Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance

dad11345 said:
cronic007, would you not at least give some thought to the effect you having already ordered your Conroe has on why you feel the way you do. I am glad your getting the processor as I feel the 6700 is the best buy for gamers who need to buy a processor or just want too.

Think about it this way, if 25 other sites are looking at it the same why not have someone else look at it differently? Who wants to read 25 reviews which are the same? To approach a review differently is not a credibility issue. It would take a misrepresentation of test result or a flawed conclusion to warrant such a comment. I do not see either.
Click to expand...


Dude get real, I have been looking at benchmarks and performance on Conroe since the middle of April by extremely reputable sources, I know what the chips do. I just feel sorry for the people who have not kept up with this chip, and then read such a misleading review. With that said, I think I have made my feelings known, and will withdraw from this conversation, to flash my board and prepare for the arrival of Conroe tomorrow. Peace........
 
Riptide_NVN said:
Kyle you have more patience than I do to put up with all this idiotic nonsense.

I for one am happy that you didn't perform the review as a strict CPU benchmark. If Conroe won't benefit me much at higher resolutions w/AA and AF turned on then is there supposed to be something wrong with me because I want to know that?

Contrary to what some people say I have seen multiple posts around various forums from people that were saying Conroe would provide significant benefits even in 16x12 or higher w/AA,AF turned on. I was skeptical, glad to know I've been for the most part vindicated there. But someone had to do the tests and for that I am thankful.

Jesus Christ there are a million other sites out there that did everything in 1024x768 and people still want to whine and complain because you guys did it differently. I wish they would shut their traps, quit complaining, and go read the reviews that were done in the way they wanted. There's only what? 25 or more out there like that? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You can't take it personally. Just do what you think it right and just that will be of benefit to your readers, then put you head down and go like like hell. ;)

If I thought you guys needed to see low-res game framerates, obviously I have them, but I dont know what value there is to them.
 
Terra said:
And for all the people slamming the review:

I like it.
...

Terra - Timedemo's and 800x600 is worthless to me...I am a gamer :p
Click to expand...

No , it deserves to be slammed.

Timedemoes are the the only way to do a proper comparison because they aren't affected by variability.

In real gameplay you might move one step more to the left , point the mouse quicker to the ceilling , missing a foe and so on => all this FUBARs your results.

With timedemoes your moves are perfectly replicated on both PCs since they're loaded from a log and not from I/O.

I don't see what's wrong with timedemoes ?!
 
I really like the way the review was done. Put's things in perspective. I remember researching for a vid card a year and a half ago and reading the forums and coming away thinking, "i have to get a 6600gt because that way i'll be future proofed with sm3.0. vs the ati offering." Considering how huge a difference it makes and how many games need sm3.0 to be enjoyable, thank god i made the right desicion. ;) When i invest hard earned money into something, i want to bring it home and see great results today. If what i can do with it today isn't so much better, maybe it's not worth the investment.
 
Personally I found the review to be exactly what I wanted to see minus the X-Fire/SLI results.

What I think people don't understand is that when playing a PC video game you ALWAYS want to be just barely GPU limited. Otherwise you are not using the full capacity of your video card(s), so why did you buy it/them?

People whining about "future ability" of the CPU are not realizing that developers spend FAR more energy into creating games that end up with high visual appeal. This correlates to an increase in GPU load not CPU load. Most smart Devs always try to design a game with the lowest common denominator, CPU wise, in mind in order to sell to a broader market. WIth GPU's they don't have to do this because of the extreme range of settings available to the end userl to adjust GPU load.

I want to say thanks to the [H] for not getting wrapped up in the marketing hype machine of Intel.
 
jon67 said:
I guess in retrospect we can all agree that A64 never gave a better gaming experience than P4, and that all tech sites that published low-res gaming CPU reviews (including [H] before they saw the light) have more or less deliberately misled their readers. Boy, those who bought A64s instead of P4s for gaming must really feel stupid now, and they didn.t get hyperthreading either ;)
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself. Quite the double standard.
 
cronic007 said:
Dude get real, I have been looking at benchmarks and performance on Conroe since the middle of April by extremely reputable sources, I know what the chips do. I just feel sorry for the people who have not kept up with this chip, and then read such a misleading review. With that said, I think I have made my feelings known, and will withdraw from this conversation, to flash my board and prepare for the arrival of Conroe tomorrow. Peace........
Click to expand...

