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.

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.

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

Wow

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....

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.

FLoating points, people, floating points.



[size] SiSANDRA [size=72]











(this commercial was sponsered by SiSandra)

I strongly suspect that HardOCP does know how to benchmark,.....& designed a benchmark to support it's pre-established editorial position.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

you missed the point of that article completely didn't you. in truth your short of one or two brain cells which give you common sense aint you.

the point was to show real world gaming situations. the results weren't unexpected and are useful to people who might not know as much and some as will think conroe will add 20-30 fps when playin at high res and settings. it won't and as such articles like this ar useful.

no, listen carefully you little noob. yes beerandcandy you zealous intel fanboy that is what you are. if you want to look at a cpu limited game test, look at toms or any of the other sites reviews. if however, and this is the point of the article, you want to see how it performs in a REAL world situation, read that review. the whole point was not, and they explained this, not to have it played at cpu limited settings but rather at more gpu limited settings to reflect real world usage.

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 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.