Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance

killboy said:
I personally think this is one of the worse [H] reviews in a long time because it provides a magnified image of a product.

This article should of been called: "CPU scaling in high resolution gaming"
and NOT
Core Duo gaming

Why? For starters, the bottleneck is obviously the videocard when all the results are within 2-3 FPS because we all know that the CPUs listed there were not all the same speed. The only reason [H] did a review like this, was to go 'against' the current.
" Yay free publicity because we did something different than everyone else. When everyone is saying how a processor is great, we'll find a reason to say the opposite! "

That's like having a brand new car come out with 700 hp and all the media can talk about is how the paint is almost the same as the previous years.

Gaming with the core duo ? Yeah, it does it well, very well. For years Intel's been trashed because AMD was faster than it in games, and now that Intel is faster, [H] tries to downplay it and shows that 'hey look, in our videocard bound tests, they are close!'
The fact that Intel does NOT suck in games anymore is a big thing and should of been noted.

And gaming? Do you guys really game? Yeah... sure you do. I used to game 5-8 hours a day when I was younger and now I still do a 2-3 hours per day (yes its a lot). And you know what counts in FPS shooters, and most multiplayer games? It's getting the most possible FPS possible. And even with FPS caps, mouse responses are faster with faster machines, and minimum FPS are higher.
Yes, I game at 800x600 and also at 1024x1024 when I game, and I do this the most often.

Not to mention, when I buy a brand new CPU, I want it to be able to perform well in 6 months too. Newer games, 1 year down or so, will most likely use the CPU much more than today's games. If you're gaming... in 1-2 years, tell me honestly. Which CPU would you rather have?

The review should of shown what the CPU is capable of in terms of gaming.

Also, the level of bias made me laugh when you said: "a small o/c on the AMD cpu" will equal things out. Well let's look at this... The Fx-62 runs at 2.8 already and has a DIFFICULT time overclocking to 3.0-3.2. AMD is pushing themselves here.
Intel on the other side, is overclocking from 2.4 to 4.0 on air. (xtremesystems for tons of post on this) The Intel systems also scale much better with overclocks.

Getting back to the review, I AGREE that it was a valid point to make: That if you're planning to game at high resolutions with a single high end videocard, then it really doesnt matter what kind of processor you have for today's games, since none of them (except Oblivion) seem to push the CPUs enough and they will all be videocard bound.

However, this should of been a small section of the review, the rest of the review should of been on the actual CPU.

A good review, still based on gaming, would of shown:
- noise level of the stock CPU fans when gaming
- heat levels of the stock CPU fan while gaming
- scaling, what about people that dont want all the eye candy? Those people will play at 800x600, or 1024x768, etc. And they'll play games like Far Cry, Counter-Strike, Quake 4
- Quake 4... yeah, how exactly is it possible that in a gaming review based on a CPU, you omit the ONLY game that actually uses the 2 cores. Seriously ?

Did AMD buy [H] or something ?

Btw, I have 3 AMD machines in my house and no Intel machines.
Click to expand...


*clap clap* Perfectly worded. Thank you.
 
charlie said:
... watch the ORB in the coming weeks, AMD will drop out of the top 100 in 3DMark 06!
Click to expand...

oh CRAP, now I have to sell my system!!!!!!!!!!! My games are going to start running slower because AMD is not showing in the top 100!!!!!!
:rolleyes:
 
StealthyFish said:
THIS IS A COMPLETELY INVALID CPU TEST. Why? Because the res is high. Why does futuremark push res down? why does everyone have low res when testing CPUs. This is a 7950GX2 benchmark, not a conroe benchmark. Have fun enjoying the small performance gap here AMD fans, but this benchmark isn't a CPU test, just a 7950GX2 test to see how well it runs with different CPUs. .
Click to expand...


QFT, its just a very biased review which doesn't even show CPU performance. When comparing P4 to K8 its ok to run low res to show the different, but when you use Core vs K8 you increase the res to make the gpu bottleneck...and use the arguement "there isn't much realword difference in gaming", yet all the AMD fans would say the K8 was the gaming cpu when the samething applied to the P4 vs K8. I must say I am very dissapointed. Like the others have said, nice GPU review though.
 
Riptide_NVN said:
I don't believe it was intended to be a pure CPU test.
Click to expand...

somebody gets it ! :eek:

Perhaps the term "real gameplay experience" wasn't obvious enough for everyone?
 
cupholder2.0 said:
QFT, its just a very biased review which doesn't even show CPU performance.
Click to expand...

