Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

beginning the end of conroe hype.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 14, 2006 4:29:55 AM

Check this review, you will be surprised how conroe's benchmarks are begriming to deteriorate and some truthful and meaningful results are materializing.
This is a great news for consumers, because it clearly shows it’s best not to make hasty decision wasting your upgrade money on wrong system. And as always said: it’s best to wait till dust settles, Intel crusaders run out of options and steam, and truth prevails.

Quote:


The Bottom Line



We have proven here that the flurry of canned benchmarks based on timedemos showing huge gains with Core 2 processors are virtually worthless in rating the true gaming performance of these processors today. The fact of the matter is that real-world gaming performance today greatly lies at the feet of your video card. Almost none of today’s games are performance limited by your CPU. Maybe that will change, but given the trends, it is not likely. You simply do not need a $1000 CPU to get great gaming performance as we proved months ago in our CPU Scaling article.


When it comes to playing games, the only persons that need to be even a little concerned with upgrading their CPU to a Core 2 processor, might be those with high-end SLI, CrossFire, or GeForce GX2 video cards and we have yet to even prove that due to testing limitations we ran into. Then and only then, you might see an Intel Core 2 processor deliver a performance advantage.


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.


http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwx...
July 14, 2006 4:34:25 AM

You aren't real smart are you? The type of testing that they did in that review was so clearly a gpu bottleneck, that you could have ran a $100 PD805 through those tests and not been more than 5 fps different from those $1000 cpu's
July 14, 2006 4:35:49 AM

Poor mike, stay away from razor blades.
Related resources
July 14, 2006 4:37:22 AM

Quote:
This has gotta be a real gut-wrenching day for you isn't it Mike.


If he is smart, he will run down to the store and get him a nice tall bottle of booze. That should enable him to effectively resist the overwhelming amount of data that he will be facing today.
July 14, 2006 4:40:52 AM

I'm shocked that you would quote an article that states this in there testing methods. How do you explain 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."

The FX went from 39 FPS to "unplayable" with two settings tweaked, while the Core 2 handled it just fine. Seems like those two settings put quite a load on the FX instead of just the limiting to the GPU.
July 14, 2006 4:46:13 AM

Please no more HardOC's reviews tonight, i laughed enough :lol: 
July 14, 2006 5:09:32 AM

Poor Mike. It will be a long wait for K8L (or KL8 as Jack put it earlier)
July 14, 2006 5:12:04 AM

Good review Jack! That reviewer was very colorful and entertaining.
July 14, 2006 5:12:59 AM

I'm wondering how these guys got to be hardware reviewers. Either they don't know what a bottleneck is or they intentionally looked for ways to bottleneck it at the gpu. For anyone interested a bottleneck in computers means that a computer will only work as faster as it's slowest (or most overburdened system).

Think of two car assembly lines:

:arrow: On the first one person polishes the tires, one person tunes the radio, and the last person assembles the rest of the car.

:arrow: On the second one person makes the frame, one person installs the drive train, and the last person installs the interior and paints the car.

Which line will make more cars? On the first line would it matter if the person that tunes the radio was superman?

The testsetup for this review was like the first line, because it overburdened the graphics card.
July 14, 2006 5:15:43 AM

The conclusion I've reached after reading that review is that E6700 performs nearly the same as X6800 but for almost half the price. And that both Intel chips perform better than the top of the line FX-62.

Better "apples for apples" comparison would have included a FX-55 and X2 4600 as they would be similarly priced to the E6700.
July 14, 2006 5:19:36 AM

Quote:
I'm wondering how these guys got to be hardware reviewers. Either they don't know what a bottleneck is or they intentionally looked for ways to bottleneck it at the gpu. For anyone interested a bottleneck in computers means that a computer will only work as faster as it's slowest (or most overburdened system).

Think of two car assembly lines:

:arrow: On the first one person polishes the tires, one person tunes the radio, and the last person assembles the rest of the car.

:arrow: On the second one person makes the frame, one person installs the drive train, and the last person installs the interior and paints the car.

Which line will make more cars? On the first line would it matter if the person that tunes the radio was superman?

The testsetup for this review was line the first line, because it overburdened the graphics card.

