waited on the 3500+ price cuts before buying it. Now I'm supposed to see the $350 and $220 as good? Might be but it is still $570 add in $279 video card and $194 for 2GB RAM and that's BS IMHO! I think the RAM's price is fair, even the Video card (7900GT) isn't all bad. But also $316 MSRP is already about $35 over, the $220 for something that migh have sold for about $129 last year sucks IMHO.

Hey, I'll wait until Nov or so. Nothing changes I'll settle for a slower AMD and get a Video card and be done with for a year or two. I much rather have a Conroe though and still might go with it, just NOT NOW.

 

[coldpower27]

Thats why a review should not define and test only ONE *real world* settings for EVERYONE.
But I know, this kind of superior review is just for who they define as *real world gamers*.

That is why people test time demos, they are a standardize item, unlike "real wordl performance" which will vary for person to person.

There are pros and cons to each method.

 

[HOCP4ME]

Thats why a review should not define and test only ONE *real world* settings for EVERYONE.
But I know, this kind of superior review is just for who they define as *real world gamers*.

Hey, they have to pick something! You can't see what the highest playable settings are for 30 FPS, then 40 FPS, then 50 FPS, then 60 FPS. That would take WAY too much time. It takes long enough just to do one "highest playable" test.

And for those of you who like it when they pick one setting and stick with it, they have the apples-to-apples section. It's not timedemos, but it's pretty close. It seems to me like [H]'s video card reviews should please everybody.

 

[zumzum]

That is why people test time demos, they are a standardize item, unlike "real wordl performance" which will vary for person to person.

There are pros and cons to each method.

That is why people bench some games with different maps.
e.g. oblivion outdoor, city, dungeon, far cry.., HL2..., etc.

mutiple settings always give more information than just ONE setting.

 

[zumzum]

Hey, they have to pick something! You can't see what the highest playable settings are for 30 FPS, then 40 FPS, then 50 FPS, then 60 FPS. That would take WAY too much time. It takes long enough just to do one "highest playable" test.

And for those of you who like it when they pick one setting and stick with it, they have the apples-to-apples section. It's not timedemos, but it's pretty close. It seems to me like [H]'s video card reviews should please everybody.

What is highest playable setting to you might be absolutely not playable to the others, so picking one setting for EVERYBODY is just like picking a EVERYBODY favourite song, pretty impossible if you ask me.

I dont game at settings that is even remotely close to the one they pick, if this review please everybody, I am not one of them.

 

[jimmyb]

Hey, they have to pick something! [...]

Agreed.

In fact, I don't know what I ever saw in the ability to choose my own settings and frame rates based on their merits and my personal preferences. Having a big brother to help me make these choices will really enhance my life. It's double-plus good.

 

[HOCP4ME]

What is highest playable setting to you might be absolutely not playable to the others, so picking one setting for EVERYBODY is just like picking a EVERYBODY favourite song, pretty impossible if you ask me.

I dont game at settings that is even remotely close to the one they pick, if this review please everybody, I am not one of them.

Okay, so say I consider 40 FPS playable, while you consider 60 FPS playable, while another guy considers 30 FPS playable. Which should they test?

I don't think it really matters. If X card can play with higher settings than Y card at A framerate, you can assume that X card will also play better than Y card at B framerate.

Timedemos can work that way too, but [H]'s numbers are at least somewhat closer to most gamers' "real-world" levels. I think it's safe to say that *no* gamer plays in the "real-world" using timedemos.

 

[HOCP4ME]

Having a big brother to help me make these choices will really enhance my life. It's double-plus good.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic there or not, but I agree. Having a website that says "this card plays this game best at this resolution and these settings" at least gives me a starting point when trying find my own personal preference.

 

[jimmyb]

Definitely. I'm glad I no longer have to make those pesky decisions!

 

[EpedemiX]

Definitely. I'm glad I no longer have to make those pesky decisions!

Most new games do that for you.

AUTO DETECT HARDWARE SETTINGS.



Who needs sites to tell you what is best.

 

[Skipper007]

Agreed.

In fact, I don't know what I ever saw in the ability to choose my own settings and frame rates based on their merits and my personal preferences. Having a big brother to help me make these choices will really enhance my life. It's double-plus good.

I seriously doubt most of us choose our settings based on what HardOCP does. The simple fact of the matter is that for most people, myself included, a steady 30FPS is fast enough for gaming. So, given that, what setting should I choose? The highest quality settings I can run while still maintaining a steady 30FPS.