How can you say the review is biased? Are you saying the numbers are wrong? Was one platform somehow crippled to show the other in a better light? Were games used that would only favour AMD?

The review is not biased. It may not show want you wanted to see, but saying it is biased is just silly. Now, if the review was to say that going by the game results, then 3D rendering apps on Conroe are not any faster than the FX-62, now THAT would be biased.
 
§kynet said:
oh CRAP, now I have to sell my system!!!!!!!!!!! My games are going to start running slower because AMD is not showing in the top 100!!!!!!
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, your games are going to start running slower because you have no room to scale. Which is what everyone is trying to point out, hence the 4000 or so views for this thread, and every other computer forum on the net pointing out how the data is skewed.
 
Brent_Justice said:
somebody gets it ! :eek:

Perhaps the term "real gameplay experience" wasn't obvious enough for everyone?
Click to expand...

"Real High-end gameplay experience" I would think.

I look forward to "real gameplay experience" articles with the E6600 and maybe the E6400. Perhaps with a nice selection of cards (Maybe get a sponsor like with the CPU scaling & gmaing article?). Mid to high end. ATi and nVidia.
Not sure about everyone else but I can't and never will be able to afford a $1000 (Or even $700+ ) cpu and a $600 video card. I'm a little bit more budget minded so those just aren't a reality.
 
§kynet said:
How can you say the review is biased? Are you saying the numbers are wrong? Was one platform somehow crippled to show the other in a better light? Were games used that would only favour AMD?

The review is not biased. It may not show want you wanted to see, but saying it is biased is just silly. Now, if the review was to say that going by the game results, then 3D rendering apps on Conroe are not any faster than the FX-62, now THAT would be biased.
Click to expand...


the numbers weren't wrong, but they were rigged to make AMD to look like it can perform just as good as a conroe. Now, how come this is the only place I've seen this kind of performance and see an AMD processor come so close in so many benchmarks. That = bullshit.
 
§kynet said:
Wow, I can't believe how many people are complaining and arguing over NOTHING. Get a hold of yourself already.

The review does exactly what it was designed to do. It shows you exactly what a higher end but still mainstream system will do for you in gaming. It seems that Intel faniacs are getting all worked up because in gaming, Conroe is not putting the smackdown on AMD like Intel would have us all believe. HELLO, did anyone actually believe the benches Intel um I mean certain review sites were touting?

Conroe is no doubt going to put the hurt in AMD in other areas. But again, it is not going to be the bloodbath far too many people have come to believe.

...and I have to agree that 640x480 benches are totally USELESS.
Click to expand...

I don't think you where directing that entire post at me, but hey i'll respond anyway.


I'm not bitching or complaining about anything except the review. I didn't even care what intel has or had to say about core2 until I saw some real world performance numbers. (not here and waaay before tonight) Then I used one, it speaks for itself.

§kynet said:
I would certainly hope so. Let's put this in perspective. The FX-62 is basically exactly the same as the original Opteron but running @ 2.8 Ghz. In other words, a 3+ year old architecture is being bested by a new architecture. How shocking.
Click to expand...

This I know, but the only people to blame for doing such thing is AMD.

Untwist your panties and wait for brisbane.
 
Brent_Justice said:
somebody gets it ! :eek:

Perhaps the term "real gameplay experience" wasn't obvious enough for everyone?
Click to expand...

No, whats obvious is that there was no new information in the gaming review. it had a nice copy line, but really this was just hype. and to be quite honest, i feel that this article was a ratings scam similar in Intel's bullshit benches. :(

Don't kid yourself here, the only information in this article was that there is no information in this article. whoop de fucking doo.

I think you're absolutely right when it comes to the price :: performance ratio, that is relevent information and much appreciated, but that can be gathered from the other sections, which really made this "gaming" section superflous.
 
Brent_Justice said:
somebody gets it ! :eek:

Perhaps the term "real gameplay experience" wasn't obvious enough for everyone?
Click to expand...

So wait...........
You were waiting weeks for the NDA to be removed so you could post a biased gameplay article? Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh good thinking. That's like camping overnight at Wallmart the night before Xbox 360s were being released, waiting in a 4 hour linup, JUST so you can get an Xbox 360 controller accessory and not buy the rest of the machine.

oh, and I saw your 2 pages on the 'other' stuff the cpu can do... like movie encoding, mp4 encoding and umm, that was it ? You realize there's more than 4 applications out there?