Really, if you bought a 7900GTX, are you going to play on medium settings, no AA or AF, at 1024 x 768?
July 14, 2006 5:21:27 AM

what was with hardocp benchmarking the core 2 and athlon in games with the graphics settings maxed out? don't they know they're basically benchmarking the graphics card? they might as well rename the review.

point is, and has been for a while, that the main thing to look at is the gfx card if you're buying a pc for gaming. the impressive thing with core 2 is that, not only is it every bit as good or better than AMD in gaming when tested at top resolutions (which hasn't been the case for some time for intel with the P4), but it's a top performer in every other benchmark as well. core 2 is really well rounded cpu.
July 14, 2006 5:27:10 AM

I'm looking forward to your next blog update. :lol: 
a c 473 à CPUs
July 14, 2006 5:30:49 AM

Quote:
Check this review, you will be surprised how conroe's benchmarks are begriming to deteriorate and some truthful and meaningful results are materializing.
This is a great news for consumers, because it clearly shows it’s best not to make hasty decision wasting your upgrade money on wrong system. And as always said: it’s best to wait till dust settles, Intel crusaders run out of options and steam, and truth prevails.



God damn stupid fanboys!!!!

If all you care about is gaming performance then read the following review:

Games against CPUs. Part II.



Open your god damn f**king eyes!!!!

When you use high resolution it becomes a GPU reveiw, not a f**king CPU review!!!

LOOK AT THE F**KING CHART!!!

If you want to play Battlefield 2, then f**k the Athlon FX and Conroe. Get yourself a damn Athlon 64 3200+ or the slightly slower Pentium 4 670.

Here's another chart dumbass:



Get yourself a f**king Sempron 3400+, or Celeron D 326!!!



Damn, even an Athlon 3200+ or Pentium 4 670 seems to come close enough to provide highend performance i Serious Sam.

Wanna play Quake 4?



Get yourself a f**king Athlon 3200+, or Pentium 4 670!!! They seem to be close enough to the FX-57!!!

How about Call of Duty 2?



The performance of the Celeron D 351 or Sempron 3400+ are pretty close to the performance of the Pentium 4 670 and FX-57 given that they are budget CPUs.

If all you can do is spew out sh!t from your f**king mouth, then STFU!!!

Stop being a damn brandname Fanboy, and focus on performance!!!!

AMD had turn in the spotlight. Now it's Intel's turn. For how long? Who knows?
July 14, 2006 5:43:00 AM

wow, didn’t realize Intel has released the sewer gate and let million flies buzz out of S**t hole.
This thread was posted here for the consumers and those members trying to sort things out. Not for you Intel maggots.
But I am glad you flue here polluting the forum.
To those genuinely interested in knowing more- please do not be disgusted by these Intel maggots and their odor. This review clearly indicates that in game GPU matter the most and con-roe is no better than AMD. So don’t be fooled by “cooked benchmarks” these Intel magots force you to believe.
There are tons of more reviews and benchmarks that are materializing, and which I am going to post the links here from time to time.
But as a warning, bring your bug spray when visiting this thread. As you can see, the Intel maggots and sewer flies have infested the Forumz.
More to come.
July 14, 2006 5:46:28 AM

You rock mike. :lol: 
July 14, 2006 5:50:55 AM

And what about programs that don't require a good graphics card? Like media encoding?
July 14, 2006 6:06:43 AM

great post.


and where the heck is the fanboy who started this thread?
July 14, 2006 6:11:07 AM

Quote:
You know there are other reviewers, with apparently more reviewing skill, besides HardOCP, I kinda liked this one:

http://www.gdhardware.com/hardware/cpus/intel/conroe/X6...

We’ve got to hand it to ol’ AMD; they’ve kept things entertaining for us and have done a lot to help propel the performance of desktop and server CPUs a great deal forward.

But this is where their little parade comes to a screeching halt – why? Because in the most simplistic of terms, Conroe (dubbed Core 2 Duo) kicks the Athlon64 right in the balls and doesn’t look back.



Interesting read. They noted Core 2 uses an off die memory controller. I wasn’t aware of that. Sorry, I haven’t been as faithful in my reading of the Conroe sticky thread as I should have been, so please forgive my questions if they have already been addressed elsewhere, and my stupidity if I have misinterpreted the information.

The point the reviewer makes that an off die memory controller allows for easier improvements is clearly valid. However, considering the generally accepted view that AMDs on die controllers provided significant performance gains, does it seem wise for Intel to have left the controller off die?

