EternityZX9
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2004
- Messages
- 236
Wow, such a major disappointment after all of those pre-launch benchmarks. Guess it goes to show...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
shungokusatsu said:That's what I'm saying, but there's about 5 reviews showing the same thing, and what confuses me is how they drastically differ from the [H] review. Perhaps it's because [H] didn't use SLI or better mboard. But I'm seeing more and more 100%+ performance increases on these other benchmark reviews. If this turns out to be true, I'm sold on Conroe without doubt, kinda sucks, I should have waited before building this AMD rig.
Rob94hawk said:As what I expected. Intel doesn't blow AMD away, they just finally catch up.
that ends up being more of a gpu test than cpu. i know you know thatBrent_Justice said:and how is running at a low resolution going to show you that?
if anything you should be using a high resolution and the latest games, I think Oblivion was a great test, it showed the most difference between the CPUs and it just might be an indicator of the future
EternityZX9 said:Wow, such a major disappointment after all of those pre-launch benchmarks. Guess it goes to show...
Joshua_564556 said:There is no respect for this garbage.
Josh
shungokusatsu said:Let me find them:
http://www17.tomshardware.com/2006/06/05/first_benchmarks_conroe_vs_fx-62/
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=185555
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=794&cid=1
I'm not saying these are legit, I'm just totally confused why they are showing such drastically higher scores for Intel.
shungokusatsu said:Let me find them:
http://www17.tomshardware.com/2006/06/05/first_benchmarks_conroe_vs_fx-62/
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=185555
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=794&cid=1
I'm not saying these are legit, I'm just totally confused why they are showing such drastically higher scores for Intel.
JetUsafMech said:All on 975x.
shungokusatsu said:Those machines are not supplied by Intel from what I read, only the CPU. Could the reason the [H] reviews are so low really be because of you guys not using 975X board? I find that highly doubtful.
Brent_Justice said:For those complaining about the gameplay evaluation tell me, will you be buying these high-end CPUs with low-end video cards and playing at low resolutions for gaming?
This evaluation tells you exactly what you need to know when comparing gaming performance between the platforms. It tells you exactly what the differences are when playing the games as me, you and everyone else playing games on such a system.
|CR|Constantine said:Thanks for the review Kyle and I will be sticking with my current AMD setup.
As for all you Intel yahoo's congrats on finally catching up to AMD, I guess the only problem is ...AMD K8L response is still to come..oh so close yet so far.
Chris_B said:Near sure i read somewhere it got pushed back to 2008.
EternityZX9 said:Wow, such a major disappointment after all of those pre-launch benchmarks. Guess it goes to show...
|CR|Constantine said:Kyle's approach is exactly what I have been looking for.
I own a Dell 2405 like many here on this board. So the naitive resolution that I will be playing at 1920x1200 with Conroe does not make one lick of difference.
So why on Earth should I go out and buy a new processor, new mobo and new ram for the exact same game performance that I am getting now? Especially with K8L coming around the bend? (and yes the AM2 version is coming around the bend and not in 2008 )
Thanks Kyle for saving me a shit load of money.
|CR|Constantine said:So why on Earth should I go out and buy a new processor, new mobo and new ram for the exact same game performance that I am getting now? Especially with K8L coming around the bend? (and yes the AM2 version is coming around the bend and not in 2008 )
shungokusatsu said:Those machines are not supplied by Intel from what I read, only the CPU. Could the reason the [H] reviews are so low really be because of you guys not using 975X board? I find that highly doubtful.
You might get faster framerates than [H] gets with the faster CPUs if the X1900XT runs the game faster than a 7900GTX.Joobot said:So let me get this straight.
All these tests are so similar beacsue the CPUs are too powerful for the 7900GTX, and the 7900GTX is perfroming at its absolute best? What would this mean for my X1900XT and PD930 OCed at 4GHz?
Joobot said:So let me get this straight.
All these tests are so similar beacsue the CPUs are too powerful for the 7900GTX, and the 7900GTX is perfroming at its absolute best? What would this mean for my X1900XT and PD930 OCed at 4GHz?
pxc said:You might get faster framerates than [H] gets with the faster CPUs if the X1900XT runs the game faster than a 7900GTX.
|CR|Constantine said:Kyle's approach is exactly what I have been looking for.
