Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance

[savantu]

No, you will be GPU limited.
You should re read the reviews.
You will however benefit in other apps.

I will be GPU limited on Conroe , but will it be so on the AMD as well ? In other words , Conroe maxes out any single GPU out there , but is the same true for AMD? I doubt it.

Besides , if you'd read the reviews you'd notice that the lower the settings the higher is the advantage for Conroe.

 

[altcon]

[
The first 2 were oblivion. Though they ran dual Ati graphics, the 7950 is dual GPU (essentially running 2 7900GTXs on one card). The X6800 is faster by atleast 10 frames. In fact, the benchmarks of oblivion ran by Anandtech were even higher res.

That point has been made about 15 times now in ths thread.

 

[StealthyFish]

That point has been made about 15 times now in ths thread.

read, i fixed my statement now. Can't object to graphs can you? unless Anandtech is a liar...

also, all of those graphs show a great great advantage the whole Core 2 line has over every AMD chip in gaming.

 

[altcon]

I will be GPU limited on Conroe , but will it be so on the AMD as well ? In other words , Conroe maxes out any single GPU out there , but is the same true for AMD? I doubt it.

Besides , if you'd read the reviews you'd notice that the lower the settings the higher is the advantage for Conroe.

Yes in a situation where you are not GPU limited, IE using a highend GPU on low settings with Conroe gets you higher performance.
A mid range GPU will bottleneck before the CPU. So the effect of owning a Conroe for single GPU gaming TODAY will not be felt. You might as well own a P4 3.2, alrady stated b4.
[H]'s article proves single Gpu setups will be bottlenecked by the GPU even when using a HIGHEND one. So a midrange one will bottleneck EVEN MORE SO.
Conroe will get you better performance in ANY OTHER APP.
So if you build a new system get Conroe ANYWAY (I would too).

 

[Gun_Strife]

It can only be said so many times but benchmarks are not games, timedemos are not actual gameplay
to call the method used in reviewing the new cpu, or anything new, stupid is plain ignorant
the fact is average gamers play at 1280x1024 with mid to high setttings
which this review is perfect for
another fact is I and alot of us on these forums aren't average gamers
as I stated before I game at least on 1600x1200 but love it at 1920x1200 and does it matter if you only gain 2~3fps or 10~20 by purchasing a new pc part if its price point is awesome such as these chips
I personally upgrade about every 6 months and some may not see upgrading from an opty 170 system to a conroe sytem a smart idea but fact is i now need a cf mobo and why not get on with ddr2 and so far it is looking like cuore 2 duo is a way better choice then am2

sorry if getting too far off topic
and you guys need to remember the time these guys had with the chips were limited and even cut short
I don't know who would rather see a 3dmark score rather then how a game runs at 1600x1200 with all the pretty stuff on

 

[altcon]

read, i fixed my statement now. Can't object to graphs can you? unless Anandtech is a liar...

I linked Anand too if you'd bothered to actually read what I typed. Read back, maybe it'll make more sense to you.

 

[StealthyFish]

It can only be said so many times but benchmarks are not games, timedemos are not actual gameplay
to call the method used in reviewing the new cpu, or anything new, stupid is plain ignorant
the fact is average gamers play at 1280x1024 with mid to high setttings
which this review is perfect for
another fact is I and alot of us on these forums aren't average gamers
as I stated before I game at least on 1600x1200 but love it at 1920x1200 and does it matter if you only gain 2~3fps or 10~20 by purchasing a new pc part if its price point is awesome such as these chips
I personally upgrade about every 6 months and some may not see upgrading from an opty 170 system to a conroe sytem a smart idea but fact is i now need a cf mobo and why not get on with ddr2 and so far it is looking like cuore 2 duo is a way better choice then am2

sorry if getting too far off topic
and you guys need to remember the time these guys had with the chips were limited and even cut short
I don't know who would rather see a 3dmark score rather then how a game runs at 1600x1200 with all the pretty stuff on

those dual cards eliminated the bottleneck that the reviewer admitted to having.... The person who wrote this review knew he had a bottleneck but still made a conclusion to mislead many different people. Even those benchmarks are timedemos, the tests at anandtech are not as flawed as the HardOCP review was.

 

[talk2farley]

Hard OCP has it in for Intel, apparently? Obviously all of those games were performance-capped by the GPU, especially at high resolutions with all sorts of snazzy graphics options turned on.