If a friend wants a card to run Oblivion on, it's very useful for me to be able to tell him exactly what sort of settings he'll be able to run the game on. Then he can pick the price/performance sweet spot himself. And I've had plenty of situations where people have asked me for a card for a specific game or games. Sure, I use the Apples to Apples tests from other sites to give them an idea how it'll perform in general, but [H] Reviews fill an incredibly important niche in my cost/benefit analysis.

If you need more then 30FPS, of course this approach won't work for you. But really, doing anything other then politely requesting that [H] test at your preferred framerate threshold is like complaining to a sci-fi fan that you don't like his movie recommendations because you don't like sci-fi.

 

[jacuzz1]

I've read a good bit - NOT ALL - of what has been posted about the review of the Conroe CPU. I haven't read the review as I learned a long time ago to not waste my time reading "reviews" published by this site. Surely no one comes to this site for hardware reviews? (There's a reason that this site is known as [T]ardOCP all over the internet.)

This site is no different than any other site - it has it's good and bad points. You just have to chose which site you get what information from. This one has some very good info from some posters in a few of the forums. I've found that the HotDEALS forum is the best one here and one of the best "deals" forums out there.

There's no use in arguing with the people that run a website. If you don't agree them and voice your opinion you'll most likely be banned by some moderator that makes no meaningful contribution to these forums and has no life other than monitoring these forums for someone bumping a for sale post 15 seconds early.

Just go with the flow guys....... Wait a little while and reviews from retail price paying users will be posted. Then you'll get the "low down" on the Conroe CPU's. Until then, just enjoy this and the other sites for what is posted by people that have no stake in the sites.

Your statements are gratuitus. One can always afford constructive critisism but to post insults or perpetuate them?. The first time I ever saw [T]ard OCP was when you posted it.

I suspect your statements are in some measure to further your own personal agenda what ever that might be rather than to make a constructive contribution to the thread.


Just my .02

 

[Brackle]

good review if you ask me, When i was reading reviews (before i came here) I could not figure out why the F, these review sites were using 800X600

If you have a badass top of the line system? you are NOT playing at 800X600

Dont get me wrong, these new intel CPU's are good, But to be not worth spending all the money to upgrade to them, when AMD is going to slash prices on mose of there procs.

Keep up the decent reviews.

DASHlT

 

[HOCP4ME]

I seriously doubt most of us choose our settings based on what HardOCP does.

Like I said, at least [H] gives you a starting point. Like so you can say "well, at these settings, this card can do 30 FPS, but I want 40 FPS, so I'll just lower the settings a bit." Without [H]'s reviews, you're totally clueless to how high or low you'll have to put the settings to run your game at your framerates with your new card. And testing at 800x600 has other flaws as well. Say one card beats another by 20 FPS at 800x600. Does that tell you which card is faster? Yes. But does it tell you how much of a difference you'll notice in your game? No.

 

[bingo13]

So why do you think all of [H]'s reviews are a joke. Why do you refuse to even read them anymore?

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTExMyw2LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==


Because of actions like this. Where are the real world game benchmarks that were used in the Conroe Gaming article? Why is it that other sites are liars or Intel cronies for using Timedemos when the first AMD article posted after the Intel piece is using Timedemos and a game that is sitting in most people's closets?

"As always, these benchmarks in no way represent real-world gameplay. They are all run at very low resolutions to try our best to remove the video card as a bottleneck. I will not hesitate to say that anyone spouting these types of framerate measurements as a true measuring tool in today’s climate is not servicing your needs or telling you the real truth."

This quote leads off the gaming benchmark section. If these framerate measurements are not telling the real truth then why are we seeing them in the article? It appears to me we are being lied to by the people who keep telling us others are lying to us for using the same benchmarks. Since when is a short FRAPs capture of a game considered "real world" performance. I can take a FRAPs capture at the menu and call it "real world" performance. Does it make it real world? Who really believes 1600x1200 8xAA and 16xAF is everyday real world gaming? In what world is this, probably less than a percent of actual users.

"Trust me, if I thought any different about ECS we surely would not allow them to advertise with us."

Trust me, any mention of the fact about a company that advertises on a site within an article to try and gloss over the performance of the product leads me to believe the reviews are tainted. That is why it is becoming harder and harder to believe anything here. My main issue with the article and follow up is still the liars and cronies comments, that is not professional. The rest of the article is up for debate with very good points on both sides but any positive points are tossed out the windows with those comments.

 

[NorthCaddoRB]

The first time I ever saw [T]ard OCP was when you posted it.

