I am just a little tired of people comparing only 800x600 for gaming purposes, no one uses that resolution and not only that, the benchmarks shown are basically irrelevant to anyone who wants to know how the cpu's can increase FPS in real life. HardOCP did a pretty good article IMO, it's sad that I have to say this everytime I post, but I will continue to do so..... Please don't get all upset as I am not bashing Core 2 cpu's, I am merely looking at things in a real world sort of persepective....
Like I have said before, I will probably buy a Core 2 setup when I get back from my current location.... but by then things could change.... although they probably won't. So, lets try to be civil and act like grownups. Ycon.... if you could just turn away and not post I/everyone would appreciate it.
Edit: I am a little out of touch, can't get online very often, I did a aquick search, but sorry if this benchmark has been posted. If this is the case, Admins please delete.
Conroes dont increase max FPS because of the GPU being a bottleneck, they raise the min FPS signifigantly however. Also in the future DX10 GPUs will push that framerate much higher.
I am aware of that.... and I know it shows the potential of the cpu architecture.... but how long will it be until the benchmarks actually come to life? What I mean by that, is how long until all these 800x600 benchmarks actually translate over to the higher resolutions.... how long will it be until a 2.6Ghz X2 K8 will perform poorly at 1600x1200? Not for quite a while I imagine. Will DX10 cards actually be so much faster that we will see these differences in higher resolutions? I doubt it..... not atleast for a year or so.
I disagree with this being a good review. They purposely bottleneck the CPU, and in one case, they HANDICAP the Conroe in order to show the AMD in a good light.
Do i disagree with the whole 1600x1200 benchmark? NO! I disagree with it for the following reasons:
1. Playing games at 1600x1200 is NOT the most used resolution! 1200x1080 is used MUCH more! If this was real world performance, this would be the "Real World" benchmark that are emphasized and do show the improvement on Conroe!
2. People who play games at 1600x1200 use the most advance video card available. If they are going to benchmark these video games they would use a better video card. Intel even included a better video card in the test system (in addition to extra cards for the AMD system, but Hard OCP DECIDED (ON THEIR OWN) to use an INFERIOR video card!
3. Handicapping Conroe on the 1 benchmark that it clearly outperforms the AMD at 1600x1200.
Edit: Looks like Jack beat me too it, same content, but he posted links to his source
Showing games with the settings raised won't really show much of a difference as the bottleneck becomes the GPU. For a real indication of CPU power it would be better to compare things like audio/video encoding, file encryption, decryption, and compression. This is where these CPUs excel. This article does show that those planning to game shouldn't worry about buying the best processor but focus more on a high end GPU.
I am just a little tired of people comparing only 800x600 for gaming purposes, no one uses that resolution and not only that, the benchmarks shown are basically irrelevant to anyone who wants to know how the cpu's can increase FPS in real life. HardOCP did a pretty good article IMO, it's sad that I have to say this everytime I post, but I will continue to do so..... Please don't get all upset as I am not bashing Core 2 cpu's, I am merely looking at things in a real world sort of persepective....
Like I have said before, I will probably buy a Core 2 setup when I get back from my current location.... but by then things could change.... although they probably won't. So, lets try to be civil and act like grownups. Ycon.... if you could just turn away and not post I/everyone would appreciate it.
Edit: I am a little out of touch, can't get online very often, I did a aquick search, but sorry if this benchmark has been posted. If this is the case, Admins please delete.
No this is a good thread to hold open because this needs to be discussed.
HardOCP rigged the test to get a predetermined/desired conclusion. They intentionaly setup the bench in order to throttle to the GPU and not demonstrate the effectiveness of which CPU crunched the gaming code the best. This is OK so long as you present the whole story. In that the statement should be,
'Until GPU's exceed the point where load on the CPU is important, running at 1600x1200 with all goodies will demonstrate no difference between the CPUs. Using a single card nVidia graphics solution.' This would have been a fair assessment and the appropriate conclusion.