What about windows boot up time ?
How long it takes to load games?
How about a nice multitasking comparaison? Antivirus, winrar, photoshop

I agree that today's CPUs are strong enough to do all this already, so find programs that push the CPU so we have an idea of how the CPU will perform with tomorrow's applications.

How about running Vista on it and telling us how that improves your "overall experience", if any.
 
killboy said:
So wait...........
You were waiting weeks for the NDA to be removed so you could post a biased gameplay article? Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh good thinking. That's like camping overnight at Wallmart the night before Xbox 360s were being released, waiting in a 4 hour linup, JUST so you can get an Xbox 360 controller accessory and not buy the rest of the machine.

oh, and I saw your 2 pages on the 'other' stuff the cpu can do... like movie encoding, mp4 encoding and umm, that was it ? You realize there's more than 4 applications out there?

What about windows boot up time ?
How long it takes to load games?
How about a nice multitasking comparaison? Antivirus, winrar, photoshop

I agree that today's CPUs are strong enough to do all this already, so find programs that push the CPU so we have an idea of how the CPU will perform with tomorrow's applications.

How about running Vista on it and telling us how that improves your "overall experience", if any.
Click to expand...

Thank you killboy.

Anyway,
this was completely just pure bullshit to calm all the AMD f-a-n-b-o-y-s that freaked out when they visited the Intel forum of Xtremesystems.org. lol. What now? I believe Intel processors overclock better and cost less. Hmm..... how far does an AMD processor overclock again? I don't think I've seen many AMD processors hit 4.0Ghz and over and last I checked, an FX-62 wasn't cheaper than an E6700 or E6600. Hell, even the X6800 is cheaper than the FX-62
 
§kynet said:
How can you say the review is biased? Are you saying the numbers are wrong? Was one platform somehow crippled to show the other in a better light? Were games used that would only favour AMD?

The review is not biased. It may not show want you wanted to see, but saying it is biased is just silly. Now, if the review was to say that going by the game results, then 3D rendering apps on Conroe are not any faster than the FX-62, now THAT would be biased.
Click to expand...


READ my post correctly before trying to post nonsensical BS. When the P4s or netburst CPUs were reviewed, the resolution would be turned down to show that the K8 got more frames. When the Conroe comes out and clearly has more processing power, all the AMD boys get scared and turn the resolution up so that the power of Conroe is not shown. Many uses the argument, that benchmarks should not be run at 640x480 because most don't play at those settings. However what is the point of running at 1600x1200 for doing a review if it shows almost no difference between any CPU? That’s like comparing my Pentium 4 3.4 Ghz Northwood with an FX-62 at 1600x1200 8X AA 16X AF, I would conclude they both are the same in gaming and its a waste to go FX 62 over Northwood, due to the fact that the FX-62 is significantly more expensive. I would use everything you are using to defend the K8 in this situation to defend the Northwood, would it make any sense?


And why are many of you AMD kids still living in lala land? Whats with this notion that AMD is cheaper? LOOK at the prices of the X-2 vs PDs. The cheapest X2 is 300, where the highest PD (pd950) is 300 also.
 
wow! you really nailed that one. great 7900gtx review, oh wait wasnt it supposed to be a cpu review? when are we going to see those numbers?
 
StealthyFish said:
Thank you killboy.

Anyway,
this was completely just pure bullshit to calm all the AMD f-a-n-b-o-y-s that freaked out when they visited the Intel forum of Xtremesystems.org. lol. What now? I believe Intel processors overclock better and cost less. Hmm..... how far does an AMD processor overclock again? I don't think I've seen many AMD processors hit 4.0Ghz and over and last I checked, an FX-62 wasn't cheaper than an E6700 or E6600. Hell, even the X6800 is cheaper than the FX-62
Click to expand...


OFT, roflmao
 
cupholder2.0 said:
READ my post correctly before trying to post nonsensical BS. When the P4s or netburst CPUs were reviewed, the resolution would be turned down to show that the K8 got more frames. When the Conroe comes out and clearly has more processing power, all the AMD boys get scared and turn the resolution up so that the power of Conroe is not shown. Many uses the argument, that benchmarks should not be run at 640x480 because most don't play at those settings. However what is the point of running at 1600x1200 for doing a review if it shows almost no difference between any CPU? That’s like comparing my Pentium 4 3.4 Ghz Northwood with an FX-62 at 1600x1200 8X AA 16X AF, I would conclude they both are the same in gaming and its a waste to go FX 62 over Northwood, due to the fact that the FX-62 is significantly more expensive. I would use everything you are using to defend the K8 in this situation to defend the Northwood, would it make any sense?
Click to expand...

hahahahahahaha. Very good analogy.
 