You need to get out and about more. This isn't the only website on the whole internet.
It's out there. Just because you haven't seen it yet doesn't mean that it isn't. Look at the post just under mine.

I suspect your statements are in some measure to further your own personal agenda what ever that might be rather than to make a constructive contribution to the thread.


Just my .02

No agenda. What I said is what I meant.

 

[HOCP4ME]

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTExMyw2LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==


Because of actions like this. Where are the real world game benchmarks that were used in the Conroe Gaming article? Why is it that other sites are liars or Intel cronies for using Timedemos when the first AMD article posted after the Intel piece is using Timedemos and a game that is sitting in most people's closets?

"As always, these benchmarks in no way represent real-world gameplay. They are all run at very low resolutions to try our best to remove the video card as a bottleneck. I will not hesitate to say that anyone spouting these types of framerate measurements as a true measuring tool in today’s climate is not servicing your needs or telling you the real truth."

This quote leads off the gaming benchmark section. If these framerate measurements are not telling the real truth then why are we seeing them in the article? It appears to me we are being lied to by the people who keep telling us others are lying to us for using the same benchmarks. Since when is a short FRAPs capture of a game considered "real world" performance. I can take a FRAPs capture at the menu and call it "real world" performance. Does it make it real world? Who really believes 1600x1200 8xAA and 16xAF is everyday real world gaming? In what world is this, probably less than a percent of actual users.

"Trust me, if I thought any different about ECS we surely would not allow them to advertise with us."

Trust me, any mention of the fact about a company that advertises on a site within an article to try and gloss over the performance of the product leads me to believe the reviews are tainted. That is why it is becoming harder and harder to believe anything here. My main issue with the article and follow up is still the liars and cronies comments, that is not professional. The rest of the article is up for debate with very good points on both sides but any positive points are tossed out the windows with those comments.

Okay, I see what you mean. But this motherboard test is much different from the Conroe tests. Let me try to explain it:

The reason why Kyle did "real-world" tests on Conroe is because there was so much hype about it that Conroe would increase your framerates by xx percent and you'd be blown away be the performance. Kyle wanted to disprove this claim, and he did so successfully. He showed that, once you increase the resolution, Conroe isn't going to help you because today's games are GPU-limited. Now, it's true that they wouldn't have been so GPU-limited with SLI or CrossFire. But [H] tried to use SLI, and it didn't work. So, they were forced to go ahead with the single video card, and they admitted that SLI might show different results.

Now, we take a look at the motherboard review. This time, it wasn't meant to disprove hype or show "real-world" performance. There was no one saying that upgrading to this board would increase your gaming performance by xx percent. This time, it was just supposed to be an all-around motherboard review, and that meant showing which board was faster without any bottlenecks. What if they would have said "our real-world testing shows that you won't notice any difference, so it doesn't matter which board you buy"? That would NOT be very helpful at all. This was supposed to be a review, not an article about whether you will be able to utillize extra power due to bottlenecks. The Conroe article, however, was supposed to be about whether you would really be able to utillize it's extra power. Those are two completely different things.

When [H] does SLI testing of Conroe, as they said they would, it will probably be more of a CPU review.

But I do agree that the comment about other sites being liars doesn't need to be there.

 

[Donnie27]

Okay, I see what you mean. But this motherboard test is much different from the Conroe tests. Let me try to explain it:

The reason why Kyle did "real-world" tests on Conroe is because there was so much hype about it that Conroe would increase your framerates by xx percent and you'd be blown away be the performance. Kyle wanted to disprove this claim, and he did so successfully. He showed that, once you increase the resolution, Conroe isn't going to help you because today's games are GPU-limited. Now, it's true that they wouldn't have been so GPU-limited with SLI or CrossFire. But [H] tried to use SLI, and it didn't work. So, they were forced to go ahead with the single video card, and they admitted that SLI might show different results.

Now, we take a look at the motherboard review. This time, it wasn't meant to disprove hype or show "real-world" performance. There was no one saying that upgrading to this board would increase your gaming performance by xx percent. This time, it was just supposed to be an all-around motherboard review, and that meant showing which board was faster without any bottlenecks. What if they would have said "our real-world testing shows that you won't notice any difference, so it doesn't matter which board you buy"? That would NOT be very helpful at all. This was supposed to be a review, not an article about whether you will be able to utillize extra power due to bottlenecks. The Conroe article, however, was supposed to be about whether you would really be able to utillize it's extra power. Those are two completely different things.

