/dev/null
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2001
- Messages
- 15,182
dark_reign said:No good for me. VIA chipset = trash. Give me a sweet 975 or 965 board.
I'm pretty sure my C3 (router) runs on a via chipset. 0 problems. These aren't the KT133 days.
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.
dark_reign said:No good for me. VIA chipset = trash. Give me a sweet 975 or 965 board.
KaReeM oF WHeat said:i think it is nice to finally get some real world testing that is able to cut right through all the marketing hype. i have to admit i was pretty excited about the new intel processors coming out (not excited enough to upgrade but still excited). after reading the article, it is clear to me that i should be in no hurry to upgrade. thanks [H]
KaReeM oF WHeat said:i think it is nice to finally get some real world testing that is able to cut right through all the marketing hype. i have to admit i was pretty excited about the new intel processors coming out (not excited enough to upgrade but still excited). after reading the article, it is clear to me that i should be in no hurry to upgrade. thanks [H]
VIA is still bug-ridden and inferior to Intel's chipsets. I also wouldn't put much faith in a $58 motherboard. I'd only go there if I was building a rig for my grandparents.Robstar said:I'm pretty sure my C3 (router) runs on a via chipset. 0 problems. These aren't the KT133 days.
HeavyH20 said:I read the article through, word for word. One criticism I will have to yield on. The single video card will be the bottleneck in the game testing, so the Core 2 Duo does not really get a chance to shine. If this had been a Crossfire or SLI test system, the Core 2 Duo would have shown its true advantage. And, even if the Intel was just at par with the AMD, that is a big change considering AMD's domination in gaming for the past couple of years.
Bottom line, the article does illustrate what the Core 2 Duo will do (and more importantly, NOT do) for the average gamer, but it does not highlight what the chip would do on the .5% of systems with SLI and Crossfire. That, in truth, can not be considered a failing, but a tempering of the Intel hype that most gamers would experience. How would you feel swapping out your AMD system, CPU, motherboard, and memory to go Intel, then see NO gains? That is the stark reality most gamers would experience.
I, for one, will go with the Intel since I will use SLI, a 30 inch monitor, and eventually go quad SLI. For that, the Core 2 Duo is ideally suited.
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.
zeekle said:The thing you should have added to this review is a X2 3800 and pentiumD 5XX which most likely would have shown similar results to all of these chips running the benchmarks you ran in this review.
I hope in the future you add SLI/crossfire setups after these setups hit the market by storm .
dark_reign said:VIA is still bug-ridden and inferior to Intel's chipsets. I also wouldn't put much faith in a $58 motherboard. I'd only go there if I was building a rig for my grandparents.
ecktt said:I am HIGHLY disappointed in this review as it was not a NOT a CPU review but a review of a video card. Kudos to [H]ardocp for a great Video card review but is down right sucked as a CPU review. Even if this review was slanted towards gamers perspective and what the CPU would have done with currently available hardware, it still paint a an incorrect image. I think the numbers would have been same if they used a single core AMD or Intel processor of slightly lower clock. Why? It was clear that the Video card was the limiting factor. All it says is that games should spend more money behind a video cards than the CPU (not a bad idea IMHO). Does this go to say that the Conroe isn't worth it? No it doesn't! Strange I didn't seen Quake 4 with some SMP action. I've been a long time fan of Hardocp and hope they learn from this travesty.
JetUsafMech said:Here's what I don't understand. There was a great, in-depth article here by [H]ardOcp that drew the conclusion that if you had the highest end CPU, you were GPU limited. [H] could have simply added the Conroe to the mix of those graphs, linked to it, and been done with it. That way people could go "Ohhhhhh.....the bargraphs scale the same everywhere, WTF nVidia/ATI, get your asses in gear, you're bottlenecking us".
And while I understand that Intel cut your legs out regarding the 975 chipset usage, how in the world did every other site get one, not to mention users on various forums, much less the same people that somehow enabled Xfire. (I realize there wouldn't be alot of difference, but using arguably the best AMD chipset vs. arguably a mid-range chipset isn't quite apples to apples).
Thanks for hearing me out.
My .02
Donnie27--agree about the Yonah comment.
ciparis said:This article demonstrates the continuance of HardOCP's decline in relevance to me, turning what was once *the* place for an enthusiast to go to first into a place where I am unlikely to learn anything interesting about new hardware.
Why focus an article so tightly on the patently obvious truth that GPU-limited gameplay cannot be improved significantly with a CPU upgrade, regardless of how much faster that CPU is?
