• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

New Conroe Benches

I REALLY don't understand why people look at CPU benchies at 800x600 and say that one CPU beats another in games.... That's NOT the point of buying the best CPU to game with: to game at 800x600 so why bench it there?
Click to expand...

Because it's nice to compare the CPU's and see which is stronger in a non-limited situation?

Look at it this way, if Conroe is crushing at 640X480, that tells you it'll give you much more strength down the road when you upgrade your GPU, maybe even two or three times, and the bottleneck switches to your CPU.
 
i personally thing hardocp's test was wholly unneccesary, since the testing was all in all conclusive to the fact that games are gpu bound and cpu has really no influence. BUT WE ALREADY KNEW THIS.. whats the point of doing the review.. really. Its not a gpu test, its a cpu test so we need to see benchmarks where cpu is actually INVOLVED
 
Big Fat Duck said:
i personally thing hardocp's test was wholly unneccesary, since the testing was all in all conclusive to the fact that games are gpu bound and cpu has really no influence. BUT WE ALREADY KNEW THIS.. whats the point of doing the review.. really. Its not a gpu test, its a cpu test so we need to see benchmarks where cpu is actually INVOLVED
Click to expand...

Well the multimedia tests are inline with what we've seen at IDF back in march , so what's left to prove ?
 
I think Hardocp have been brave with their gaming comparison review for the new Conroe. It's refreshing to see real world benchmarks. I for one run my games at 1280 x 1024. I don't give a rats-arse about 640 x 480, 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768 for that matter. If my current PC plays games at 1280 with everything on then I'm a happy bunny. Conroe is good but it's not worth the switch
 
Banko said:
Why are they worthless when they show you exactly what you would experience? You aren't going to run the game at 1024x768 are you?

Also every review where they ran at higher resolutions showed exactly the same result as [H]'s result.
Click to expand...

Because this is a processor review. I believe that this particular review (full eye candy with core 2 duo) should have been written separately. The point of a processor review is to show what it is capable, not what happens when the graphic card can't keep up.

Please, redo this review with next gen graphic card and we'll see what happens.

Para
 
sc3252 said:
Thats because you deserve the bashing, this is the worst review of a CPU I have seen tonight. What I think is funny is that you will use low rez benchmarks for amd(when amd had a clear performance lead), but not when intel has a clear performance lead. specifically the amd am2 article you have benchmarks of low resolution gaming. everyone knows already that when you put most computers in high resolution gaming you wont see the difference between cpu's. I wouldnt have a problem at all if you did this, but the fact that you only started to do this now, when amd has lost the performance lead, makes me bleive you are being biased against intel.
:mad:

Show me a few pages where you did the same things to amd(and dont show me gpu articles, only cpu reviews) as you are doing to intel and I will edit this whole post saying how great your article is.

edit: I had to many mads.
Click to expand...

woah, go get 'em
 
I can't understand why people are whining. [H] has done reviews like this for a while now. There's a ton of other reviews out there that show (pointlessly) that you're going to get x hundred more FPS at 640x480. Which is nice, if I wasn't spending $1000 on a processor so I could specifically avoid playing games at that res.

I would have liked to have seen more varied graphics card setups in the review, but I'm guessing that's more limited to time than anything else.
 
blink hi said:
but, we want to know how our processors will fair when the next GPUs come out, not just how they compare to competitors right now. your review was good for showing that there's not much of a difference when running high res on current systems, but what about 6 months from now? we read reviews not to buy the best thing right at this moment, but to get an idea of what each processor is capable of doing. and in that sense, i think your bashing of the conroe let a lot of us down..
Click to expand...

Don't be gay this article and the others don't bash the conroe, you muppet. Bash? lol.

Especially if you read these articles together, they still would point to the Conroe as the best price/value and overall performer.
 
lol, u r probably right!

why doesn't Hardocp put all the articles together into a big overall review and with a good conclusions page?

that would certainly help calm nerves... and give ppl a 1 stop look for all they really need to know instead of having to look around 4 diff articles....
 
