Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

[H]ardOCP Real-World Gaming CPU Comparison with 8800 GTX SLI

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 22, 2007 11:58:17 PM

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI2Miwx...

While I still think their 'max playable settings' style of benching is questionable, as it depends on the reviewers tolerance levels for low framerates, at least they provide the traditional apples to apples charts as well when different settings are used for the 'max playable' tests. Their in depth analysis of the actual gameplay experience is also to be commended. Most sites just give you the numbers and say 'Core2 is better' without actually explaining whether the numbers represent an actual noticeable improvement in the gaming experience.

Credit where credit is due, I think HardOCP did a much better job with this article than their previous 'real world gaming CPU comparison' where Kyle's AMD bias was clearly showing through. This article is concise and to the point. Well done [H].

Now, if they were to do a similar article for a single 8800GTS/GTX I'll be a happy man. Let's face it, not many of us are running SLI 8800GTX setups. ;) 
January 23, 2007 12:14:20 AM

...and while people talking about G70 or R600, i'm still stuck with my years old ATi 9550 :oops:  .....but alas, i wanted to see the result of that benchmark too...
January 23, 2007 12:18:38 AM

I like their Apples to Apples benches.
Quote:
Overall the Intel platform experience was “smoother”.

Quote:
With the AMD platform it is another story as you can see above, the CPU simply could not provide enough performance to the SLI configuration to make it GPU limited, we were even more CPU limited with the AMD platform. We had to lower the AA level to allow better performance.


Their benches where they tweak the AMD systems for similar FPS at worse settings, not so much.. What's the point of comparing if you aren't going to keep the settings the same? While they made the apples to apples graphs, they should've also made tables.[/quote]
*Their RW bench*

*Their 100% similar bench*
Related resources
January 23, 2007 12:30:51 AM

Quote:
Their benches where they tweak the AMD systems for similar FPS at worse settings, not so much.. What's the point of comparing if you aren't going to keep the settings the same? While they made the apples to apples graphs, they should've also made tables.


It's an odd way of testing, that's for sure. One thing it does illustrate is what kind of settings you would have to sacrifice on the AMD setup in order to get similar framerates to the Intel setup. If they excluded the 'apples to apples' charts there would be cause for concern, but they didn't, though I agree a seperate table for the apples to apples testing would have been better.
January 23, 2007 12:35:18 AM

If they are going to compare these chips, I would at least hope that 100% similar settings would take top priority (add in some tables/numbers/move to top), while the "settings that AMD doesn't chug at with Med quality plays similarly to Intel at high settings" (weird logic) benches go at the bottom of the page.
January 23, 2007 12:43:21 AM

you tell,em j.j. :lol: 
January 23, 2007 12:43:53 AM

Hmm, I wonder what the results would've been if they added a 3rd section of results, the "Intel stoops down to AMD's inferior settings" :) 
January 23, 2007 12:44:28 AM

Quote:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI2Miwx...

While I still think their 'max playable settings' style of benching is questionable, as it depends on the reviewers tolerance levels for low framerates, at least they provide the traditional apples to apples charts as well when different settings are used for the 'max playable' tests. Their in depth analysis of the actual gameplay experience is also to be commended. Most sites just give you the numbers and say 'Core2 is better' without actually explaining whether the numbers represent an actual noticeable improvement in the gaming experience.

Credit where credit is due, I think HardOCP did a much better job with this article than their previous 'real world gaming CPU comparison' where Kyle's AMD bias was clearly showing through. This article is concise and to the point. Well done [H].

Now, if they were to do a similar article for a single 8800GTS/GTX I'll be a happy man. Let's face it, not many of us are running SLI 8800GTX setups. ;) 


The butt-loving, crap-head redefined what real world is .... in his first single card bench real world was 1600x1200, now all of a sudden real world is 2048x1536 .... right, apples to apples.

Even this time, with all efforts to keep the bottleneck at the GPU still the SLI 8800GTX is showing what it should at this res and all the eye candy turned up.

What a crock.

Jack, I think you're letting your contempt of [H] cloud your judgement on this article. ;)  Not that I can blame you after their previous attempt, I was VERY critical of that article, and I had to reread this article to make sure there were no sneaky 'you can overclock the AMD to match the Intel so no biggie' type of comments. ;) 

Where applicable, they tested at 2560 x 1600 because it is the native resolution of the Dell 30" 3007WFP monitor. If such a resolution was not available they used the next highest resolution.
January 23, 2007 12:58:26 AM

In the car enthusiasts world a comparo without the Apples to Apples would be considered at best as the:

[Butt_Dyno]

You know it just seems faster.