It's unfortunate but this gaming portion doesn't provide me with any information that I didn't know already.
 
killboy said:
Btw, I have 3 AMD machines in my house and no Intel machines.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling you do not represent the crowd here.
This is [H], for hardcore gaming. That means maxing IQ while still maintaining a reasonable FPS. I don't think anyone buying a $500 CPU will be gaming at 800 * 600.
And if they are, well, that's a strange problem.
This review shows what single GPU performance on competing CPU's at two price points are.
It most definately proves to me, that for now with my setup, switching Mobo/Ram and CPU to Conroe will yield me little more than upgrading to an X2 (except a bigger hole in my wallet).
Since you don't seem to own a multi-gpu setup, I'm guessing this review is also spot on 4 U.
 
 
Alright...

Well....looks like the folks here @ the OCP are sticking it out again.

And I'm glad....It's fun to see all these people rave over a new processor....ITS GONNA CHANGE MY LIFE WOOOHOOO.

When in reality....if you are a gamer....it doesnt change a whole lot.

Sure the core duo 2 is a great processor(coming from the P4 problems), but it isnt gonna change the way my games are played.

However, the new architecture that intel is moving forward with, will.....Kudos to intel for pushing multiple cores for cheap.....if they get a quad core out next spring, i think AMD will fall further behind. Intel is gonna beat AMD over the head with more and more cores...

When games take advantage of 4 and more cores....I think Intel will have done us all favors...right now though, core duo 2 is a decent start.
 
cupholder2.0 said:
. When comparing P4 to K8 its ok to run low res to show the different, but when you use Core vs K8 you increase to the res to make the gpu bottleneck...and use the arguement "there isn't much realword difference in gaming", yet all the AMD fans would say the K8 was the gaming cpu when the samething applied to the P4 vs K8. Ih.
Click to expand...
To all the nay sayers and [H] Bashing friends here: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTAwMiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA== .
This is al;so an article from [H] the same biased guys who are now going "upstream" on the very Hyped Conroe. Read and think and maybe maybe then, post some nonesense.
 
I believe that's over 8 links now that contradict HardOCP's review. hmm..... who to believe? Who.. to believe.....? Everyone else...? or 1 biased review......?
 
cupholder2.0 said:
To all who claim conroe doesn't have any more processing power over K8...'


http://www.behardware.com/articles/623-1/intel-core-2-duo-test.html

http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=489587

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/core2duo_e6700/16.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300.html

These are CPU reviews, not GPU reviews :).
Just so you see both sides.
Click to expand...

Wow, yes, behardware's CPU review was VERY good. That's a real CPU review.
 
StealthyFish said:
I believe that's over 8 links now that contradict HardOCP's review. hmm..... who to believe? Who.. to believe.....? Everyone else...? or 1 biased review......?
Click to expand...

LOL
take a deep breath.

OK....now.....Hardocp showed that if u game a higher resolution(most here do I hope), then you get no HUGE performance increases with a intel core2duo.

Now....most of us knew that already....because there is a point(in most games) where faster processors dont do a lot for you in the FPS department....fair enough....

So...on the one point. HardOCP is correct....which makes you look ignorant.

However, that doesnt mean that the intel processor isn't more powerful....its just that its not gonna net some gamers much performance. ;)
 
cupholder2.0 said:
To all who claim conroe doesn't have any more processing power over K8...'


http://www.behardware.com/articles/623-1/intel-core-2-duo-test.html

http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=489587

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/core2duo_e6700/16.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300.html

These are CPU reviews, not GPU reviews :).
Just so you see both sides.
Click to expand...
Nobody claims that Conroe doesn't have more processing power. It just doesn't provide a significant boost when gaming at High IQ (surprise surpsie).
If you read the other articles from [H] about Conroe you'll see they're on top on almost ALL of the other criteria.
 
cupholder2.0 said:
READ my post correctly before trying to post nonsensical BS.
When the P4s or netburst CPUs were reviewed, the resolution would be turned down to show that the K8 got more frames.
Click to expand...
So? That method turned out to be limited in value. It was good to show great numbers, but hardly the end all be all of CPU capabilities.