Psychotext said:
I can't understand why people are whining. [H] has done reviews like this for a while now. There's a ton of other reviews out there that show (pointlessly) that you're going to get x hundred more FPS at 640x480. Which is nice, if I wasn't spending $1000 on a processor so I could specifically avoid playing games at that res.

I would have liked to have seen more varied graphics card setups in the review, but I'm guessing that's more limited to time than anything else.
Click to expand...
If your spending 1000US on the processor 900US for a Crossfire setup isn't too much too ask for at all.
 
INTEL CORE 2 DUO E6600 2.4G/1066/4M/S775 $415.00CAN + TAX

:eek:WOW this is cheap and performs... am thinking of buying it now ...It can also overclock all the way to 3.3GHz!!!
 
AlphexHunter said:
INTEL CORE 2 DUO E6600 2.4G/1066/4M/S775 $415.00CAN + TAX

:eek:WOW this is cheap and performs... am thinking of buying it now ...It can also overclock all the way to 3.3GHz!!!
Click to expand...
Wow where man? I want to see how much Conroe goes for in Canada as well. :)
 
Parabellum said:
Because this is a processor review. I believe that this particular review (full eye candy with core 2 duo) should have been written separately. The point of a processor review is to show what it is capable, not what happens when the graphic card can't keep up.

Please, redo this review with next gen graphic card and we'll see what happens.

Para
Click to expand...

There are like tons of those reviews out on the net right now.

Really I think they shouldnt have done this article right now. Its pretty clear that they had a deadline and this review should have been only part of a comprehensive review with the new CPUs in a crossfire configuration and with a NVIDIA board (yes I know they arent out yet) doing SLI

Those are the real world situations for people.

I seriously doubt anyone is going to go with a FX or EE CPU and not do SLI/crossfire
 
Talk about a mis-leading review of a processor. Kinda makes conroe look no better when compared to X2 but nearly all other reviews show so other wise.

I still don't know if it's a processor review? GPU review or some test that shows how GPUs are bottle necked....?

I have seen people look at the charts and just blatantly come to a conclusion that AMD is just as fast in gaming as Conroe....These people don't know what GPU bottlenecks are and what "holding a processor back" means.

This is my first [H] review that i read.... it'll probably be my last too.
 
n19htmare said:
Talk about a mis-leading review of a processor. Kinda makes conroe look no better when compared to X2 but nearly all other reviews show so other wise.

I still don't know if it's a processor review? GPU review or some test that shows how GPUs are bottle necked....?

I have seen people look at the charts and just blatantly come to a conclusion that AMD is just as fast in gaming as Conroe....These people don't know what GPU bottlenecks are and what "holding a processor back" means.

This is my first [H] review that i read.... it'll probably be my last too.
Click to expand...

Well, to answer your question it is neither and had your read the title, you would have seen that. Let the other sites regurgitate the spec information in "CPU review" form, there are enough of those already that I don't intend to participate in that any more.
 
zeekle said:
I seriously doubt anyone is going to go with a FX or EE CPU and not do SLI/crossfire
Click to expand...

Yet you see tons of people running SLI/X-Fire with lower end CPUs, because when speaking of frame rates it is always better to invest more money in y our GPU(s) than your CPU.
 
n19htmare said:
Being an Editor in Chief, I thought you would READ what I wrote.
“I have seen people look at the charts and just blatantly come to a conclusion that AMD is just as fast in gaming as Conroe.” If you show someone the charts… what do you think their initial expression be? Come on, don’t tell me they will say oh wait, its GPU limited (how many people actually know what GPU is, I’m talking general public, not forums). Again, VERY misleading.

What do you mean it's neither... "Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance"... I dunno man, sure does look a lot like it tests how the "CPU" performs in games.. Incase you FORGOT that it was a CPU benchmark for GAMING.. .let me put your first line out..
"We test Intel's Core 2 Duo and Extreme using real-world gaming."
Sounds like a CPU test to me. the saddest part of ALL is that nearly ALL your tests are GPU limited even when you TRIED to take the limitation out. Even your tests at lower resolution are GPU limited, no wonder both the Core2 and Core2 Extreme were stuck in the same dang spot… what I like to call the GPU BOTTLENECK.

I have no problem criticizing a review, regardless of who wrote it. I'm sorry sir, you dropped the ball on this one.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts, they are noted.
 
