Gamers say "There's No point to conroe"

[corvetteguy]

I've been looking in some other forums from different places, and unlike here where conroe is all the craze, they couldn't care less. Its not just conroe they don't care about, its almost any high end processor. The common theme is why pay for an x6800 or FX-62 when i can get a x2 3800, 4200, or e6300 and get the same results in the game or close to it for a fifth of the price? They also acknowledge how faster cpu's help people with CAD, and stuff like that, but since most people don't do that there is no point. It seems to me that people on this forum are somewhat "misguided" for recommending such highend cpu's for gaming, or even buying them themselves. I also think that conroe, although not the case here, could benifit AMD buy lowering prices and giving more exposure of AMD to normal people. I know you will also say that the e6300 can overclock past an FX-62, but in response to that, people arn't willing to pay the higher price for that cpu, nor the very expensive motherboard required to overclock like that. They also seem to like the idea of the new EE chips from AMD, and disregard C2D's slighty higher power consumption, and performance. AMD has also respinded to this with the new x2 3600, and i think it will catch on. Anway i think this will benifit AMD because by the time we need chips like the x6800 and FX-62 to run all games on high settings, AMD will have the crown back and will maybe have all price points covered, plus additional exposure to normal consumers. I see 30% marketshare in the not too distant furture 8)

 

[Amerikaner]

Thats like saying why get a HD Plasma Television when you can get 27'" TV that both broadcast.

Or better yet, why are you the corvetteguy when a jetta can get you to the same destination?

This is an enthusiast forum and we want the best quality for now and the future. To do that you get the best parts...

 

[corvetteguy]

Thats like saying why get a HD Plasma Television when you can get 27'" TV that both broadcast.

Or better yet, why are you the corvetteguy when a jetta can get you to the same destination?

This is an enthusiast forum and we want the best quality for now and the future. To do that you get the best parts...

That's not a good analogy at all. Those don't get the same results.(speed/size) What i'm saying is that most people won't spend an extra 800$ so they can squeal when they get 5 extra fps in a game. Thats becaus ethey probably won't notice the difference. And by the time games come out that will show a difference, or gpu's catch up, newer/faster chips that are cheaper will be out, so thats why most people probably won't buy conroe unless they are sucked in by marketing :lol:

 

[NMDante]

No one is forcing anyone to buy the stuff they want/need/wish for.

If someone asks, "Hey, what's the best system for a serious hardcore gaming rig with a budget of $2000?", are you seriously going to tell them to get a mid-range CPU? Nope. Mid-range video card? Nope.

Just cause people want to spend their own money on the fastest, quickest, and most powerful things out there, doesn't mean anyone giving their opinion is misguided. Please. Misguided would be telling someone to get a fast CPU, and a crappy video card, cause the CPU will handle everything. That's misguided.

Oh, and I love the bias at the end...wonder what started this whole "Gamers say 'There's NO point to conroe'". Yeah, right.

You don't like intel, that's fine. But stop YOUR misguiding info.

 

[corvetteguy]

I just think people that know what they are talking about on these forums get carried away, and recommend say an e6600, for someone when they don't really need that. They could easily save their money and buy a 4200 or e6300 and save money and get the same result. And i will argue that there is no point at the moment to buy an FX-62 or e6700 or x6800 for gaming. Anyway i also said that the new price points for cpu's will give an advantage to AMD, which i think is supported by normal consumer comments. I know its a personal choice to spends a 1000 bucks on a cpu, but people shouldn't be encouraging it unless the person needs it... instead of just saying "SWEET man, that kicks ass"

ps. your right i don't like intel, but that doesn't mean i'll buy an FX-62

 

[NMDante]

Oh, I see your point about how people try to influence others to get the biggest and baddest, but I will tell people to get the E6400/E6600, only because I know these people aren't intrested in OCing or are hardcore gamers, and that both those CPUs will last them for at least 3-4 years.

For gamers, I tell them to get whatever CPU they want, but get a damn good GPU. I try to tell them to hold off till DX10 boards, but that's usually lost in translation somewhere.

The FX series and the Extreme Edition series were, and still are, a marketing gimmick by both intel and AMD to sell souped up CPUs. Most of the people I know that have them can't play any FPS or RTS game worth a crap, but they have some of the most blinged out systems I have ever seen. I mean, 1 guy I know has a system worth about 2 E6600 systems, easy.

I don't care if someone hates a company, I just never really understood it, but I also won't buy an FX or EE series CPU, myself.

 

[clairvoyant129]

Just because you can't afford it, doesn't mean others can't. Stop spreading your FUD.

