• 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

EpedemiX said:
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.
Click to expand...


You are really reaching here. First let's read what is says above those benchmarks and has for some time now....and keep in mind these are canned BENCHMARKS.

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.

The gaming tests below have been put together to focus on the processor power exhibited by each system. All the tests below consist of custom time demos built with stressing the CPU in mind. So much specialized coding comes into the programming now days we suggest that looking at gaming performance by using real-world gameplay is the only sure way to know what you are going to get with a specific game. Our CPUs & Real-World Gameplay Scaling would be a great place to start.
Click to expand...

OK, that that has been said, how does testing a motherboard with benchmarks in order to make sure it is working correctly have anything to do with "Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance?"

I have not seen a motherboard that is going to influence real world gameplay in a long time (unless it is negatively, hence the benchmarks), especially in the A64 arena since its memory controller is on die.


I have been listening to your negative comments for many pages now and the fact that you make this comparison shows me one of two things, you are grasping at straws, or you do not know what the hell you are talking about. Testing motherboards and evaluating real world gameplay facilitated by a CPU are two totally different things and cannot be compared.

I await your next post to see what you pull out of your bag of tricks next to divert attention from this drivel. I have been open minded on everything that has been said here and done my best to see others' points of view, but this is just a baseless attack to enforce your own agenda here.
 
iviustang50h said:
Most "gamers" *do* have a high end video card, though. And I have a feeling that many of the folks that will be upgrading to Core Duo are still using AGP cards or will be upgrading the videocard as well anyway.

Anandtech ran some benchmarks with the resolution set to 640x480 to prevent the videocard from influencing the benchmarks. The Conroe still destroyed the AMD offerings. Check out the results here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=17

I truly appreciate what you have done Kyle, but I just don’t agree with some of the methods used (or not used) in this review.
Click to expand...
I again respectfully disagree. When you say most you imply majority. Think majority now for a few minutes fellows. Majority of gamers probably play on GF4/9800 or equivelent hardware which is about where some of the integrated graphics are at now. Maybe a wee bit better, but certainly not high end. Hell a conroe may show even more potential in this arena but I would have to test that out to make sure. I guess what I'm trying to say, it we are a select few and not the majority. People who spend 400-600 on a video card are the microscopic far end of the spectrum. Sure thousands and thousands of these cards sell, but millions of the cheap crap sell. You could poll the users on [H] forums and I think you'd find the average gamer to be using 6800/7800gt's or radeon equivelent. Certainly not high end now.

Back to other's comments. I think Donnie and others like to look at the world through rose colored glasses. I based by take on the A64 crushing the P4 in games. Where it did so well, and with ease even in 754 format. The fastest P4 at the time was 3ghz with 3.2shorty thereafter. A64 launched at 3400+ and even at 3000+ rating was hosing the P4 in games. Why no super high end ie res benches then? We had 9800 pros as top cards with 9800XT's pending. 3dmark2001 was the rage and the A64 was littering the orb daily with top results. Same on game benches as well. The 939 and contiuned refinements in the cores just helped to extend that lead, over a sub standard IMO prescott core. Pressler/ceder mill might have helped some, and of course Dothan/Yonah were an alternative to some who liked running beta boards lol. But seriously, A64 was just as much a "quantum" leap at the time as Conroe is now. I don't think you'll find me debating anyone it's not EXCITING, and or FASTER. My point is, times are different now. High RES gaming is coming on strong. Look at trends with LCD's vastly outnumbering CRT's. Game at lower res than native on a big LCD and tell me you like it!!!! So it's a progression of our hardware and expectations. Gaming used to be done at 1024x768 as a max on most crt's, 32bit was a nice lift back in the TNT2 days, then AA/AF etc... came on scene. Now we have 1600x1200 and moreso widescreen displays on LCD that really expand our gaming/image horizons. GPU's are the limiting factor in high end gamers lives. The Majority of gamers are on cheap CRT's and cheap vid cards, so how does this apply to conroe? Integrated graphics, cheap mobos, cheap everything. [H] gamers are a bit better off so I think Conroe comes into play as a choice, but again as others have explained, if you have A64 already, it may or maynot be worth a jump. Ultra high end gamers will want the fastest no matter if they need it or not. That's a luxury that they end up affording themselves though their purchasing decisions and ability to spend more. I think this is the compelling segment for Conroe now. So while we have debates on weather to upgrade to a 6300/6400 Conroe from a 3800+X2 at 2.7ghz, it's horse$hit. That is unless the person just wants something different, rips tons of divxx, does tons of photoshop, mp3 stuff etc... . Or I guess if they have dual 7900gtx or 1900xtx's whereas the gpu is not as big of a limiting factor. I'm of the catagory I just like playing with different things, so as stated before I'll probably do 2-3 Conroes, one phase, one water, and maybe one air :).