1) I cannot conceive of anyone concerned about gaming performance buying a $1000 CPU and not an SLI / XF setup. I think a follow-up SLI / XF review with the same chips would be nice.

2) If you're concerned about gaming performance and so are spending $1000 on a CPU and another $900 on a SLI / XF setup, do you really fucking care about framerates at 640x480? No, stfu. I fail to see how performing better on todays games at low resolutions translates to better performance in games to be released years from now. I also fail to see why anyone blowing nearly 2 grand on a CPU and video cards would care; honestly, how many people buying these killer setups are going to keep them intact for more than a year or 2 :rolleyes: .

3) CPU bottleneck? What about MONITOR bottleneck? Can you tell the difference between 140FPS and 230FPS on your monitor? I can't on mine :( .
 
This is a VERY EASY fix.

Same setting.
Test it again.. this time... with a Crossfire system

DONE!
 
burningrave101 said:
Thats because you fail to understand the concept altogether of benchmarking at low resolutions in a CPU review. Increasing the resolution has no real affect on how much work the CPU is doing. Its the graphics card that is having to increase its workload when you bump the resolution up high. If the graphics card isn't fast enough to keep up with the processor at those higher resolutions then its essentially doing a lot less work. When you benchmark at 640x480 you take the graphics card out of the equation and you see just how many fps that CPU can turn out when its not being limited by the rest of the hardware. This will be important to know now when you upgrade to a SLI/Crossfire setup or a faster graphics card like the G80/R600 because they will be able to push more FPS at higher resolutions and thus the differential between the processors will increase. Benchmarking a CPU at higher resolutions may give you a real world feel as to what you will get now but it does nothing for actually stressing the CPU. Havn't you ever noticed how the CPU test in 3DMark looks like crap? Thats because visuals are turned down to allow the CPU to not be bottlenecked by the graphics card when determining solely the CPU performance.
Click to expand...

I believe I have a pretty good comprehension of the concept behind benchmarking a CPU's gaming ability at low resolutions; I realise that there are many calculations that a CPU has to perform during a gaming situation, however my point was that the performance differentials experienced at low resolutions do not necessarily translate to equal performance differentials at higher resolutions. I'm not going to pretend to be so knowledgable about CPUs/GPUs in general as to say with certainty that a 25% differential in fps at low resolution would NOT result in a 25% differential at higher resolutions, given there was no GPU limitation or bottlenecking. However, in observation I believe I can safely say that in the majority of cases there will be GPU bottlenecking well before CPU bottlenecking; with a growing number of people migrating to higher resolution displays with more eye candy turned on, I see this continuing to be the trend. Given that the direct translation of performance increases from lower resolution to higher resolutions is not absolute, I think it is only fair to rate the gaming ability of a high end CPU at higher resolutions actually at those resolutions with the latest GPU hardware, (see my point #1).
 
Using that logic though, the review becomes irrelevant as soon as faster cards are released. When faster cards are released that are less GPU limited, the results will start to trickle back to what they would've been at low resolutions.

I can see why one would be interested in how it performs at real world gaming resolutions, but I think it's silly to base your entire review on such situations when it's clear that the GPU is the limiting factor. If your reviewing a CPU, you should be stressing the CPU much harder than the GPU.
 
whrswoldo said:
I believe I have a pretty good comprehension of the concept behind benchmarking a CPU's gaming ability at low resolutions; I realise that there are many calculations that a CPU has to perform during a gaming situation, however my point was that the performance differentials experienced at low resolutions do not necessarily translate to equal performance differentials at higher resolutions. I'm not going to pretend to be so knowledgable about CPUs/GPUs in general as to say with certainty that a 25% differential in fps at low resolution would NOT result in a 25% differential at higher resolutions, given there was no GPU limitation or bottlenecking. However, in observation I believe I can safely say that in the majority of cases there will be GPU bottlenecking well before CPU bottlenecking; with a growing number of people migrating to higher resolution displays with more eye candy turned on, I see this continuing to be the trend. Given that the direct translation of performance increases from lower resolution to higher resolutions is not absolute, I think it is only fair to rate the gaming ability of a high end CPU at higher resolutions actually at those resolutions with the latest GPU hardware, (see my point #1).
Click to expand...
While it is not a 100% certainty, the assumption for this is very reasonable the CPU that does better in the lower end with the GPU load alleviate will do better in the higher end when the GPU is alleviate there as well.