There are a few problems with what they are calling realworld though:
http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html I published this link ealier. The wonders of stealth survey's .... if you look through the data, which samples some 700,000 users what you find is that the bulk majority of gamers do not game at 1600x1200 but at 1280x1024 and 1024x768 by 36.1 and 47.5% respectively --- that is over 80% of users out that run less than 1600x1200. Thus realworld to HardOCP is not the majority of realworld to most users. They did a great disservice to those who run at typcial resolutions lower than the uber-gobsmacked-nut-busting-maxed-out settings that most people do not run.
Furthermore, if you are the ultimate gamer, likely you will get the ultimate rig to run your games -- which means SLI or xFire --- why not setup a xFire system and bench ... Anandtech did and at 1600x1200 resolutions we now begin to see the Core 2 power show separation:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] =2795&p=15
You see it in FEAR, Rise of Nations, even Oblivian (killer game by the way).
Heck start at the beginning of the xFire portion and read through them all:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] =2795&p=13 HL2, BF2, Q4 -- all show a domineering position of C2D @ 1600x1200 full aliasing. How can this be explained? Simple, xFire puts the burden back on the CPU.... and since C2D demolishes FX-62, is it surprising that it now out performs.... say you buy the next gen GPU around xMAS, do you want a CPU throttled rig to run it? That is what you would evidently get with an AMD powered system. Did HardOCP explain this??? Nope.
Now here is what is irking me about that review --- it isn't like they could not have done it... they are a HW site for goodness sake. Apparently, Intel even sent them the capability as one site even published the contents of the press kit:
Quote :
To test its new baby, Intel sent out one of its own D975XBX motherboard with a beta BIOS that adds support for the Core 2 Duo processors. We also received a Core 2 Duo E6700, clocked at 2.66GHz, and a 2.93GHz Core 2 Extreme X6800. There was also an ATI Radeon X1900 XTX and an X1900 CrossFire Edition graphics card in the goodie box to try and keep the test rig similar to the one Intel provided for us for the controlled preview t'other month.
So what gives --- the tone of the article certainly reads like --- man we don't like the idea that Intel is taking back the performance crown. At least that is how I read it. Frankly, this site should be the laughing stock of the net, as every other site who benched at those resolutions also provided the correct data to demonstrate that it was GPU limited.
Heck, you could have slapped a P920 or P940 into the mix and show it matching FPS of a FX-62 --- what conclusions would be drawn then? That P4 really isn't all that bad, that you should have bought a P4 in April because it was lower priced?
It was a ridiculous review, it was unethical, it was inappropriate and they published utter junk which helped no one make a sane conclusion.
Showing games with the settings raised won't really show much of a difference as the bottleneck becomes the GPU. For a real indication of CPU power it would be better to compare things like audio/video encoding, file encryption, decryption, and compression. This is where these CPUs excel. This article does show that those planning to game shouldn't worry about buying the best processor but focus more on a high end GPU.
Correct, but Hard OCP took this to the EXTREME in order to bottleneck the CPU as MUCH as possible so that it would look like they are even closer than they really are.
They even had a better video card that would be more "real-world" for an enthusiast who games at 1600x1200, but the purposely decided not to use it. Did you even read mine or Jack's post?
Indeed I did, and I agree. The review wasn't showing performance based entirely on the CPU so I was just suggesting some benchmarks to compare that shows more CPU based performance. Obviously Conroe is the clear winner in almost every situation.
Like others have said, this has been setup to show a 'real life' comparison... Do they do the same thing with a pentium D 820? NO. They would show that the 820 is in everyway inferior to any X2, they would do this by (like most people do) cranking all the settings to a high level that would work the GPU to 100%, there for offloading some work to the CPU.
This test didnt show any glory for conroe because they set the graphics so low that the same 820 would score within 1%, performance-wise, to the processors mentioned in the article.
Like others have said, this has been setup to show a 'real life' comparison... Do they do the same thing with a pentium D 820? NO. They would show that the 820 is in everyway inferior to any X2, they would do this by (like most people do) cranking all the settings to a high level that would work the GPU to 100%, there for offloading some work to the CPU.
