Post-NDA Conroe Benchmarks

[ethernalite]

Since the NDA is coming to an end, it seems that there will probably be a flood of reviews coming out in the next couple of days, if not hours. So I figured it'd be best to post in one thread rather than 10 different ones. Here's a couple already:

Toms Hardware Guide
HardOCPGaming "Review" (warning: extremely biased against Intel with their bullshit metrics. They run max settings (AA/AF incl.) at 1600x1200 with a single graphics card)
HardOCP Video/Encoding Benches (they can't cheat without flat out lying on these)
PC Perspective (posted by JumpingJack)
Trusted Reviews
NeoSeeker
PC Word
Hexus Review
HotHardware
TechReport
The Channel Insider
Overclockers.com
ExtremeTech (copy of PCMag review)
FiringSquad (posted by ltcommander_data)
GotFrag (posted by JumpingJack)
LegionHardware (posted by JumpingJack)
GD Hardware (posted by JumpingJack)
TweakTown (posted by ltcommander_data)
HardwareZone (posted by ltcommander_data)
|Legit Reviews (posted by ltcommander_data)
Register Hardware (posted by ltcommander_data)
X-bit Labs (posted by JumpingJack)
SharkyExtreme (posted by JumpingJack)
AnandTech (posted by ltcommander_data)
Madshrimps.be (posted by 1Tanker)
The Inquirer (posted by ltcommander_data)
Bit-Tech (posted by ltcommander_data)
Planet X64 (posted by ltcommander_data)
Hardware Secrets (posted by ltcommander_data)
Gamepyre (posted by ltcommander_data)
OC Workbench (posted by ltcommander_data)
Hexus SLI (posted by ltcommander_data)
Bytesector 1/2 (posted by ltcommander_data)
Digit Life (posted by ltcommander_data)
ByteSector (posted by iterations)
Phoronix (posted by iterations)
SimHQ (posted by iterations)
Trusted Reviews (posted by iterations)



Non-English:
Cubic Review (google translation / French)
Chile Hardware (posted by ltcommander_data)
Computer Base (google translation / German)
Hardware.fr (google translation / French)
Maximo PC (google translation / Spanish)

 

[RichPLS]

Wow, HardOCP is extremely biased, no explanation about the video card bottleneck throttling the performance, just how mediocore Core2 is :roll: :roll:

 

[jaguarskx]

I will be buying a E6600, but it would have been nice if German "THG" also tested the lower model to see how they would stack up against the other CPUs in the benchmarks.

I would have preferred if Hdocp conducted thier benchmarks will lower resolutions. That way you would be able to the difference between the CPUs processing power. Using higher resolution show how well the GPU performs with the CPU. Great for a GPU comparision, not so good for CPU comparision. I know a lot of people care about gaming performance, but it would have been nice if Hdocp tossed in some non-gaming benchmarks.

 

[Action_Man]

The idiocy.

 

[Action_Man]

Since the NDA is coming to an end, it seems that there will probably be a flood of reviews coming out in the next couple of days, if not hours. So I figured it'd be best to post in one thread rather than 10 different ones. Here's a couple already:

German "THG"
HardOCPGaming "Review" (warning: extremely biased against Intel with their bullshit metrics. They run max settings (AA/AF incl.) at 1600x1200 with a single graphics card)
HardOCP Video/Encoding Benches (they can't cheat without flat out lying on these)

I called it --- they would crank it up to limit at the GPU, then calim uggh see not so great Dimwits -- they should have benced an 805D at stock as well.

:lol: You certainly did. What a tragedy.

 

[Scarchunk]

I haven't even read the rest of the HardOCP article but WTF is this:

"The ONLY difference that we experienced is that we did have to lower a couple of settings with the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 platform compared to the Intel platforms. This was the internal and external shadows. Luckily the shadow sliders there are “notched” so it is easy to know exactly what position they are in. With the Intel CPUs we were able to have this 5 notches up which is in the middle of the slider for those shadow options. When we tried these same settings on the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 platform we found performance to be overall lower than the Intel CPUs and not playable. By moving those sliders down a couple of notches to 3 notches on the slider performance was now playable."

Who the hell benches like this and openly handicapps one of the contestants? If the FX couldn't attain the same FPS under the SAME settings than the entire test is BS.