I realize there could have been savings in terms of die area, which could have translated directly to increased yield, but if so, would the savings have been significant enough to justify leaving the controller off die?

Or, was the P4/netburst arch just so inefficient in terms of memory handling relative to Core 2 arch that an off die controller causes no significant performance loss?

If there was a significant performance penalty for leaving the controller of Core 2’s die, how much of a performance increase do you estimate the Conroe would realize if it had the controller on die?

Do you think Intel could have anticipated significant gains in the future with improved controllers? If so, might that not imply that the design they're using at this time leaves something to be desired?

Or, was it something simple, such as AMD has that feature copyrighted?

At a very uneducated guess, it would seem, assuming that performance loss was negligible, any gain in yield would justify the decision. To me, this seems like a sound assumption, but is it?

This just has me very curious as to why an arch feature that seemed to be proven would not have been used.

Peace
July 14, 2006 6:13:15 AM

Quote:
wow, didn’t realize Intel has released the sewer gate and let million flies buzz out of S**t hole.
This thread was posted here for the consumers and those members trying to sort things out. Not for you Intel maggots.
But I am glad you flue here polluting the forum.
To those genuinely interested in knowing more- please do not be disgusted by these Intel maggots and their odor. This review clearly indicates that in game GPU matter the most and con-roe is no better than AMD. So don’t be fooled by “cooked benchmarks” these Intel magots force you to believe.
There are tons of more reviews and benchmarks that are materializing, and which I am going to post the links here from time to time.
But as a warning, bring your bug spray when visiting this thread. As you can see, the Intel maggots and sewer flies have infested the Forumz.
More to come.



I was wondering how long it would be before Mike resumed his true form.

Question answered.
July 14, 2006 6:37:24 AM

Quote:
wow, didn’t realize Intel has released the sewer gate and let million flies buzz out of S**t hole.
This thread was posted here for the consumers and those members trying to sort things out. Not for you Intel maggots.
But I am glad you flue here polluting the forum.
To those genuinely interested in knowing more- please do not be disgusted by these Intel maggots and their odor. This review clearly indicates that in game GPU matter the most and con-roe is no better than AMD. So don’t be fooled by “cooked benchmarks” these Intel magots force you to believe.
There are tons of more reviews and benchmarks that are materializing, and which I am going to post the links here from time to time.
But as a warning, bring your bug spray when visiting this thread. As you can see, the Intel maggots and sewer flies have infested the Forumz.
More to come.


I thought everyone understood that intel was running the benchmarks at low reslutions to eliminate the gfx card from the equation as much as possible and just show the power of the cpu. apparently you didn't get that. after all, the systems were evenly matched anyways.

what's with the propaganda?
July 14, 2006 6:40:38 AM

WTF!?!

GotaLoveIMC

You have some serious issues. You are so convinced of your own little world that you live in that you can’t even see faults in your own posting. You and Fan boys like you DISGUST me. Every time I see a post such as this I wonder to myself what kind of idiot you are. Mommy must have dropped you one too many times on that tiny little head of yours. Freak!
July 14, 2006 6:41:03 AM

Quote:


:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

I believe the question was answered by his 3rd post...

How many posts does it take to get to the chocolatey center of a GottaloveIMC bias tootsy roll tootsy pop?

One..... two..... Threeee -- yep it's mike.

(You youngsters may not follow this joke).


:lol: 
Lol, yeh, 9 inch is showing thru one of his alter egos in one of the other threads too :wink:
July 14, 2006 6:57:09 AM

Lets see what Anandtech had to say.....

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=279...

The Core 2 Extreme X6800, Core 2 Duo E6700 and E6600 were pretty consistently in the top 3 or 4 spots in each benchmark, with the E6600 offering better performance than AMD's FX-62 flagship in the vast majority of benchmarks. Another way of looking at it is that Intel's Core 2 Duo E6600 is effectively a $316 FX-62, which doesn't sound bad at all.

Summary for AMD fanboys...

The $316 intel part beets AMD bests chip..

Needless to say the next 2 speed bins destroy the FX-62...

More Bad news....

At default voltage the X6800 reached a stable 3.6GHz (13 x277). This is a 23% overclock from the stock 2.93GHz speed at stock voltage. It is also an important overclocking result, since it implies Intel could easily release a 3.46GHz or 3.6GHz Core 2 processor tomorrow if they chose to.