Choosing the best-looking, best-performing settings for a card *is* helpful, but it's helpful as an addition to a comprehensive battery of tests, where an editor's experience can help someone find meaning in a sea of data, especially for those incapable of drawing their own conclusions; it's not a substitute for that data, especially for those who can.
This crusade against full testing is resulting more and more in articles almost devoid of substance.
Argion said:I am not going to run out and buy this processor now because of this or other reviews. We can talk about the diferences between chipsets, memory and video cards all day, but at the end of the day, it comes to personal preference on how you would like to build your ideal system. I am not building something today, because I would like to have an nForce 590 motherboard to go alongside my Core 2 Duo so that I can set it up in an SLI configuration(Please no comments on why SLI and not Xfire or Nforce vs Intel chipset). So guess what, I am going to wait just a bit longer (because I can), and wait for all the new reviews that will come out when the motherboards I want will be available and I can see how an SLI setup affects gaming performance. And if the nForce motherboard don't live up to their hype then an Intel chipset becomes an option etc. The existing articles however have gone a long way in convincing me that for now, with existing games and existing *available* hardware, Core 2 Duo is the way to go and for a good price, and at the end of the day, that is all I can ask for.
JetUsafMech said:Here's what I don't understand. There was a great, in-depth article here by [H]ardOcp that drew the conclusion that if you had the highest end CPU, you were GPU limited. [H] could have simply added the Conroe to the mix of those graphs, linked to it, and been done with it. That way people could go "Ohhhhhh.....the bargraphs scale the same everywhere, WTF nVidia/ATI, get your asses in gear, you're bottlenecking us".
And while I understand that Intel cut your legs out regarding the 975 chipset usage, how in the world did every other site get one, not to mention users on various forums, much less the same people that somehow enabled Xfire. (I realize there wouldn't be alot of difference, but using arguably the best AMD chipset vs. arguably a mid-range chipset isn't quite apples to apples).
Thanks for hearing me out.
My .02
Donnie27--agree about the Yonah comment.
dark_reign said: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.
Robstar said:Is this methodology bad? I don't think so. I'd love to see a poll of how many of you guys run better than the 7900GTX shown in this review.
[H]: Keep up the relevant reviews Good job with the review.
savantu said:You sound like the US Patent office in 1890 : everything that could be invented was invented.
Hear this : in one year you'll have GPUs 2x as powerfull as today.R600 is a monster and is only a few months away.They will unlock Conroe's potential.
Having a Conroe means you are future-proof.
Robstar said:I love to read reviews like this, esp when the parts are broken up so I don't have to read about the parts I don't care about.
Is this methodology bad? I don't think so. I'd love to see a poll of how many of you guys run better than the 7900GTX shown in this review.
[H]: Keep up the relevant reviews Good job with the review.
RooK said:i second that one.
Although I guess for the people who are getting richer and richer thanks to politics, this review is great.
I can justify not testing Yonah due to the fact it wasn't directly marketed as a desktop processor, it's exemplary as a performance/watt processor but it also had fairly limited motherboard support.Donnie27 said:Yea, it's always funny how folks tried to pretend Yonah was a figment of someone's imagination! Many sites didn't even bother testing this Wonderkinderling! I wanted to read reviews that made up the Good, the Bad and the Sucky. In the end, I'm glad I saw how C2D does with Power Savings Mode turned off so I can compare it to others with it turned on to see just how important that feature is.
cronic007 said:I hope you guys got plenty of traffic off of this completely amd biased review, because your credibility as a impartial review site is gone. Good Luck!
Terra said:
Terra said:
Riptide_NVN said:I do agree with those that say it would've been nice to have had the review done with GTX SLI or X1900XT Crossfire. But you can go elsewhere for that if you wish.
coldpower27 said:I can justify not testing Yonah due to the fact it wasn't directly marketed as a desktop processor, it's exemplary as a performance/watt processor but it also had fairly limited motherboard support.
Though the sites I usually go for Hardware Review, are Anandtech and TechReport did benchmark Yonah so I was satisfied nonetheless.
cronic007 said:I could give a rats a++ whose hardware I buy. I buy what is fastest, period. I have owned 8 different dual core AMDs over the past 2 years, so I can't see how I would be biased towards intel. The last Intel I owned was a 2.4c, because that was the best ocer at the time. I just hate to see a review that shows, at best, half of the story.