Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why overpay for a Conroe system when performance is the same

Tags:
  • Homebuilt
  • Performance
  • Systems
Last response: in Systems
Share
July 14, 2006 5:01:28 PM

This thread will start the brawls going but this is a serious and good question.

Conroe is out now in limited release and is going for $1,359 for only the 2MB version (not even the 4mb version that was in all the benchmarks) and it will probably be selling for far over list prices for months to come. While it is a faster chip than AMD's current lineup, when you read HARDOCP's article on testing "REALWORLD" gaming situations it had basically zero lead on AMD's top end systems.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwx...
So what that means is that for 99.9% of the world, a Conroe system will perform identical to an AMD system, even for gaming.

So the argument I make is this. If you already have some DDR RAM or an existing 939 system, you should use the price cuts and continue to build on 939 and still have a roughly identically performing system to conroe for dirt cheap and then upgrade only when both DDR3 and quads come out, and skip this little pitstop at DDR2 altogether. The video cards are just not there yet, even if you spend $1,200 bucks on the cards. Besides, DDR3 will be the real memory upgrade to get, not DDR2.

If you just have to have DDR2 ram, then you use the price cuts as an opportunity to get AM2 X2's for dirt cheap on your next build, because as predicted, it's looking like all versions of Conroes will be selling at over list prices for a long time due to the huge hype and limited release schedule.

According to their roadmap, P4's with netburst will continue to make up the bulk of Intel's desktop shipments through the remainder of 2006 and well iinto 2007 too.

More about : overpay conroe system performance

July 14, 2006 5:42:20 PM

OH BOY are you going to get flamed....

We all know that in most gaming, especially high resolution gaming, the bottleneck is the GPU so in a way that article makes sense.

BUT, for those who are looking at buying a brand new computer right now, Conroe does make sense. Don't get old technology.

I have no interest nor need to pay another $500 to upgrade to the newest tech when my current system handles my needs but for those looking for an upgrade from 754 or 478 then I'd still suggest conroe w/ 775.
July 14, 2006 5:58:17 PM

Well... just another hardcore noobie as AMD fan. Go murder your mom for an AMD chip...
Related resources
July 14, 2006 6:00:03 PM

Quote:
Well... just another hardcore noobie as AMD fan. Go murder your mom for an AMD chip...

Wow
July 14, 2006 6:03:59 PM

hmm correct me if i'm wrong but according to the tests the E6700 basicly performed the same as the AMD chip, but The 64 FX-62 costs $1100.00 while the retail price of the E6700 is around $550. Same performance at half the price sounds good to me....
July 14, 2006 6:04:36 PM

HardOCP does not know how to benchmark a CPU; you don't test at the maximum in game resolution with all of the graphics effects on the max, all that does is create a GPU bottleneck.
July 14, 2006 6:14:34 PM

FLoating points, people, floating points.



SiSANDRA











(this commercial was sponsered by SiSandra)
July 14, 2006 6:16:15 PM

Quote:
HardOCP does not know how to benchmark a CPU; you don't test at the maximum in game resolution with all of the graphics effects on the max, all that does is create a GPU bottleneck.


I strongly suspect that HardOCP does know how to benchmark,.....& designed a benchmark to support it's pre-established editorial position.
July 14, 2006 6:20:19 PM

I am positive that's what he's trying to do lol, and I realized there are mad posts against Core 2 using HardOCP's site.
July 14, 2006 6:21:21 PM

Essentially he is right under certain circumstances.

1. if you allready have an AMD FX62 is the real life performance gain going to be enough to buy a whole new system?

2. and you are currently running games at max settings that are gpu limited?

On the otherhand I have old socket 478 CPU and board I have had for 3 years and ready to upgrade. I would be crazy to get anything else then a Core2 at this time. The only way I would be overpaying would be if I was upgrading an allready existing AMD FX62 system.

On the otherhand if the new DX10 cards come out and have any significant performance increase then you may see a lot greater difference.
July 14, 2006 6:23:41 PM

Quote:
Conroe is out now in limited release and is going for $1,359 for only the 2MB version (not even the 4mb version that was in all the benchmarks) and it will probably be selling for far over list prices for months to come.


