• 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

300+ responses plus an article in the time it took me to cook up dinner, eat it, and watch 3 hours of trash TV??

Must be controversial. Maybe I'll go back and read all the responses tomorrow. But I think the article will definitely make me reconsider purchasing a conroe system during the summer. Perhaps I'll make an AMD 64 system with the inevitable price cuts to come or just wait until chirstmas to do conroe.
 
Mr. Miyagi said:
From reading this topic, I've come to the conclusion that a lot of members were expecting too much of the Conroe in games. With the [H]ard review, they were left upset because Conroe was dubbed being the next best thing in computer performance since slice bread. Of course, Kyle did real gameplay benchmarks and found the Conroe platform isn't as wonderful as some hoped (or seemed due to synthetic benchmarks). It seems that some are upset @ [H] because Hard proved them wrong. Oh well I thought it was a great review. Nice job keeping people informed about real word performance :)
Click to expand...


Thanks! Hopefully we will see some differences when we get SLI working. And also keep in mind, as I have seen more than a few of you post the "Look at Anand's CrossFire benchmarks," that benchmarks and real gameplay are two very different things. There is a reason we stopped using benchmarks altoghther and that is because they do not accurately reflect gameplay all the time. I remember a time when people actually looked to 3DMark to tell them how their video card would perform, but that day is long past. Canned benchmarks will one day follow.
 
visaris said:
You people have no respect. You should be thanking Kyle for the hard work and contribution to us all instead of your current pathetic display.
Click to expand...

I think asking a fair question about not having 975X or ATI results is not being disrespectful when other reviews today have them. Intel sent out the press kits at the same time to all sites, just a question because if this article was meant to truly define "real world" gaming experience then the lack of additional hardware at the now [H] hi-res standard is confusing.
 
savantu said:
Well I took your advice , but still came to my original conclusion : you say current games are not CPU limited.Why not test with lower CPUs until we see where it is CPU limited ? Why not use a 2.4GHz E6600 ? If the E6600 has the same scores as the E6700 and E6800 don't you think this is relevant ?

Besides , what you say here is kinda of irrelevant.90% of those who read the review won't read these forums and will say " Intel and other reviewers cheated the user into believing the Conroe hype ".

The beatifull conclusion : Then, and only then, you might see an Intel Core 2 processor deliver a performance advantage.

Again why not test the maximum GPU power available or if you don't have it , test the lowest Core 2 which can take advantage of the 7900GTX.



And what's with the above ?
What does this say about review quality when in the conclusion you have : don't buy Conroe , buy the cheaper AMD after the price cuts since AMD is on par with Conroe ?
Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts, they are noted.
 
bingo13 said:
I think asking a fair question about not having 975X or ATI results is not being disrespectful when other reviews today have them. Intel sent out the press kits at the same time to all sites, just a question because if this article was meant to truly define "real world" gaming experience then the lack of additional hardware at the now [H] hi-res standard is confusing. However, not as confusing as FRAPS snapshots being "real world", nothing more than canned benchmarks themselves with a significant error of margin built in.
Click to expand...

This has already been addressed a couple of times. Please read the thread.
 
I am going to hit the sack now. 18 hour work days have a way of making you tired. ;)

Thanks to those of you that see the light. Thanks to those of you that don't. I will have to agree to disagree at this point. I honestly doubt I will have time to pick back up with this thread tomorrow as I have work to do. My email box is always open.

Night.
 
savantu said:
And what's with the above ?
What does this say about review quality when in the conclusion you have : don't buy Conroe , buy the cheaper AMD after the price cuts since AMD is on par with Conroe ?
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, that doesn't say don't buy Conroe. He just says that it's not worth the small performance increase to upgrade if you already have a high AMD or Intel solution because the GPU is the bottleneck. He only advises to upgrade from a high AMD or Intel if you have a SLI or Crossfire setup. Besides, gaming isn't the only thing that Conroe plays in. If you read the other article about entertainment performance, you'll see that it performs very well against AMD.
 
