Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Real Gaming Challenge Rematch: Intel vs. AMD

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 1, 2006 10:29:32 AM

Link.

BM you might not want to look at this one.
August 1, 2006 11:24:16 AM

I haven't read the article yet, but I've concluded that the Core 2 Duo beats the Athlon 64 X2. I came to that conclusion based solely upon your warning to BM.
August 1, 2006 11:49:39 AM

Quote:
Link.

BM you might not want to look at this one.



Why? Core 2 isn't faster anymore because Intel was a year late to the challenge. Stop bringing me up. I don't care. My PC is doing just fine.
Related resources
August 1, 2006 11:51:17 AM

Quote:
Why? Core 2 isn't faster anymore because Intel was a year late to the challenge.


So only last year counts now? If you didn't care you wouldn't have posted.
August 1, 2006 11:59:20 AM

Quote:
Why? Core 2 isn't faster anymore because Intel was a year late to the challenge.


So only last year counts now? If you didn't care you wouldn't have posted.


You said my name.
August 1, 2006 12:01:13 PM

Jabs at BM aside the higher minimum frame rate and the little time spent under the threshold is impressive.
August 1, 2006 12:05:59 PM

Quote:
I haven't read the article yet, but I've concluded that the Core 2 Duo beats the Athlon 64 X2. I came to that conclusion based solely upon your warning to BM.



Well, I just came from there and it's not such ablowout. One game has a 17% lead with 5000+ vs 6600. The game I was curious about was Oblivion since it is the game for stressing a system. A 3% difference there is basically negligible and says that for the most stressful modern games YOU WON'T SEE A DIFFERENCE UNLESS YOU TAKE OUT A STOPWATCH. Or run FRAPS to compare with an AMD score.
August 1, 2006 12:08:25 PM

I love the spin.
August 1, 2006 12:15:10 PM

Sure why not, its funny watching the spin he puts on things.
August 1, 2006 12:18:17 PM

i think BM needs anger management
August 1, 2006 12:23:49 PM

I'd be a lot more impressed if I knew you weren't doing this just to piss BM off. Everyone knows Core 2 beats the current A64 architecture, but the gains in real-world gaming are negligible because you are GPU-limited at high resolutions and detail levels.

Lay the hell off.
August 1, 2006 12:26:52 PM

It wasn't done just to piss off BM, I just thought I should throw a in a jab. Its a good article, we've seen articles on all the chips except for the 6600 against its rival in the X2 5000.
August 1, 2006 12:32:00 PM

Notice the "World of Warcraft" test for the E6600 has 6 FPS. Clearly a mistake, but got me at first. Clearly overall the E6600 surpasses X2 5000 in gaming and no doubt in other applications.
August 1, 2006 12:37:35 PM

Upon reading the article, I'm surprised that the difference is only about 10%. Noticable of course. But after reading all of the praise here, I expected a much bigger difference.

Intel has done a nice job here, rejoining the competition. Their new Conroe is indeed faster, if only marginally.
August 1, 2006 12:38:42 PM

Quote:
It wasn't done just to piss off BM, I just thought I should throw a in a jab.


Do you even listen to yourself?
August 1, 2006 12:40:09 PM

Quote:
Why? Core 2 isn't faster anymore because Intel was a year late to the challenge. Stop bringing me up. I don't care. My PC is doing just fine.


So it only matters if AMD wins? If AMD had been the winner you would have embraced this benchmark. But because it goes against your AMD agenda you wish to disregard and discredit the benchmark.
August 1, 2006 12:40:59 PM

It was a good 31% faster in HL2 and 18% in BF2. It provides a more stable framerate whilst only dipping below the threshold 3% compared to 10%.
August 1, 2006 12:43:36 PM

Do you only listen to half my post? Sigh this is going to get locked.
August 1, 2006 12:53:26 PM

Quote:
It was a good 31% faster in HL2 and 18% in BF2. It provides a more stable framerate whilst only dipping below the threshold 3% compared to 10%.


and only 1% in another category. The overall average was ~10%. I'm not bashing this processor. I think they've done a fabulous job with this new family of CPUs. But I don't make my purchase decisions based on a single game that will go by the wayside as time passes (yes I'm aware of the popularity of the Half-Life series). Future games may show an even greater advantage. Intel rarely has trouble garnering software support.