Summary for AMD fanboys...

And yes, Intel right now, out of the gate, has two or three speed grades in reserve...

I am sure, and indeed hope, that AMD has a great response to Core in the months and years ahead. - But guys, if Athlon x2 vers Core was a heaveweight boxing match, the ref would have stopped it in the first round.... This thing is over....
July 14, 2006 6:59:40 AM

Quote:
WTF!?!

GotaLoveIMC

You have some serious issues. You are so convinced of your own little world that you live in that you can’t even see faults in your own posting. You and Fan boys like you DISGUST me. Every time I see a post such as this I wonder to myself what kind of idiot you are. Mommy must have dropped you one too many times on that tiny little head of yours. Freak!


hey hey hey now be gentle at least he is admitting conroe is equal to his beloved athlon hahahah thats progress ! I bet intel will crank up the speed next month too maybe a 3.2Ghz EE ? anyway like so many have said "The next few days will be mighty entertaining"
July 14, 2006 7:03:33 AM

Quote:
WTF!?!

GotaLoveIMC

You have some serious issues. You are so convinced of your own little world that you live in that you can’t even see faults in your own posting. You and Fan boys like you DISGUST me. Every time I see a post such as this I wonder to myself what kind of idiot you are. Mommy must have dropped you one too many times on that tiny little head of yours. Freak!


hey hey hey now be gentle at least he is admitting conroe is equal to his beloved athlon hahahah thats progress ! I bet intel will crank up the speed next month too maybe a 3.2Ghz EE ? anyway like so many have said "The next few days will be mighty entertaining"

:lol:  Sorry, I had some steem to let out :-)
July 14, 2006 7:08:01 AM

Its all good I think thats the kind of posts they wanted lol some people like this stuff :)  (honestly I was kidding you can yell some more its funny although I dont think he will listen)
July 14, 2006 7:09:01 AM

There is an interesting point in all this. Dispite the fact that Conroe is faster than K8, it doesn't matter that much to games. DX10 cards will only continue this trend as more work is moved from the CPU to the GPU. The GPU is being made more like a cpu to facilitate this.

I wonder if it makes much sense to move more functionally onto a single pci-e card. AMD has the right idea with hypertransport where gpu functionally is moved onto the motherboard and coupled tightly with the cpu. Video cards are becoming more complex than the rest of the computer. The current architexture needs to be rethought.
July 14, 2006 7:12:57 AM

I agree with the games thing but in the future games will require more from the CPU then todays games (mainly as physics gets more mainstream and more interactions) then you will see a more pronounced difference between the CPU's. Hmmm I think thats why Intel has such an agressive schedule for its 4 core versions. Todays games just dont stress a CPU very much.
July 14, 2006 7:20:33 AM

I dont know about you guys, But I don't use my computer just for games.
July 14, 2006 7:20:44 AM

OMG... What is wrong with you mindless 6 year old wankers?

Its like West side Vs East Side gone bad.

People taking their brands far to seriously.

I play football and you dont see me running up to people and mouthing the fuck out of somebody because of their boots.

I play the game, and the equipment I use is essential, but also a small part in my game.

Some of these later posts show remote amounts of intelligence, but really guys, stop having little scrag fights about brands... Its fkn lame.

GET A ROOT....

Pz.
July 14, 2006 7:22:08 AM

Quote:
Check this review, you will be surprised how conroe's benchmarks are begriming to deteriorate and some truthful and meaningful results are materializing.
This is a great news for consumers, because it clearly shows it’s best not to make hasty decision wasting your upgrade money on wrong system. And as always said: it’s best to wait till dust settles, Intel crusaders run out of options and steam, and truth prevails.



The Bottom Line



We have proven here that the flurry of canned benchmarks based on timedemos showing huge gains with Core 2 processors are virtually worthless in rating the true gaming performance of these processors today. The fact of the matter is that real-world gaming performance today greatly lies at the feet of your video card. Almost none of today’s games are performance limited by your CPU. Maybe that will change, but given the trends, it is not likely. You simply do not need a $1000 CPU to get great gaming performance as we proved months ago in our CPU Scaling article.