Where? you would have to be stupid to pay $1359 for a chip worth about $200. Surely no one would pay that. Surely no one would even attempt to sell it at that? because there is no reason at all to pay it.

If you put an order in now for a conroe chip from a decent retailer I'm sure you'll get your chip soon enough. The Amd price drop isn't for another 10 days or so anyway, so even if you want amd you should wait till then.
July 14, 2006 6:24:15 PM

Well, the link does not provide new insights - if you have a system that is just running fine, stay with it. If you plan to upgrade at this time, go for a Conroe, no matter what: It's cheap and it's performing well.

Still, the test does really show one thing: The testers have no idea what they are doing.
July 14, 2006 6:24:42 PM

This is really a debate about who was 'First to Market', the flip side will appear when AMD rolls out on it's 4x4 program.

But to be current, you no fanboy like myself can deny the numbers on the dollar.
July 14, 2006 6:25:51 PM

sorry just had to pick out a sentence that made me chuckly
"So what that means is that for 99.9% of the world, a Conroe system will perform identical to an AMD system, even for gaming"
so your saying that your cpu performance varies with location on the planet?
also your price quote mate.....wtf even in the uk we got the cheapest one for £125-$230
http://www.komplett.co.uk/k/ki.asp?sku=322631
July 14, 2006 6:33:36 PM

why do people consistantly cry about conroe's hype?

its the "ONLY NEW TECHNOLOGY" out there, AM2 is not. if your buying a system right now its best to go with core 2, y waste your money on the same amd chips over and over?

graphics tests to stress cpu's? get a life and run a real cpu benchmark.

and the truth is not all people base their cpu buying strategy on gaming. people actually use computers for other things where high end calculations are needed. and tests show core 2 beats amd chips. why? cus it is new and it was designed too.
July 14, 2006 6:38:43 PM

Quote:
and the truth is not all people base their cpu buying strategy on gaming. people actually use computers for other things where high end calculations are needed. and tests show core 2 beats amd chips. why? cus it is new and it was designed too.


I agree, but look around at this forum. Everyone here is looking for gaming performance, the fastest thing out there, or just something that's going to get us by for a few months on budget. Your barking at the wrong market segments.
July 14, 2006 7:13:03 PM

no cpu will add 30fps to any game. as stated above by someone else, gaming benchmarks are GPU bottle necked.

i think your confusing GPU's and CPU's bro.

for you that means the video card.
July 14, 2006 7:21:05 PM

Quote:
Everyone here is looking for gaming performance, the fastest thing out there


I think that is a gross oversimplification. Plenty of gamers here, no doubt. But there are many people here with a much broader interest than just games. My gaming time is maybe a percent of what I do on computers - and that little fraction is partly to better understand what my kids are into and how to help improve their rigs. I'm also trying to learn more about 3-D programming, which is related but has some different demands of its own.
July 14, 2006 7:21:42 PM

i think you nailed it with that post.

if you want a so called real world comparisson, have both those machines encode a DVD. and you'll have enough time to post your resulats on the core2 machine while your waiting for your FX62 to finish.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/05/first_benchmarks...
July 14, 2006 7:26:07 PM

The part of the quote you left out generalized all other types of users beyond Cads. It's a majority statement, prove me wrong somehow, or I'll just let the post in this community speak for themselves.
July 14, 2006 7:41:07 PM

Quote:
i think you nailed it with that post.

if you want a so called real world comparisson, have both those machines encode a DVD. and you'll have enough time to post your resulats on the core2 machine while your waiting for your FX62 to finish.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/05/first_benchmarks...


I'm not into one processor or another, I actually have two intels and one amd in my house and will probably upgrade to another intel next year and turn one of my older computers into an HDTV but...

I want to point out that the name of the article is ....

Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance

Regardless of whether the Core2duo will out perform the AMD on other applications, which I agree it will as gaming is really the only thing that is GPU limited, that particular article had to do with real life gaming. This means GPU limited and I dare anyone to say that modern games aren't GPU limited.

@ beerandcandy. If you had read the article you will note they tried to do the test with a 7950GX2 but had driver issues, it also said the following at the end.

Quote:
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 prove that due to the testing limitations we ran into. Then, and only then, you might see an Intel Core 2 processor deliver a performance advantage.