Since it is early morning here , I have some time to burn... :)

What's with this :

Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance
The BFGTech GeForce 7900 GTX OC was common to both systems with the same ForceWare 91.33 driver and default driver settings.

and this

Power tests

What did you actually use ? GF 7800GTX or 7900GTX ?
 
Mr. Miyagi said:
From reading this topic, I've come to the conclusion that a lot of members were expecting too much of the Conroe in games. With the [H]ard review, they were left upset because Conroe was dubbed being the next best thing in computer performance since slice bread. Of course, Kyle did real gameplay benchmarks and found the Conroe platform isn't as wonderful as some hoped (or seemed due to synthetic benchmarks). It seems that some are upset @ [H] because Hard proved them wrong. Oh well I thought it was a great review. Nice job keeping people informed about real word performance :)
Click to expand...

Kyle mostly only did "real gameplay benchmarks" at 1600x1200. Why weren't more tests done at 1024x768 or 1280x1024? Does everyone use 20"+ monitors and have a top end video card?

I'm glad other sites are showing more realistic scenarios with their gameplay benchmarks.
 
Mr. Miyagi said:
To my knowledge, that doesn't say don't buy Conroe. He just says that it's not worth the small performance increase to upgrade if you already have a high AMD or Intel solution because the GPU is the bottleneck. He only advises to upgrade from a high AMD or Intel if you have a SLI or Crossfire setup. Besides, gaming isn't the only thing that Conroe plays in. If you read the other article about entertainment performance, you'll see that it performs very well against AMD.
Click to expand...

Let's see :

-Conroe has the same gaming performance as the FX62 while being 3x cheaper ( E6600 vs. FX62 )
-offers better all around performance
-lower power consumption ( on this site between idle and full load de X6800 has a delta of 30w while its TDP is 75w. :rolleyes: )

And what does the HardOCP article ends with ? "look for the huge AMD price cuts" ?!

I think we are fully entitled to question this phrase.I can't remember any other review to say a similar thing , really.And I've read quitte a few in the past years.
 
These Crossfie numbers really raise the question of how many users really do buy dual high end cards. Up untill now I've lways gone for the ~300$ price category. I've always seen crossfire/SLI as a niche not really worth it (cost/power/heat/support).
So will Conroe's increased CPU processing power really raise the benefits of dual GPU to a point worth considering?
Anand's review kind of points that way.
26% gains on lowest model Conroe in Oblivion is really what some people have been waiting for.
So dual GPU + Conroe?
 
altcon said:
I find Anand's review very enlightening about Crossfire prospects.
It seems multi High End GPU will get a BIG boost in gaming with the Conroe.
Click to expand...

It only show how much power Conroe has that it is unused with a single GPU.Expect future GPUs like the upcoming ATI monster R600 and Conroe aware drivers to unleash Conroes full potential.

With all due respect , HardOCP tested how much water a man and an elephant can drink through a straw and because both drank the same amount they concluded the man and elephant had the same strength. :rolleyes:
 
Why is it over at nvnews they are up in arms saying hardocp's review is faulty and then they are celebrating aandtech's like its 4th of july?
 
Viper87227 said:
Because we didn't know that. There were dupped benches floating around showing huge gains at high resolutions. Sure, alot of people knew that that woudn't be the case, but you can bet your ass pleanty of people had a sliver of hope that conroe was so damn amazing that it was capable of what these scores were showing. So, from this angle, [H] was more out to prove that all the early benches were infact, wrong.

Also, you ask what is the point of this article when it tells us what we already know? Well, then I ask you, what is the point of all the articles showing the performance at settings no one is going to be using?

Methinks Conroe is simply ahead of its time. As I said before, in the next gen of video cards, we may see much better results from conroe. Right now, however, were not, so I see no reason to be an early adopter.