When it comes to playing games, the only persons that need to be even a little concerned with upgrading their CPU to a Core 2 processor, might be those with high-end SLI, CrossFire, or GeForce GX2 video cards and we have yet to even prove that due to testing limitations we ran into. Then and only then, you might see an Intel Core 2 processor deliver a performance advantage.


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.


http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwx...

get real man......wake up what the foooak is wrong with you......
July 14, 2006 7:24:57 AM

Quote:

Interesting read. They noted Core 2 uses an off die memory controller. I wasn’t aware of that. Sorry, I haven’t been as faithful in my reading of the Conroe sticky thread as I should have been, so please forgive my questions if they have already been addressed elsewhere, and my stupidity if I have misinterpreted the information.

The point the reviewer makes that an off die memory controller allows for easier improvements is clearly valid. However, considering the generally accepted view that AMDs on die controllers provided significant performance gains, does it seem wise for Intel to have left the controller off die?


This is a good question, the answer is no and it doesn't matter (EDIT: I must add in my opinion -- I have not provided enough data or reference theory below to prove my argument, so as such, take it as a discussion topic but not as proved as stated, thx, Jack) ........ the data speaks for itself -- why even worry about an on-die memory controller as the raw performance is there. I once saw a guy in a forum look at the benches (preview) where it was clearly dominating in performance on all counts, and state --- the only thing holding me back is it doesn't have an on-die memory controller --- I stared at it perplexed thinking "he hasn't really though this through has he" :) 

Here is another data point to demonstrate this affect:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=279...

Now, the question is why? Large cache, holding data close to the core, "hides" latenecy. That is, the L2 cache has very low latency when the core needs data. If the core hits the necessary data in L2 cache, it gets it very quickly. By having a large L2 cache, the probability that a data element is needed is found is very high, i.e. less calls to slower main memory.

Not taking away anything from the IMC, it was a great implementation, it served it's purpose at design time, and without it the K8 would not have started out as good as it did (AMD was correct in their stipulation).

Here is the deal -- it is simply two different approaches to accomplish the same thing. Goal: Keep the core fed.

Philosophy 1: Off die controller, high latency, large cache.
Philosophy 2: On die controller, low latency, smaller cahce.

The effectiveness of the IMC to pull data quickly is the reason why one does not observe huge perf. improvments when going from 2x512 to 1x2meg on a K8.

Conversely, having a huge L2 cache is the reason why the memory quality (timings) is invariant on Core 2 (Link: http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?cat=cpu&id=45... ), if you recall Anand also verified this at the Preview Revisit article.

The IMC helps AMD tremendously, it gives peformance boost, it decreases the need for large caches (smaller die), and gives them a marketing tool. However, Intel has manufacturing strenght, can easily transition to smaller nodes more quickly, thus larger cache is 'easier' for them (I use that loosely).

So choose your poison -- a CPU that will perform great with cheaper slower memory, or a CPU that will perform great but requires the best memory you can buy to realize the potential. This is not necessarily an advanatage for Core 2 Duo because the chipset is also slightly more expensive to produce, thus MBs are slightly more expensive but overall a large cache can effectively improve the situation just as much as an on-die mem. controller.

On a side note: Bandwidth (on the bus) can be mitigated down as well, the less you need to go fetch memory on the bus, the less traffic and the more effective BW will be available over all. This requires not only large L2 cache but also GREAT prefetch algorithms --- see Anand Techs review about the architecture and read the opinion on the quality of Intel's prefetchers. This is why Woodcrest rocks so well on 2P as most would think.... hey, should that ancient FSB bottleneck it.... when in fact Intel split up the lines, cranked the speed and also has a great ondie memory subsystem to mitigate the traffic. Woodcrest has plenty of room to improve to keep the 2P lead for a while.

It's all in the detail.

jack


Extremely informative.. I appreciate the time you took to explain.
LOL, you even answered my next several questions.

Also, I didnt mean to sound as if I thought lack of an imbedded memory controller was grounds for dismissal. I just lacked sufficient understanding of the subject to make sence of the route Intel took when AMDs route worked so well. You clarified that very well.