The article also said that there IS a performance increase using the intel chips but not enough of one to upgrade a computer that is currently running well, as the next quote shows.

Quote:
If I had an older system and had to put my foot down and choose a system with the future in mind, I would probably lean toward the Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 platform for “future proofing” if Oblivion were any indication of future games. If you have a higher-end AMD Athlon 64 system platform right now though, there really isn’t any need to go scrambling to Intel Core 2 at this particular time for gaming. I’d wait it out and see what the future brings.


Come on guys, don't make knee jerk reactions to stuff like this, if I was upgrading right now then YES I would go with a core2duo, the point of the article was that if you had a decent processor right now then in GAMING (at decent resolutions) there would not be a big increase, some but not big.

Some of you should also go back and READ the entire fucking article before you post against it.
July 14, 2006 7:54:35 PM

Let's simplify things for some people:

The entire point of this review was to see the impact that a Core 2 Duo processor has on gaming. The reality of things is that it has no impact, unless you are running an crossfire/sli rig or a 7950GX2 card.

I personally expected that to happen. Recent games have always been gpu limited, and we can expect future games to be more so.

Look at games like Crysis, I am scared to think of the hardware required to run that game at the highest settings. But I am willing to bet money that the game is more dependent on the video card then on the cpu.

I don't see what is so hard to understand about this review.
July 14, 2006 8:12:29 PM

Quote:
come one hey you, you know better than that. seriously, that was the point of the article. it was showing real world game tests. it was not to see how the CPU peroformed on its own it was to show how it performed as part of a normal system and obviously for the most part it showed what we all knew and that is at GPU limited settings the CP matter squat.

to me as a gamer conroe is not worth upgrading nor worth building a new computer around if the one you have only needs a new gfx card to play the newest games.
I know that in real world gaming at high resolutions, it doesn't matter what CPU you have. I don't like the way HardOCP tries to make it as if all of the CPUs are equal thanks to the GPU bottleneck. Will I buy a new Conroe system? Hell no, but that doesn't mean I should tell other people that a Core 2 Duo is no better than the FX62.
July 14, 2006 8:17:20 PM

First point. Overpriced??????????????

$316 - E6600

The E6600 beat or was % points behind the $1100 FX-62.

Second Point.

For the same $999, FX-62 compared to X6800(unlocked multipliers), the X6800 was overclockable to 3.46GHz with the stock cooler. So 4Ghz is very possible with these chips.... FX-62 overclocks to what? 3GHz? Clock for clock, the Core2 is faster than an FX-62... So why wouldn't you want a FX-62 equivalent overclocked to 4GHz??

Third Point.
For the same reason that you could not convince Intel fanboys and Intel's Execs that the K8 was superior to the P7(Netburst Pentiums). You will never convince AMD fanboys that Core2 ( P8 ) is superior in every way to K8. What more proof do you need than having a 2.4GHz Core2 outperforming a 2.8GHz FX in 70% of the benchmarks? Then again AMD fanboys believed that K7 was faster than P6 too... Again not true. Wishful thinking and spin are not reality.

Final point.
Y'all should have seen this coming. Pentium M, Yonah was close to Athlon 64 clock for clock. Core Duo was real close. Core 2, well, 3rd time's the charm!

AMD needs to move on K9...... Ruff.
July 14, 2006 8:20:44 PM

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD

READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU POST

NOOB
July 14, 2006 8:27:05 PM

Quote:
come one hey you, you know better than that. seriously, that was the point of the article. it was showing real world game tests. it was not to see how the CPU peroformed on its own it was to show how it performed as part of a normal system and obviously for the most part it showed what we all knew and that is at GPU limited settings the CP matter squat.

to me as a gamer conroe is not worth upgrading nor worth building a new computer around if the one you have only needs a new gfx card to play the newest games.


Did you see this part of HardOCP's so called article:

"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."