You didn't test CPU performance here. You tested GPU performance. Period. Let's re-run this test with a quad-sli rig at 640x480 with graphics options set to nil and FPS not capped at your monitors refresh rate, and see what happens.

You are right about one thing: a $1000 Conroe is worthless if you are going to run World of Warcraft. But I'm right about another thing: this article is worthless if you are trying to get a sense of the performance gains of Conroe versus Pentium 4 or the X2/FX.

How about running a simple synthetic CPU test, and tossing those results into the mix? Maybe because you know what we know, that Conroe would absolutely dominate?

You try to justify this steaming pile of garbage with the disclaimer that you are testing "real-world game performance." But this is worthless, because you compare the performance of a $500 high-end Conroe with a $1200 to-of-the-line AMD, and only the top of the line AMD. What gives? The FX-62 is no less overweighted for running WOW or anything else out there right now. If you wanted the review to have any meaning whatsoever, at least conclude (reasonably) that you could get away with single-core Pentium 4 in Oblivion if you had sufficient GPU horsepower, at less than $200. Instead you shilled for more-expensive, peformance-inferior AMD (these are FACTS, gentlemen, whether it has any relevance to "real-world gaming" today or not), even having the audacity to throw in the promise of radical price-cuts before the end of the month, as though it were writ in stone, when in actuality that is pure speculation. AMD hasn't announced any such thing!

Here's the deal. People do NOT buy top-of-the-line processors today to play GPU-intensive first-person games that were released six months ago. They do so either to improve computing efficiency (recuding start-up times, load-times) or to future-proof themselves for the next 4 years.

And with that as the goal, OF COURSE a FASTER, CHEAPER Conroe is the right way to go. Period.

 

[altcon]

those dual cards eliminated the bottleneck that the reviewer admitted to having.... The person who wrote this review knew he had a bottleneck but still made a conclusion to mislead many different people. Even those benchmarks are timedemos, the tests at anandtech are not as flawed as the HardOCP review was.

Taken from the [H] Conclusion:
"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."
Now, can you please state your beef, in a manner that makes some sense?

 

[StealthyFish]

Hard OCP has it in for Intel, apparently? Obviously all of those games were performance-capped by the GPU, especially at high resolutions with all sorts of snazzy graphics options turned on.

You didn't test CPU performance here. You tested GPU performance. Period. Let's re-run this test with a quad-sli rig at 640x480 with graphics options set to nil and FPS not capped at your monitors refresh rate, and see what happens.

You are right about one thing: a $1000 Conroe is worthless if you are going to run World of Warcraft. But I'm right about another thing: this article is worthless if you are trying to get a sense of the performance gains of Conroe versus Pentium 4 or the X2/FX.

How about running a simple synthetic CPU test, and tossing those results into the mix? Maybe because you know what we know, that Conroe would absolutely dominate?

You try to justify this steaming pile of garbage with the disclaimer that you are testing "real-world game performance." But this is worthless, because you compare the performance of a $500 high-end Conroe with a $1200 to-of-the-line AMD, and only the top of the line AMD. What gives? The FX-62 is no less overweighted for running WOW or anything else out there right now. If you wanted the review to have any meaning whatsoever, at least conclude (reasonably) that you could get away with single-core Pentium 4 in Oblivion if you had sufficient GPU horsepower, at less than $200. Instead you shilled for AMD, even having the audacity to throw in the promise of radical price-cuts before the end of the month, as though it were writ in stone, when in actuality that is pure speculation. AMD hasn't announced any such thing!

Here's the deal. People do NOT buy top-of-the-line processors today to play GPU-intensive first-person games that were released six months ago. They do so either to improve computing efficiency (recuding start-up times, load-times) or to future-proof themselves for the next 4 years.

And with that as the goal, OF COURSE a FASTER, CHEAPER Conroe is the right way to go. Period.

Perfect Post.

 

[Phosphoros]

Then screw all these sites. Intel needs to send us a Bad Axe board and a selection of their 6xxx chips. AMD too and we'll game for a week and report back.
We keep the one we want.

 

[Phosphoros]

Hard OCP has it in for Intel, apparently? Obviously all of those games were performance-capped by the GPU, especially at high resolutions with all sorts of snazzy graphics options turned on.

You didn't test CPU performance here. You tested GPU performance. Period. Let's re-run this test with a quad-sli rig at 640x480 with graphics options set to nil and FPS not capped at your monitors refresh rate, and see what happens.