As well there is also the issue of this being not a full performance graphics setup, gaming should have been testing with a 975X chipset, with Crossfire X1900 XT's.

CPU Bottleneck could occur earlier if the nature of the game was more CPU dependent which does exist, It jsut varies on the type of game, while FPS's get all the glory with their graphics, I would have wanted some RTS' and Sims 2 to show off CPU performance, where we know they could use more performance in the computational department.
 
Banko said:
Why are they worthless when they show you exactly what you would experience? You aren't going to run the game at 1024x768 are you?
Click to expand...

I do mostly game at 1024x768, even when my my single card 6800gt was rather new and considered quite high end. When it comes to newest and latest graphically demanding games, they usually tax the video card so much that I almost always prefer the smoothness of 1024x768 with almost all the eye candy AA AF on, over 1600x1200 res with not so smooth FPS with many FPS dips left and right.

and I have bought a 22" CRT just for gaming at 1024x768 *natively* :D
 
I thought the review was pretty good and somthing different from the other 500 review sites. I think the numbers they showed are what alot of people were interested in. Because from other sites someone would of just bought a new conroe just for gaming and keep the same video card and be disappointed. So whenever these processors do make a big difference in gaming, people can upgrade at that time and then there will be newer stuff and cheaper prices.

So, the review showed that if your wanting to build a nice rig now the conroe is the right choice. Plus if you already have a nice AMD rig, theres no reason to jump the gun *right now*. How is there a problem? I just think it saved many poeple alot of money right now for somthing they dont need right away.
 
Tbird87 said:
So, the review showed that if your wanting to build a nice rig now the conroe is the right choice. Plus if you already have a nice AMD rig, theres no reason to jump the gun *right now*. How is there a problem? I just think it saved many poeple alot of money right now for somthing they dont need right away.
Click to expand...

As far as gaming goes i definitely agree. People go out and buy the high-end FX and EE CPU's for gaming because they want the best but i have never understood why they do that, especially if they settle for a single graphics card instead of going SLI/Crossfire which they could of easily done if they didn't spend half their budget on an upgrade that will make little difference in games. At this day and age i find it hard to believe that the only thing a person uses their PC for is gaming. Maybe if you're some young teenager but most of us do a lot of other things on the system like audio and video work and running different types of productivity software all while doing quite a bit of multitasking in the background. In nearly every area Conroe is much faster then the K8 line of processors as was shown in even the review here at HardOCP since they ran a few other benchmark tests outside of just gaming. Then you have to remember the overclocking ability of these new processors. The E6600 at stock speeds of 2.4GHz is beating AMD's fastest processor, the FX-62, which is clocked at 2.8GHz. That same E6600 will do well over 3GHz on aircooling. The few that have tested E6600's already have shown them to overclock to 3.5-4GHz. Thats over a 1GHz overclock. At that speed the FX/Opteron processors running at 2.8-3GHz would be left back there in the dust somewhere in most every bench. AMD's only chance right now is getting moved to 65nm and being able to ramp clock speeds higher and even then Conroe still has a higher IPC. I've grown to love AMD over the last couple of years with their K8 line of processors but i'm ready to get back to Intel because i think overclocking Intel processors is much easier without the MC integrated on the CPU die as well as the fact that Intel motherboards are usually more feature rich and Intel's chipsets are top of the line. I think the RD600 chipset from ATI will be pretty incredible though.
 
I dont know, I am doing quite well with my puny little 2ghz x2.

With my system config, and the fact that future Graphics cards will only get more powerful combined with Games that are more and moreGpu dependant, add in Physics cards and what is left for a Dual core Fx60 for say 300 bucks to do ?

I am not sure if your just a gamer , if a Conroe will be worth me dropping another 800 to upgrade.

I might anyway becuase I like shiny new toys but from a Gaming stand point I just dont know ..........I guess time wil tell
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top