So even they admit it was not a real world gaming experience! Idiots! :roll: Crank down the detail only for the weaker AMD systems so that we can show AMD is just as good as Intel, that is if you use a handicap to compare with!
July 14, 2006 8:51:31 PM

If you absolutely must buy a new machine now (with Conroe all but on store shelves) but don't want to pay the privateers' prices while the retail channels are still filling up, go buy a Conroe-compatible 775 motherboard and a cheap Intel P4D processor (cheaper now once Conroe is released). This should tide you over for when the pricing on Conroe processors comes to within a sane level, and then you will only need to test the processor.
July 14, 2006 9:05:16 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?

that is really enough said .
July 14, 2006 9:06:54 PM

i would like to see an explanation of how conroe doesnt perform better than a AMD with the settings turned down.

StrangeStranger:
"a. i think i know that, if you had any grasp of the english language you would have seen i was referring to others who might be caught in the conroe hype. oh and you and beerand candy still won't listen. "

what hype? so your admitting to telling people not to buy a newer, better processor than whats currently out? because you lean towards AMD.

StrangeStranger:
read the article. they say they have another article in which they cover the CPU related becnhmarks. THIS ONE IS ABOUT REAL WORLD GAMING. that is it. nothing else. it is not to do with architecture perfermance per watte or price. it is simply about how it performs as part of a normal gaming setup. either you ar taking the piss or you areboth very, very stupid.

you must have missed the part where they turned down the vid settings for AMD. you need to read the article, and i agree what you said was stupid.

StrangeStranger:
someone help me out here and try tp convey the purpose of this article.

good luck. no one knows what you guys are trying to prove.

Waylander:
I want to point out that the name of the article is ....

Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance

Regardless of whether the Core2duo will out perform the AMD on other applications, which I agree it will as gaming is really the only thing that is GPU limited, that particular article had to do with real life gaming.

i agree i always "turn down my settings when comparing its performance to other set ups"

and as i stated before, a "more real life" situation would be video encoding. why might you ask? because video encoding utilizes the whole system including the video card, but unlike gaming, is way more cpu dependant. this would tell you your overall performance giving you more accurate, or just accurate numbers for you to compare cpu's.

if a computer is faster at video encoding, do you really think it will be slower in gaming? because thats what you both are saying and calling everyone idiots about.

maybe we seem like fan boys defending a chip because weer looking at the right comparisons. :oops: 
July 14, 2006 9:17:29 PM

Quote:
This thread will start the brawls going but this is a serious and good question.


Wow. :roll: Not a good question or comments, but you have many questions to answer. Where are you itguy?
July 14, 2006 9:24:11 PM

This thread has become just stupid.

And quite frankly I never called anyone an idiot. If you read my posts I'm not a fanboy but it does sound like you are. I have TWO intel machines and I did say my next one would probably be one as well.

WTF is a weer?

I did agree that the conroe will out perform AMD in other applications, you have my quote right there.

I notice you also reference Richpls as I don't think you read the entire article yourself.

Also, while I agree that changing settings for a test is not right I don't think that 2 notches on soft shadows is a big deal.... They should have reduced the conroe machines as well to keep the test fair but in reality I don't think that would have made much difference to the results as games are still GPU limiting.

And for the last time this was a gaming specific test, I won't dispute that conroe performs better with video encoding because I agree it will. And last but not least.


Quote:
if a computer is faster at video encoding, do you really think it will be slower in gaming? because thats what you both are saying and calling everyone idiots about.


I never said it would be slower.

Quote:
The article also said that there IS a performance increase using the intel chips but not enough of one to upgrade a computer that is currently running well,


You obviously have as much trouble with reading the posts in here as you did with the article....
July 14, 2006 9:24:52 PM

HOCP VICTIM!
July 14, 2006 9:29:22 PM

Quote:
.



Also, while I agree that changing settings for a test is not right I don't think that 2 notches on soft shadows is a big deal.... They should have reduced the conroe machines as well to keep the test fair but in reality I don't think that would have made much difference to the results as games are still GPU limiting.





then an AMD 3200+ will be more than enough for decent FPS at higher resolutions and maximum visual details .
July 14, 2006 9:38:07 PM

Why don't you stick to quoting what I've said and not what you want to see. There is obviously something disconnected between your eyes and your brain.

Maybe you also suffer from inability to read like some others?
July 14, 2006 9:39:22 PM

Quote:
HardOCP does not know how to benchmark a CPU; you don't test at the maximum in game resolution with all of the graphics effects on the max, all that does is create a GPU bottleneck.