You are right about one thing: a $1000 Conroe is worthless if you are going to run World of Warcraft. But I'm right about another thing: this article is worthless if you are trying to get a sense of the performance gains of Conroe versus Pentium 4 or the X2/FX.

How about running a simple synthetic CPU test, and tossing those results into the mix? Maybe because you know what we know, that Conroe would absolutely dominate?

You try to justify this steaming pile of garbage with the disclaimer that you are testing "real-world game performance." But this is worthless, because you compare the performance of a $500 high-end Conroe with a $1200 to-of-the-line AMD, and only the top of the line AMD. What gives? The FX-62 is no less overweighted for running WOW or anything else out there right now. If you wanted the review to have any meaning whatsoever, at least conclude (reasonably) that you could get away with single-core Pentium 4 in Oblivion if you had sufficient GPU horsepower, at less than $200. Instead you shilled for more-expensive, peformance-inferior AMD (these are FACTS, gentlemen, whether it has any relevance to "real-world gaming" today or not), even having the audacity to throw in the promise of radical price-cuts before the end of the month, as though it were writ in stone, when in actuality that is pure speculation. AMD hasn't announced any such thing!

Here's the deal. People do NOT buy top-of-the-line processors today to play GPU-intensive first-person games that were released six months ago. They do so either to improve computing efficiency (recuding start-up times, load-times) or to future-proof themselves for the next 4 years.

And with that as the goal, OF COURSE a FASTER, CHEAPER Conroe is the right way to go. Period.

*sniff*

That was beautiful man.

 

[altcon]

Here's the deal. People do NOT buy top-of-the-line processors today to play GPU-intensive first-person games that were released six months ago. They do so either to improve computing efficiency (recuding start-up times, load-times) or to future-proof themselves for the next 4 years.

So you would buy a Conroe to improve startup times?
Many people here are gamers and as such that is a big part f their criteria for upgrade.
I don't think many people here upgrade once in 4 years, maybe maybe once every two.
I usually buy a new CPU when mine can't handle the tasks at hand adequately, whether coding, gaming or just plain office productivity.
Conroe is better, no argument, read the other two articles about Conroe performance under CPU.

 

[savantu]

Johan de Gelas from Anandtech view on the matter :

I understand how HardOcp tries hard to distinguish itself from the other sites. But frankly, I think the methodology has some serious flaws.

With the statistical data available, I think most people game at 1280x1024, as that is the resolution most popular 17 and 19 inch TFT monitors use. And it remains to be seen if most people really use 8xAA and 16 Aniso,as you don't want to get a min. framerate of 30 fps at any point in modern games.

The hardcore gamers definitely use 1600x1200, but I think those people are using SLI or GX2 now. You can't call yourself hardcore gamer otherwise. Those are the people who really can use AA etc.

Thirdly there are the strategy gamers like me. I can really use more CPU power when I am playing Heroes of M&M 5, medieval war, Rome etc. Those are completely ignored...

So I think Hardocp shows only a very small niche of the gamers niche market. Very few people will be running modern games at 1600x1200, everything maxed out with only one videochip.

The results are not wrong, but calling the other benchmarks lies... Well...

link

 

[altcon]

Johan de Gelas from Anandtech view on the matter :



link

As I also replied in a previous post as to where the methodology of some of the review sites were flawed when it came to gaming. Anand did it right, but it's a niche market.
I've grown tired of this discussion and it now feels like we're back to !!!!!! days.
Summary of 18 pages of blah:
Conroe is better, no one denies that.
In order to feel that in modern games you need a multi GPU setup.
In all gaming situations you are most likely bottlenecked by your GPU even when using a 500$ one- so the CPU makes little difference above 3.2/3500+.
ZE END.

 

[talk2farley]

So you would buy a Conroe to improve startup times?
Many people here are gamers and as such that is a big part f their criteria for upgrade.
I don't think many people here upgrade once in 4 years, maybe maybe once every two.
I usually buy a new CPU when mine can't handle the tasks at hand adequately, whether coding, gaming or just plain office productivity.
Conroe is better, no argument, read the other two articles about Conroe performance under CPU.

Ok, so make the lead-time 2 years instead of 4, does that change the substance of my point AT ALL? If anything, it makes my point BETTER, since a half-price E6700 leaves you more cash on hand 2 years from now to upgrade again.