Coming from a P4 805 which is a 2.66GHz chip you will see some improvement with your high end video card for SURE.
 
Firebat said:
I would personally like to see them. Could you post them on your site or the forums?
Click to expand...


they are posted in this thread a couple of times. Search on "hl2" and you should find them.
 
Wow... what a backlash. For what it's worth, i was waiting for your review because i knew you wouldn't run games at 800x600 when testing Conroe. I was interested what Conroe can do when playing at high resolutions.
Why are people so pissed off? If you have a dual-core cpu oc'd to FX speed then there is no reason to change cpu's. If you have an old single-core Athlon, then the E6600 is the best bang for the buck and even after Amd's price cuts they don't have anything to that will compete directly against it.
 
cronic007 said:
My post that you edited had no personal stuff in it, what are you thinking?

Also the 805 was a temporary chip after I got rid of my 3+Ghz 170 Oppties. Was that some sort of an attempt at a dig? Grow up dude, and while you are at it,

LEARN HOW TO DO A PROPER REVIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go ahead ban me, I'm sure its coming, anybody who questions anything that you do gets banned!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Dude, I was just going by what is in your sig, sorry I do not keep up with your past personal system history. You need to chill dude.

And yes you were getting into a conflict that was not on topic so your post was edited. Please stay on topic....bashing me, not the other here.

"As for the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62, all of our testing shows that it does trail the two new Intel CPUs in gameplay performance. So, if you wanted to point one out as being a “winner” then for sure it is the new Intel Core 2 X6800 and E6700."

Funny how some of you are not wanting to give us credit for that statement either. But your thoughts are noted, please don't keep just posting the same concerns over and over, you have been heard loud and clear the first time.
 
Why do you guys even bother arguing with Kyle Bennett? He failed. He's obviously a blow-wherever-the-money-takes-you kind of guy, and cannot be trusted. Let's move on.
 
Go ahead ban me, I'm sure its coming, anybody who questions anything that you do gets banned!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

i'm not banned yet :confused:

kyle, you have to love these threads, gives you something to do other then playing games all day long.

I wonder how many people actually read the entire article.
Click to expand...

i'm guessing the people who are bashing them...
 
cronic007 said:
Dude get real, I have been looking at benchmarks and performance on Conroe since the middle of April by extremely reputable sources, I know what the chips do. I just feel sorry for the people who have not kept up with this chip, and then read such a misleading review. With that said, I think I have made my feelings known, and will withdraw from this conversation, to flash my board and prepare for the arrival of Conroe tomorrow. Peace........
Click to expand...

When your done setting it up ship it to me and I will test it for you. :D Peace........
 
I read the article and what cracks me up is all the people getting bent out of shape because a review may seem to lean more one way than another. These new chips coming out both seem great and for anyone out there will be a great buy.

Funny thing is all the older chips are still too, even better infact because since they are older they will be cheaper......

Dont get all pissed just because what you planned on buying doesnt necessarily get praised in this review


Peace
 
Fraishus said:
Why do you guys even bother arguing with Kyle Bennett? He failed. He's obviously a blow-wherever-the-money-takes-you kind of guy, and cannot be trusted. Let's move on.
Click to expand...

Don`t leave will miss your 6 posts.
:eek:
 
Good lord people, it's just a CPU. No need to start making personal attacks on Kyle because you don't agree with everything he says. Geez, there's two dozen Conroe reviews out there and you have to start a war with the ONE reviewer's result that differs slightly from the rest. Come on people, it's time to grow up.
 
It's an IRRESPONSIBLE review because it's very easy for someone who does not understand 'GPU-limited' to misinterpret. The review presents only the data necessary to show the Core2 in the light which Kyle would like to show it in- all other data is missing. This review does not present a comprehensive set of Core2 benchmarks, ranging from 640x480 all the way up to the highest settings possible. But people don't realize that -- they only see some numbers. I'm seeing people come on IRC saying: "I'm sad, I thought the Core2 was going to be a fast chip, but I just read the hardocp review and they've only matched AMD's cpu's in performance." That's clearly not the case. People are being mislead. Kyle should know how people will interpret things given a small set of data. Many of the other creditable review sites presented a wide range of resolution and AA/detail settings, so that everyone can know how Core2 might perform for THEM.
 