No, you are dead wrong. HardOCP does what is right. It is f*ing useless to run a game benchmark at a lower resolution than you would run the game when you play it. Who cares if CPU X runs better than CPU Y at lower graphical settings? You won't play at those settings anyway. What counts in the end is the REAL WORLD settings. And at those settings there is not an advantage for Conroe.

It's still better to buy an AMD 3500+ (or similiar cheaper CPU) and put the rest of the cash on the GPU, since it's the GPU that counts when it comes to gaming.

What gamers want is the highest playable graphical settings at the lowest cost. In order to achieve that you can't look at how good a CPU performs at lower graphical settnings. You have to look at the settings you would play at. HardOCP does what every benchmarking site should do. Benchmark games at realistic settings. Benchmarking at lower settings is useless and people that buy that kind of crap is f*ing retarded.
July 14, 2006 9:44:18 PM

Quote:
you mean "real world" situation where the gpu is the bottle neck. what about all of the "real world" non gaming situations? also you never answered the sli-crossfire "real world" situation
this test was not a cpu test it was a graphics card test but he lists it as a core 2 test. lost credibility with me


No this was a real world gaming test to show people that the CPU doesn't matter that much when it comes to gaming.

But you can stay a moron and keep spending your bucks on that Conroe while I will put my cash on a better graphics card and get better FPS than you.
July 14, 2006 9:58:00 PM

This thread needs to be locked...
July 14, 2006 9:58:47 PM

Waylander,

i wanna take a moment to apologize to you, while i was flaming strangestranger in my haste threw you in as well, and started arguing with you when in fact what we were saying in our first couple posts are similar. im sorry.



Quote:
i give up with you. you have n sense of reason or common sense. i actually think you are just trolling and so i won't reply to another post made by you.


great, less replies from you the happier the community.
July 14, 2006 9:59:23 PM

Hmm... yea, I think I'll just build my new system with a $100 pentium. I mean, in "real world scenarios" AMD's Godly FX 57 doesn't perform much better.

Btw... not all of us sit around playing video games all day (let alone at maximum visual settings); some of us "n00bs" have lives.
July 14, 2006 10:03:45 PM

welcome to the forums waffles.

and i agree we should kill this thread.
July 14, 2006 10:19:13 PM

I think that in the end we all agree that if you have a decent system currently and are interested ONLY in better performance for gaming then an investment into a better graphics card will give you a better boost than having to buy a new processor and motherboard.

I would never tell someone who already has an x2 3800+ and better but a 9800 pro that he has to upgrade his entire system to play games, especially if they are on a budget. An upgrade to a 7800gt or 1800xt would probably do the trick if you are in that situation.

IF you have enough money burning a hole in your pocket then HELL YA, go get the 6800E with 4gb of ram, 7950GX2 and 2 raptors in raid 0.

If you were thinking of building a new computer anyway then core2duo is definitely the way to go. A mid range core2duo, 2 gb of ram and a 7800gt/1800xt would be a great all round system. Like I said before, don't buy old tech.
July 14, 2006 10:26:05 PM

Since software is mostly designed with the average person, and therefore, the average computer in mind, this discussion seems very foolish. Yes, the Conroe will out perform the AMD chips, but so what. As long as you are playing games or any other fairly normal computer activites, both brands of processors will perform extremely well. Buying a Conroe will help if you are in need of ultra high speed computing, but gaming does not fall into this category!! It falls into the average to high speed range. Yes, you may be able to turn the shadows from medium to high, but while playing a game, unless you are looking for it, you will not notice. If you are buying a system now and can wait a few weeks to a month to get your parts, by all means, get a Conroe if it fits your budget. If a person is on a tight budget, go with a lower end AMD as that system will be cheaper and still allow the person to play any game on the market today. Everyone needs to consider that, unless you are buying a computer to break speed records or do extreme computing, you are buying a computer to run software, most likely games. Software manufactures make games and other programs for a profit. To make a profit they need to sell a lot of the program or sell a few for a very high price (this is where you may need the extra speed of Conroe, this consists of CADD and other design software for example). In order to do this and keep prices so the average person can afford to buy multiple games, the software needs to work on almost all computers. Think this through before you all go fighting over which will perform slightly better as the difference between two high end cpus will not be noticable while playing games. It seems to be a waste of our valuable time and energy.
July 14, 2006 10:59:25 PM

Quote:
No, you are dead wrong. HardOCP does what is right. It is f*ing useless to run a game benchmark at a lower resolution than you would run the game when you play it. Who cares if CPU X runs better than CPU Y at lower graphical settings? You won't play at those settings anyway. What counts in the end is the REAL WORLD settings. And at those settings there is not an advantage for Conroe.