People and for whatever reason Intel zealots get so damm defensive about their cpus "it's got better multi-tasking, or it is 4ghz, or it uses ddr-2 or w/e. AMD kiddies do too, but tends to be more of an immature argument on their part I must admit that trends towards the ie "ugh smash it's better b/c it's cheaper and it games better." Well the latter argument is now moot. Moderates will realize that since the original Athlon when AMD brought forth a solid product to comepte with Intel, it's been give and take ever since. Fan Boys can keep their allegences, and I've been guilty of riding the AMD camp for many of those years, but to be honest both companies offer compelling solutions. I still thing bang for the $$ will be in AMD's favor. Mobos are cheaper and just as good if not better in some cases. That should change as 965 platforms mature, but the blanket statement that Conroe is for everyone is just as much a lie as P4 or A64 was for everyone. What is "for" the individual is what they can afford, and what they prefer, not what you wish to impose upon them ;)

let the further flaming continue!
 
iviustang50h said:
Anandtech performed tests with the res set to 640x480. The Conroe killed the AMD FX-62. How do you explain that?
Click to expand...

Dude, read what he said. He said that the FX-62 would be just as GPU-BOUND as Conroe in gaming. Running at 640x480 is NOT GPU-bound, but it is NOT gaming either.
 
JNavy89GT said:
I again respectfully disagree. When you say most you imply majority. Think majority now for a few minutes fellows. .................................................................... That should change as 965 platforms mature, but the blanket statement that Conroe is for everyone is just as much a lie as P4 or A64 was for everyone. What is "for" the individual is what they can afford, and what they prefer, not what you wish to impose upon them ;)

let the further flaming continue!
Click to expand...

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1060452

Post #3 of that thread.

Donnie27 05-30-2006 said:
I agree with post number 3.

I would; Start by getting a PCI-E Video card and good DDR2 PC8000. Make sure you have good SATA-2 HDDs and etc......The prices on the AM2 mobos (sorry) if you're going to upgrade, skip 939 and go to AM2 if AMD is your thing.

I'd say something different if you already had 939. So even if you're not buying Conroe or anything from Intel, it is still a very good move to wait until after it ships. How much will prices Fall? You should be able to get an AM2 4400+ and motherboard (good mobo, not a cheap one) for the same price as the Processor alone right now. Just because Conroe is faster DOESN'T mean these processors will suck and they'll *be plenty fast for a couple of years at least.
Click to expand...

My colored glasses are Pro-Consumer, any consumer, over AMD or Intel.I'm Anti overpriced EE, XE, FX, Fatality and etc...............Being an Enthusiast doesn't mean more money that Brains.
 
Donnie27 said:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1060452

Post #3 of that thread.



My colored glasses are Pro-Consumer, any consumer, over AMD or Intel.I'm Anti overpriced EE, XE, FX, Fatality and etc...............Being an Enthusiast doesn't mean more money that Brains.
Click to expand...
apologies then, I guess I'm just used to seeing u defend Intel in the XS forums prior to your AMD rig, which tbh was a major surprise. In any event. I stand by my statements otherwise, other than lumping you in with the Intel zealots. I agree that price/performance should hold the key in deciding what to buy. Where people really differ is in how they "see" price and performance. Not everyone views it the same. My pocket book is quite a bit larger than most, and there are ALOT that have even bigger pocket books. I could buy FX62 no worries, but I don't b/c I can buy cheaper and oc it the same. Yet FX62 and EE Intel CPU's still sell. So the debate will rage on how pricing and performance are viewed. However, the ranting in this thread that Kyle is biased is bogus. He's done several articles that I can recall that clearly showed AMD favored in games, yet states he still used an HT P4 due to the multi-tasking capabilities for his office work and still gamed reasonably for him. Also, let's not forget the 3.06ghz HT cpu debacle for those that recall it. I won't dig that up out of respect for Kyle but it was a black eye IMO for the site, but they've redemmed themselves in my eyes since and have had alot of quality work. I enjoy their articles/descriptions/throughness and having a few reviewers work on the products get's you as readers more opinions on the item. So was he wrong then? Wrong now? Wrong whatever he does. Yep! He'll be wrong in someone's eyes no matter what he does. You can't please everyone. I for one stand by my earlier statement that I think the article is particularly well done, especially a seperate breakout article for office/multimedia type stuff. That's a great idea IMO. Is anyone bitching about the other article. I'm sure, there is never a shortage of ungreatful people.
I reviewed many products in the past few years and know the sting that can come from the perception that you are slanted, shortsighted or ignorant regarding your review or methodology. I can almost guarantee most of the criticism is teenagers that have no clue on how reviews are actually done, have no clue on how research is conducted, have no clue how to look at things objectively, and more importantly how to write an article that is engaging and informative.
thx
 
Skipper007 said:
One question I do have to ask is whether increasing the res would increase the PCI-E load on the system. If it does, you might want to consider running that as a check too.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct and that is part of our stability testing we do. In fact our motherboard reviews are much more geared towards stability, overclocking, and features than anything else now days. On any board we run 48 hours + of 3DMark loops at High Res with two instances of Prime95 running to stress CPU and one instance of Prime95 to stress RAM.

Our motherboard reviews are done for the gamer the first, the overclocker second, and the rest of the world third. We really just want to make sure our readers have a great "out of box" experience with the boards we suggest, but first understand the boards short comings if any. And almost all have some sort of caveats, especially when looking at them from the overclocker view point.
 
iviustang50h said:
Anandtech performed tests with the res set to 640x480. The Conroe killed the AMD FX-62. How do you explain that?
Click to expand...