Don't get me wrong, if someone were building a new gaming PC, Conroe all the way. However, all of us AMD guys can stop freaking out about how much Core2 stomps at A64. Right now, its not an issue, so right now, there is no reason for us AMD guys to sell off all our shit to try and move to Core2.
Click to expand...

do all AMD users own FX-62s and have 7950GX2s and run at 1600x1200?
It's cheaper to buy a Conroe than it is to buy an FX-62. The reviewer didn't review against A64s, but Cupholder2.0 has shown you what more credible benchmarking sites have displayed, that it's not just a 3 fps difference in one game. Conroe does in fact perform better.
I don't game at 1600x1200, and almost all of my friends don't either. at those resolutions, it is more of a graphics card load than a CPU load. I run games at 1024x768.... 1280x1024 tops. There's more CPU usage there. To not do those and to make a conclusion that Conroe is in fact all hype is crap. Clearly, from all other benchmarks, it's shown that conroe can run faster. For all of you lucky guys who can run 1600x1200 easily, cool. But this doesn't show jack shit. A lot of more credible benchmarkers have also tests in more than one resolution, to apply to more. This isn't anything new. This is just giving a little less than 1/3rd other site's reviews.

by the way, we're not trying to convince you guys to sell your systems, we're just saying that this review wasn't exactly the best way to come to a conclusion. I don't care if you want to sell your A64 system or not.
 
I guess in retrospect we can all agree that A64 never gave a better gaming experience than P4, and that all tech sites that published low-res gaming CPU reviews (including [H] before they saw the light) have more or less deliberately misled their readers. Boy, those who bought A64s instead of P4s for gaming must really feel stupid now, and they didn.t get hyperthreading either ;)
 
jon67 said:
I guess in retrospect we can all agree that A64 never gave a better gaming experience than P4, and that all tech sites that published low-res gaming CPU reviews (including [H] before they saw the light) have more or less deliberately misled their readers. Boy, those who bough A64s instead of P4s for gaming must really feel stupid now, and they didn.t get hyperthreading either ;)
Click to expand...

lol.
 
savantu said:
With all due respect , HardOCP tested how much water a man and an elephant can drink through a straw and because both drank the same amount they concluded the man and elephant had the same strength. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I disagree, they showed one aspect of the potential upgrade. The conclusion is simple -if you are using a single GPU, for now a while platform upgrde won't benefit your gaming.
What they didn't show, that only Anand has shown in a way I can somehow trust, is the power Conroe + Multi GPU have to offer. On that note Multi GPU gamers using ATi will benefit from the upgrade.
However that seems pretty much a niche, how many people do you know that have crossfire X1900XT's?
I can count all the ones I know on 0 fingers.....
I'll wait and see NVidia Multi - GPU and benefits of next gen GPU's before I make a desicion.
For now, If I had High End crossfire my AMD rig would be FS.
 
jon67 said:
I guess in retrospect we can all agree that A64 never gave a better gaming experience than P4, and that all tech sites that published low-res gaming CPU reviews (including [H] before they saw the light) have more or less deliberately misled their readers. Boy, those who bough A64s instead of P4s for gaming must really feel stupid now, and they didn.t get hyperthreading either ;)
Click to expand...

Finally someone who has a brain. Thank you. Coudlnt have said it better than myself :).
 
altcon said:
I disagree, they showed one aspect of the potential upgrade. The conclusion is simple -if you are using a single GPU, for now a while platform upgrde won't benefit your gaming.
What they didn't show, that only Anand has shown in a way I can somehow trust, is the power Conroe + Multi GPU have to offer. On that note Multi GPU gamers using ATi will benefit from the upgrade.
However that seems pretty much a niche, how many people do you know that have crossfire X1900XT's?
I can count all the ones I know on 0 fingers.....
I'll wait and see NVidia Multi - GPU and benefits of next gen GPU's before I make a desicion.
For now, If I had High End crossfire my AMD rig would be FS.
Click to expand...

what you said wasn't even relevant to what the person you just quoted said. That guy you quoted modeled the situation perfectly. You just went off talking about dual GPUs.
 
jon67 said:
I guess in retrospect we can all agree that A64 never gave a better gaming experience than P4, and that all tech sites that published low-res gaming CPU reviews (including [H] before they saw the light) have more or less deliberately misled their readers. Boy, those who bough A64s instead of P4s for gaming must really feel stupid now, and they didn.t get hyperthreading either ;)
Click to expand...
Truth be told, yes.
Anyone who had a P4 3.2 and up and switched to Amd64 for gaming didn't really earn much in gaming, but they did in power consumption and heat.
I would also agree that those benches were misleading and not a well thought out analysis for gamers.
 