It's still better to buy an AMD 3500+ (or similiar cheaper CPU) and put the rest of the cash on the GPU, since it's the GPU that counts when it comes to gaming.

What gamers want is the highest playable graphical settings at the lowest cost. In order to achieve that you can't look at how good a CPU performs at lower graphical settnings. You have to look at the settings you would play at. HardOCP does what every benchmarking site should do. Benchmark games at realistic settings. Benchmarking at lower settings is useless and people that buy that kind of crap is f*ing retarded.
The whole point of their benchmark was to try and show that in what they call "real world situations" the Conroe is no faster. So yes, in a GPU limited program, the Conroe isn't any faster than the FX62. Now encode a movie on a Conroe vs. the FX62 and see the speed difference, or is this not “real world”? No one is forcing you to upgrade to a Core 2 Duo, but the truth should be out there.
July 14, 2006 11:14:50 PM

omg... all of the games are GPU restricted... in other tests when it isn't GPU restricted, it shows the Core 2 Duo having a large lead over the leading AMD counterpart... just to let you know that the x6800 is a 4mb cache
July 15, 2006 12:12:14 AM

Quote:
No, you are dead wrong. HardOCP does what is right. It is f*ing useless to run a game benchmark at a lower resolution than you would run the game when you play it. Who cares if CPU X runs better than CPU Y at lower graphical settings? You won't play at those settings anyway. What counts in the end is the REAL WORLD settings. And at those settings there is not an advantage for Conroe.

It's still better to buy an AMD 3500+ (or similiar cheaper CPU) and put the rest of the cash on the GPU, since it's the GPU that counts when it comes to gaming.

What gamers want is the highest playable graphical settings at the lowest cost. In order to achieve that you can't look at how good a CPU performs at lower graphical settnings. You have to look at the settings you would play at. HardOCP does what every benchmarking site should do. Benchmark games at realistic settings. Benchmarking at lower settings is useless and people that buy that kind of crap is f*ing retarded.
The whole point of their benchmark was to try and show that in what they call "real world situations" the Conroe is no faster. So yes, in a GPU limited program, the Conroe isn't any faster than the FX62. Now encode a movie on a Conroe vs. the FX62 and see the speed difference, or is this not “real world”? No one is forcing you to upgrade to a Core 2 Duo, but the truth should be out there.
The truth is that in gaming the choice of CPU doesn't matter very much. People need to understand that. Most CPU gaming benchmarks tricks people into believing that for example Core 2 will do wonders in games, that's not the truth. I can agree that Core 2 is a very good CPU but this discussion is not about that...
July 15, 2006 12:30:59 AM

After reading throught this topic and attmepting to boiling it down:

All it really seems to be to me is a rant between Intel fans who are having temper tantrums because either A) people are considering other options besides Conroe or Core Duo 2 because of budget or preference or what have you. or B) benchmarks aren't showing Intel's new line up completely shattering AMD in gaming. (not including other 'Real World Applications such as video editing or the like)

It also seems to me that AMD fanboys are getting worked up at Conroe and or Core Duo 2 being superior to even AMD's sports car-esque FX-62. Also AMD fans/ budget gamers opting for cheaper AMD solutions because I'm sure everybody isn't a millionaire seems to be upsetting the Intel crowd.

I'm running an AMD cpu right now, so forgive me if any bias shows, but I wasn't particularly thrilled with "StrangeStranger", who veiws himself high and mighty enough to spout off accusations left and right about people being "idiot's" because they were considering alternatives for whatever reason, and when I say this: I have to admit it's rather out of spite, but don't proclaim a mastery of the english language and then a page later start freaking out and swearing.