It just feels like it runs better.

I am not positive but I "THINK" my 0-60 times got better.

[/Butt_Dyno]

:lol:  :oops:  :lol:  :oops:  :lol:  :oops:  :lol: 
January 23, 2007 1:00:50 AM

Quote:
If they are going to compare these chips, I would at least hope that 100% similar settings would take top priority (add in some tables/numbers/move to top), while the "settings that AMD doesn't chug at with Med quality plays similarly to Intel at high settings" (weird logic) benches go at the bottom of the page.


THey pulled this exact same crap when they released their C2D review.... the site is worthless.

It does prove a point! If you're a gamer the vid card is the critical component and you can get away with either an Intel or AMD cpu.... ( now if only those Conroes weren't cheaper than AMD's counterparts it would have been something :D  )

Well in the under 200$ AMD still has better perf/price ratio ... good enough for me and for at least 50% of the world ( which is 2x amd's current market share btw :D  )
January 23, 2007 1:10:44 AM

Quote:
If they are going to compare these chips, I would at least hope that 100% similar settings would take top priority (add in some tables/numbers/move to top), while the "settings that AMD doesn't chug at with Med quality plays similarly to Intel at high settings" (weird logic) benches go at the bottom of the page.


THey pulled this exact same crap when they released their C2D review.... the site is worthless.

It does prove a point! If you're a gamer the vid card is the critical component and you can get away with either an Intel or AMD cpu.... ( now if only those Conroes weren't cheaper than AMD's counterparts it would have been something :D  )

Well in the under 200$ AMD still has better perf/price ratio ... good enough for me and for at least 50% of the world ( which is 2x amd's current market share btw :D  )

I understand what you are saying, the problem is with their approach in general..... if you are a big AMD fan, it is great site, it will tell you what you want to hear.

so it will make my x2 4400/fx-60 faster :lol: 
January 23, 2007 1:17:19 AM

It's sad when you can tell what the conclusion of the article will be by reading the first 3 paragraphs of the introduction. They didn't even try to make it seem unbiased.



AMD fanboys just can't take the hit to the ego. It's like when a fat girl asks you if she's fat. She knows she's fat, she just wants someone to tell her she's not.

AMD fanboys don't care where the info comes from, as long as they hear that AMD's still the best...

Ask any half-witted polititian: if 80% of the public is informed and intelligent, you'll still win over 20% of the population by telling them what they want to hear.
January 23, 2007 1:17:47 AM

Sirheck lets not be silly now :) 

Everyone knows that the X2 4400 or fx-60 is the faster alternative to anything Intel has to offer.

You just have to optimize it.

With the IMC of the AMD combined with the HT and the correct DDR2 of course adding in the AMD64 means nothing short of the best FPS ever on COD.
January 23, 2007 1:26:15 AM

Quote:
Sirheck lets not be silly now :) 

Everyone knows that the X2 4400 or fx-60 is the faster alternative to anything Intel has to offer.

You just have to optimize it.

With the IMC of the AMD combined with the HT and the correct DDR2 of course adding in the AMD64 means nothing short of the best FPS ever on COD.


i like to say that my x2 4400 toledo core.
runs at 2.6. oc,ed.

which = fx-60.
which = e6600@stock

makes me feel better :lol: 
January 23, 2007 1:32:47 AM

Quote:
Sirheck lets not be silly now :) 

Everyone knows that the X2 4400 or fx-60 is the faster alternative to anything Intel has to offer.

You just have to optimize it.

With the IMC of the AMD combined with the HT and the correct DDR2 of course adding in the AMD64 means nothing short of the best FPS ever on COD.


i like to say that my x2 4400 toledo core.
runs at 2.6. oc,ed.

which = fx-60.
which = e6600@stock

makes me feel better :lol: 

LOL an FX-60 != E6600. An FX-64 might, should AMD ever release one. ;) 
January 23, 2007 1:36:10 AM

the fx-60 is equal to the e6400 or e6600.

but if the intels are oc,ed then the fx-60= fx-30 :lol: 
January 23, 2007 1:36:48 AM

Quote:
Sirheck lets not be silly now :) 

Everyone knows that the X2 4400 or fx-60 is the faster alternative to anything Intel has to offer.

You just have to optimize it.