I own a Dell 2405 like many here on this board. So the naitive resolution that I will be playing at 1920x1200 with Conroe does not make one lick of difference.
So why on Earth should I go out and buy a new processor, new mobo and new ram for the exact same game performance that I am getting now? Especially with K8L coming around the bend? (and yes the AM2 version is coming around the bend and not in 2008 )
Thanks Kyle for saving me a shit load of money.
cr0w said:You make it sound like K8L will make any difference in gaming at such high resolutions, silly !!!!!!.
RangerXLT8 said:Bottom line is this. [H] is compairing a mid-level 965 chipset to a flagship 590MCP, and not one sentence in the article explaines this. A Intel 975X chipset needs to be used to be fair. Yes indeed the AMD FX-62 system loses in every test by 1FPS to the X6800 XE. The reason the difference is not 15+FPS is because 965 is no where near as good as 975x.
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.
Babbster said:It seems like people are intent on assigning the [H] crew some nefarious motive for the way they did the testing, and I don't understand it. They seem to have proved over and over that they're gamers who like the hardware that gives the best gameplay experience. I certainly didn't read anything in the article or its conclusion that told people the new Intel chips aren't worth the money or that they aren't potentially faster in non-gaming apps. All they did was show us gaming benchmarks taken at the kinds of resolutions that people with top-flight gaming systems play at all the time.
For the heck of it, here's how I would interpret the results I've seen so far (here and other places) - all depending on upgrade timing, of course:
If you're a gamer with a socket 939 or AM2 system, the jump to Intel probably isn't necessary (and, it should be noted, that the evaluation of 939 versus AM2 on this site made clear that the difference was marginal at best).
If you're a gamer with an older system looking to do a complete system overhaul, Core 2 would probably be the way to go if you're shooting for "top of the line."
If you're a gamer with a socket 939 or AM2 who also does a lot of CPU-intensive non-gaming stuff, you might want to look at a Core 2 for your next big upgrade.
If you're a gamer with an older system who also does a lot of CPU-intensive non-gaming stuff, the Core 2 is probably your best bet.
Of course, all of the above is meaningless if all you want is for someone to tell you which chip is "#1," but that's never been the style I've seen at the [H]...
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.
Joshua_564556 said:ABANDON THIS SITE: HERE IS A FAIR REVIEW it shows appropriate CPU power and how high res interact:
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx
Joshua_564556 said:The fact is you are leading your readers astray --- you should also put along side this BS review an 805D performance at the same resolutions/settings. You showed nothing more than a GPU bottlenecking every game -- as you allude to but do not fully explain.
Users who purchase LCDs and are unaware of the biased nature of this so called review of a CPU will think wow 1600x1200 when they are actually natively getting 1280x1080. Some, HARDCORE gamers will actually run down rez in order to appropriately frag your bud.
This review will ultimately look like trash when all other data confutes what you present here in 'hidden' light. What happens when someone rig's up with an AM2 FX-62 with your setup, then when the next gen cards come out -- find that they are indeed throttled by the CPU where as this would not have otherwise been the case.
There is no respect for this garbage.
Josh
Joshua_564556 said:ABANDON THIS SITE: HERE IS A FAIR REVIEW it shows appropriate CPU power and how high res interact:
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx
Remember the other reviews had more powerful video subsystems, so they aren't GPU bottlenecked like this review is at 16x12 High Quality with a Single 7900 GTXshungokusatsu said:Let me find them:
http://www17.tomshardware.com/2006/06/05/first_benchmarks_conroe_vs_fx-62/
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=185555
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=794&cid=1
I'm not saying these are legit, I'm just totally confused why they are showing such drastically higher scores for Intel.
CodeWaste said:Look we're not stupid, i don't need to have someone lay out for me which one is going to give the best "experience", "experience" sounds like marketing; aka bullshit. I've been doing this long enough to know that when i'm given numbers for parts a,b,c....x,y,z, that its going to mean a whole alphabet when put together.
all that i need to be told is that CPU a is 1.5 times better than CPU b, and then i'll know that when combined GPU 1 or 2, i'm going to get certain results. I and most people on this board, don't need it dumbed down.