Quoted directly from Kyle's article
So, IF you wanted to point one out as being a “winner” then for sure it is the new Intel Core 2 X6800 and E6700. But, if you look at the amount of difference between the AMD and Intel CPUs, you will see that it isn’t enough to amount to anything. The only game that we saw any real-world difference in was Oblivion, and even that was tiny. A little overclocking would clear that difference up. Overall, the performance difference isn’t enough to amount to any gameplay experience differences in these games. One thing is certain: these are very fast platforms and they all provided a very enjoyable high-end gaming experience in every game.
Click to expand...

Why wasn't there a big IF when the A64 vs P4 article was done? and Why wasn't the fact that
A little overclocking would clear that difference up.
Click to expand...
stated during those tests as well?

The Bottom Line

Quoted directly from Kyle's article

Lastly, I would advise everyone that is thinking of rushing out and purchasing their latest upgrade that we are sure to see HUGE pricing slashes out of AMD before the end of the month.
Click to expand...

WOW!!! That was The Bottom Line!!? Literally the bottom line!!! Oddly enough, it does not say "I would advise those those with highend FX 62 systems...." Instead the "BOTTOM LINE" of the article says I would advise EVERYONE !!!

Quoted directly from Kyle
The bottom line is that without our article, many of our readers that have more than worthy AMD systems would have thought they were going to benefit in a gaming environment and that is simply not the case for many of you.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough; according to "THE BOTTOM LINE," it appears that this article and review was made to:

A) Show that when the GPU is the bottleneck, their is practically no noticeable gain from cpu power.

B) Show that all other review sites are full of crap with their canned benches.

C) Show that EVERYONE Should wait for AMD price cuts.

D) Appease the AMD fan base on this forum.

Which inevitably leads to

THIS


Quoted directly from an AMD !!!!!!! dajet24

Conroe= par with AMD in gaming !
heh anyone else grin when they read the new conroe gaming review on the main page?

heh grats intel you finally made a good gaming pc.. but its only as good as the stuff already out.

knew those huge canned benchmarks were on the shaddy side of town.

granted Conroe may be great in encoding and other tasks but intel still cant dominate gaming atleast like AMD has.

4x4 for the gaming win soon.

ya its a happy amd fan post but its needed after listenign to intel people say conroe was the 2nd coming
Click to expand...

Case closed!!!

THE BOTTOM LINE

Conroe Sucks!!! All you people cancel your pre-orders NOW!!!

That way I can get build my new Conroe system for a LOT less money.

Great work Kyle. ;)

and thanks for the stellar review.
 
I find it funny that now it seems everyone has a problem with the way these systems are reviewed and never in the past had a problem. His reviews didn't change it's just your biased opinion of the Intel has got you all in a tizzy because you didn't get what you wanted. He reviewed it the way he wanted to which is great because I hate seeing the same review over and over again. To have someone doing something different is a sign of variation. I wouldn't just take his word as the final word though suck in all the reviews that are out there and make your own opinion. What Kyle wanted to show was how the cpu handled high res content and if it enhanced or produced faster results then the AMD cpu. It did but at a slight margin. He did make another review dedicated soley on the cpu which showed Intel kicks Amd's ass but I guess some people arn't seeing that. If someone was so paid off by Amd you would think they would say "oh were a gaming dedicated site so were not going to post benchmarks related to anything other then games" just so they make Amd look better. If he was paid off then damn they must not of paid him a lot because he really shows that Intel is a faster cpu and suggested in sli it can help.
 
What i find funny is the amount of people who signed up specifically to bash the review just because it didn't cater to the "omg 640x480 quake 3 timedemo 1" crew. :rolleyes:
 
Fraishus said:
Why do you guys even bother arguing with Kyle Bennett? He failed. He's obviously a blow-wherever-the-money-takes-you kind of guy, and cannot be trusted. Let's move on.
Click to expand...

Please let me know where I can pick up my check because I think I am missing a few. You know, the stack got so big I lost track of a few. ;)
 
Chris_B said:
What i find funny is the amount of people who signed up specifically to bash the review just because it didn't cater to the "omg 640x480 quake 3 timedemo 1" crew. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Well said!
 
I don't completely have a problem with the data in the review per say, because the data is valid (although very limited to serve a specific purpose, and subjectively left out important facts).

The issue comes more with "how" the review was presented and why.