 

[Viperabyss]

gamers feel indifferent because the ability to load games faster isn't what they're after.

gamers want better resolutions, higher FPS, higher effects. all of that come from GPUs, not CPU. since the GPU becomes the bottleneck when you increase the resolution, it doesn't really matter if you have an $1000 CPU or a $300 CPU. everything is about the video card.

not only that, i think you mis-understood gamers' opinions. according to your first posts, they believe spending $1000 on an X6800 is stupid, because you can get equavalent or slightly less performance by going for a processor that's about $800 less. so they're not going to recommend an X6800, so are they recommending an Fx-62 that cost around $800? of course not.

so, your logic connection between their opinions and your "No point to Core 2" is bogus.

 

[corvetteguy]

Thats good that you do, but many on this forum DO recommend say an e6700, whent the perosn has it in there head already to get an e6400 or 4600. They convinve them they NEED a more powerful cpu, with MORE cache. I also see most people on this forum, dismissing AM2 as a piece of crap, with absolutly no reason to exist, or buy. Thats why i said AMD is in a good position with low and midrange, but again people here dismiss it as "old" crap. That one always make sme laugh. Not too long ago, the FX-60 was the holy grail, and now we call an o/c FX-62 a POS that can't handle any games... :lol: :roll:

 

[clairvoyant129]

I just think people that know what they are talking about on these forums get carried away, and recommend say an e6600, for someone when they don't really need that. They could easily save their money and buy a 4200 or e6300 and save money and get the same result. And i will argue that there is no point at the moment to buy an FX-62 or e6700 or x6800 for gaming. Anyway i also said that the new price points for cpu's will give an advantage to AMD, which i think is supported by normal consumer comments. I know its a personal choice to spends a 1000 bucks on a cpu, but people shouldn't be encouraging it unless the person needs it... instead of just saying "SWEET man, that kicks ass"

ps. your right i don't like intel, but that doesn't mean i'll buy an FX-62

Yes, because every Conroe costs 1000USD. Oh wait.

 

[clairvoyant129]

Thats good that you do, but many on this forum DO recommend say an e6700, whent the perosn has it in there head already to get an e6400 or 4600. They convinve them they NEED a more powerful cpu, with MORE cache. I also see most people on this forum, dismissing AM2 as a piece of crap, with absolutly no reason to exist, or buy. Thats why i said AMD is in a good position with low and midrange, but again people here dismiss it as "old" crap. That one always make sme laugh. Not too long ago, the FX-60 was the holy grail, and now we call an o/c FX-62 a POS that can't handle any games... :lol: :roll:

What does C2Ds having more cache have to do with your argument? It's pretty clear that you're a heavily biased AMD fanboy. People should take your advice with a grain of salt.

 

[corvetteguy]

gamers feel indifferent because the ability to load games faster isn't what they're after.

gamers want better resolutions, higher FPS, higher effects. all of that come from GPUs, not CPU. since the GPU becomes the bottleneck when you increase the resolution, it doesn't really matter if you have an $1000 CPU or a $300 CPU. everything is about the video card.

not only that, i think you mis-understood gamers' opinions. according to your first posts, they believe spending $1000 on an X6800 is stupid, because you can get equavalent or slightly less performance by going for a processor that's about $800 less. so they're not going to recommend an X6800, so are they recommending an Fx-62 that cost around $800? of course not.

so, your logic connection between their opinions and your "No point to Core 2" is bogus.

how is it bogus. I said conroe is good for people doing CAD, and things like that. I also said there is no point buying a $1000 CPU when gaming. But my point is people on this forum continue to recommend them for gamers, saying thats what you need to get real high fps, when really there is no difference between them. You also keep ignoring my point about AMD's new position in the marketplace.

The title btw was actually what they said, but i'm saying it applies to all high end cpu's :?

 

[corvetteguy]

Thats good that you do, but many on this forum DO recommend say an e6700, whent the perosn has it in there head already to get an e6400 or 4600. They convinve them they NEED a more powerful cpu, with MORE cache. I also see most people on this forum, dismissing AM2 as a piece of crap, with absolutly no reason to exist, or buy. Thats why i said AMD is in a good position with low and midrange, but again people here dismiss it as "old" crap. That one always make sme laugh. Not too long ago, the FX-60 was the holy grail, and now we call an o/c FX-62 a POS that can't handle any games... :lol: :roll:

What does C2Ds having more cache have to do with your argument? It's pretty clear that you're a heavily biased AMD fanboy. People should take your advice with a grain of salt.