And yes, of course I would buy a Conroe to improve startup times and general computing efficiency. The folks in the market for top-of-the-line CPUs (read: hardcore power users) are not dumb enough to think its going to make any practical performance difference in todays GPU-dependent 3D games. But they do expect to be able to run World of Warcraft, iTunes, and Internet Explorer simultaneously with a better CPU, alt-tabbing between them at will and without delay. And they do expect MS Word and Red Orchestra to startup in half the time. This article doesn't touch on these practical aspects of CPU performance AT ALL.

This "review" is bogus, and I think we all know it. The author deliberately attempted to mislead his audience. What galls me is that he expected to get away with it; this is Hard OCP, not the Dell consumer forums. You guys aren't that clueless.

 

[altcon]

This "review" is bogus, and I think we all know it. The author deliberately attempted to mislead his audience. What galls me is that he expected to get away with it; this is Hard OCP, not the Dell consumer forums. You guys aren't that clueless.

Seriously, you're boring me.
http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MjAxMDksLCxobmV3cywsLDE=

 

[Nobi125]

The point of their review is to show that most people (single card users with 1280x1024 monitors) out there that already have a high end cpu, that they don't necessarily need to run out to the store and buy a Conroe tomorrow.

It's pretty clear that people with dual gpu solutions will see a nice boost from Conroe.

Why can't anyone just take the review for that and call it a day?

 

[talk2farley]

The point of their review is to show that for most people (single card users with 1280x1024 monitors) out there that already have a high end cpu, that they don't necessarily need to run out to the store and buy a Conroe tomorrow.

Excuse my french, but no sh*t? Who doesn't know that? If your setup can already run anything that's out there at max-settings, why would you go out and buy a new CPU tomorrow?

Nobody ever said the release of Conroe would magically make existing hardware SLOWER. My setup will run just as fast on the 31st as it did on the 1st.

What the review tries to do is tell you that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Conroe and the previous-gen processors, and that is an outright fabrication.

 

[Nobi125]

Excuse my french, but no sh*t? Who doesn't know that? If your setup can already run anything that's out there at max-settings, why would you go out and buy a new CPU tomorrow?

Nobody ever said the release of Conroe would magically make existing hardware SLOWER. My setup will run just as fast on the 31st as it did on the 1st.

What the review tries to do is tell you that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Conroe and the previous-gen processors, and that is an outright fabrication.

Until I have the two systems before me, any one site's word is as good as another's.

The review says that there is a difference but it isn't worth dropping your recently purchased cpu for (Athlon X2 or Pentium D 9XX), at least as far as single card systems go.

 

[Schmiggy_JK23]

The point of their review is to show that most people (single card users with 1280x1024 monitors) out there that already have a high end cpu, that they don't necessarily need to run out to the store and buy a Conroe tomorrow.

It's pretty clear that people with dual gpu solutions will see a nice boost from Conroe.

Why can't anyone just take the review for that and call it a day?

Explain why its common knowledge that that the common gamer who runs at a mere 1280x1024 is using a high end cpu, but not a high resolution, which would infer a high end video card?

Its apparently well known that these games are GPU bound, so therefore wouldnt most of these "single card users" have a better or on par GPU than CPU? Yet they have such high end CPU's that are only running 1280x1024?

At least im not the only one who sees the retarded "logic" in this.

 

[Nobi125]

Explain why its common knowledge that that the common gamer who runs at a mere 1280x1024 is using a high end cpu, but not a high resolution, which would infer a high end video card?

Its apparently well known that these games are GPU bound, so therefore wouldnt most of these "single card users" have a better or on par GPU than CPU? Yet they have such high end CPU's that are only running 1280x1024?

At least im not the only one who sees the retarded "logic" in this.

I never said they had a low end video card, don't try to put words in my mouth.

1280x1024 is a very common native res for monitors these days anyway.

Also, many of these games can still put a decent load on a high end video card.

Try running Lost Coast 1280x1024 with AA and AF and other settings maxed with HDR on (assuming you have an ATI X1K card to test with). Sure as hell drops the framerate on my system.

 

[spicey]

Thanks Hardocp, for cutting through the bullshit. Nice to see an real world gaming comparisions instead of artifical benchmarks. I see absolutely no reason to change my current system for a Conroe. Come the time to upgrade again I will just slap in a FX or a X2.

 

[Schmiggy_JK23]

I never said they had a low end video card, don't try to put words in my mouth.

1280x1024 is a very common native res for monitors these days anyway.

I never said they did either.

But i find it hard to believe that all these "high end cpu" users who wouldnt benefit from a Conroe switch are all running at such low resolutions to make this review from the [H] be worthwhile. As that is what the article is targeting, users who have high end cpus and would see minor differences.