I mean think about it. It's fine to show that the gpu is limited in the "specific" scenario to the tests that were done. Which may or may not be what is "real world." However, if you're being objective then you should also say that "this is nothing new...If you threw in virtually any old cpu, you're going to get virtually the same results."

Instead we get, " a little overlcock by the FX should do the trick," and "everyone should wait for AMD price cuts."
 
Why the hell would ANYONE want to know how a $1000 processor preforms at 640x480? WTF is wrong with you people :|

IF i spent 1k on a CPU it's because I want to push it to the max and get it doing what I want as fast as possible, not sit there and play at 640x480

If you're all so concerened about how a game does at 640x480 you obviously don't play the game for its visual qualities, then you should go back and play doom 1 i'm sure you'll get 999fps :p


even for the lower end of cpus I DOUBT even a p4 2.4a would have a problem running a game at 640x480 so get off your e-penis's and look at what matters, playing the actual game
 
Manchester said:
I don't completely have a problem with the data in the review per say, because the data is valid (although very limited to serve a specific purpose, and subjectively left out important facts).

The issue comes more with "how" the review was presented and why.

I mean think about it. It's fine to show that the gpu is limited in the "specific" scenario to the tests that were done. Which may or may not be what is "real world." However, if you're being objective then you should also say that "this is nothing new...If you threw in virtually any old cpu, you're going to get virtually the same results."

Instead we get, " a little overlcock by the FX should do the trick," and "everyone should wait for AMD price cuts."
Click to expand...

Your points and thoughts are noted and taken into consideration, you only need to beat your drum once here to get heard.
 
Man this whole thread really cracks me up. Granted I didn't read all 30 pages of it. Anyway Thanks for the great review Kyle. [H] will continue to be my primary source for computer benchmarks. I and many others appreciate your dedication to real world conditions. Looks like computers are now like religion and politics. Nothing will be enough to calm down the Intel Vs AMD and ATI Vs Nvidia maniacs. Ignore the haters and keep up the good work. I know I will be getting a Conroe once the R600 and G80 come out. I'm expecting quite an upgrade from my Athlon XP 1800 and GF4.

P.S. Please keep up on the Conroe Mobo reviews. I want to know if the Nidia 590SLI or ATI Crossfire gives better overclocking and game results.

Thanks!
 
InorganicMatter said:
The only position AMD holds now, is the ultra-cheap poor-man's solution ($90 for a 3000+), previously held by Intel's Celeron.
Click to expand...

The new Celerons based on the Conroe core will soon take that too. Along with the PD 915s..
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
even for the lower end of cpus I DOUBT even a p4 2.4a would have a problem running a game at 640x480
Click to expand...

Umm.... Play any new games recently?
 
The reason why some people benchmark at low rez is to see how the CPU is actually performing without the GPU helping in the graphics performance. But like some have pointed out, it's pretty much pointless because it doesn't really show you what "real world" performance is going to be like since no one runs on low rez when they game. The results with the rez turned up isn't all that suprising considering the GPU becomes the bottleneck, but we still see a slight performance gain.

On the other hand the benchmarks for Core 2 in encoding and divx performance clearly show the performance gains over the AMD CPU's. People who use those types of programs are going to see the most difference. Highly recommended for people who work with videos, photo editing, and encoding stuff.

For people who game or use their computer for surfing the web and office apps, they're not going to see a huge difference with Core 2.

It's great for Intel to finally have a good architecture on their hands. It's about time. But for the majority of users, it doesn't really make a difference. Price/Performance is really go though for the E6600 and most of the Core 2 line, except for that E6800 which is way overpriced.

If I were building my computer today, I would definately go with an intel chip, but it wouldn't be enough for me to switch off my AM2 system.
 
Wompa164 said:
Kyle makes his living running this site. For all intensive purposes, [H] is a business and should be treated as such.
Click to expand...

I have my own opinion on the review in question, but it's not really important.

I would like to correct this though. The phrase is "for all intents and purposes," not "intensive purposes." :)

Grammar police out.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
Why the hell would ANYONE want to know how a $1000 processor preforms at 640x480? WTF is wrong with you people :|

IF i spent 1k on a CPU it's because I want to push it to the max and get it doing what I want as fast as possible, not sit there and play at 640x480

If you're all so concerened about how a game does at 640x480 you obviously don't play the game for its visual qualities, then you should go back and play doom 1 i'm sure you'll get 999fps :p


even for the lower end of cpus I DOUBT even a p4 2.4a would have a problem running a game at 640x480 so get off your e-penis's and look at what matters, playing the actual game
Click to expand...