I didn't say all conroe's cost $1000 i was responding to another post. And if you actually read some threads here, many peoiple justify going from an e6400 to an e6600 for more cache. You'll see a small improvment but not from the cahe as much as the clock difference, which could be achieved on an e6300 or a 4200. People should take all advice with a grain of salt

 

[Viperabyss]

The common theme is why pay for an x6800 or FX-62 when i can get a x2 3800, 4200, or e6300 and get the same results in the game or close to it for a fifth of the price?

They also acknowledge how faster cpu's help people with CAD, and stuff like that, but since most people don't do that there is no point.

then you said,

"Gamers say "There's No point to conroe"

then,

Anway i think this will benifit AMD because by the time we need chips like the x6800 and FX-62 to run all games on high settings, AMD will have the crown back and will maybe have all price points covered, plus additional exposure to normal consumers. I see 30% marketshare in the not too distant furture 8)

how does "high end processors are useless" have anything to do with "AMD gaining 30% marketshare"?

bogus.

 

[corvetteguy]

It has to do with people not wanting/needing highend chips which leaves them with AMD as an attractive option. If you can't make that connection which i explained well your bogus

The reason for the thread saying no point for conroe, is because thats what most people here recommend. They say, there's no reason to buy an FX-62, but there is also no poin t to buy an x6800, yet they recommend it constantly, or maybe at least an e6700

 

[turpit]

I've been looking in some other forums from different places, and unlike here where conroe is all the craze, they couldn't care less. Its not just conroe they don't care about, its almost any high end processor. The common theme is why pay for an x6800 or FX-62 when i can get a x2 3800, 4200, or e6300 and get the same results in the game or close to it for a fifth of the price? They also acknowledge how faster cpu's help people with CAD, and stuff like that, but since most people don't do that there is no point. It seems to me that people on this forum are somewhat "misguided" for recommending such highend cpu's for gaming, or even buying them themselves. I also think that conroe, although not the case here, could benifit AMD buy lowering prices and giving more exposure of AMD to normal people. I know you will also say that the e6300 can overclock past an FX-62, but in response to that, people arn't willing to pay the higher price for that cpu, nor the very expensive motherboard required to overclock like that. They also seem to like the idea of the new EE chips from AMD, and disregard C2D's slighty higher power consumption, and performance. AMD has also respinded to this with the new x2 3600, and i think it will catch on. Anway i think this will benifit AMD because by the time we need chips like the x6800 and FX-62 to run all games on high settings, AMD will have the crown back and will maybe have all price points covered, plus additional exposure to normal consumers. I see 30% marketshare in the not too distant furture 8)

Corvette guy, perhaps you should read these forums a little more closely, as this topic has already been beaten to death
The gamers you are writing of are correct....but only for the immediate moment. For the moment, investing in a high end video card is more productive than investing in an expensive CPU to achieve better gaming performance. However, over the next 12-18 months, the next generation of games are set to be released. These games are going to be physics intensive. When these games hit you are going to have 2 choices if you want to play them:
1) get a powerful CPU
2) invest in an add on physics proccessing card

Frankly, the physics card is a bit of a rip off. If you have the powerful CPU, you dont need it, unless the game you want was written specifically for that card. See THGs article on the ageias:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/19/is_ageias_physx_failing/

For people who can only afford to buy new or upgrade on a 2-4 year cycle, and need to do so in the next 6 months, they have a chioce:
1)buying the high end processor
2)buying the absolute cheapest CPU they can while insuring their mobo will accept newer CPUs down the road.

Why? I know your a bit younger (not attacking, just observing as it relates) and so may never have played the original Doom or RTCW. The current versions of these games, while graphically dazzling, are little different in terms of game play, The major difference in Doom and D3, is that Doom wa3 a 2 dimensional bitmap game, while D3 is 3D polygon. All this really does is improve visuals. In terms of play, you shoot the glass, nothing happens unless its scripted to break in the game. In short, it still the same 1973 Camaro, it just has a fresh coat of paint.

The next gen of games are vastly different. They are assigning physical properties to objects and environments. Mass, density, hardness etc. Where the old games are coded based on objects, the new gen is coded based on object properties. This increases the demand on the CPU exponentially

Finally, go back and re-read those articles and posts closely. Id be willing to bet the a fair number of them were writtin by AMDs fanboys.


Peace

 

[ryokinshin]

well why not the e6400 wich performs lik an fx62 and costs much less, and no not all games are gpu limited, rts games are very cpu limited

 

[SoDNighthawk]

As far as Steam type games go you can't squeal much about FPS for many reasons that have nothing to do with your hardware.

Points are as follows.