But when in actuality at 1280x1024 they will such more of a difference then compared to the "real world" benchmarks contained within this review. See what I am saying? If 1280x1024 is so common, and we know at those levels there is a much greater gap then the GPU limited 16x12, then why is half the community so accepting of this review?

Id guarentee that probably less 30% of this sites readership uses 16x12 or higher.

 

[Nobi125]

I never said they did either.

But i find it hard to believe that all these "high end cpu" users who wouldnt benefit from a Conroe switch are all running at such low resolutions to make this review from the [H] be worthwhile.

Im not buying it.

I edited my post up a bit before you responded to this, give it another look over.

 

[talk2farley]

I would like to add that, according to TomsHardware, "an AMD spokesman told us earlier that AMD intends to adjust its prices to keep delivering the best price/performance for the customer." I wasn't aware of that statement. So it looks as though they do intend to slash prices on their processors. Nonetheless, they'd have to cut them 50%-60% in the next 30 days to really compete, which I do not see happening. Intel has been prepping for this for the past 90 days with price cuts to its existing lineup at regular intervals.

 

[Nobi125]

I would like to add that, according to TomsHardware, "an AMD spokesman told us earlier that AMD intends to adjust its prices to keep delivering the best price/performance for the customer." I wasn't aware of that statement. So it looks as though they do intend to slash prices on their processors. Nonetheless, they'd have to cut them 50%-60% in the next 30 days to really compete, which I do not see happening. Intel has been prepping for this for the past 90 days with price cuts to its existing lineup at regular intervals.

I thought the large price cuts from AMD have been widespread knowledge for weeks?

 

[talk2farley]

I thought the large price cuts from AMD have been widespread knowledge for weeks?

I consider myself fairly up-to-date on the hardware world, and I was certainly not aware. Apparently the good folks at TomsHardware weren't aware, either, until being told what I quoted above just this week.

 

[Nobi125]

I consider myself fairly up-to-date on the hardware world, and I was certainly not aware. Apparently the good folks at TomsHardware weren't aware, either, until being told what I quoted above just this week.

One month ago: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1064987&highlight=amd+price+cut


One month ago http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1066381&highlight=amd+price+cut


It has also been mentioned in just about every single thread about AMD vs. Conroe for a while now.

 

[spicey]

There are going to be some terrific AMD bargains out there soon. The X2 processors in particular will be excellent value. To me upgrading for the sake of having the latest hardware is madness. Conroe is quicker, no doubt about that but why change your whole system for the sake of slightly quicker games performance? Changing memory, mobo, CPU at the same time is expensive. Changing just the CPU is much cheaper and less hassle. If people can game at 1280x1024 with high detail already, then why change? I feel many AMD users with a decent set-up already will not migrate to Intel just yet.

 

[talk2farley]

One month ago: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1064987&highlight=amd+price+cut


One month ago http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1066381&highlight=amd+price+cut


It has also been mentioned in just about every single thread about AMD vs. Conroe for a while now.

Ok, so it looks like AMD does intend to cut its prices. Fine. But it just isn't good enough. Lets take the X2 5000+. After the cuts, it will have an MSRP of $403. A Core 2 Duo E6600 will ship with an MSRP of just $316, and will perform as much as 15%-20% better than the nearly $100 more X2.

What now?

 

[Nobi125]

Ok, so it looks like AMD does intend to cut its prices. Fine. But it just isn't good enough. Lets take the X2 5000+. After the cuts, it will have an MSRP of $403. A Core 2 Duo E6600 will ship with an MSRP of just $316, and will perform as much as 15%-20% better than the nearly $100 more X2.

What now?

To be honest, I don't think AMD is going to overtake Intel in the price/performance category.

Especially since these Conroes appear to OC well.

 

[spicey]

Ok, so it looks like AMD does intend to cut its prices. Fine. But it just isn't good enough. Lets take the X2 5000+. After the cuts, it will have an MSRP of $403. A Core 2 Duo E6600 will ship with an MSRP of just $316, and will perform as much as 15%-20% better than the nearly $100 more X2.

What now?

True, but a more affordable X2 is good news for me and many others I'm sure

 

[Fraishus]

My Review Of HardOCP

HardOCP has just lost all credibility with me. I can no longer take any review written at this site seriously.