Here are our 640x480 numbers posted in this thread multiple times already.

Games:

UT2003 V2225

X6800 FPS: 201
E6700 FPS: 185
FX-62 FPS: 159

HL2 Source 7 BLDG 2707

X6800 FPS: 157
E6700 FPS: 146
FX-62 FPS: 121

Quake 4 v1.2

X6800 FPS: 182
E6700 FPS: 164
FX-62 FPS: 144

Dual Core / Q4 with Adobe Premiere

X6800 FPS: 128
E6700 FPS: 113
FX-62 FPS: 105

So now do you want me to explain my own? I think I have already beaten this horse to death....but here you go. We use these benchmarks to test motherboards with to make sure there is nothing wrong with them and they are allowing the CPU to perform as it should.

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.

The gaming tests below have been put together to focus on the processor power exhibited by each system. All the tests below consist of custom time demos built with stressing the CPU in mind. So much specialized coding comes into the programming now days we suggest that looking at gaming performance by using real-world gameplay is the only sure way to know what you are going to get with a specific game. Our CPUs & Real-World Gameplay Scaling would be a great place to start
Click to expand...
 
going back over just the first 7 pages and we find 6 people banned over this thread.
edit: sorry, 5 people.
 
JNavy89GT said:
apologies then, I guess I'm just used to seeing u defend Intel in the XS forums prior to your AMD rig, which tbh was a major surprise. In any event. I stand by my statements otherwise, other than lumping you in with the Intel zealots. I agree that price/performance should hold the key in deciding what to buy. Where people really differ is in how they "see" price and performance. Not everyone views it the same. My pocket book is quite a bit larger than most, and there are ALOT that have even bigger pocket books. I could buy FX62 no worries, but I don't b/c I can buy cheaper and oc it the same. Yet FX62 and EE Intel CPU's still sell. So the debate will rage on how pricing and performance are viewed. However, the ranting in this thread that Kyle is biased is bogus. He's done several articles that I can recall that clearly showed AMD favored in games, yet states he still used an HT P4 due to the multi-tasking capabilities for his office work and still gamed reasonably for him. Also, let's not forget the 3.06ghz HT cpu debacle for those that recall it. I won't dig that up out of respect for Kyle but it was a black eye IMO for the site, but they've redemmed themselves in my eyes since and have had alot of quality work. I enjoy their articles/descriptions/throughness and having a few reviewers work on the products get's you as readers more opinions on the item. So was he wrong then? Wrong now? Wrong whatever he does. Yep! He'll be wrong in someone's eyes no matter what he does. You can't please everyone. I for one stand by my earlier statement that I think the article is particularly well done, especially a seperate breakout article for office/multimedia type stuff. That's a great idea IMO. Is anyone bitching about the other article. I'm sure, there is never a shortage of ungreatful people.
I reviewed many products in the past few years and know the sting that can come from the perception that you are slanted, shortsighted or ignorant regarding your review or methodology. I can almost guarantee most of the criticism is teenagers that have no clue on how reviews are actually done, have no clue on how research is conducted, have no clue how to look at things objectively, and more importantly how to write an article that is engaging and informative.
thx
Click to expand...

The problem is me being dyslexic:) Some times it just comes out other than the way I meant it. I defend and trash Intel and AMD, always ***TRIED to anyway. Message boards used to be different. In the past, Fans were laughed at. Now you're flamed not being loyal or riding the fence.

I don't understand why anyone would be surprised I built a cheap 3500+ for games. I had said if I needed a rig for better Gaming performance, I'd buy and build an AMD based system. Actions speak many more times louder than words. Last 15 computers are 9 AMD and 6 Intel, yet, I'm an Intel Fanb0!. I think that word has lost some meaning over the years.

I explained to Kyle where I agreed and disagreed with. I respect the hell out of them here. XS has gotten a lot better since there are fewer posts from Lithan, Saaya is missing, Pet North and others who make almost anyone look like raving Intel Fans.
 
RedStarSQD said:
going back over just the first 7 pages and we find 6 people banned over this thread.
edit: sorry, 5 people.
Click to expand...

Well, just because they posted in this thread and are now banned does not mean they were "banned over this thread." We have been very careful to actually give people some slack over what has been an emotional issue to many.

Should you care to give me their nicks, I will tell you exactly what they were banned for since it seems to be of interest to you. I have made some bad decisions on forum administration over the years, but much of that was 4 years ago. I see all the time where people post you will be banned here for sharing your opinion. I would suggest that the 850+ posts in this thread are a direct argument to that blanket statement.

So, give me the nicks you are interested in, and I will give you the reasons behind our actions. Until you have the facts, I would appreciate you not making statements like you have above.
 
sorry about that and sure:

justusafmech edit:JetUsafMech
trek554
shungokusatsu
joshua edit:Joshua_564556
codewaste

edit: going up to page 33--which i think is enough...no one else is listed as banned.
 