With an overall 10% advantage, the Conroe is the unquestionably the new leader. But, in my opinion, 10% is exceeded by all the hype. I guess if I was a fanboy, this 10% would be either f'ing amazing or terribly insignificant depending on my choice of who to be a wannabe groupie for.

My point here is simple. 10%. It is what it is.
August 1, 2006 12:56:30 PM

Quote:
and only 1% in another category.


Which is obviously GPU limited.
August 1, 2006 1:03:52 PM

Quote:
Core 2 isn't faster anymore because Intel was a year late to the challenge.


AM2 5000+ is a year old?
August 1, 2006 1:04:03 PM

Quite impressive.
August 1, 2006 1:05:05 PM

Quote:
My point here is simple. 10%. It is what it is.


You may be suprised when DX10 cards come out.
August 1, 2006 1:07:38 PM

Quote:
Do you only listen to half my post?


When that's the half I want to reply to, yes.

Quote:
Sigh this is going to get locked.


Good, it's a crap topic - mainly because you just posted this to piss BM off - and because everyone knows games are GPU limited at high resolutions and detail levels, and CPU limited at low resolutions and detail levels.

STFU.
August 1, 2006 1:10:38 PM

Quote:
Its a good article, we've seen articles on all the chips except for the 6600 against its rival in the X2 5000.


Funny how you leave that part out. STFU you stupid troll.

Quote:
and CPU limited at low resolutions and detail levels.


O RLY? Perhaps you should check the settings moron.
August 1, 2006 1:18:59 PM

there i have to agree with you, 10% is 10% no more no less, it's nice to know that intle is back so it affects the competicion and lowers the price and bring us better products , but if where to buy a new computer know it would be a conroe that's for shure (if i could find onde) :lol: 
August 1, 2006 1:19:46 PM

Quote:
Jabs at BM aside the higher minimum frame rate and the little time spent under the threshold is impressive.


If ya don't have anything good to say then hush, moma taught us manners, what happened to you?
August 1, 2006 1:19:48 PM

Seeing this is a "real world" test of gaming, for the average gamer, with a lot of expected GPU limitations, it's quite a significant lead. I would have expected almost no real differences to be felt, but the auther of the article made it seem like Core 2 Duo delivered where it counted, and he felt there was a difference.

Basically, what this article means, for average to high end gamers, Core 2 Duo wins, just. What all the other articles say is, Core 2 Duo wins, by a lot, overall. So you can get an AMD cpu and citing this article saying it made little difference, but the fact is it loses out all over the park.

Also, the auther did state that they couldn't be too hard on the X2 system, because it still put in a great show, it just wasn't as good. Balanced, fair, reasonable article. Yet AMD fanboys argue the point regardless.
August 1, 2006 1:21:44 PM

So they made a kick ass cpu & no gpu to keep up with it hmnn?
Very good plan if i might say so.
August 1, 2006 1:27:22 PM

How can this be a "Real Gaming Challange" if GPU limitations aren't factored in. Might as well just run 2D games if they're not going to take advantage of the GPU by pushing it too the limits. Sure the Core2 is faster but all this "ultimate gaming CPU" crap is just marketing. With AA and AF fully enabled on that card my AMD 3700+ and Intel PD 820 would be right there with both those processors.
August 1, 2006 1:53:20 PM

Quote:
I love the spin.


SO you mean that isn't true? Intel has just gotten PARITY in games. Athlon 64 has proven formidable, lasting through three Intel 65nm generations.

I think anyone with an X2 or FX can be proud. Yes, Core 2 is faster but highly unavailable as of yesterday. I haven't checked today so maybe it's picking up.

Am2 is still growing with 10 additional mobos at Newegg since last week.

Oblivion is the most stressful game out is it not?

DX10 will raise the bar even higher will it not?