In plain terms, what this really means is that I won't feel compelled to check HardOCP's reviews anymore- After reading this, I feel cheated by their past reviews as well, because it's obvious HardOCP has no credibility when it comes to giving us accurate information, regardless of who makes the product.

HardOCP has forgotten *us* -- enthusiasts, and loyal readers. What they're remembering is their Ad revenue. This spin journalism has one purpose: more money for HardOCP from ad banners. This has been made quite clear by HardOCP's willingness to switch their testing methods around at the drop of a hat in order to match what will bring more ad views. HardOCP doesn't care about us. It's obvious what they do care about.

I will no longer be buying any truth from HardOCP.

- Fraish

 

[blvdKing]

I enjoyed this review. Intel's Core 2 is a very nice CPU but in gaming the video cards matters the most.

 

[dR.Jester]

My Review Of HardOCP

HardOCP has just lost all credibility with me. I can no longer take any review written at this site seriously.

In plain terms, what this really means is that I won't feel compelled to check HardOCP's reviews anymore- After reading this, I feel cheated by their past reviews as well, because it's obvious HardOCP has no credibility when it comes to giving us accurate information, regardless of who makes the product.

HardOCP has forgotten *us* -- enthusiasts, and loyal readers. What they're remembering is their Ad revenue. This spin journalism has one purpose: more money for HardOCP from ad banners. This has been made quite clear by HardOCP's willingness to switch their testing methods around at the drop of a hat in order to match what will bring more ad views. HardOCP doesn't care about us. It's obvious what they do care about.

I will no longer be buying any truth from HardOCP.

- Fraish

BAI!

 

[dark_reign]

I enjoyed this review. Intel's Core 2 is a very nice CPU but in gaming the video cards matters the most.

That's not what I was led to believe (though I always knew it wasn't true). How many times have you seen reviews and posts from people saying AMD was better for gaming? In fact, it was sacrilege to even recommend Intel CPUs for gaming prior to Conroe. Why was that?

 

[ThirtySixBelow]

My Review Of HardOCP

HardOCP has just lost all credibility with me. I can no longer take any review written at this site seriously.

In plain terms, what this really means is that I won't feel compelled to check HardOCP's reviews anymore- After reading this, I feel cheated by their past reviews as well, because it's obvious HardOCP has no credibility when it comes to giving us accurate information, regardless of who makes the product.

HardOCP has forgotten *us* -- enthusiasts, and loyal readers. What they're remembering is their Ad revenue. This spin journalism has one purpose: more money for HardOCP from ad banners. This has been made quite clear by HardOCP's willingness to switch their testing methods around at the drop of a hat in order to match what will bring more ad views. HardOCP doesn't care about us. It's obvious what they do care about.

I will no longer be buying any truth from HardOCP.

- Fraish

explain?? You obviously don't read many articles here, and if 1 mediocre review that is totally truthful ruins your credibility then that's your own problem, and good luck finding good video card reviews of average fps bar graphs elsewhere.

There was nothing wrong with that article IMO, all they did was prove that all games are video card bottlenecked. It doesn't matter what processor they used. They could have went to 2010 and got a Intel X9000 or something and it would have been just the same with maybe 3 extra fps average. I don't think a lot of people understood the article. Though, I also didn't read more than the 1st page and not the other 20.

 

[InorganicMatter]

The thing is, despite their price cuts AMD still does not hold the price/performance ratio. I'll quote StealtyFish from another thread:

Gaming Performance - Rise of Legends v1.0

Gaming Performance - Oblivion v1.1

Gaming Performance - Oblivion v1.1

Gaming Performance - Quake 4 v1.2

Gaming Performance - Battlefield 2 v1.22[/img]

The E6300 consistently beats the X2 3800+. It's only $20 more.
The E6300 semi-consistently beats the X2 4200+. It's $60 less.
The E6600 annihilates the X2 5000+. It's $100 less.
Please note: all prices are MSRP, retail prices are usually $30-$50 more for both AMD and Intel.

You can't argue with these numbers. Intel now holds the same position AMD held for years: they are cheaper, they are faster, they use less power, and they overclock better. The only position AMD holds now, is the ultra-cheap poor-man's solution ($90 for a 3000+), previously held by Intel's Celeron.

 

[Psychotext]

The only position AMD holds now, is the ultra-cheap poor-man's solution ($90 for a 3000+), previously held by Intel's Celeron.

Not quite yet. You'd actually have to be able to get the new Intel chips easily for that to be the case. But it's great to finally see some competition again as it's good for all of us customers.