Why overpay for a Conroe system when performance is the same

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/arti [...] VzaWFzdA==
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.

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

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....

FLoating points, people, floating points.



[size] SiSANDRA [size=72]











(this commercial was sponsered by SiSandra)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/2006/0 [...] _vs_fx-62/

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.

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.

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.

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.

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD

READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU POST

NOOB

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.

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.

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.

I never said it would be slower.

You obviously have as much trouble with reading the posts in here as you did with the article....

then an AMD 3200+ will be more than enough for decent FPS at higher resolutions and maximum visual details .

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.

This thread needs to be locked...

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.

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.