JNavy89GT said:
I again respectfully disagree. When you say most you imply majority. Think majority now for a few minutes fellows. Majority of gamers probably play on GF4/9800 or equivelent hardware which is about where some of the integrated graphics are at now. Maybe a wee bit better, but certainly not high end. Hell a conroe may show even more potential in this arena but I would have to test that out to make sure. I guess what I'm trying to say, it we are a select few and not the majority. People who spend 400-600 on a video card are the microscopic far end of the spectrum. Sure thousands and thousands of these cards sell, but millions of the cheap crap sell. You could poll the users on [H] forums and I think you'd find the average gamer to be using 6800/7800gt's or radeon equivelent. Certainly not high end now.
Click to expand...

I WAS talking about the majority of *enthusiasts* I guess I could have made that more clear... So, to reiterate, I was talking about those who are going for the complete platform upgrade whom are gaming enthusiasts. That should clear up any confusion. :D
 
Donnie27 said:
The problem is me being dyslexic:) Some times it just comes out other than the way I meant it. I defend and trash Intel and AMD, always ***TRIED to anyway. Message boards used to be different. In the past, Fans were laughed at. Now you're flamed not being loyal or riding the fence.

I don't understand why anyone would be surprised I built a cheap 3500+ for games. I had said if I needed a rig for better Gaming performance, I'd buy and build an AMD based system. Actions speak many more times louder than words. Last 15 computers are 9 AMD and 6 Intel, yet, I'm an Intel Fanb0!. I think that word has lost some meaning over the years.

I explained to Kyle where I agreed and disagreed with. I respect the hell out of them here. XS has gotten a lot better since there are fewer posts from Lithan, Saaya is missing, Pet North and others who make almost anyone look like raving Intel Fans.
Click to expand...

Donnie, again apologies for lumping u in with the Intel !!!!!!s. It's not true evidently so I retract that statement about u. In retrospect I appreciate your outlook and commentary
thx
 
iviustang50h said:
Even with the GPU in the equation the results are the same. What did you think I meant? :confused:
Click to expand...

But the tests show that there is little difference at 1600x1200 and a medium difference at 1280x1024. The Conroe always stays above the FX-62, and it no doubt the better chip, but the difference is less noticeable as you turn up the resolution, because more and more load gets put on the GPU. That's what Kyle was trying to show, and he's right.
 
Kyle - I thought that the review was a good review. It helped gamers know how much of a real world performance increase in their daily gaming the new Core 2 chips would give us. As it turns out, at the typical settings most of us play at the gains were minimal. Yet on other applications you made it known that the new Intel chips have made some significant gains and are much better effieciency wise when compared to past Intel chips.

Many people have criticized the method in which you conducted your review which confuses me. You have done nothing to say that the Conroe chips are not good CPUs. What people need to realize is that what your review has effectively told us gamers is that Conroe is a very good powerful chip however you shouldnt expect to gain FPS in your games because its the GAMES that are GPU dependant. When running games with high graphical detail like we all do today the GPU is the deciding factor, which you have been the only reviewer that I have seen to point this out. It is unfortunate that some people will read the other reviews and think that they are gonna get another 40fps by upgrading to Conroe.

Games are not a good "benchmark" for deciding the overall performance of a CPU. Kyle - Thank you for the nice GAMING REVIEW . . .

and keep up the good work. We as enthusiasts are lucky to have the [H]ardForum and I think sometimes people forget that. Best Regards. -metallicafan
 
HOCP4ME said:
But the tests show that there is little difference at 1600x1200 and a medium difference at 1280x1024. The Conroe always stays above the FX-62, and it no doubt the better chip, but the difference is less noticeable as you turn up the resolution, because more and more load gets put on the GPU. That's what Kyle was trying to show, and he's right.
Click to expand...

Okay, I follow you. However, what if a crossfire, SLI or the Geforce 7950 is used? Then that gap margin widens. Check out Tomshardware and Anandtech and you will see what I mean. If the motherboard Kyle used didn't have issues with the 7950, I think you would have seen a larger performance advantage for Intel even when the res was turned up to 1600x1200 or higher (and I mean between the two chips, not a larger margin between resolutions. At thsi point the gap will decrease when the res is increased, but if a 7950 was used that gap would be larger between chips...there, that makes sense now :D ). THIS is and was my point. ;)
 
JNavy89GT said:
Donnie, again apologies for lumping u in with the Intel !!!!!!s. It's not true evidently so I retract that statement about u. In retrospect I appreciate your outlook and commentary
thx
Click to expand...

Apologies accepted, no biggie! And thank you very much.
 
RedStarSQD said:
sorry about that and sure:

justusafmech edit:JetUsafMech
trek554
shungokusatsu
joshua edit:Joshua_564556
codewaste

edit: going up to page 33--which i think is enough...no one else is listed as banned.
Click to expand...

JetUsaMech - Asked for his account and IP to be banned.


trek554 - Flaming other members and cursing AT them, asked to stop. Told our mods to F off. 1 week ban.

shungokusatsu - I banned him for trolling and repeatedly posting the same thing over and over in different threads. He was warned by me to keep his posts to the appropriate thread and did not do so.