trek554 said:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1073284





i knew all those high resolution benchmarks from guru3d were total bs.
Click to expand...
They are BS
here have a look
crosscity1600.gif


Core duo 2 makes a huge difference when using SLI/Crossfire
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_performance/page15.asp
 
StealthyFish said:
what you said wasn't even relevant to what the person you just quoted said. That guy you quoted modeled the situation perfectly. You just went off talking about dual GPUs.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you can agree with someone.
I took his point and made a different one also showing how Conroe can now benefit gamers.
But thank you for the very helpfull remark.
 
altcon said:
I'm glad you can agree with someone.
I took his point and made a different one also showing how Conroe can now benefit gamers.
But thank you for the very helpfull remark.
Click to expand...

Alt, don't take the "hard" in Hardforum too seriously. I took your point and made a very different one, showing the name Hardforum can be abused.

I've been on Cupholder2.0 and the rest of the sane people's side.
 
Nice to know theres sides and this isn't about what use Conroe will actually have to offer consumers.
Go team....
More to the point, I think that todays benchmarks show Multi GPU is the only place Conroe offers a GAMING advantage. I am curious about Conroe performance in SLI and next gen GPU's.
Thank you for a lovely time.
 
Overall Performance Summary

It is very interesting that in all of our testing, both “what is playable” testing and “apples-to-apples” testing, the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 and Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 are very close in performance. In fact, in some games they are dead even. The price difference between the two is very extreme with the Core 2 Extreme X6800 costing $999 and the Core 2 Duo E6700 at $530. Does it look like the price is justified between the two for gaming? We can safely say “no” as far as gaming goes with this gameplay testing we have performed.

As for the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62, all of our testing shows that it does trail the two new Intel CPUs in gameplay performance. So, if you wanted to point one out as being a “winner” then for sure it is the new Intel Core 2 X6800 and E6700. But, if you look at the amount of difference between the AMD and Intel CPUs, you will see that it isn’t enough to amount to anything. The only game that we saw any real-world difference in was Oblivion, and even that was tiny. A little overclocking would clear that difference up. Overall, the performance difference isn’t enough to amount to any gameplay experience differences in these games. One thing is certain: these are very fast platforms and they all provided a very enjoyable high-end gaming experience in every game.

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. 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.

The Bottom Line

We have proven here that the flurry of canned benchmarks based on timedemos showing huge gains with Core 2 processors are virtually worthless in rating the true gaming performance of these processors today. The fact of the matter is that real-world gaming performance today greatly lies at the feet of your video card. Almost none of today’s games are performance limited by your CPU. Maybe that will change, but given the trends, it is not likely. You simply do not need a $1000 CPU to get great gaming performance as we proved months ago in our CPU Scaling article.

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 and we have yet to prove that due to the testing limitations we ran into. Then, and only then, you might see an Intel Core 2 processor deliver a performance advantage.

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.
Click to expand...

I don't get how there's a performance difference of 10 FPS at the same res with dual graphics only with a changed CPU (which is what a 7950GX2 is essentially). You just made a conclusion from a graphics card review of which processor to buy.. look at it like this. Look, you go to an X1900XT review, look at their processor, and you say, I'm going to buy that processor because it gave the same performance as another review using a different CPU but same graphics.