This test didnt show any glory for conroe because they set the graphics so low that the same 820 would score within 1%, performance-wise, to the processors mentioned in the article.
Correct, but they do this saying it is "real world performance" when reality, it is NOT what most users would experience as "real world performance" due to reasons stated above.
The ONLY reason I game in 1920x1200 is because of my LCD monitor. If I still had my Sony CRT I would game in whatever res I could pump all the eye-candy into. The VAST majority of the collective community games at a much lower res...be that 1280x1024 or 1024x768 or bychance even lower.
Modern GPUs can crank out a lot of frames at the resolutions most people game at, and the CPU is a major factor in this scenario. Just how fast can the CPU feed the GPU?
I wholheartedly agree, bench the gear the right way, and give poeple the info that really matters. Those that run at extreme resolutions already know the answers to their questions (dual GPUs help a lot!); tell the masses that read the articles what they really need to know.
When I read a review of a processor, I want to know at what FPS the GPU bottlenecks. [/SARCASM]
Seriously, if I'm in the market for a new CPU, I want to know which one unequivically, performs the best. The ONLY way to do this is to turn the resolutions down, thus eliminating the GPU as a limiting factor and showing what raw power the processors have. Any review that does otherwise has corrupt and skewed data and is only doing a disservice to consumers.
I am just a little tired of people comparing only 800x600 for gaming purposes, no one uses that resolution and not only that, the benchmarks shown are basically irrelevant to anyone who wants to know how the cpu's can increase FPS in real life. HardOCP did a pretty good article IMO, it's sad that I have to say this everytime I post, but I will continue to do so..... Please don't get all upset as I am not bashing Core 2 cpu's, I am merely looking at things in a real world sort of persepective....
Like I have said before, I will probably buy a Core 2 setup when I get back from my current location.... but by then things could change.... although they probably won't. So, lets try to be civil and act like grownups. Ycon.... if you could just turn away and not post I/everyone would appreciate it.
Edit: I am a little out of touch, can't get online very often, I did a aquick search, but sorry if this benchmark has been posted. If this is the case, Admins please delete.
No this is a good thread to hold open because this needs to be discussed.
HardOCP rigged the test to get a predetermined/desired conclusion. They intentionaly setup the bench in order to throttle to the GPU and not demonstrate the effectiveness of which CPU crunched the gaming code the best. This is OK so long as you present the whole story. In that the statement should be,
'Until GPU's exceed the point where load on the CPU is important, running at 1600x1200 with all goodies will demonstrate no difference between the CPUs. Using a single card nVidia graphics solution.' This would have been a fair assessment and the appropriate conclusion.
There are a few problems with what they are calling realworld though:
http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html I published this link ealier. The wonders of stealth survey's .... if you look through the data, which samples some 700,000 users what you find is that the bulk majority of gamers do not game at 1600x1200 but at 1280x1024 and 1024x768 by 36.1 and 47.5% respectively --- that is over 80% of users out that run less than 1600x1200. Thus realworld to HardOCP is not the majority of realworld to most users. They did a great disservice to those who run at typcial resolutions lower than the uber-gobsmacked-nut-busting-maxed-out settings that most people do not run.
Furthermore, if you are the ultimate gamer, likely you will get the ultimate rig to run your games -- which means SLI or xFire --- why not setup a xFire system and bench ... Anandtech did and at 1600x1200 resolutions we now begin to see the Core 2 power show separation:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] =2795&p=15
You see it in FEAR, Rise of Nations, even Oblivian (killer game by the way).
Heck start at the beginning of the xFire portion and read through them all:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] =2795&p=13 HL2, BF2, Q4 -- all show a domineering position of C2D @ 1600x1200 full aliasing. How can this be explained? Simple, xFire puts the burden back on the CPU.... and since C2D demolishes FX-62, is it surprising that it now out performs.... say you buy the next gen GPU around xMAS, do you want a CPU throttled rig to run it? That is what you would evidently get with an AMD powered system. Did HardOCP explain this??? Nope.