Joshua_564556 - A rereg of a previously banned account that reregged to troll the Intel forums.

codewaste - this member has a long history of being a problem, multiple notes in his account. He abuses other posters with trolling and attacks. Was simply bashing us and not contributing to a solid debate. The straw that broke that camels back with me was accusing of of taking money to influence our opinions.


Obviously this 850+ post thread is a testament to us allowing people to share their opinions of our work, even when they hate it. To suggest anything else is irresponsible.
 
iviustang50h said:
I DID read what he said "dude!" My point is that although they are not real world representations they show that the Conroe destroys the AMD offerings when the GPU is taken out of the equation, as well as when it isn't. This proves the Intel performs better in both circumstances (IOW the FX-62 being GPU bound or not still gets killed by the Conroe hence the GPU bound theory goes out the window). Do you follow me DUDE?



I understand this, but thanks for posting the numbers so I didn't have to read all 44 pages. :)

I think I was misunderstood or maybe I phrased something wrong, but my point is that even when the GPU is taken out of the equation the Conroe still destroys the AMD offerings. Even with the GPU in the equation the results are the same. What did you think I meant? :confused:
Click to expand...


Here is a whole article dedicated to real world applications where the Core 2 Duo shines tremendously. "Gaming" benchmarks at 640x480 are nothing more than a synthetic test that does not represent real world gaming.
 
Kyle,

My apologies if this has been answered elsewhere, but it's so taxing to wade through all the yelling back and forth and flaming to find it. Have you directly answered the question regarding why this suite of reviews differs so much in methodology to the recent AM2 reviews, in that you used real-world gaming for the Conroe review (which is IMO more consistent with the way you do graphics card reviews) instead of using low-res gaming to eliminate the GPU bottleneck like you did on the AM2 reviews? Taken by itself I can see very few reasons for anybody to complain about your Conroe reviews. However, taken in the context of very recent AM2 reviews, those with strong paranoid conspiracy tendencies are bound to take offense. I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist, but I'd like to see that question answered myself. The timing of the review methodology switch certainly raises some eyebrows.
 
It's nice to see realworld performance as the [H] review has shown, but that will always be only a partial measure of CPU perfomance. Even if Conroe had twice the raw power of the X2s, it would not be revealed in gaming benchmarks that are GPU limited.

So I appreciate synthetic game benchmarks that isolate CPU performance from video bottlenecks to get an indication of future performance differences with next-gen GPUs.

When I buy a new CPU, I think about the future.
 
Great catch and read there Robin B.

Firing Squad articlulated my thoughts very well especially in Why “real-world” now? and the Summary.

Many of the people including myself arent complaining of the results and know Hi-Res testing is GPU bound. Just Kyle seams to think those are the only gaming test that matter. Maybe only [H] people only have BFG 79xx Series cards and play at 1600x1200 betweeen 30-40fps. I dont know I'm not a mind reader.

He starts off calling sites liars, Intel Cronies and Conroe a waste. Just seams he had a pre-determind outcome of what he wanted to say. Although many other sites include single GPU and Multi-GPU testing both in Hi-res and low-res and gave a broader picture of the situation rather than a very specific narrow view that was portraid here as "REAL WORLD".

When that comes into question he is quick to say go else where. When the facts are people are coming here to ask why was the testing so narrow minded or limited.

The only answers that have been given by Kyle is he didnt have time but every site was limited yet several sites were able to provide Hi-rez and Low-rez testing with Single and Dual GPUs.
Responding to questions by readers with hostility and banning and slandering sites and companies while 4days later reverting back to low-rez testing isnt very Professional at all.

If their is an updated article that clarifies things further I welcome that read.
 
I was just about to post that article and I'm about to read it now. All I have to say is: maybe next time you'll think about what you say about other reputable sites/companies before you go and publish an article, Kyle.
 
"Obviously this 850+ post thread is a testament to us allowing people to share their opinions of our work, even when they hate it. To suggest anything else is irresponsible." --kyle

I made a few bad assumptions ...i went back to reread the entire thread and suddenly noticed all the bans...which made me think of your post threatening to ban this other person (and other sites doing it). So yes, my first reaction was --omgawsh. I APOLOGIZE for the suggestion!

But, would it be too hard to apologize for a few poor assumptions you made also...?

I think firingsquad's response was only to be expected --you basically called every site a liar and, indeed, that's how it has been interpreted. You then alluded to intel cronies as you justified your gaming performance article as successfully getting out the message you wanted all along.

Just a few things needed to be changed.

I have had this website as my homepage for a long time now...and have been very happy with it (i know i am only 1 person and makes no difference). Hence my noobie status here. That's why i am so concerned now though ...and obviously many more people feel the same way.

You have said your going to do an editorial so i look forward to that. :)
----
bottom line for this post: Regardless, i am indeed SORRY for suggesting you banned people for their views on this thread. It was wrong and based on a flawed premise
 
EpedemiX said:
He starts off calling sites liars, Intel Cronies and Conroe a waste. Just seams he had a pre-determind outcome of what he wanted to say.

When that comes into question he is quick to say go else where. When the facts are people are coming here to ask why was the testing so narrow minded or limited.