Thank you very much Jack.
Peace :lol: 
July 14, 2006 7:46:08 AM

Quote:

In essense, I believe it is actually opposite of what you say --- for example, say I have a ATI X1300 today, now I want to make a CPU purchase to begin playing games --- do I choose a low end CPU because I know the grpahics card throttles --- I may if I never plan to replace the graphics card.... oh, wait I do plan on replacing the card when the next latest and fastest comes out, so I go buy that card. Slap it in.... damn, that low end, slower CPU now caps my game play experience --- now I need to buy a new CPU to go with it.... Oblivion caught me like this... :) ... If I were making a CPU purchasing decision today, this would figure into my "if this then that scenario"

Jack


Good point and fun debate. My issue with your position is we're getting to a point where the whole of the game playing system is on one card. It makes it easy to replace, but also damn expensive, and if we're replicating general purpose processors on the graphics cards why have a CPU at all?

Soon what we'll really have is an unused computer with a gaming console sitting on a card inside it.
July 14, 2006 9:48:28 AM

Can someone please ban the IP of that piece of cr*p`
July 14, 2006 10:09:04 AM

:trophy: .....and the winner is....
July 14, 2006 10:15:42 AM

Quote:
Check this review, you will be surprised how conroe's benchmarks are begriming to deteriorate and some truthful and meaningful results are materializing.
This is a great news for consumers, because it clearly shows it’s best not to make hasty decision wasting your upgrade money on wrong system. And as always said: it’s best to wait till dust settles, Intel crusaders run out of options and steam, and truth prevails.



The Bottom Line



We have proven here that the flurry of canned benchmarks based on timedemos showing huge gains with Core 2 processors are virtually worthless in rating the true gaming performance of these processors today. The fact of the matter is that real-world gaming performance today greatly lies at the feet of your video card. Almost none of today’s games are performance limited by your CPU. Maybe that will change, but given the trends, it is not likely. You simply do not need a $1000 CPU to get great gaming performance as we proved months ago in our CPU Scaling article.


When it comes to playing games, the only persons that need to be even a little concerned with upgrading their CPU to a Core 2 processor, might be those with high-end SLI, CrossFire, or GeForce GX2 video cards and we have yet to even prove that due to testing limitations we ran into. Then and only then, you might see an Intel Core 2 processor deliver a performance advantage.


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.


http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwx...



Suddenly feel the urge to quote myself..... Here are some non baised articles released today.... sad to say.. you lose

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_perfor...

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=272

http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/10351

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/07/14/intel_core_...

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6184

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=8...

"Hush little amd fanboy dont you cry, dady intel is gonna sing you a lulaby"
July 14, 2006 10:29:41 AM

Quote:
"Hush little amd fanboy dont you cry, dady intel is gonna sing you a lulaby"


LOL!!!!!!
:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
July 14, 2006 10:35:39 AM

I love the way in that article that even in attempting to knock Core 2 Duo as much as possible, they have to say:

Quote:
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.


Not playable! Ha!

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwz...

They can't even write a biased review properly!

EDIT

Quote:
Since all three CPUs were playable at the same settings, this is a good “apples-to-apples” test. If you look closely, you will find the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 just claiming the overall performance winner. The Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 is just right behind it, closely, and then the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 trails both. There are some places in the graph around the 121 second mark to 151 second mark where the Athlon 64 FX-62 is trailing by a wide margin, but otherwise the difference is small. The overall average framerates are not that far apart.


We'll just gloss over that performance hit but then go on to say:

Quote:
There are no major differences in performance here that we ‘felt’ in-game between the three CPUs. In a blind test, it would be nearly impossible to tell them apart.


Yeah - blind as in the blind playing it.
July 14, 2006 10:45:56 AM

I dont fookin understand how some ppl defend a certain brand not matter how poorly it performs compared to others, in this case amd and intel.
As a consumer i dont give a flying f**k which is better, i want the best and cheapest.
Just doesent make any sense, why choose athlon xp when you can get an E6600 which outperforms amds flagship, and for only about $300?
Considering AMD has been the performance kings for some time im glad that intel has finally cought up, with processors that are faster and most importantly much cheaper than amd.

Hopefully by august I'll be playing Oblivion on a E6600 and a x1900xtx rig :D 
July 14, 2006 11:16:06 AM

Quote:
I dont fookin understand how some ppl defend a certain brand not matter how poorly it performs compared to others, in this case amd and intel.
As a consumer i dont give a flying f**k which is better, i want the best and cheapest.
Just doesent make any sense, why choose athlon xp when you can get an E6600 which outperforms amds flagship, and for only about $300?
Considering AMD has been the performance kings for some time im glad that intel has finally cought up, with processors that are faster and most importantly much cheaper than amd.