Core 2 is faster but if youwant some spin:

Because ~65% of Intel's inventory is PD and under and PD is 70% slower than AM2, Intel doesn't have the faster OVERALL product line. When Core 2 is bove 50% of the inventory then they will have the OVERALL faster product line.

Until then AMD has the fastest product line if not the fastest chip.
August 1, 2006 1:53:30 PM

I don't see where you are getting these ideas from at all. They ran the games all at high settings, with a common resolution. I just upgraded from a 3500 to a 4800 due to the huge price drops, it does make a difference even with AA and AF maxed. This is because I have a 7950gx2, and it benefits a lot from the extra cpu power. My point is that you claim an older cpu will be fien as long as you run the game maxed out so much it bogs down your gpu. Usually when settings get that high and the GPU is struggling people notice and turn some settings down for smoother gameplay. Also, if you get a better cpu now, you will be able to achieve smoother play with an upgraded gpu. Also, if you didn't notice the RTS scores, some games actually depend on the cpu(imagine that). You act as if the whole computer switches to the gpu when you turn on a 3d game, sorry but the cpu still does some work. To top it all off, if you buy a cpu with more processing power now, you will be better off if you upgrade to a better gpu.
Its a real gaming challenge because people dont play at choppy framerates where the gpu is limited, they play where the gameplay is more smooth, at these levels the cpu still makes a difference.
August 1, 2006 1:57:21 PM

Quote:
How can this be a "Real Gaming Challange" if GPU limitations aren't factored in. Might as well just run 2D games if they're not going to take advantage of the GPU by pushing it too the limits. Sure the Core2 is faster but all this "ultimate gaming CPU" crap is just marketing. With AA and AF fully enabled on that card my AMD 3700+ and Intel PD 820 would be right there with both those processors.



I don't think so. There is a certain level of CPU being used. At 1600 you need at least a 930 and 4200+. The video card can't do it all but the result is ~GPU limited.
August 1, 2006 2:19:00 PM

I Dont see how it's high settings if AA is turned off as the author said it was, as I can hardly play a game without it. But I'm not talking about cranking it up until the game is choppy. I'd much rather have the best possible settings with 30+ FPS then turning them off to achieve frame rates that I can't even see without running FRAPS to tell me they're there. Sure better CPUs will make some difference, but when looking at the Oblivion test I see very little difference between the 6600 and 5000+ and my 3700+ (albiet overclocked). I play Oblivion at 1680x1050 with 2x7900GT with FPS rarely dropping below 30 and often hovering above 40 and occasionally reaching 60. Of coarse there's a difference between a $100 sinlge core processor and a $300+ dual core, but squabling between a AMD 5000+ and C2D 6000 is pointless.
August 1, 2006 2:22:41 PM

Quote:
At 1600 you need at least a 930 and 4200+.

Not sure exactly what you mean besides the CPU. Is '1600' the res and '930' supposed to be socket 939? If so I'd have to disagree per the last part of my previous post.
August 1, 2006 2:27:34 PM

Quote:
Link.

BM you might not want to look at this one.



Why? Core 2 isn't faster anymore because Intel was a year late to the challenge. Stop bringing me up. I don't care. My PC is doing just fine.

Athlon is dog slow according to Extreme Tech. You need to upgrade to the E6600. Roll with the best, not the past.

You like AMD because they were better at one point, now it's time to join the winning team. The sooner you do it the sooner you'll feel better.
August 1, 2006 2:27:58 PM

Well, after seeing all of the article in question, I'm happy to see another gaming test, though obviously, I have my gripes because it could've clearly had lots more data; data is good, after all. Again, Conroe has shown that there was reason for all the hype, even if some might argue that it was too much hype.

After reading this thread, I'm not happy. As far as I'm concerned, both AM and BM can just go away; I don't like seeing whole threads where half of the posts are them flaming each other. It's a simple pair of counter-part fanboys, and they're acting like children; perhaps this thread should be locked to stop them.

At any rate, as far as the perforamnce of Core 2 goes, I'm still upset that I built my system in 2004, and knew that I simply didn't have the money to be able to build another new gaming system until I was out of college, which is still a year or so away. Hence, it means I miss out on grabbing Conroe when it's ripest; an E6600 would've been so sweet to have right now.

