coldpower27
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,154
But Intel does have a E6600 316US chip that could hang in there with that FX-62.dajet24 said:heh i remember $300 and cheaper chips pwning EE edition 1000$ intels so dont get to big.
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.
But Intel does have a E6600 316US chip that could hang in there with that FX-62.dajet24 said:heh i remember $300 and cheaper chips pwning EE edition 1000$ intels so dont get to big.
OK, but the point was [H] could have used a 6600GT with a new set of "playable settings" and got the same relative results. The CPUs were not really being benchmarked when the limiting factor was the video card.Donnie27 said:They used a 965 chipset. It couldn't do real SLI.
burningrave101 said: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.
would you mind running a quick test at like 800x600 of quake4 or something for us?Brent_Justice said:The 7900 GTX OC was not a bottleneck in the evaluation. As you can see there is room to spare in some games. Plus, it is certainly not a bottleneck in the Apples-to-Apples tests at a lower resolution with no AA and no AF. This evaluation concentrated on the real-world gaming performance experienced between the CPUs, basically what the gameplay differences are.
jacuzz1 said: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
No, I didn't! FX-62 cost more than a $550 processor, $189 2 GB of GSkill and the est $169 965 used for this review. It would still be cheaper if they used a $246 Asus i975. I still Might add a 4400+ when they hit bargain basement. Right now its a $346 E6600, $35 Ninja, $189 GSkill DDR2 800, and still mobo shopping. If I already owned a 4800+ I'd not be so quick to want to upgrade.
(cf)Eclipse said:would you mind running a quick test at like 800x600 of quake4 or something for us?
In terms of price the E6700 is half the price of the FX-62, also even if AMD cuts prices in half, it would make the pricing be exactly the same. So then I would still go for Intel. Second from what we have seen people have hit 4ghz with the E6700 on xtremesystems, and 3.8 with the e6600.PC Surgeon said:Price maybe?
shungokusatsu said:Ok I'm being told on other forums that [H] reviews are bogus, majority agree that the bench didnt contain enough info. Then someone posts a link where games are getting twice the fps on intel then an AMD. Can anyone confirm if this is BS or not? Thank you.
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=185555
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: Min 15 | Avg 83.993 | Max 689
Conroe @ 3GHz: Min 29 | Avg 132.776 | Max 1546
Just sounds HIGHLY unrealistic.
Brent_Justice said:For those complaining about the gameplay evaluation tell me, will you be buying these high-end CPUs with low-end video cards and playing at low resolutions for gaming?
Eastcoasthandle said:Wow, just wow isn't odd that all the gaming benchmarks are within 1-2 FPS? In all the reviews I have come across online this is a first with 3 different CPUs, from 2 different companies.
I see a serious problem here
-video card bottleneck only using the highest resolutions. Which by the way are not common resolutions used by gamers. Wide screen monitor are the up and coming thing so everyone doesn't have one. Therefore, 1280x1024 should have also been included:
1) everyone can relate to this resolution regardless if they have that monitor or not
2) its a common resolution used often
3) 1600x1200 is an extreme resolution and only taxes the video card creating a bottle neck.
-some if not all the gaming benchmarks do not correspond to the other benchmarks, IMO. If I didn't know better I thought I was looking at another netburst vs AMD again...where practical applications Intel was good but poor in gaming.
-Why are all FPS the same between X6800, E6700 and AM2? Something is very wrong with this picture. And,I seriously doubt I will find such similar FPS results when other sites post their results.
-It would be nice to acutally see what a P5W DH Deluxe can do...they are more abundant now a days then PB5...
that is all for now
indeed it does, but we just like to know how much difference there is between the two, just in case you want to upgrade video cards down the line and keep the cpu.. see how much power is left in thereBrent_Justice said:For those complaining about the gameplay evaluation tell me, will you be buying these high-end CPUs with low-end video cards and playing at low resolutions for gaming?
