Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance

InorganicMatter said:
Anand had an entire article full of BS numbers from Intel on that rigged F.E.A.R. showing at IDF.
Click to expand...

How do you know they are rigged, maybe Conroe really does make it that much better on F.E.A.R.

[H] didn't test the game so why assume they're BS without any proof to back it up?
 
what's the reason for picking the 7900GTX over other faster cards?
and why not use a Crossfire setup?
 
Banko said:
Basically all this shows is that Conroe is the best all around chip, same performance in gaming, but faster in applications. Why get an AMD?
Click to expand...

If both cpu goes for the same price and it makes no sense to buy amd. But now we still have to wait and see how much will amd slice their prices. And then only can we say who has the best price/performance.
 
Banko said:
Basically all this shows is that Conroe is the best all around chip, same performance in gaming, but faster in applications. Why get an AMD?
Click to expand...


funny one could have asked that same question for the past year or so askign why buy intel ?

when the price cuts hit in a week thats when u will see why to buy AMD still

I hope HARDOCP does a price/performance artciel review using a couple conroes, P4's, amd 64's and some amd 64X2's.

give a performance to price review and see where the chips fall at 100 200 and 300$
 
Banko said:
Basically all this shows is that Conroe is the best all around chip, same performance in gaming, but faster in applications. Why get an AMD?
Click to expand...

Price maybe?
 
rahavsmt said:
Who the hell buys a FX62 or E6600 and games at 640x480? Its Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance Review.
Click to expand...

Who the hell buys a $1000 processor for Gaming and doesn't have 800$ invested in their graphics cards? If they used more mainstream processors I could understand not using SLI/Crossfire.
 
GoldenTiger said:
No, and that is not the point I am trying to make, as I said above. I just think that the benches were more GPU-bound than CPU-bound, and the article illustrates that a better CPU won't help in these situations. I think (yes, I am speculating, before I get called out for supposedly claiming fact to be my opinion) that a more powerful GPU setup would have shown off the CPU power more given that it is shown by HOCP's benches on the CPU-only front (encoding/etc.) that there is a difference in the CPUs' power levels. However, for sure in the current general market it won't help most gamers.
Click to expand...


I'll be back not dissin' ya'.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Anand had an entire article full of BS numbers from Intel on that rigged F.E.A.R. showing at IDF.
Click to expand...
Well Considering they were using a X1900 XT Crossfire Setup, at what 10x7, their results would be different.

They were trying to highlight CPU differences. You can't do that if the graphics card is the limiting factor.

From this review I want to see the lower end X2 and Pentium D included. I expect the picture to remain largely unchanged, it will still be the 7900 GTX OC being the reason you get those frames.
 
Banko said:
Basically all this shows is that Conroe is the best all around chip, same performance in gaming, but faster in applications. Why get an AMD?
Click to expand...

True, now we can have the best in gaming AND the best in CPU-intensive tasks in the same chip.

But still, this is not what I expected. I guess now we can have an "I told you so!!!" thread.

I too would be interested to see if SLI made any difference, though. I fully support [H]'s real-world approach, however.

Overclocking benchies will be great too. It seems that the two chips are neck and neck right now, so if one overclocks more than the other, it will have an advantage.

BTW, if you guys were allowed to post that review now, what's supposed to happen at midnight?
 
So Intel finally caught up to AMD. I wonder how long it'll take before we see some Intel/Dell PR spin on these numbers! Good review :)
 
GoldenTiger said:
No, and that is not the point I am trying to make, as I said above. I just think that the benches were more GPU-bound than CPU-bound, and the article illustrates that a better CPU won't help in these situations. I think (yes, I am speculating, before I get called out for supposedly claiming fact to be my opinion) that a more powerful GPU setup would have shown off the CPU power more given that it is shown by HOCP's benches on the CPU-only front (encoding/etc.) that there is a difference in the CPUs' power levels. However, for sure in the current general market it won't help most gamers.
Click to expand...

I think that is pretty much exactly what I said in the conclusion more or less. We will see how much G80 opens up the doors, but we have been looking at CPU not being the definging factor for a while now. This is nothing new.
 
EnderW said:
what's the reason for picking the 7900GTX over other faster cards?
and why not use a Crossfire setup?
Click to expand...

We wanted to focus on i965 chipset due to its memory controller advancements and it does not support SLI. As for trying to use CrossFire with it, well, that was a problem we did not have time to work with. We had time schedules to keep and CF was a battle we were not willing to fight on new systems.
 
GoldenTiger said:
No, and that is not the point I am trying to make, as I said above. I just think that the benches were more GPU-bound than CPU-bound, and the article illustrates that a better CPU won't help in these situations. I think (yes, I am speculating, before I get called out for supposedly claiming fact to be my opinion) that a more powerful GPU setup would have shown off the CPU power more given that it is shown by HOCP's benches on the CPU-only front (encoding/etc.) that there is a difference in the CPUs' power levels. However, for sure in the current general market it won't help most gamers.
Click to expand...