My personal opinion is that alot of people, not everyone, think AMD is suddenly completely dead in the water, there is no hope, and "they suck" because Conroe and Core Duo 2 have arrived. I think AMD is far from dead and I hope that their next offering is comparable if not better. I say this mainly because I don't feel like having to replace my mother board and having to rebuild my computer. And in hopes of staving off an inevitable flaming, let me reiterate that this is just MY own opinion.

I'm certain it's unavoidable but I apologize for any hurt feelings or ruffled feather's, I'm utlizing the forum in the way it was intended by having a decent discussion.

For the record I understand if I sound pretentious to some degree, it's just the way I type, so again I apologize.
July 15, 2006 1:19:02 AM

You can buy the last ASUS socket AM2 motherboard with an FX-62 put 4Gb of RAM, Two GForce 7950 GTX2, Raptors 150 in Raid Mode.

...

The thing is that with the same stuff... Conroe kicks AMD ass ;) 
July 15, 2006 1:24:14 AM

Quote:
The truth is that in gaming the choice of CPU doesn't matter very much. People need to understand that. Most CPU gaming benchmarks tricks people into believing that for example Core 2 will do wonders in games, that's not the truth. I can agree that Core 2 is a very good CPU but this discussion is not about that...


You're making a few assumptions that will eventually be proven wrong. The GPU may be the major bottleneck for a gaming rig, but GPUs are steadily improving. SLI on a single card may become relatively commonplace. There is bound to be a XFire on a single card or somewhat similar solution. New games will continue demand more processing power. Larger LCDs will continue to drop in price and a larger fraction of people will go beyond 1280x1024. As these changes occur, the GPU may still be a bottleneck, but the load on the CPU will also increase.

Bottom line: computer gaming demands are not static. More powerful CPUs will be needed - for some of us, they already are needed! (And don't act like gaming is all that matters)
July 15, 2006 2:23:43 AM

Quote:
This thread will start the brawls going but this is a serious and good question.

Conroe is out now in limited release and is going for $1,359 for only the 2MB version (not even the 4mb version that was in all the benchmarks) and it will probably be selling for far over list prices for months to come. While it is a faster chip than AMD's current lineup, when you read HARDOCP's article on testing "REALWORLD" gaming situations it had basically zero lead on AMD's top end systems.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwx...
So what that means is that for 99.9% of the world, a Conroe system will perform identical to an AMD system, even for gaming.

So the argument I make is this. If you already have some DDR RAM or an existing 939 system, you should use the price cuts and continue to build on 939 and still have a roughly identically performing system to conroe for dirt cheap and then upgrade only when both DDR3 and quads come out, and skip this little pitstop at DDR2 altogether. The video cards are just not there yet, even if you spend $1,200 bucks on the cards. Besides, DDR3 will be the real memory upgrade to get, not DDR2.

If you just have to have DDR2 ram, then you use the price cuts as an opportunity to get AM2 X2's for dirt cheap on your next build, because as predicted, it's looking like all versions of Conroes will be selling at over list prices for a long time due to the huge hype and limited release schedule.

According to their roadmap, P4's with netburst will continue to make up the bulk of Intel's desktop shipments through the remainder of 2006 and well iinto 2007 too.




Your point is arguably valid IF your guestimation of 99.9 % of the world primarily games is true. Frankly, I disagree with you on that. My computer is a very valuable and versatile tool for me. I use it for web surfing, word processing, spread sheets, 2D graphics, 3D rendering, video editing and rendering and yes, gaming. So, historically, in terms of performance, it’s always been difficult for me to choose which performance aspect to compromise when choosing a processor. In terms of price/unit of performance, the choice has been very easy for the past 4-5 years. AMD.

If Conroe lives up to the hype, then the price/unit of performance choice remains easy, but the answer changes. If the majority of benchmarks are accurate, and the pricing quotes are true, then the only real answer is Conroe.

In respect to gaming, the next generation of environmentally interactive games, being lead by Crysis, are going to be physics processing whores, and will demand significant CPU as well as GPU recourses. While at this moment, the argument that a GPU strong biased system will perform on par or better than a CPU biased system is true, by Q2/3 07 this will no longer be a valid argument


Peace
July 15, 2006 3:20:45 AM

I guess a $315 E6600 that outperforms a $1000 FX62 is the same thing.

Another blunder.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!