With the IMC of the AMD combined with the HT and the correct DDR2 of course adding in the AMD64 means nothing short of the best FPS ever on COD.


i like to say that my x2 4400 toledo core.
runs at 2.6. oc,ed.

which = fx-60.
which = e6600@stock

makes me feel better :lol: Actually...the FX62 just about equals an E6600 at stock. Sorry to disappoint you.
January 23, 2007 1:39:50 AM

And is it just me or does this table not match the graph..

January 23, 2007 1:42:58 AM

like i said. (about)=close.

those extra 10fps or (about) arent that big of a deal.
January 23, 2007 1:43:54 AM

Quote:
And is it just me or does this table not match the graph..



The minimum framerates on the chart and table are a little off, by about 4fps on the AMD chart and 2fps on the Intel chart... is that what you're alluding to?
January 23, 2007 1:45:01 AM

its kinda like(about) the thermal paste debate.

to me 10 or so fps is like 1c.

no noticable difference except in the benchies. :D 
January 23, 2007 1:46:26 AM

Hmmm... yeah.... could be different tests, I guess. That's fishy.
-cm
January 23, 2007 1:46:37 AM

doesnt the e6300 about equal the fx-60 or 62 when oc,ed heavily?
January 23, 2007 1:47:47 AM

Quote:
If they are going to compare these chips, I would at least hope that 100% similar settings would take top priority (add in some tables/numbers/move to top), while the "settings that AMD doesn't chug at with Med quality plays similarly to Intel at high settings" (weird logic) benches go at the bottom of the page.


THey pulled this exact same crap when they released their C2D review.... the site is worthless.

It does prove a point! If you're a gamer the vid card is the critical component and you can get away with either an Intel or AMD cpu.... ( now if only those Conroes weren't cheaper than AMD's counterparts it would have been something :D  )

Well in the under 200$ AMD still has better perf/price ratio ... good enough for me and for at least 50% of the world ( which is 2x amd's current market share btw :D  )

I understand what you are saying, the problem is with their approach in general..... if you are a big AMD fan, it is great site, it will tell you what you want to hear.

I'm no AMD or Intel fan, I don't like or hate either, also I don't like made up stories, fans friction, faulty or incomplete benchmarks. There one thing I like: technology... and consumer technology is driven by only one thing "competition". I both admire Intel for their manufacturing process and cpu architecture and AMD for what they achieved with very limited resources.

I am more supportive for AMD only because I sense allot of bias towards Intel which ca damage AMD's image more than it should ... and this is exactly what this overhype does, it acts like a halo effect on all of Intel.
I mean Itel still has more than 50% cpu's netburst based, but why nobody is criticizing it for selling crap anymore ??? ... I know why, because it has bought it's redemption with cheap powerful Conroes :D .
January 23, 2007 1:53:16 AM

Quote:
its kinda like(about) the thermal paste debate.

to me 10 or so fps is like 1c.

no noticable difference except in the benchies. :D 


It's all relative anyway. 10fps could or could not make all the difference depending on the base framerate.

If the difference of 10fps is between 100fps and 90fps, then it makes no difference.

However, if the difference is between 20fps and 30fps, then that's a heck of a difference. :wink:
January 23, 2007 2:08:54 AM

Quote:
If they are going to compare these chips, I would at least hope that 100% similar settings would take top priority (add in some tables/numbers/move to top), while the "settings that AMD doesn't chug at with Med quality plays similarly to Intel at high settings" (weird logic) benches go at the bottom of the page.


THey pulled this exact same crap when they released their C2D review.... the site is worthless.
Yeap!
Those people are paid by AMD or are freaks like Shakira, LameNoobMike, Shitcentia, BaronBS and 9nm.
January 23, 2007 2:10:43 AM

Quote:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI2Miwx...

While I still think their 'max playable settings' style of benching is questionable, as it depends on the reviewers tolerance levels for low framerates, at least they provide the traditional apples to apples charts as well when different settings are used for the 'max playable' tests. Their in depth analysis of the actual gameplay experience is also to be commended. Most sites just give you the numbers and say 'Core2 is better' without actually explaining whether the numbers represent an actual noticeable improvement in the gaming experience.

Credit where credit is due, I think HardOCP did a much better job with this article than their previous 'real world gaming CPU comparison' where Kyle's AMD bias was clearly showing through. This article is concise and to the point. Well done [H].

Now, if they were to do a similar article for a single 8800GTS/GTX I'll be a happy man. Let's face it, not many of us are running SLI 8800GTX setups. ;) 


I agree, this is a great article.