You mean most New Games, right?
 
cr0w said:
Who the hell buys a $1000 processor for Gaming and doesn't have 800$ invested in their graphics cards? If they used more mainstream processors I could understand not using SLI/Crossfire.
Click to expand...

someone strapped for cash, maybe. they could of run out of money and buy a nice vid card and then go to go sli/crossfire later. but then, it would be outdated.. blah.

this review does change my oh crap feeling for amd. but competition is a great thing. :D
 
In the review, it should be made clear that the $500 Intel chip >= the $1000 AMD chip. According to the link earlier in this thread they're not cutting prices on the FX-62.

Also, why did you give the X2 the must-have award in your review of it when dual cores offered little performance gains for games? Certainly you weren't telling gamers with FX-55s to run out and upgrade. You seem to be saying the same thing in this article - you don't want people with X2s to go out and upgrade for an intangible performance gain. Yet you still recognized how thoroughly the X2 trounced the Pentium D, and felt it necessary to bestow the award. IMHO, the Core 2 trounces the A64 line just as handily, yet you are much more reticent with your praise.
 
i think that most of us are curious about the Athlon 64 X2 4600+ for $301 vs E6600 for $350 (yeah yeah i know, but thats what people are paying)
 
gwai lo said:
Are we going to see a review that would demonstrate the memory controller advancement in comparison to other boards without this (e.g. 975)?
Click to expand...

From what I have seen, the way the technical advances were explained to me seem to be more of a marketing point than performance driven. :( We will see though. But honestly I don't think it is giong to be something that makes you change your mind about buying one solution over the other. Still waiting for NVIDIA and ATI to jump into the fray as well.
 
LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
In the review, it should be made clear that the $500 Intel chip >= the $1000 AMD chip. According to the link earlier in this thread they're not cutting prices on the FX-62.

Also, why did you give the X2 the must-have award in your review of it when dual cores offered little performance gains for games? Certainly you weren't telling gamers with FX-55s to run out and upgrade. You seem to be saying the same thing in this article - you don't want people with X2s to go out and upgrade for an intangible performance gain. Yet you still recognized how thoroughly the X2 trounced the Pentium D, and felt it necessary to bestow the award. IMHO, the Core 2 trounces the A64 line just as handily, yet you are much more reticent with your praise.
Click to expand...


heh i remember $300 and cheaper chips pwning EE edition 1000$ intels so dont get to big.
 
GEEZE i started reading this thread when there was only two pages, each time i reach the end theres another darn page.......
 
Megalomaniac said:
i think that most of us are curious about the Athlon 64 X2 4600+ for $301 vs E6600 for $350 (yeah yeah i know, but thats what people are paying)
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I'm wondering about. Those are the two candidates for my upgrade.
 
enelson125 said:
Yeah that's what I'm wondering about. Those are the two candidates for my upgrade.
Click to expand...


We are going to do some OCing with two of the low voltage AM2 X2s we just got...3800+ and 4200+.
 
keysplayr said:
Also keep in mind that this is just gaming folks. There is a whole other world of computing out there not covered in this review, and I think it should have been. I have never seen a review site do just a gaming review on a CPU. That I believe would be reserved for a video card review.
Click to expand...

You are a couple pages late with your comments....as for only covering GPU, well if you check out the enthusiast page you will see 3 other articles published. :)

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/
 
I understand the point of measuring the framerate under real conditions (vs a timedemo), but I don't get the point of why it was run with a single 7900GTX run at settings where the video card was the limiting factor.

XF or SLI could have shown the differences between the CPUs while still running real games. Sorry, but the review seems pretty pointless. This is not a CPU benchmark at all. Calling other gaming benchmarks lies is a bit silly.
 
Id like to see some sli AND crossfire benchmarks sooner or later. Good article though. :)
 
dajet24 said:
when the price cuts hit in a week thats when u will see why to buy AMD still
Click to expand...

People keep going on about these AMD price cuts and they dont seem to realize that even with the price cuts Intel will still have the E6300 and E6400 and will later introduce the E6200. Intel will also be dropping prices once again on the Pentium 4/D lineup which are still good processors because you can grab a Presler and overclock it to 3.9-4GHz. The E6300 has a MSRP of $183 so AMD will probably have the X2 3800+ under that but i dont see how they could start selling all their high-end X2 processors for that. The E6300 will easily overclock to outperform any overclock you would get on the X2 3800+. Unless your counting pennies i still see no reason to go AMD.