 

[ethernalite]

I haven't even read the rest of the HardOCP article but WTF is this:

What's even funnier is that in the power section (in a seperate article), they turned off Intel's EIST to measure idle wattage so that the FX-62 could claim victory (although even HardOCP couldn't figure out how to make the FX's under-load numbers be lower than the Conroe's)

 

[ethernalite]

Looks like your guestimates were right, Jack - the Conroe surface area is only 143mm^2.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Since the NDA is coming to an end, it seems that there will probably be a flood of reviews coming out in the next couple of days, if not hours. So I figured it'd be best to post in one thread rather than 10 different ones. Here's a couple already:

German "THG" (google translation)
HardOCPGaming "Review" (warning: extremely biased against Intel with their bullshit metrics. They run max settings (AA/AF incl.) at 1600x1200 with a single graphics card)
HardOCP Video/Encoding Benches (they can't cheat without flat out lying on these)
Cubic Review (google translation)

The more interesting trend is that the $1000 6800 only gives 1 fps in high-res (real-world) gaming. I would NEVER spend $1000 on any non dual-core server chip, so that makes 6800 less appealing. I have said that benchmars for any proc are only valid at real world resolutions. I didn't pay for a 19" 1280 LCD to play at 800.

Face it. The 6700 is more of a value than the 6800.

 

[MuncherOfSpleens]

"We test Intel's Core 2 Duo and Extreme using real-world gaming. Don't let a bunch of canned benchmarks lie to you about gaming performance, real gameplay experience tells a different story. Unless of course you game at 800x600."

Right... heaven forbid I ever trust a "canned benchmark" that actually produces useful results. :roll:

 

[Scarchunk]

Face it. The 6700 is more of a value than the 6800.

"enthusiast" chips are always a rip off

 

[ethernalite]

The more interesting trend is that the $1000 6800 only gives 1 fps in high-res (real-world) gaming. I would NEVER spend $1000 on any non dual-core server chip, so that makes 6800 less appealing. I have said that benchmars for any proc are only valid at real world resolutions. I didn't pay for a 19" 1280 LCD to play at 800.

Someone spending $1000 on a CPU wouldn't spend only $400 on GPU's.

Face it. The 6700 is more of a value than the 6800.

I think everyone already agreed on that.

 

[MU_Engineer]

I think that it is pretty apparent to the likes of us that anything game-related over maybe 800x600 will tax the GPU way more than the CPU- heck, if you plopped my 2.2 GHz P4-M in a desktop 478 motherboard with a 7800GS it will flat-out kill my X2 4200 and 6200TC even though the X2 is far superior to the P4-M in any performance metric out there. It's gotten to the point that I just flat-out ignore gaming benchmarks, even the 640x480 ones as even those aren't as good of an indication of CPU power as rendering, encoding, compiling, number crunching, and application benchmarks are. Low-res gaming benchmarks are one step above synthetic benchmarks in determining CPU performance, and we all know how poorly synthetic benches predict real-world performance.

However, I do agree that most will not be able to tell the difference between a Pentium D, Athlon X2, or Conroe chip. The gamers will have a GPU that negates any difference, while mom and pop will not tax even the cheapest Sempron or Celeron. It's only people who use their computer for doing heavily number-crunching-intensive applications that will really tell the difference between the chips, and then only with a stopwatch (or wall clock, for long rendering/encoding sessions.)

 

[jaguarskx]

I haven't even read the rest of the HardOCP article but WTF is this:

"The ONLY difference that we experienced is that we did have to lower a couple of settings with the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 platform compared to the Intel platforms. This was the internal and external shadows. Luckily the shadow sliders there are “notched” so it is easy to know exactly what position they are in. With the Intel CPUs we were able to have this 5 notches up which is in the middle of the slider for those shadow options. When we tried these same settings on the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 platform we found performance to be overall lower than the Intel CPUs and not playable. By moving those sliders down a couple of notches to 3 notches on the slider performance was now playable."

Who the hell benches like this and openly handicapps one of the contestants? If the FX couldn't attain the same FPS under the SAME settings than the entire test is BS.

I certainly missed that since I only glanced through the so-called "review" relatively quickly. I guess I will need to read all their reviews twice to look for errors. Then again it would be easier to just skip their reviews altogther for fear of some not so easily noticable bias in their reviews.