(1) Steam Source Engine sucks you dry on FPS whatever AGP/PCI-E card or CPU you use.

(2) The admin in any server can cap your FPS off at whatever the hell he feels he wants you to have because if you did manage to join at 175 FPS on a new PCI-E card and are kicking the shit out of everything that moves in the game server you are either going to get admin slow hacked (FPS CAPPED) to like 66fps or kicked and or banned for going to fast.

(3) If the Admin is a great Block and not a nasty little California pussy that cant stand a skilled player on fast hardware then Steam it's self will share most of your bandwidth with the rest of the guys on slower connections anyways and therefore shit kick the crap out of your FPS in the process.

(4) This trend to control gamers hardware so they cant perform at great levels with fast hardware is rampant over much of the current online games now as they share your bandwidth speed to level out the playing field and when this done you lose any hardware advantage you might have had to start with.

Or you can just be a JAM up player that happens to be on a 56K and they will ban you anyways lol. Also all Admins in any game servers need a Pink Bunnies suit on so you don't shoot them three times in a row and get banned for that reason.

 

[corvetteguy]

yes, i understand that, but in that time (12-18 months), we will have better cheaper chips. Now if someone buys a $1000 chip now, in 18 months it probably won't be as good as a mid-low range chip then. By buying a cheaper($200) chip now, then in a year -18 moths buy another $200 chip, you'll be ahead, and have been no worse for wear in between. Thats also my point about people always recommending conroe. It probably won't be a upgradeable as AM2, and thats why you'll need a $1000 chip to last far enough. With AM2 you'll be able to get a good cheap chip now, then drop in a K8L chip in a year 18 months, for half the price of an x6800 now

 

[Viperabyss]

It has to do with people not wanting/needing highend chips which leaves them with AMD as an attractive option.

however, does Core 2 have higher performance/price? of course.
does Core 2 have higher performance/watt? no doubt about it.

no one leaves AMD as an attractive option. its just because Core 2 is just superior than K8, so most enthusiasts recommend them. you know, not every Core 2 costs $1000.

bogus

The reason for the thread saying no point for conroe, is because thats what most people here recommend. They say, there's no reason to buy an FX-62, but there is also no poin t to buy an x6800, yet they recommend it constantly, or maybe at least an e6700

people constantly come in with 2 grand on their hands, asking for help for building the greatest computers.
are you seriously not going to recommend X6800, when they currently are the fastest dual core mainstream processor on the market? if they want to build a kick a** computer, are you seriously going to recommend them a mid-range processor?

bogus

 

[corvetteguy]

As far as Steam type games go you can't squeal much about FPS for many reasons that have nothing to do with your hardware.

Points are as follows.

(1) Steam Source Engine sucks you dry on FPS whatever AGP/PCI-E card or CPU you use.

(2) The admin in any server can cap your FPS off at whatever the hell he feels he wants you to have because if you did manage to join at 175 FPS on a new PCI-E card and are kicking the **** out of everything that moves in the game server you are either going to get admin slow hacked (FPS CAPPED) to like 66fps or kicked and or banned for going to fast.

(3) If the Admin is a great Block and not a nasty little California pussy that cant stand a skilled player on fast hardware then Steam it's self will share most of your bandwidth with the rest of the guys on slower connections anyways and therefore **** kick the crap out of your FPS in the process.

(4) This trend to control gamers hardware so they cant perform at great levels with fast hardware is rampant over much of the current online games now as they share your bandwidth speed to level out the playing field and when this done you lose any hardware advantage you might have had to start with.

Or you can just be a JAM up player that happens to be on a 56K and they will ban you anyways lol. Also all Admins in any game servers need a Pink Bunnies suit on so you don't shoot them three times in a row and get banned for that reason.

another reason not to buy a $1000 cpu

 

[corvetteguy]

It has to do with people not wanting/needing highend chips which leaves them with AMD as an attractive option.

however, does Core 2 have higher performance/price? of course.
does Core 2 have higher performance/watt? no doubt about it.

no one leaves AMD as an attractive option. its just because Core 2 is just superior than K8, so most enthusiasts recommend them. you know, not every Core 2 costs $1000.

bogus

The reason for the thread saying no point for conroe, is because thats what most people here recommend. They say, there's no reason to buy an FX-62, but there is also no poin t to buy an x6800, yet they recommend it constantly, or maybe at least an e6700

people constantly come in with 2 grand on their hands, asking for help for building the greatest computers.
are you seriously not going to recommend X6800, when they currently are the fastest dual core mainstream processor on the market? if they want to build a kick a** computer, are you seriously going to recommend them a mid-range processor?