I'm not sure what people expected from these results. The benchmarks were done at 1280x1024. Most of the work done in games is GPU reliant. The CPU doesn't have a huge impact on performance. You dont start seeing a big difference in results until you drop to low resolutions or you're running a SLI/Crossfire setup which i would of liked to of seen in these results. All of these games were GPU limited as is easy to see from the fact the FX-62/E6700/X6800 are all within around 1-2 fps of each other in each game. In the apples to apples comparison Oblivion was the only game that showed a real differential in performance and it wasn't by much because Oblivion is a GPU heavy game as well. The 7900 series dont fair as well as the X1900 series in Oblivion ither. And if you look at Ghost Recon you see that the max FPS for all three processors was 70 fps. The Conroe processor is a better gaming processor so it is able to maintain a little higher average fps but if you want to see any kind of noticeable difference you're gonna have to get some more GPU power then a single 7900 GTX.

This was a good review to show the average user what to expect from Conroe while using a single video card though. It should be emphasised more often that the CPU doesn't make a huge difference in performance for gaming unless you have a ton of GPU power. Games are just far more reliant on the video card to do most of the heavy work. I was preaching this back when the Athlon 64 first released against the Pentium 4. Everyone was praising the A64 for its gaming performance yet few seemed to realize there wasn't much of a difference when you benched it against a higher-end Pentium 4 at resolutions like 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 in most games. If all you do is game then its best just to buy the best price vs performance processor that overclocks well and invest your money in graphics cards. You're just wasting your money on something like an FX-62 for gaming.

Everyone needs to get away from the gaming benchmarks and be sure they look at the performance results for everything else outside of gaming. The Conroe processors annihilate the FX-62 and the FX-62 is AMD's flagship clocked at 2.8Ghz. You're not going to get much more then 2.8-3GHz max on most any 90nm AM2 processor unless your using extreme cooling. Even the lower-end E6400 and E6600 will do over 3GHz and the E6600 should hit 3.5-4GHz on just aircooling a lot of the time.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTExMCwyLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
 
Chris_B said:
Id like to see some sli AND crossfire benchmarks sooner or later. Good article though. :)
Click to expand...
I would love to see some SLI and CF benchmarks aswell. I think that if you bench SLI you will see a suprise.
 
pxc said:
Sorry, but the review seems pretty pointless. This is not a CPU benchmark at all. Calling other gaming benchmarks lies is a bit silly.
Click to expand...

Agreed. You spend the entire article proving what you could have proved in a page: if you already have an FX-62, and you use your computer solely for games, there's no reason to upgrade to a Core 2 Duo. However, your approach failed to highlight that whenever there was a difference, it was in Intel's favor. Conroe was the faster processor here. Furthermore, Intel is offering this performance at a much lower price. Someone coming from the AGP generation for an upgrade should definately choose a Core 2 Duo over an Athlon64. It has the advantage in both performance and price.
 
pxc said:
I understand the point of measuring the framerate under real conditions (vs a timedemo), but I don't get the point of why it was run with a single 7900GTX run at settings where the video card was the limiting factor.

XF or SLI could have shown the differences between the CPUs while still running real games. Sorry, but the review seems pretty pointless. This is not a CPU benchmark at all. Calling other gaming benchmarks lies is a bit silly.
Click to expand...

They used a 965 chipset. It couldn't do real SLI.
 
good read
but for me real world is at least 16x12
and to those you say other reviews are all bs do you even check the system specs the one on guru was running these
2x eVGA 7900 GT SLI @ 700/800
plus was compared to a 939 system with ddr

and @Kyle when you run the oc's from the new am2 cpus u got will you compare those to the oc results from the conroe cpus
 
By comparing the "E6700 vs FX-62", I'd assume that....guessing from the numbers, the E6600 = FX-62?

EDIT: that was meant as a question.
 
Atilac said:
By comparing the "E6700 vs FX-62", I'd assume that....guessing from the numbers, the E6600 = FX-62?

EDIT: that was meant as a question.
Click to expand...

Yes, in most all the reviews for Conroe i have seen the E6600 is on par with the FX-62. Usually the E6600 is a little faster, especially in things outside of gaming. And its only clocked at 2.4GHz. The FX-62 is at 2.8GHz and isn't going to overclock far beyond that. The E6600 however has been hitting 3.5GHz+ on aircooling.
 
Thanks for the review. Clearly an E6600 is the way to go for my next upgrade.
 
Donnie27 said:
You also showed a $550 as being the best deal on the market.



you neglected the fact that i would need to spend another 300 on memory and 200 and change on a mobo......I just might snatch up an old 4800x2 on the cheap and take a wait and see for awhile till the dust settles
Click to expand...
 
I'll be happy with my opteron 165 @ 2,.8ghz for another while yet, was kinda beating myself up for buying it because of the canned timedemo results for core 2 but these results pretty much mean im on par with intels high end chip for gaming at least.
 
jacuzz1 said:
you neglected the fact that i would need to spend another 300 on memory and 200 and change on a mobo......I just might snatch up an old 4800x2 on the cheap and take a wait and see for awhile till the dust settles
Click to expand...

But that situation is unique to you. A first time builder or someone coming from the Socket A days would probably have to buy a new motherboard, processor, RAM, and graphics card anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top