Also, if you knew that you were going to bottleneck the performance with the graphics, then why did you use the resolutions you did? That doesn't make any sense.
 
x1900xtx crossfire will be next gens single card performance (or close to it), why handicap your self now? amd cannot be agressive enough with there price cuts, a 300 dollar conroe is faster than a 1200 dollar fx 62 in every area. even a $169 3800 is a ripoff because the same money gets a faster gaming processor, and a much faster processor in every other area. we are not talking a marginal ingrease eather. look at the other tests [H] did besides the video card review presented here.
 
altcon said:
Nice to know theres sides and this isn't about what use Conroe will actually have to offer consumers.
Go team....
More to the point, I think that todays benchmarks show Multi GPU is the only place Conroe offers a GAMING advantage. I am curious about Conroe performance in SLI and next gen GPU's.
Thank you for a lovely time.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is this can be utlized for Pentium D vs Athlon 64x2 as well.
 
mrbigshot said:
x1900xtx crossfire will be next gens single card performance (or close to it), why handicap your self now? amd cannot be agressive enough with there price cuts, a 300 dollar conroe is faster than a 1200 dollar fx 62 in every area. even a $169 3800 is a ripoff because the same money gets a faster gaming processor, and a much faster processor in every other area. we are not talking a marginal ingrease eather. look at the other tests [H] did besides the video card review presented here.
Click to expand...

in fact, the PD805 overclocked can compete with an X-2 3800+. I benchmarked my PD805 at 3.8 and it was able to beat an X-2 3800+ in synthetic benchmarks. You want real performance? Read this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/

the PD805 is going to be 93 dollars when Intel does one more price slash. If you don't have 173 dollars for an E4200 (which will still destroy a 300 dollar X-2), a PD805 for 93 dollars overclocked would perform better than an 300 dollar AMD processor. I don't think the X-2 will ever hit the 100 dollar mark any time soon
 
Iam not bias towards any cpu but in my opinion iam just happy for all the price cuts now for all the cpu just my 2 cents
 
jon67 said:
I guess in retrospect we can all agree that A64 never gave a better gaming experience than P4, and that all tech sites that published low-res gaming CPU reviews (including [H] before they saw the light) have more or less deliberately misled their readers. Boy, those who bought A64s instead of P4s for gaming must really feel stupid now, and they didn.t get hyperthreading either ;)
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you on that for the simple fact that the A64 has a lot more IPC than the P4, as does Core 2 when compared to the A64. Readers weren't misled by low-res benches at all. Why do I say that? Simple. Look at Anand's Core 2 Oblivion benches w/CrossFire (or any high-res benches that aren't GPU limited) and take a look at where the P4 is compared to the A64. It's at the bottom by a rather decent margin. Then look at Core 2 compared to the A64 and you see the same thing. Low-res benches show us how much pure processing power a CPU has when the GPU is out of the way. That processing power doesn't change when you bump the resolution up provided you're not GPU limited.

[H] never saw the "light". They simply changed their methods and did nothing more than show us what we already knew: that the CPU doesn't matter if you're playing in a GPU-limited scenario (i.e above 1280x1024 with AA/AF). Unfortunately for them, the majority of us didn't need a review to tell us that, especially since they published a scaling article that said the exact same thing 4 months ago. This review, since it was meant to focus on gaming, should've included low-res benches, so we could see just how much of a boost Core 2 is capable of, and high-res SLI benches (and yes, I've heard the explanation, which is why the review should've simply been put on hold much like the 7950 review was) to eliminate the GPU from the equation. Then we would've had a true gaming review of Core 2. Instead, we've got a ton of frustrated people and a review that doesn't really show what the CPU can do in the gaming arena.
 
coldpower27 said:
The problem with this is this can be utlized for Pentium D vs Athlon 64x2 as well.
Click to expand...
Exactly, which is why touting any processor as a gaming one today is plain stupid.
Most users are using single card setups.
Conroe is better for all intents and purposes, but does not pose an advantage in gaming unless using Multi GPU (like any other processor).
Hence, for gaming it is still a niche market, but to anyone buying a new setup today Conroe is the best choice for all intents and purposes.
It just doesn't offer a tangible gaming edge for 99% of the users out there.
This whole thread is a dumb squabble just about that.
Anyone buying a single GPU setup for gaming can definately settle for a P4 3.2Ghz or an AMD64 3500+.
Anything above that will only benefit other apps in most cases but not gaming.
That doesnt make Conroe a bad choice, it just means that the actual benefit (ie enjoying the extra power Conroe DOES have to offer) of Conroe as a gaming CPU, is currently limited to a niche category.
 
jon67 said:
I guess in retrospect we can all agree that A64 never gave a better gaming experience than P4, and that all tech sites that published low-res gaming CPU reviews (including [H] before they saw the light) have more or less deliberately misled their readers. Boy, those who bought A64s instead of P4s for gaming must really feel stupid now, and they didn.t get hyperthreading either ;)
Click to expand...