Hopefully by august I'll be playing Oblivion on a E6600 and a x1900xtx rig :D 


:trophy: ...again
July 14, 2006 11:26:43 AM

Yep, completely agree.

It's even worse when they blindy defend what is clearly inferior.
July 14, 2006 12:12:57 PM

It blows my mind that people actually get this attached to a company. I don't understand why you wouldn't want the best performance for the best price? This isn't the local football team or your college you're cheering for, it's a company. Do you collect cards featuring your favorite CEO's? It's so pathetic.
July 14, 2006 12:25:35 PM

Why are you accusing me of this?

I said I agree - I'll always look to whoever can give me the performance I need or want at the price I'm willing to pay.

I run 2 AMDs now, both single and X2 - they did the job at the time. Next upgrade will be to a Core 2 Duo.

I'm trying (and obviously quite clearly failing) to ridicule the biased reporting in the benchmark I quoted where they repeatedly shhot themselves in the foot whilst trying to put down the E6800 and E6700. In the end, the only thing they are left with is "well, it actually doesn't matter to you if it is faster".
July 14, 2006 12:27:39 PM

Quote:
Check this review, you will be surprised how conroe's benchmarks are begriming to deteriorate and some truthful and meaningful results are materializing.
This is a great news for consumers, because it clearly shows it’s best not to make hasty decision wasting your upgrade money on wrong system. And as always said: it’s best to wait till dust settles, Intel crusaders run out of options and steam, and truth prevails.



God damn stupid fanboys!!!!

If all you care about is gaming performance then read the following review:

Games against CPUs. Part II.



Open your god damn f**king eyes!!!!

When you use high resolution it becomes a GPU reveiw, not a f**king CPU review!!!

LOOK AT THE F**KING CHART!!!

If you want to play Battlefield 2, then f**k the Athlon FX and Conroe. Get yourself a damn Athlon 64 3200+ or the slightly slower Pentium 4 670.

Here's another chart dumbass:



Get yourself a f**king Sempron 3400+, or Celeron D 326!!!



Damn, even an Athlon 3200+ or Pentium 4 670 seems to come close enough to provide highend performance i Serious Sam.

Wanna play Quake 4?



Get yourself a f**king Athlon 3200+, or Pentium 4 670!!! They seem to be close enough to the FX-57!!!

How about Call of Duty 2?



The performance of the Celeron D 351 or Sempron 3400+ are pretty close to the performance of the Pentium 4 670 and FX-57 given that they are budget CPUs.

If all you can do is spew out sh!t from your f**king mouth, then STFU!!!

Stop being a damn brandname Fanboy, and focus on performance!!!!

AMD had turn in the spotlight. Now it's Intel's turn. For how long? Who knows?


nice one.. hehehehe o_0


the thread starter was a fanboy.. and he was owned....
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2006 12:52:37 PM

Quote:
Check this review, you will be surprised how conroe's benchmarks are begriming to deteriorate and some truthful and meaningful results are materializing.
This is a great news for consumers, because it clearly shows it’s best not to make hasty decision wasting your upgrade money on wrong system. And as always said: it’s best to wait till dust settles, Intel crusaders run out of options and steam, and truth prevails.



The Bottom Line



We have proven here that the flurry of canned benchmarks based on timedemos showing huge gains with Core 2 processors are virtually worthless in rating the true gaming performance of these processors today. The fact of the matter is that real-world gaming performance today greatly lies at the feet of your video card. Almost none of today’s games are performance limited by your CPU. Maybe that will change, but given the trends, it is not likely. You simply do not need a $1000 CPU to get great gaming performance as we proved months ago in our CPU Scaling article.


When it comes to playing games, the only persons that need to be even a little concerned with upgrading their CPU to a Core 2 processor, might be those with high-end SLI, CrossFire, or GeForce GX2 video cards and we have yet to even prove that due to testing limitations we ran into. Then and only then, you might see an Intel Core 2 processor deliver a performance advantage.


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.


http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwx...

heh tell me, how long did u spend finding that article? you desperate fanboy
July 14, 2006 1:35:40 PM

Quote:
Check this review, you will be surprised how conroe's benchmarks are begriming to deteriorate and some truthful and meaningful results are materializing.
This is a great news for consumers, because it clearly shows it’s best not to make hasty decision wasting your upgrade money on wrong system. And as always said: it’s best to wait till dust settles, Intel crusaders run out of options and steam, and truth prevails.