The only answers that have been given by Kyle is he didnt have time but every site was limited yet several sites were able to provide Hi-rez and Low-rez testing with Single and Dual GPUs.

Responding to questions by readers with hostility and banning and slandering sites and companies while 4days later reverting back to low-rez testing isnt very Professional at all.
Click to expand...

Wow, putting words in my mouth, we called the benchmarks they were using telling lies, a much different assessment of motivation. I am sorry you don't know the difference.

850+ posts later and all I had to say was go elsewhere? Now you are lying, not just the 800x600 benchmarks.

Only answers? Again you are lying and refuse to accept any reasonable explanation we have offered.

Hostility and banning? You are still here. I have not cursed or been hostile to you and you have done nothing but repeatedly tried ripping into me and then you dodge posts that show our logic to be nutty at best. Please ignore this one too. I am used to guys like you and their posting patterns. Throw one argument out there, move to the next no matter what is said. The classic, "Oh yeah, but what about....?' I have seen it before. ;) I have been very willing to discuss pretty much every bit of debate that has been put on the table. If you choose to ignore my answers because you "know" what my motivations and reasons are, so be it.
 
Wow after reading many of these posts I can see that many here are missing the point.

What Kyle has shown us is that while Conroe CPU's may in fact be faster technically, in the real world the difference doesn't mean a thing in gaming performance. The difference across the board in the review wasn't that much. All the CPU's were within a few % of each other.

So when another website talks about Conroe being the best for games, that is somewhat missleading. If you game at anything beyond 1024x768 and have a high end video card, it simply won't matter which CPU you are using.

The situation now is different than it was when the A64 made a large improvement in gaming performance over that of a Prescott based P4.
 
The point is that there now seems to be double standards. The latest motherboard review doesn't do any high-res gaming to show that it doesn't really matter which chipset you choose, it only looks at low res.
article said:
Gaming Benchmarks

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.

The gaming tests below have been put together to focus on the processor power exhibited by each system. All the tests below consist of custom time demos built with stressing the CPU in mind. So much specialized coding comes into the programming now days we suggest that looking at gaming performance by using real-world gameplay is the only sure way to know what you are going to get with a specific game. Our CPUs & Real-World Gameplay Scaling would be a great place to start.
Click to expand...

Finding a way to stress the processor is okay when it's not a processor you're reviewing but not okay when you are reviewing a processor. Most of us here came to believe that there were new review standards being put into place and it just so happened the the Intel chips were the first to be reviewed under these new standards. Now it seems that there is a double-standard in place.

We just want you to choose a standard and apply it evenly across all brands, not review with certain criteria in mind depending on the brand. That's all it is.
 
Question for Kyle :


Kyle, surely you've come to be friends with a lot of other hardware reviewers/guys that run hardware sites. Dont you think you might have hurt their feelings a little bit with this article as far as questioning thier sites reviewing methods?
 
Dan_D said:
Wow after reading many of these posts I can see that many here are missing the point.

What Kyle has shown us is that while Conroe CPU's may in fact be faster technically, in the real world the difference doesn't mean a thing in gaming performance. The difference across the board in the review wasn't that much. All the CPU's were within a few % of each other.

So when another website talks about Conroe being the best for games, that is somewhat missleading. If you game at anything beyond 1024x768 and have a high end video card, it simply won't matter which CPU you are using.

The situation now is different than it was when the A64 made a large improvement in gaming performance over that of a Prescott based P4.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't necessarily say >1024x768
I'd be comfortable with 1600x1200 and greater the Conroe won't be much if any faster due to being GPU bound. I'd venture to say at 1280x1024 which IS a common LCD res, the Conroe would show gains on 7900gtx/x1900xt cards. Enough to justify difference? Hard to say, to each their own. Furthermore, if someone doesn't have latest and greatest vid card, AMD may or may not be the better play based on $ spent for total system. Remember Intel boards are traditionally higher priced. Ram is again pretty much moot, and if anything favors Intel b/c Conroe isn't so penalized by lax timings as AMD. So let's just not examine cpu pricing when saying Conroe is better. Let's figure the whole system cost. Hell a Conroe might even get by with weaker PSU than AMD now :O... Something that's logical but I've never thought of till this second. Surely, cooling is different as well. The list goes on. While I love A64, I'm excited to play with Conroe. What I don't appreciate is everyone jumping on the bandwagon, which frankly, most people just regurgitate specs/performance they read about and have no tangible knowledge of what really effect performance.
thx
 
TheToE! said:
Question for Kyle :


Kyle, surely you've come to be friends with a lot of other hardware reviewers/guys that run hardware sites. Dont you think you might have hurt their feelings a little bit with this article as far as questioning thier sites reviewing methods?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
Yraen said:
The point is that there now seems to be double standards. The latest motherboard review doesn't do any high-res gaming to show that it doesn't really matter which chipset you choose, it only looks at low res.
Click to expand...

In that case, he was trying to stress the processor to test hardware stabillity and make sure the mobo waas working right. If we would have seen very low framerates when the CPU should be able to keep up, we would know there is something wrong with the communication between the CPU and chipset on that board. If high-res benchmarks fail when the GPU should be able to keep up, we know that there is something wrong with the communication between the GPU and chipset on that board.