BUT....a real "Apples to Apples" comparision would be to use:

*about the same priced processors*!

not a $970 processor (intel) vs a $525 one (the AMD). (NewEgg)

Am I right??

Yes, of course I am.

But it's not a huge difference in result, just a significant one!

The correct comparision is at about equal price: so it's the 6700, not the X6800.

That's a 10% difference in frequency. Not huge, but still significant.
January 23, 2007 3:23:58 AM

Quote:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI2Miwx...

While I still think their 'max playable settings' style of benching is questionable, as it depends on the reviewers tolerance levels for low framerates, at least they provide the traditional apples to apples charts as well when different settings are used for the 'max playable' tests. Their in depth analysis of the actual gameplay experience is also to be commended. Most sites just give you the numbers and say 'Core2 is better' without actually explaining whether the numbers represent an actual noticeable improvement in the gaming experience.

Credit where credit is due, I think HardOCP did a much better job with this article than their previous 'real world gaming CPU comparison' where Kyle's AMD bias was clearly showing through. This article is concise and to the point. Well done [H].

Now, if they were to do a similar article for a single 8800GTS/GTX I'll be a happy man. Let's face it, not many of us are running SLI 8800GTX setups. ;) 


I agree, this is a great article.

BUT....a real "Apples to Apples" comparision would be to use:

*about the same priced processors*!

not a $970 processor (intel) vs a $525 one (the AMD). (NewEgg)

Am I right??

Yes, of course I am.

But it's not a huge difference in result, just a significant one!

The correct comparision is at about equal price: so it's the 6700, not the X6800.

That's a 10% difference in frequency. Not huge, but still significant.

Nope. You're wrong.

You use the best processors that are available for either company. Who cares about prices, when you're comparing preformance?

Also, the comparasion is for a GPU, not a CPU, yet, the [H] guys have made it into another C2D fiasco like the last time.

Apple to apple comparasions with a GPU should be run with the EXACT same settings. If one system can't run it at a certain level, then BOTH should be run on the lower level, not one. That misguides anyone who just looks at the graph and believes that their system will have the same results as another, but missed the whole "lowered the settings" remark.

They could've ran this test with vs. a QFX, and I still think the Core 2 Duo, not Quad, would've won. Would that make your price thing more worthy?
January 23, 2007 3:38:17 AM

"Who cares about prices?"

Well, I do.

$ I'd take that $450 or so, and find good uses for it.
January 23, 2007 3:48:58 AM

Quote:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI2Miwx...

While I still think their 'max playable settings' style of benching is questionable, as it depends on the reviewers tolerance levels for low framerates, at least they provide the traditional apples to apples charts as well when different settings are used for the 'max playable' tests. Their in depth analysis of the actual gameplay experience is also to be commended. Most sites just give you the numbers and say 'Core2 is better' without actually explaining whether the numbers represent an actual noticeable improvement in the gaming experience.

Credit where credit is due, I think HardOCP did a much better job with this article than their previous 'real world gaming CPU comparison' where Kyle's AMD bias was clearly showing through. This article is concise and to the point. Well done [H].

Now, if they were to do a similar article for a single 8800GTS/GTX I'll be a happy man. Let's face it, not many of us are running SLI 8800GTX setups. ;) 


It was definitely well done and shows that since FX62 is only $525 Newegg, it does have a distinct price/perf advantage since most games showed no discernible difference and those that did show that FX is still ready for the highest resolutions with G80.

As you said there is no way I'm buying two GTXs so I would like to see just a GTX/GTS comparison.
January 23, 2007 3:54:15 AM

Quote:
"Who cares about prices?"

Well, I do.

$ I'd take that $450 or so, and find good uses for it.


Well, when it comes to benchmark sites, they don't care about the price of a CPU/GPU. It's sometimes free to them to review, anyway.

It's #1 CPU vs. #1 CPU in benchmarks, not $500 vs. $1000. If one company's #1 CPU costs $1k, and the other company's #1 CPU costs $500, why should it matter in benchmarks?

And...just a few months ago, the FX-62 (which is used in the AMD system) wasn't $500 and change, but close to $1k, as well.

So, who cares what the prices are? Did the [H] article list the prices of the CPU? Then why should it be a factor? Is the X6800 the top of the line dual core for Intel? Is the FX-62 the top of the line for AMD? Well, what is the problem then?
January 23, 2007 4:36:36 AM

Quote:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI2Miwx...