When [H] does SLI testing of Conroe, as they said they would, it will probably be more of a CPU review.

But I do agree that the comment about other sites being liars doesn't need to be there.

THe comment about cars was missed. It would have simple if;
You take two cars and you test them in a 30MPH and 55MHP zone and then pass off judgement about how they would perform on the Auto Bahn without testing it there. IT's not that the 30/55MHP zone was tested wrong, but it should have been part of a larger test, like out on the Auto Bahn, uphill, breaking, 0- to 60 and 60 to 0.

The reason why folks flocked away from the Auto section is because even when folks were presented test results, they still argued, just like here.

Intel didn't lie and to prove their point, they used Crossfire. I missed the part where they said Core would speed up any and every game on every system with any Video Card.

They, you, Kyle, Anand and everyone else knows processors don't make a difference when Video cards bottleneck even Kyle admitted that. Didn't even need to run any benchmarks to prove that. We all agree here on that. Where the arguements and hurt feelings and etc.. came from is trying to say it was real world. Just like Intel, Kyle said you need SLI or Crossfire to see a real difference at Higher Res' and with a Eye Candy. My card only allows 1024 X 768 that's real world for me. Minimum is too low running newer games 1280 X 1024 on an X800XL and 3500+.

 

[HOCP4ME]

Intel didn't lie and to prove their point, they used Crossfire. I missed the part where they said Core would speed up any and every game on every system with any Video Card.

You're right about that. Calling Intel a liar because they used Crossfire was not necessary. I think that without that comment most of this arguing wouldn't exist.

I guess you could say the conclusion of this article is: "games are still GPU-limited, so upgrading your processor, as always, isn't going to show you much improvement". I agree that they didn't need to run all those games to prove that. But many people did get the impression that Conroe would improve their gaming, despite the fact that it has been known for years that high-end processors do not help in gaming (except with CPU-limited games). I guess Kyle was just trying to remind everyone about something that was somewhat forgotten in the midst of the Conroe hype.

 

[zumzum]

good review if you ask me, When i was reading reviews (before i came here) I could not figure out why the F, these review sites were using 800X600

If you have a badass top of the line system? you are NOT playing at 800X600

Dont get me wrong, these new intel CPU's are good, But to be not worth spending all the money to upgrade to them, when AMD is going to slash prices on mose of there procs.

Keep up the decent reviews.

DASHlT

well, playing games @ 800x600 or 640x480 with a high end card, is just like testing high end CPU performance with rather non-matching performance bottlenecking GPU setup.

 

[Skipper007]

I'm not sure that Intel's hype is as much lying as false advertising. Kind of like all those Extreme Edition ads a couple years back that acted like a P4EE would turn you into some ubergamer overnight. In reality, it was just a $1000 E-penis enlarger.

 

[Donnie27]

I'm not sure that Intel's hype is as much lying as false advertising. Kind of like all those Extreme Edition ads a couple years back that acted like a P4EE would turn you into some ubergamer overnight. In reality, it was just a $1000 E-penis enlarger.

Nope and if you search, you'll see that even I called them a lie on that line about, P4EE, using it isn't fair BS! Then just when folks started using HTT that would have helpppppeeed them, AMD launched X2. I know a lot of folks who favored Intel laughed them as well. That's one of the reasons I lean more towards chating with the Intel guys. Unlike many of the Green Arrow Team, they don't agree, like and or worship eveything Intel does.

 

[EpedemiX]

I think Kyle contradicted himself if he was try'n to prove a point with his NEW CONROE BENCHING IDIOLOGY by publishing this 4days later.

ECS KA3 MVP Extreme "Gaming Benchmarks"

He could have included the same test for Conroe and provided his patended "Time Demos are Lies" disclamer just like he did in that AMD Mobo article 4 days later.

 

[talk2farley]

I think Kyle contradicted himself if he was try'n to prove a point with his NEW CONROE BENCHING IDIOLOGY by publishing this 4days later.

ECS KA3 MVP Extreme "Gaming Benchmarks"

He could have included the same test for Conroe and provided his patended "Time Demos are Lies" disclamer just like he did in that AMD Mobo article 4 days later.

Wow. I wouldn't believe it if you couldn't link to it. I mean, I never had any doubt, but I never expected him to make it so foolishly apparent. Is there anyone left who will defend Kyle at this point, or who is unsure about his motives in this whole debacle?

 

[Skipper007]

Yes. He didn't write the article you cite. He editted it. Big difference.

I suppose you could argue that he should have expected all his writers to change their ways IN ONE WEEKEND.