It's like Kyle running Prime95 to test stabillity, and then you complaining because it doesn't measure real-world performance like the Conroe article. :rolleyes:

You still don't understand that there are different types of testing. As far as I know, there is:

Stabillity testing: This is what Kyle uses for mobos. It simply tries to stress the system to make sure it works correctly. If there's a massive bottleneck when other parts of the system should be able to keep up, you know something's wrong.

Raw power testing: This category measures the raw power of a processor. It includes low-res gaming benchmarks as well as synthetic tests like 3DMark. A higher score means more power. It doesn't, however, mean that any applications can utillize that power. This form of testing, which is a good way of checking a processor's "future-proof" capabillity, is the method Kyle used to use for CPU reviews. I wouldn't be suprised if he continues to use this method in the future. But this time, he didn't use it, because for some reason, people were taking them for more than what they are worth and saying you'd see gains in today's games when in fact you wouldn't.

"Real" performance testing: This is what Kyle uses for video card reviews. It measure the amount of performance gain seen in real-world conditions, with all normal bottlenecks still in place. The tests here give results much closer to what the "average" person would see if they upgraded from one piece of hardware to another. Kyle doesn't usually use these on processor reviews, but he did with Conroe, because a lot of people were translating raw-power benchmarks into real-world performance, and Kyle wanted to remind everyone that you can't do that. One thing about this form of testing, however, is that SLI can change things, and Kyle admitted that in his article.

So there you have it. Now please stop comparing a stabillity test to a performance test, or a power test to a performance test.

I see why Kyle's editorial may be necessary after all.
 
NorthCaddoRB said:
I've seen people banned from here for a lot less than the above "offenses". I've seen people permanently banned and temporarily banned (I guess that suspended would be a more accurate term) for the "same offenses "! NO consistency at all. Example from above quoted post: I tell a moderator to F off and I get banned for a week. The next person that does so is banned permantely. I've seen things just such as that happen here.




That may be true for this one thread , but my above observations seem to be the standard operating procedure for this site.


I read this site for a long time before I registered. I've seen a LOT of B.S. go on here that I didn't agree with and some that I did agree with. I will give credit to this site's owner for answering at least some of the criticism this site receives and trying to explain why reviews/policies/etc. are the way they are here. That is an unusual and a very welcome deviation from what is the norm for this type of site.
Click to expand...

I really don't think it is "standard operating procedure" in this site to ban people for no reason. How do you know that it the different punishments were for the "same offenses"? How do you know that those who were permamently banned hadn't done it more than once? How do you know they didn't send a PM to Kyle or another mod that was even more abusive than their post?
 
Dan_D said:
Wow after reading many of these posts I can see that many here are missing the point.

What Kyle has shown us is that while Conroe CPU's may in fact be faster technically, in the real world the difference doesn't mean a thing in gaming performance. The difference across the board in the review wasn't that much. All the CPU's were within a few % of each other.
Click to expand...

Maybe the best post out of the 900 or so posts in this thread. When those of you complaining in this thread realize that Conroe is indeed faster in many applications except our highly graphical GPU bound games the quicker this issue can be put to rest.

Often times I see people complain that people put too much stock in synthetic benchmarks, and that 3DMark means nothing about in-game performance. Its more or less the same thing here. Kyle could have done what every other review out there did, and what most people already believed to be true, and showed that Conroe is indeed a faster CPU. But he chose to give the truth in that at the resolutions and graphical settings most of us play at there arent a lot of gaming benefits to buying a $1000, top of the line Conroe.

Bottom line: Measuring CPU performance on a game at 800x600 resolution is more or less a synthetic benchmark like 3DMark. It sure cant be called a "Real World" benchmark like so many people have asked for.
 
metallicafan said:
Bottom line: Measuring CPU performance on a game at 800x600 resolution is more or less a synthetic benchmark like 3DMark. It sure cant be called a "Real World" benchmark like so many people have asked for.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And I don't think there are very many people who still support synthetic benchmarks for telling you how well your new processor will perform.

It's true that no benchmark will every use the exact same settings that you do. But what's closer, 800x600, no AA or AF, or 1600x1200, medium AA, high AF?
 
metallicafan said:
Maybe the best post out of the 900 or so posts in this thread. When those of you complaining in this thread realize that Conroe is indeed faster in many applications except our highly graphical GPU bound games the quicker this issue can be put to rest.

Often times I see people complain that people put too much stock in synthetic benchmarks, and that 3DMark means nothing about in-game performance. Its more or less the same thing here. Kyle could have done what every other review out there did, and what most people already believed to be true, and showed that Conroe is indeed a faster CPU. But he chose to give the truth in that at the resolutions and graphical settings most of us play at there arent a lot of gaming benefits to buying a $1000, top of the line Conroe.

Bottom line: Measuring CPU performance on a game at 800x600 resolution is more or less a synthetic benchmark like 3DMark. It sure cant be called a "Real World" benchmark like so many people have asked for.
Click to expand...