When the Conroe comes out and clearly has more processing power, all the AMD boys get scared and turn the resolution up so that the power of Conroe is not shown.
Click to expand...
So now the review is a result of [H] turning into a scared AMD fanboy? Get a grip.

Many uses the argument, that benchmarks should not be run at 640x480 because most don't play at those settings.
Click to expand...
Now you're starting to get it.

Now try not being so insecure just because the FX-62 was not made to look like a Celeron. Conroe puts in some impressive numbers in a number of apps and does distance itself nicely compared to AMD's best. But this confirms what smart people already assumed. Intel's canned game benches were total bullshit.
 
foofighter06 said:
LOL
take a deep breath.

OK....now.....Hardocp showed that if u game a higher resolution(most here do I hope), then you get no HUGE performance increases with a intel core2duo.

Now....most of us knew that already....because there is a point(in most games) where faster processors dont do a lot for you in the FPS department....fair enough....

So...on the one point. HardOCP is correct....which makes you look ignorant.

However, that doesnt mean that the intel processor is more powerful....its just that its not gonna net some gamers much performance. ;)
Click to expand...

lol. I believe Cupholder2.0 had already responded to this. Would you like him to get his 3.4C Northwood against an FX-62 with 7950GX2 and run tests to see which processor is better at 1600x1200?

I also think that INnel ran their benchmarks at 1280x1024 and 1024x768, not 1600x1200. atleast Intel ran at a resolution that used more CPU than [H]OCPs review's resolution
 
StealthyFish said:
lol. I believe Cupholder2.0 had already responded to this. Would you like him to get his 3.4C Northwood against an FX-62 with 7950GX2 and run tests to see which processor is better at 1600x1200?
Click to expand...


Thank you SteathlyFish :)
 
§kynet said:
Now try not being so insecure just because the FX-62 was not made to look like a Celeron. Conroe puts in some impressive numbers in a number of apps and does distance itself nicely compared to AMD's best. But this confirms what smart people already assumed. Intel's canned game benches were total bullshit.
Click to expand...

intels benchmarks were run at a lower resolution, they show the exact same thing that every other review out there as show at the same resolution. they have not been proven to be "bullshit" it did prove that higher resolutions are always gpu limited.
 
cupholder2.0 said:
To all who claim conroe doesn't have any more processing power over K8...'


http://www.behardware.com/articles/623-1/intel-core-2-duo-test.html

http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=489587

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/core2duo_e6700/16.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300.html

These are CPU reviews, not GPU reviews :).
Just so you see both sides.
Click to expand...


Here is our CPU specific review. Seems like you guys forgot about that one. ;)

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTExMCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

One of the reasons we did two different article is that we saw the results for each segment so much different. And actually I think I like the smaller digestible format. Short, to the friggin point....
 
This review is just "still frame" of the whole Picture, and in that context is a very good one showing what to expect with this particular configuration in those games tested.

But

There´s ALOT of variables to take in consideration when comparing CPUs and to think that with this review you are reaching the whole spectrum of people who care about "real gameplay experience" is a lil far fetched IMHO.

If you guys think in you hearts that this really is tha case then there´s nothing more to say, and thats actually the Editorial Line of this website, are proud of that fact etc...

But just seeing this review and deciding to buy/upgrade or not to the new Intel CPU is just as wromg as to check some "canned" test and make the same choice.
 
cupholder2.0 said:
QFT, its just a very biased review which doesn't even show CPU performance. When comparing P4 to K8 its ok to run low res to show the different, but when you use Core vs K8 you increase the res to make the gpu bottleneck...and use the arguement "there isn't much realword difference in gaming", yet all the AMD fans would say the K8 was the gaming cpu when the samething applied to the P4 vs K8. I must say I am very dissapointed. Like the others have said, nice GPU review though.
Click to expand...

Damn you guys need to learn to read, this article was not a CPU test, it was a test of the best gaming expeireince delivered by each platfrom streching across six games....
 
Erc said:
There´s ALOT of variables to take in consideration when comparing CPUs and to think that with this review you are reaching the whole spectrum of people who care about "real gameplay experience" is a lil far fetched IMHO.
Click to expand...

I guess when we are out of business you can say that you were right. Working on 9 years now. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top