This evaluation tells you exactly what you need to know when comparing gaming performance between the platforms. It tells you exactly what the differences are when playing the games as me, you and everyone else playing games on such a system.
shungokusatsu said:Ok I'm being told on other forums that [H] reviews are bogus, majority agree that the bench didnt contain enough info. Then someone posts a link where games are getting twice the fps on intel then an AMD. Can anyone confirm if this is BS or not? Thank you.
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=185555
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: Min 15 | Avg 83.993 | Max 689
Conroe @ 3GHz: Min 29 | Avg 132.776 | Max 1546
Just sounds HIGHLY unrealistic.
(cf)Eclipse said:indeed it does, but we just like to know how much difference there is between the two, just in case you want to upgrade video cards down the line and keep the cpu.. see how much power is left in there
RangerXLT8 said:C'mon buddy, do you really think mid-grade 965 Intel can even compare to 590MCP?
You know as well as I do that had 975X been used, those benchmarks would be much different.
shungokusatsu said:I completely agree with you, but I'm asking if those benches are realistic or not, I mean in some apps Conroe is hitting double what an AMD is in fps.
xenogears said:The only issue I have is that the article seems to punish intel for the games being gpu limited. I get the point about it not making much a difference today, but not much is made out of the fact that there could be a huge difference in the future when more powerful videocards come out.
Those are possible if you alleviate the GPU bottleneck. If your run a 7900 GTX SLI or X1900 XT Crossfire system, and perhaps 10x7 resolution those difference are entirely possible.shungokusatsu said:I completely agree with you, but I'm asking if those benches are realistic or not, I mean in some apps Conroe is hitting double what an AMD is in fps.
JetUsafMech said:I too am confused about the lack of 975 lovin'.
CodeWaste said:Look i really think this is a simple difference of opinion. Ok so you realistically tested how a cpu works in current games, and realistically, the GPU is the bottle neck...for now. the question is still open as to how much the processor is really capable of, and if the GPU is the bottle neck at 1280x1024, then we really aren't seeing the full capability of the processor. so why not just make it easier on the GPU for now and turn the res. down, and let the game run as fast as it can. sure it may still be GPU bottlenecked, but not as much as at a res of 1280x1024.
that post you made a couple of pages back about with the synthetic benches, and the app testing was much more useful to me because it maxed the processor out. I know how the processor may fare in the future. showing me that in games the video card is the limitation is pointless because we may not know which processor is actually faster for 12 months when a new generation of video cards comes out.
shungokusatsu said:According to guru3d:
FEAR
1024x768, 4xAA 16xAF, all max:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: Min 60 | Avg 142 | Max 370
Conroe @ 3GHz: Min 78 | Avg 162 | Max 485
1600x1200, 4xAA 16xAF, all max:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: Min 25 | Avg 43 | Max 172
Conroe @ 3GHz: Min 53 | Avg 86 | Max 310
|CR|Constantine said:Thanks for the review Kyle and I will be sticking with my current AMD setup.
As for all you Intel yahoo's congrats on finally catching up to AMD, I guess the only problem is ...AMD K8L response is still to come..oh so close yet so far.
That's what I'm saying, but there's about 5 reviews showing the same thing, and what confuses me is how they drastically differ from the [H] review. Perhaps it's because [H] didn't use SLI or better mboard. But I'm seeing more and more 100%+ performance increases on these other benchmark reviews. If this turns out to be true, I'm sold on Conroe without doubt, kinda sucks, I should have waited before building this AMD rig.trek554 said:thats the benchmarks that i called total bs on a week ago. theres NO FUCKING WAY conroe can have 100% better performance at 1600x1200.
shungokusatsu said:That's what I'm saying, but there's about 5 reviews showing the same thing, and what confuses me is how they drastically differ from the [H] review. Perhaps it's because [H] didn't use SLI or better mboard. But I'm seeing more and more 100%+ performance increases on these other benchmark reviews. If this turns out to be true, I'm sold on Conroe without doubt, kinda sucks, I should have waited before building this AMD rig.