There are a plethora of informative and well thought out posts in this thread. Yours isn't one of them.
 
let me summarize the article for the mentally retarded that read the review and were unable to comprehend the words in front of them...

the new chips are faster but you wont see any realworld performance gains using current gen gpus..

is that really that difficult to understand? i dont think so. again kyle, thanks for the review, keep up the good work...
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
Why the hell would ANYONE want to know how a $1000 processor preforms at 640x480? WTF is wrong with you people :|

IF i spent 1k on a CPU it's because I want to push it to the max and get it doing what I want as fast as possible, not sit there and play at 640x480

If you're all so concerened about how a game does at 640x480 you obviously don't play the game for its visual qualities, then you should go back and play doom 1 i'm sure you'll get 999fps :p


even for the lower end of cpus I DOUBT even a p4 2.4a would have a problem running a game at 640x480 so get off your e-penis's and look at what matters, playing the actual game
Click to expand...

You can remove vid card bottlenecks without dropping down to 640x480. Hopefully, if you're spending $1000 on a cpu, you're putting it in a system with SLI which, as has been shown, will greatly benefit from Conroe. Or... maybe you do only have one vid card. In 6 months, when new vid cards/cpus come out, hopefully you won't say "crap, new games... i'll get a faster CPU!" because you'll still be bottlenecked by your vid card (and you just spend $1000 on a CPU 6 months ago, do you really want to upgrade again?). If you're smart, you'll go grab a new vid card and THAT is when you'll see the benefits of Conroe over an FX in gaming.


note: i'm not saying there's anything wrong w/ the review. Just trying to clear up one of the many people who are taking the results and making them into something they're not rather than seeing the big picture...
 
If you read the apple to apple section it clear indicates that at 1280x1024 C2D X6800 came out on top. 1280x1024 is the common resolution used by the majority. Although C2D still won at 1600x1200 what is the issue is that the FPS at both resolution are lower then what other reviewers are obtaining. And, the fact that a lesser 965 chipset was used. That is what is ticking off the majority of folks.
 
The test system was clearly bottlenecked by the GPU, it's even admitted on the first page of the article:

Kyle Bennett said:
As alluded to above, we can easily remove the GPU as the bottleneck in the system, but this requires running low resolution benchmarks at 640x480 or 800x600, and we all know that people that are looking at buying a new processor are not using these resolutions to game at.
Click to expand...

Obviously, what this means is that the article shows NOTHING about the performance of Conroe. Trust the reviews that show the differences because they are NOT GPU BOTTLENECKED. It's pretty disappointing to see Intel trashed like this by claiming
Kyle Bennett said:
But, if you look at the amount of difference between the AMD and Intel CPUs, you will see that it isn’t enough to amount to anything. The only game that we saw any real-world difference in was Oblivion, and even that was tiny. A little overclocking would clear that difference up. Overall, the performance difference isn’t enough to amount to any gameplay experience differences in these games.
Click to expand...
.

First, it's already well-established that the review is GPU limited, if Kyle wants to make the claim that it was NOT and that the complete capability of Conroe was testing within this review, I'd love to see it (especially considering the aforementioned quite indicating that the GPU is a bottleneck). What this indicates is that the first underlined statement is not able to be made and be true. Period. Next, the second claim underlined--laughable, at best. If that claim is true, then let's see it--overclock the FX-62 then run the benches again. After that, overclock the Conroe chips the same % and run the benches again after that. I'm pretty sure you won't do this because you already know what the results will show: AMD still losing.

Now, it is admitted that the method of testing is, supposedly, "real-world," but the review fails to take into account the future. The review was even getting slammed here on its own board constantly for about six hours straight last night until all of the reviewer's, and AMD's, fan-boys woke up and started saying "omgz pwnr0rz gr8 review INTEL SUX4!!" Needless to say, the only people that would praise this article fall under one of five (or possibly more) categories:
1. AMD fan-boys
2. People who hate Intel (not the same as AMD fan-boys)
3. People kissing ass because this is the reviewer's forum and want to show their loyalty, especially since it's pretty clear that he cares very little about what other people think of what is wrong with his article, but individually praises some who compliment him
4. People that think it's cool to go against the mainstream just because it is, simply, going against the mainstream, regardless of the inaccuracies that are implied within the results
5. Regular people who do not understand what a CPU bottleneck is and follow the review based on the rhetorical attribute of "ethos," wherein the reviewer APPEARS to be the most credible source (after all, he is claiming that ALL other reviews are "canned," or played up due to business prospectives with Intel), and base their entire perspective of the gaming ability of Conroe solely off the results of the article.