Now here is what is irking me about that review --- it isn't like they could not have done it... they are a HW site for goodness sake. Apparently, Intel even sent them the capability as one site even published the contents of the press kit:
Quote :
To test its new baby, Intel sent out one of its own D975XBX motherboard with a beta BIOS that adds support for the Core 2 Duo processors. We also received a Core 2 Duo E6700, clocked at 2.66GHz, and a 2.93GHz Core 2 Extreme X6800. There was also an ATI Radeon X1900 XTX and an X1900 CrossFire Edition graphics card in the goodie box to try and keep the test rig similar to the one Intel provided for us for the controlled preview t'other month.
So what gives --- the tone of the article certainly reads like --- man we don't like the idea that Intel is taking back the performance crown. At least that is how I read it. Frankly, this site should be the laughing stock of the net, as every other site who benched at those resolutions also provided the correct data to demonstrate that it was GPU limited.
Heck, you could have slapped a P920 or P940 into the mix and show it matching FPS of a FX-62 --- what conclusions would be drawn then? That P4 really isn't all that bad, that you should have bought a P4 in April because it was lower priced?
It was a ridiculous review, it was unethical, it was inappropriate and they published utter junk which helped no one make a sane conclusion.
Jack
Jack,
Great analysis, you can't make itany more clearer. Nice touch,
by adding crossfire in 1600x1200 resolution. Extreme resolution -
uses extreme GPUs. For example, if I ever was going to get Dell's
30" monitor, I would go quad.
Definitely reads like a biased article because it seems to blame Intel for making a CPU that's too powerful for their GPU setup. Had it not been biased, I would expect the article to carry a title like, "Do you really need a Core 2 today for gaming?" and the discussion to focus on how if you don't have the latest SLI, you're buying Core 2 only for the gaming potential with a future GPU upgrade, or for its non-gaming performance.
Whenever you get fps scores so close while changing the CPU, you know the same old GPU is the culprit. That's no weak GPU there, but we all know a GPU generation lasts six months while a CPU generation lasts for several years. On top of that, SLI is currently available, and they didn't use it - that's a substantial GPU bottleneck.
The key issue in the tests was that all the processors were very new or at the very high end. Their GPU solution, on the other hand, was a little weak, about six months old.
So what should one do if they're upgrading a gaming computer anyway? I'd say Core 2 definitely. While you probably wouldn't see a performance difference gaming with a mid-range Athlon64 or P4 today, one or two years down you'll definitely be affected by it when pondering what graphics solution to upgrade to.
Like others have said, this has been setup to show a 'real life' comparison... Do they do the same thing with a pentium D 820? NO. They would show that the 820 is in everyway inferior to any X2, they would do this by (like most people do) cranking all the settings to a high level that would work the GPU to 100%, there for offloading some work to the CPU.
This test didnt show any glory for conroe because they set the graphics so low that the same 820 would score within 1%, performance-wise, to the processors mentioned in the article.
SO why did the FX60 and 965EE get throttled? An 820 would have done worse than a 4200+.
I'm just glag that now Intel people are crying foul. Weren't there enough 80x600 bnchmarks? SOme people want to know what the box will do at the res they play at. I play at 1280. If I had CrossFire I'd play at 1600.
When I am playing CounterStrike:Source, an online first person shooter usually played against 10-40 people, I need high FPS, not high eye candy.
I run at 1024*768 on my rig (see specs) so that I can have the smoothest experience possible. If your computer is slowing down on some maps you will not do very good.
Contrary to what some people say, your CPU is very important to gaming. You can't just buy a sweet video card and drop it in your Sempron system. Right now my gaming is limited by my slow Athlon 3200+. I'm hoping Valve will update the Source engine to use multiple cores, at that time I would probably upgrade to the X2 3800+ or whatever else may be affordable.