Of course, had I waited until now to build my gaming rig, (which was made when Intel was still Hell-bent on NetBurst) I would've been stuck with a 500MHz el-cheapo K-6 processor (PIII's were too expensive, sadly) and a Radeon 7000 for all that time, and I would've been forced to miss out on so many things, including Oblivion.

Life isn't easy; don't be fooled for a second into thinking otherwise.
August 1, 2006 2:45:41 PM

Good link.

Comment on article: I still don't understand how using FRAPS is supposed to be an accurate representation of performance. There are way too many variables that could throw off the average frame rate if you're not using a predesignated path (like a timedemo).

IMO, benchmarking this way is not as accurate as using timedemos. So the question is: why do it? The only advantage i can possibly see using this method is the AI variable. Obviously in timedemos AI isn't being used.

The results are interesting nonetheless.

-mpjesse
August 1, 2006 2:51:01 PM

i love how people bash each other for their own personal views in forums. Does this mean i am wrong for not switching to intel just because it has something bigger and better than what amd has to offer right now? Shut up and let people talk.
August 1, 2006 3:12:10 PM

Quote:
I think anyone with an X2 or FX can be proud.

Can they be proud with tears swelling in their eyes? I don't see how owning a computer chip can make someone proud, but then again I don't live in my parent's basement.

Quote:

Because ~65% of Intel's inventory is PD and under and PD is 70% slower than AM2, Intel doesn't have the faster OVERALL product line. When Core 2 is bove 50% of the inventory then they will have the OVERALL faster product line.
Until then AMD has the fastest product line if not the fastest chip.


Main Entry: ra·tio·nal·iza·tion
Variant: also British ra·tio·nal·isa·tion /"rash-n&-l&-'zA-sh&n, -&n-&l-&-/
Function: noun
: the act, process, or result of rationalizing; especially : the provision of plausible reasons to explain to oneself or others behavior for which one's real motives are different and unknown or unconscious
a b à CPUs
August 1, 2006 3:22:36 PM

Quote:
Why? Core 2 isn't faster anymore because Intel was a year late to the challenge. Stop bringing me up. I don't care. My PC is doing just fine.


So it only matters if AMD wins? If AMD had been the winner you would have embraced this benchmark. But because it goes against your AMD agenda you wish to disregard and discredit the benchmark.

HAHA!!! you called him sharikboob :lol: 
August 1, 2006 3:22:58 PM

NOOOOOOOOOOOO :cry: 
NOT AGIAN! WHYYYYYY :cry: 
August 1, 2006 9:31:50 PM

Quote:
Good link.

Comment on article: I still don't understand how using FRAPS is supposed to be an accurate representation of performance. There are way too many variables that could throw off the average frame rate if you're not using a predesignated path (like a timedemo).

IMO, benchmarking this way is not as accurate as using timedemos. So the question is: why do it? The only advantage i can possibly see using this method is the AI variable. Obviously in timedemos AI isn't being used.

The results are interesting nonetheless.

-mpjesse


Good point. I'd certainly like to see a comparison between timedemos and this method.
August 1, 2006 9:36:35 PM

Quote:
I love the spin.


SO you mean that isn't true? Intel has just gotten PARITY in games. Athlon 64 has proven formidable, lasting through three Intel 65nm generations.

I think anyone with an X2 or FX can be proud. Yes, Core 2 is faster but highly unavailable as of yesterday. I haven't checked today so maybe it's picking up.

Am2 is still growing with 10 additional mobos at Newegg since last week.

Oblivion is the most stressful game out is it not?

DX10 will raise the bar even higher will it not?

Core 2 is faster but if youwant some spin:

Because ~65% of Intel's inventory is PD and under and PD is 70% slower than AM2, Intel doesn't have the faster OVERALL product line. When Core 2 is bove 50% of the inventory then they will have the OVERALL faster product line.

Until then AMD has the fastest product line if not the fastest chip.

