StealthyFish
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,591
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.
*clap clap* Perfectly worded. Thank you.