The Bottom Line



We have proven here that the flurry of canned benchmarks based on timedemos showing huge gains with Core 2 processors are virtually worthless in rating the true gaming performance of these processors today. The fact of the matter is that real-world gaming performance today greatly lies at the feet of your video card. Almost none of today’s games are performance limited by your CPU. Maybe that will change, but given the trends, it is not likely. You simply do not need a $1000 CPU to get great gaming performance as we proved months ago in our CPU Scaling article.


When it comes to playing games, the only persons that need to be even a little concerned with upgrading their CPU to a Core 2 processor, might be those with high-end SLI, CrossFire, or GeForce GX2 video cards and we have yet to even prove that due to testing limitations we ran into. Then and only then, you might see an Intel Core 2 processor deliver a performance advantage.


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.


http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwx...

heh tell me, how long did u spend finding that article? you desperate fanboy


real fun part would being if you asked him to explain Conroes huge preformace in encoding/rar/cinemabench etc.... dont think he will have an anser for you :) 
July 14, 2006 2:19:38 PM

Quote:
Just doesent make any sense, why choose athlon xp when you can get an E6600 which outperforms amds flagship, and for only about $300?


Ummm, I can sell you an Athlon XP 2000+ for 15 bucks. It surely won't outperform an E6600, but, damn it's a bargain, isn't it?
:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

It will be SO interesting this next months... For now, I just want an E6300! :D 
July 14, 2006 2:42:34 PM

Quote:
Check this review, you will be surprised how conroe's benchmarks are begriming to deteriorate and some truthful and meaningful results are materializing.
This is a great news for consumers, because it clearly shows it’s best not to make hasty decision wasting your upgrade money on wrong system. And as always said: it’s best to wait till dust settles, Intel crusaders run out of options and steam, and truth prevails.



The Bottom Line



We have proven here that the flurry of canned benchmarks based on timedemos showing huge gains with Core 2 processors are virtually worthless in rating the true gaming performance of these processors today. The fact of the matter is that real-world gaming performance today greatly lies at the feet of your video card. Almost none of today’s games are performance limited by your CPU. Maybe that will change, but given the trends, it is not likely. You simply do not need a $1000 CPU to get great gaming performance as we proved months ago in our CPU Scaling article.


When it comes to playing games, the only persons that need to be even a little concerned with upgrading their CPU to a Core 2 processor, might be those with high-end SLI, CrossFire, or GeForce GX2 video cards and we have yet to even prove that due to testing limitations we ran into. Then and only then, you might see an Intel Core 2 processor deliver a performance advantage.


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.


http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwx...

Again! Fanboyism at it's greatest! :twisted: :roll:

There is about 20+ review that sing the praise of Core2Duo on the web, but this guy point the only AMD-biased on out there. True, VPU power tend to play a bigger role than CPU do in gaming today. But with the advent of game like Oblivion right now and the like of Crysis next years, CPU will (do) gain it's sweet spot there also. Have you seen the performances of Oblivions in heavily populated area on a slow cpu. Welcome on Earth!

There is effectively game where having any cpu won't make a difference. But if all you do is gaming anyway, you don't even deserve a computer. Go get an XBox360, so you can save money and my time here on the forum. :evil:  :x :tongue:

(edit: Well, maybe he knows when to shut up at least! He hasn't post anything here since beginning of page2. Sorry for everybody else, I don't like saying poeple are moron, but sometime it's better to be told than looking like an idiot all your life :oops:  )

That's it for today!
July 14, 2006 2:44:51 PM

Quote:
Why are you accusing me of this?

I said I agree - I'll always look to whoever can give me the performance I need or want at the price I'm willing to pay.

I run 2 AMDs now, both single and X2 - they did the job at the time. Next upgrade will be to a Core 2 Duo.

I'm trying (and obviously quite clearly failing) to ridicule the biased reporting in the benchmark I quoted where they repeatedly shhot themselves in the foot whilst trying to put down the E6800 and E6700. In the end, the only thing they are left with is "well, it actually doesn't matter to you if it is faster".

If you're talking to me, I wasn't talking to you. I was just speaking in general and also towards the originator of this thread.
!