You should get a Nobel prize really , this was simply brilliant! ;)
 
altcon said:
..
That doesnt make Conroe a bad choice, it just means that the actual benefit (ie enjoying the extra power Conroe DOES have to offer) of Conroe as a gaming CPU, is currently limited to a niche category.
Click to expand...

No , you 've got it wrong.The lower the resolution and settings the GPU is less of a bottleneck and the Conroe advantage increases :

Say I have $200 for the CPU and $200 for the GPU : I buy a E6400 and a 7600GT.I'm pretty sure I'll get far higher scores than with a 3800+.
 
altcon said:
Exactly, which is why touting any processor as a gaming one today is plain stupid.
Most users are using single card setups.
Conroe is better for all intents and purposes, but does not pose an advantage in gaming unless using Multi GPU (like any other processor).
Hence, for gaming it is still a niche market, but to anyone buying a new setup today Conroe is the best choice for all intents and purposes.
It just doesn't offer a tangible gaming edge for 99% of the users out there.
This whole thread is a dumb squabble just about that.
Anyone buying a single GPU setup for gaming can definately settle for a P4 3.2Ghz or an AMD64 3500+.
Anything above that will only benefit other apps in most cases but not gaming.
That doesnt make Conroe a bad choice, it just means that the actual benefit (ie enjoying the extra power Conroe DOES have to offer) of Conroe as a gaming CPU, is currently limited to a niche category.
Click to expand...
Though still it doesn't chnage the fact that Conroe has plenty of untapped potential given what we are seeing in low-res, or that is the better all aruodn processor. The problem with the review Hard provide is that it told us what we already know, GPU are still the primary determining factor of gaming performance. That's not what we wanted.
 
savantu said:
No , you 've got it wrong.The lower the resolution and settings the GPU is less of a bottleneck and the Conroe advantage increases :

Say I have $200 for the CPU and $200 for the GPU : I buy a E6400 and a 7600GT.I'm pretty sure I'll get far higher scores than with a 3800+.
Click to expand...
No, you will be GPU limited.
You should re read the reviews.
You will however benefit in other apps.
 
Anyone thinking that Conroe would of had a bigger lead @ higher resolutions smoked way too much crack. When I bought mine I was expecting maybe 5FPS difference between my 955XE and my X6800 because the 955XE is a bit behind. Im not a AMD guy so just having my CPU even with AMD is enough for me.

I agree with the review that the Conroe does not bring much to the table when it comes to high res gaming at this time, but it seems to me that you guys concentrated on that part way too much. It even seemed like you enjoyed telling everyone that Conroe is not all that.

If this review was about the power of the CPU I would of ran the lower res benchmarks as they show what the CPU has to offer.

I honestly would ignore the 3D benches and look @ the music,images and movies benches more as they really show what Conroe is capable of.

Not to mention that the Conroe is not too shabby when it comes to overclocking and has a bit of headroom...more than the FX-62.

I look @ it this way. Intel did a great job. Lowered latency,power and heat. Plus it spanks the FX-62 @ CPU intensive tasks.

I say its a winner, but not if you own a FX-62
 
12589.png

Gaming Performance - Oblivion v1.1

12590.png

Gaming Performance - Oblivion v1.1

12591.png

Gaming Performance - F.E.A.R.v1.03

12593.png

Gaming Performance - Rise of Legends v1.0\

The first 2 were oblivion. Though they ran dual Ati graphics, it still shows a performance change The X6800 is faster by a great amount. In fact, the benchmarks of oblivion ran by Anandtech were even higher res. RTS use more CPu power also. Look at the difference in rise of legends, an RTS game. We see this great performance, but why do we only see a 3 fps difference in the tests that HardOCP made? These benchmarks were made at a high resolution too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top