Now, let's look at FINAL CLOSING STATEMENT in "The Bottom Line" of this article:
Kyle Bennett said:
Lastly, I would advise everyone that is thinking of rushing out and purchasing their latest upgrade that we are sure to see HUGE pricing slashes out of AMD before the end of the month.
Click to expand...
Is is necessarily truthful to make this statement when ONLY the highest end processors were tested? Of course not. The only processors this statement could possibly apply to within this article are the processors that were tested. For one, the FX-62 is not getting slashed in prices. The only way this statement could possibly be true would be to examine the price/performance ratio of the PROCESSORS THAT ARE GETTING THEIR PRICES LOWERED (ie. not FX-62)! Beyond that, this does not mention that Intel will be making further price cuts, as well, for processors such as the Pentium D, which may allow Intel to remain as the best price/performance chip even after the AMD price cuts. I'm pretty shocked that this statement was even included, at all, considering that every other aspect of this article neglects the future, yet this, basically, suggests to people to go out and buy AMD right when the prices cut without even mentioning that Intel will be doing the same.

If you're missing the point of what I'm saying, here it is simplified: nice play on ethos (the degree to which the credibility of the reviewer is played upon/used) to pump AMD/downplay Conroe performance, poor justification and claims within the review.

Also, there is ZERO justification for you slamming ANY other review out there because they removed the GPU bottleneck from the systems before testing. If you really want to slam other reviews, then remove the GPU bottleneck, which is what should have been done anyways, put the results up, then eat your words because your results would be the same as theirs.

Like I said in my previous post, though, I'm an AMD guy and my next processor will be AMD, regardless of anything Intel comes out with. Yet, I'm not ignorant to what Conroe can really do and anyone that says this is a good review clearly is ignorant to what it can do. It's really just not a fair comparison with the statements made within the review--and I'm only pulling out a couple of these statements.
 
I have an AMD system that is now 5 years old. Of course, i am going to switch to conroe as soon as i can. No one is forcing users who just bought AMD systems to switch. Why are you guys so defensive.

Every site hails the intel conroe ...and even this site says that a conroe at 1/2 the price is just as good as AMD's best. You would have to be an AMD !!!!!! to claim everything about conroe is vapourware.

Now we already know games like oblivion can use the extra power and so to will future games. No one has talked about multi tasking ...conroe will make it easier to IM/voip/virus protect and whatever other system functions need to be on while gaming. More CPU power?
Great ...bring it on.

The part i find troubling is that amd was reported to be 15-20% better than Intel's best.
Now, that the role is reversed...all of a sudden, this site only, it doesn't matter --let's forget about it. sheesh :)

I will also take this site with a grain of salt now. It seems they went out of their way to spin this...as don't believe every other site on the planet ...we are the real deal. lol :)
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
Why the hell would ANYONE want to know how a $1000 processor preforms at 640x480? WTF is wrong with you people :|
Click to expand...

Hmm, let me put on my thinking cap and ponder this question. *.222 seconds later.* Done.

It's already been laid out dozens of times in this thread. Real life gaming resolutions might make gameplay GPU limited right now. But what happens in one year or more when a new vid card comes out, that totally blows away current video card performance with current games? Aha! Now all of a sudden Conroe has better performance. Boo hoo.

While not perfect, a good way of predicting performance with future more powerful cpus is to remove the bottleneck, i.e. lower resolutions etc.

Take the article for what it is. It's never really misleading and it does what it set out to do. But if the scenario above might apply to you, that's something you have to keep in mind.

If anyone makes the argument again (why would anyone buy a cpu to game at 640x480 dee dee dee), you have a reading comprehension problem. They want the numbers to predict performance when GPUs are not the limiting factor. Not because they want to game at 640x480. Is it that hard to understand?

Good thing I don't game hah. I just had to chime in since some people just don't get it.
 
KaReeM oF WHeat said:
the new chips are faster but you wont see any realworld performance gains using current gen gpus..
Click to expand...


You forgot to add "Unless you use Xfire/SLI, in which case, you will see a large difference".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top