FAIL. how many times do i have to say fail...
August 1, 2006 10:00:21 PM

Quote:
It was a good 31% faster in HL2 and 18% in BF2. It provides a more stable framerate whilst only dipping below the threshold 3% compared to 10%.


and only 1% in another category. The overall average was ~10%. I'm not bashing this processor. I think they've done a fabulous job with this new family of CPUs. But I don't make my purchase decisions based on a single game that will go by the wayside as time passes (yes I'm aware of the popularity of the Half-Life series). Future games may show an even greater advantage. Intel rarely has trouble garnering software support.

With an overall 10% advantage, the Conroe is the unquestionably the new leader. But, in my opinion, 10% is exceeded by all the hype. I guess if I was a fanboy, this 10% would be either f'ing amazing or terribly insignificant depending on my choice of who to be a wannabe groupie for.

My point here is simple. 10%. It is what it is.Yeah....10%. When K8 was 10% faster than P4, it was a slaughter. Hmmm....Can you say double-standard? It's funny how AMD fanboys, and even AMD exec's have dropped all interest in benchmarks since Core2Duo has surfaced.
August 1, 2006 10:01:31 PM

Quote:
I haven't read the article yet, but I've concluded that the Core 2 Duo beats the Athlon 64 X2. I came to that conclusion based solely upon your warning to BM.



Well, I just came from there and it's not such ablowout. One game has a 17% lead with 5000+ vs 6600. The game I was curious about was Oblivion since it is the game for stressing a system. A 3% difference there is basically negligible and says that for the most stressful modern games YOU WON'T SEE A DIFFERENCE UNLESS YOU TAKE OUT A STOPWATCH. Or run FRAPS to compare with an AMD score.

NEDM.
August 1, 2006 10:04:43 PM

Quote:
It was a good 31% faster in HL2 and 18% in BF2. It provides a more stable framerate whilst only dipping below the threshold 3% compared to 10%.


and only 1% in another category. The overall average was ~10%. I'm not bashing this processor. I think they've done a fabulous job with this new family of CPUs. But I don't make my purchase decisions based on a single game that will go by the wayside as time passes (yes I'm aware of the popularity of the Half-Life series). Future games may show an even greater advantage. Intel rarely has trouble garnering software support.

With an overall 10% advantage, the Conroe is the unquestionably the new leader. But, in my opinion, 10% is exceeded by all the hype. I guess if I was a fanboy, this 10% would be either f'ing amazing or terribly insignificant depending on my choice of who to be a wannabe groupie for.

My point here is simple. 10%. It is what it is.Yeah....10%. When K8 was 10% faster than P4, it was a slaughter. Hmmm....Can you say double-standard? It's funny how AMD fanboys, and even AMD exec's have dropped all interest in benchmarks since Core2Duo has surfaced.

:D  :D  :D  dont bother, the fanboys wont listen unless you have the word fail in your post
August 1, 2006 10:09:31 PM

Quote:
So they made a kick ass cpu & no gpu to keep up with it hmnn?
Very good plan if i might say so.


That comment couldn't be more ignorant if your brain was removed from inside of your head.
August 1, 2006 11:17:45 PM

Quote:
Yeah....10%. When K8 was 10% faster than P4, it was a slaughter. Hmmm....Can you say double-standard? It's funny how AMD fanboys, and even AMD exec's have dropped all interest in benchmarks since Core2Duo has surfaced.


How true. When Core Duo barely beat Athlon 64's with its super expensive mobo and CPU, and people called that a triumph, that made sense??

It shows 10% advantage in REAL-WORLD benchmarking. Not many will run 1600x1200 with 4xAA/AF. Those who do will get correspondingly better graphics cards. They may also get faster CPU because games aren't everything. Some may go for bragging rights.

It showed that gaming benchmarks the gap may not be as big. Does that mean Core 2 Duo is equal/slower than A64/PD?? No. It is a much better CPU, just that graphics cards make a better role in gaming than CPU. Well, not exactly, as some games are more CPU dependent than others. And Core 2 Duo is the absolute fastest CPU in all other apps, which more people will care anyway.
!