bogus

core 2 might have better performance price, but they start out expensive. They do have better performance per watt, but the AMD EE versions use very little power (less than C2D)

How bout telling them not to spend $2000 and save their money. Even if they want to you could recomend a e6600 or 6700 for much less.

your bogus

 

[redraider_gamer]

Having just moved up from an Ahlon XP3200+ Barton with 1gb OEM Ram and the 6800GT to a Core 2 X6800 with 2GB Corsair Pro PC6400 and an ATI X1900XTX I can say it was very worthwhile. I now spawn so far ahead of anyone else in BF2 that I get the jets and choppers for the first time! I can run CoD2, BF2, and DDO all at max. Was it the Conroe or the combination? Probably the combination, but as a guy who just spent $2500 to game, IT WAS WORTH E VERY PENNY! I have no regrets and y'all can eat my contrails...

It's my Corvette...

My Rig:
Core 2 Duo X6800 Conroe (Stock Clock for Now)
Intel D975XBXLRK
Thermaltake Big Typhoon HSF
2 GB Corsair Pro PC6400 4-4-4-15
74GB 10k Raptor
ATI X1900XTX
SB Audigy 2 ZS
NEC DVD OEM Burners (x2)
Ultra X-Finity 600w SLi Certified PS
Gigabyte 3D Aurora Case

 

[ryokinshin]

As far as Steam type games go you can't squeal much about FPS for many reasons that have nothing to do with your hardware.

Points are as follows.

(1) Steam Source Engine sucks you dry on FPS whatever AGP/PCI-E card or CPU you use.

(2) The admin in any server can cap your FPS off at whatever the hell he feels he wants you to have because if you did manage to join at 175 FPS on a new PCI-E card and are kicking the **** out of everything that moves in the game server you are either going to get admin slow hacked (FPS CAPPED) to like 66fps or kicked and or banned for going to fast.

(3) If the Admin is a great Block and not a nasty little California pussy that cant stand a skilled player on fast hardware then Steam it's self will share most of your bandwidth with the rest of the guys on slower connections anyways and therefore **** kick the crap out of your FPS in the process.

(4) This trend to control gamers hardware so they cant perform at great levels with fast hardware is rampant over much of the current online games now as they share your bandwidth speed to level out the playing field and when this done you lose any hardware advantage you might have had to start with.

Or you can just be a JAM up player that happens to be on a 56K and they will ban you anyways lol. Also all Admins in any game servers need a Pink Bunnies suit on so you don't shoot them three times in a row and get banned for that reason.

another reason not to buy a $1000 cpu
so we wont buy $1k cpus from amd or intel

 

[BaronMatrix]

I've been looking in some other forums from different places, and unlike here where conroe is all the craze, they couldn't care less. Its not just conroe they don't care about, its almost any high end processor. The common theme is why pay for an x6800 or FX-62 when i can get a x2 3800, 4200, or e6300 and get the same results in the game or close to it for a fifth of the price? They also acknowledge how faster cpu's help people with CAD, and stuff like that, but since most people don't do that there is no point. It seems to me that people on this forum are somewhat "misguided" for recommending such highend cpu's for gaming, or even buying them themselves. I also think that conroe, although not the case here, could benifit AMD buy lowering prices and giving more exposure of AMD to normal people. I know you will also say that the e6300 can overclock past an FX-62, but in response to that, people arn't willing to pay the higher price for that cpu, nor the very expensive motherboard required to overclock like that. They also seem to like the idea of the new EE chips from AMD, and disregard C2D's slighty higher power consumption, and performance. AMD has also respinded to this with the new x2 3600, and i think it will catch on. Anway i think this will benifit AMD because by the time we need chips like the x6800 and FX-62 to run all games on high settings, AMD will have the crown back and will maybe have all price points covered, plus additional exposure to normal consumers. I see 30% marketshare in the not too distant furture 8)

I have always said that the high end CPUs after 2GHz would be overkill for most things. The 3800+ will get you playable framerates with 7900GT/GTX with almost any game at 1280 HQ.

All you need is a Core 2 6300, everything else is just not needed by most people. For me even the FX62 is not enough but I can get along with a 4400+. That's why I'm getting FX+2.

But it's for developing client/server applications, not gaming or Office. Anything between Core 2 E6600 and X2 3800+ is really the high end until Vista. Vista will change the game a little but more of the extra power again COMES FROM THE GPU and RAM.

I would bet that an X2 3600+ with a 7900GTX would be much better for Vista than a 6700-up with a 7800GT.

The two combos are around the same price with mobo.