 

[annihilatorpro]

That has got to be one of the most idiotic reviews, EVER. If they want REAL-WORLD gaming situations, why don't they put together a crossfire or sli enabled system?? When you spend $1000 on a processor, there is no way in hell you would only spend $400 on graphics card. Good lord these guys are idiots.

 

[Artmic]

HardOC's review is just so funny :lol:
They make it look like AMD is still competing on the same level as the 6800 Conroe.
Man, and what is up with the nVidia One card dual GPU card? Why does the ASUS MB not like it? What gives, that is the card I’m wishing to purchase with my Conroe, god damn !

 

[ltcommander_data]

Still reading through some of these, but people really aught to use the new B2 stepping. (THG specifically) At least they're using B1 so the performance should be nearly identical. Looking at the power numbers, their Preslers are still B1 stepping with no SpeedStep. It's kind of a strategy though since Intel probably uses B1 stepping too in order to should a bigger improvement over Netburst. I'm sure some people will also cry foul that AM2 doesn't appear to have Cool'n'Quiet enabled. Would really want to see some of those 65W and 35W AM2s tested too. Anyways back to reading. (Where's the english version? Probably still translating. Please get the grammer right or else people could latch onto unintended interpretations.)

 

[ethernalite]

A lawsuit is pretty stupid. They were honest about what they did, and I'm sure the numbers they put down are in fact accurate. The fact that they are retarded doesn't mean Intel can sue them. It just means they're retarded.

 

[TheMaster]

I don't know about biased. Maybe extremely dumb and misguided would be the right word? :lol:

They think they're giving the people a better perspective... yet they're too dumb to realize that they're system is gpu limited, then proceed to blame the processor not the gpu.

 

[npilier]

Since the NDA is coming to an end, it seems that there will probably be a flood of reviews coming out in the next couple of days, if not hours. So I figured it'd be best to post in one thread rather than 10 different ones. Here's a couple already:

German "THG" (google translation)
HardOCPGaming "Review" (warning: extremely biased against Intel with their bullshit metrics. They run max settings (AA/AF incl.) at 1600x1200 with a single graphics card)
HardOCP Video/Encoding Benches (they can't cheat without flat out lying on these)
Cubic Review (google translation)

The HardOCPGaming "Review"(ers) reminds me of someone who I believe has been banned from THG forums, for posting biased BS...Sharikou??? lol

 

[Artmic]

Yeah it is just funny lol
looking at the THG numbers and their numbers it is a world of difference LOL

 

[BaronMatrix]

Since the NDA is coming to an end, it seems that there will probably be a flood of reviews coming out in the next couple of days, if not hours. So I figured it'd be best to post in one thread rather than 10 different ones. Here's a couple already:

German "THG" (google translation)
HardOCPGaming "Review" (warning: extremely biased against Intel with their bullshit metrics. They run max settings (AA/AF incl.) at 1600x1200 with a single graphics card)
HardOCP Video/Encoding Benches (they can't cheat without flat out lying on these)
Cubic Review (google translation)

The HardOCPGaming "Review"(ers) reminds me of someone who I believe has been banned from THG forums, for posting biased BS...Sharikou??? lol





Ummmm, but excuse me the THG article tests at 1024 with 1900XTX which we all know is good to 1920.


My LCD will only run at 1280 - because I will never turn it down to see how fast my proc MIGHT be. CrossFire works on Conroe.


Excuses, excuses.

 

[gr8mikey]

Hey Baron, just have yourself a good cry. You will feel so much better after you do.

 

[ethernalite]

Added a couple more reviews: Trusted Reviews and NeoSeeker

 

[npilier]

The HardOCPGaming "Review"(ers) reminds me of someone who I believe has been banned from THG forums, for posting biased BS...Sharikou??? lol

This is the problem, shirkabobbooob will be all over this like flies and donkey dung.

I'm still composing myself from reading some BS threads from Juanes287...how these two guys relate to each other might be complicated to explain, but at least jUanaMan posts BS to make himself look dumb and bring a good laugh, where as Shakirou chooses to be ignorant with the BS that not even a nOOb like me would've attempt to discuss...that made wonder what Shakirou might be planning on doing with HardOCP's review on his blog spot by now!