The point is that Kyle did not show us a good view of Conroe performance in games. He showed us very canned benchmarks that reflect his benching circumstances. Read some of the other reviews on the net, and seу that they scale to 1600*1200 4xaa/8xaf and beyond. It's just that he shows us messy "playability charts" with different gameplay settings, while other sites show us benchmarks run at the same settings, with minimal framerate bars. What they have shown us that that while Conroe does not devlier much higher average framerates, it does deliver much (up to ~50% or more) nicer min framerates in certain (read certain) games. Kyle does not give us this deduction.

There is a very good reason, Kyle, why objective comparisons are done in a certain way. Tring to change scientific, empirical evidence method is counter-productive, and I hope you will see that you are not significantly smarter than the rest of the community that works in this business. Try to reinvent the wheel; fine. But when you find that fewer people hold your reviews in acclaim do not bash them as ignorant. You are too hot headed in this regard; read Dave Bauman for how to handle criticism.
 
NorthCaddoRB said:
I've seen people banned from here for a lot less than the above "offenses". I've seen people permanently banned and temporarily banned (I guess that suspended would be a more accurate term) for the "same offenses "! NO consistency at all. ......................................................... That is an unusual and a very welcome deviation from what is the norm for this type of site.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I was banned from "The Commport" in a despicable manner. These guys had goons trolling the forum that mods would pretend to spank on the back of the hand and banned folks for retaliation, Extremetech did this as well. That's been about two years ago, never went back after members I got along with asked why I never asked to be un-banned, many of the same forum Bullies are still there, why bother?

Many of the same damned mods run MaxPC and they do the same crap.

Here's a Repost from MaxPC Forum. It was a reply to an AMD worshipper that seem to post in every positive Intel post there.

First of all, the thread is about Woodcrest and Conroe costs far less than that what Dual Core AMD processors sold for.

Sorry I was referring to the PE1950.

I wish I could publish the price they gave us.
The consumer would be disgusted at the price they will pay for Conroe.
Click to expand...

Reply Starts here.
If the consumers weren't pissed off with X2 prices, these will hardly mean anything LOL! Oh wait, high assed launch prices of AMD is OK right? Honestly, are you guys AMD plants or what?

Each time I log on here, it's more like the AMDZone, AMD4ever or etc... AMD Fansite. This site's Name is MaximumPC, not MaximumAMDPC or etc....

So the consumer shouldn't be pissed that the 3800+ had sold for as much as $425 or that several sites listed FX-62 for as much as $1300, WOW! If you aren't an AMD plant and just really hate Intel for the hell of it. You should at least love Woodcrest/Conroe so you can spend less money for your next AMD purchase. Besides Employees and Stockholers (or family members there of) and general competition, you are the only folks wanting to see AMD make money at the Consumer's expense.

http://www.techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=1
http://www.2cpu.com/review.php?id=112
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=woodcrest&page=1
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2985

Intel Xeon Processor

Processor Brand Processor No. Core / FSB L2 Cache Price @Launch

Xeon Processor DP (Woodcrest Bin-0) 5160 3.0GHz /1333MHz 4MB $850
Xeon Processor DP (Woodcrest Bin-1) 5150 2.66GHz /1333MHz 4MB $690
Xeon Processor DP (Woodcrest Bin-2) 5140 2.33GHz /1333MHz 4MB $455
Xeon Processor DP (Woodcrest Bin-3) 5130 2.0GHz /1333MHz 4MB $320
Xeon Processor DP (Woodcrest Bin-4) 5120 1.86GHz /1066MHz 4MB $260
Xeon Processor DP (Woodcrest Bin-5) 5110 1.60GHz /1066MHz 4MB $210

$1051 - opteron 285
$827 - opteron 280 2.4ghz
$671 - opteron 275
$706 - opteron 275 he
$443 - opteron 270
$920 - opteron 270 he
$357 - opteron 265
$358 - opteron 265 he
$443 - opteron 260
$775 - opteron 256
$672 - opteron 254
$443 - opteron 252
$309 - opteron 250
$170 - opteron 248
$170 - opteron 248 he
$134 - opteron 246
$150 - opteron 246 he
$160 - opteron 244
$155 - opteron 242
$160 - opteron 240
$212 - opteron 240 ee

This is AFTER price cuts. The whole Intel vs AMD thing is hyped way the hell too much. When Xeon prices looked like this vs Opteron, I said Opteron was the better deal! Now, I don't think so and am loyal only to my wallet! Wasn't clear win for A64 and X2 was the real deal and its price reflected that.
Click to expand...

I clicked back and the banned box is there. No warning, no 3day or one week, permanently banned. This is a site where the person I was replying too called me an Intel employee, Dumbass Intel !!!!!!, Idiot and several other things. Nothing done to him and two others who did similar. Funny thing was I kind of knew I'd be banned, same Mods from the Commport LOL! I busted out links and was talking to people spreading FUD and unsubstantiated BS with no real links to back anything up.

Folks have done far worse here and NOT been banned I respect the hell out of this forum to NOT try and bend folk's view. I agree with Kyle and Chris far more times than I disagree with them. I didn't mean to take anything off topic but many of us don't need to take this crap so personal. Computers are tools and entertainment, not worth hurt feelings and personal attacks.

Mods, feel free to delete this post if you like?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top