While I still think their 'max playable settings' style of benching is questionable, as it depends on the reviewers tolerance levels for low framerates, at least they provide the traditional apples to apples charts as well when different settings are used for the 'max playable' tests. Their in depth analysis of the actual gameplay experience is also to be commended. Most sites just give you the numbers and say 'Core2 is better' without actually explaining whether the numbers represent an actual noticeable improvement in the gaming experience.

Credit where credit is due, I think HardOCP did a much better job with this article than their previous 'real world gaming CPU comparison' where Kyle's AMD bias was clearly showing through. This article is concise and to the point. Well done [H].

Now, if they were to do a similar article for a single 8800GTS/GTX I'll be a happy man. Let's face it, not many of us are running SLI 8800GTX setups. ;) 


It was definitely well done and shows that since FX62 is only $525 Newegg, it does have a distinct price/perf advantage since most games showed no discernible difference and those that did show that FX is still ready for the highest resolutions with G80.

As you said there is no way I'm buying two GTXs so I would like to see just a GTX/GTS comparison.


Exactly how do you come to the conclusion that this shows the FX62 has a price/perfromance advantage?

All detail levels the same: the 6800 has a 20% avarage FPS advantage over FX62

Gives the advantage to the FX by setting scenery to medium low while the C2Ds scenery level is set to medium high. 6800 has a 3.4(~10%) average FPS advantage over FX62


Gives the advantage to FX62 by setting unit detail to medium while the 6800s unit detail is set to high. 6800 has a meager 1FPS (3%) average FPS advantage


No detail advantage FX62 or 6800. 6800 beats Fx62 by 11% or 10.5 average FPS


No detail advantage FX or EE. 6800 achieves an average 54.1 FPS (over 30%) advantage over FX62


Same setting, no detail advantage. 6800 piddles out an average 4.8 FPS ( ~7%) advantage



Quote:

With today’s fastest video cards, we certainly saw more differences between our AMD and Intel processors than we did at the launch of the Core 2 Duo, and certainly more differences than we saw in March of last year. Undoubtedly, the Core 2 Duo allowed us a better gaming experience overall. Also we saw some examples where we were again GPU bottlenecked in games even with these massively fast BFGTech 8800 GTX cards.


There is undoubtedly a world where the Intel Core 2 Duo reigns supreme, but in the world of gaming that power is not near as apparent. We again see games remain very GPU dependent, but the GeForce 8800 series of GPU is allowing us to begin to see the Core 2 Duo flex its muscle. One thing is for sure. If you are building a gaming system, your big money is better spent on your video cards than your processor as you are never likely to see any true differences in your gaming experiences without a hugely powerful GPU. If you do however have the alpha-male of video card(s), Intel’s Core 2 Duo can provide you with a better gaming experience.



Is your rationale that because the FX62 with the 8800 delivers FPS above minumum playable levels that you dont need to buy the more expensive 6800.?

I agree with you. Now, by that rationale, we can save the extra $200 and buy the E6600 @ $320 which outperforms the FX62. That gives the E6600 a "distinct price/perf advantage " over the FX62, and easily provides the greater value to the consumer than either the 6800 or FX62

Perhaps you should Email the reviewer and ask him to perform the same bench marks using an X25000 and E6600
January 23, 2007 4:43:37 AM

Quote:
Nice getting to the details.... the review was worst than I thought.... jeeeze these morons love to set the deck in AMD's favor.... :) 

This is undoubtedly the most bias website on the net..... again, worthless.


Pretty much so. I would like to see results on all benchs with both systems set to equal levels. Otherwise its just BS.

The suprising thing is, even stacking the deck in the FX62s favor, it still got beat out.
January 23, 2007 4:44:33 AM

Quote:
It's sad when you can tell what the conclusion of the article will be by reading the first 3 paragraphs of the introduction. They didn't even try to make it seem unbiased.



AMD fanboys just can't take the hit to the ego. It's like when a fat girl asks you if she's fat. She knows she's fat, she just wants someone to tell her she's not.

AMD fanboys don't care where the info comes from, as long as they hear that AMD's still the best...

Ask any half-witted polititian: if 80% of the public is informed and intelligent, you'll still win over 20% of the population by telling them what they want to hear.



you and JJ certainly read a different article than I. What I saw was a comparison of the 8800 on the top chips from AMD/Intel at extremely high resolutions to see if the CPU was a bottleneck. The conclusion is yes.

If they'd gone with a lower resolution, then it would have been even more of a bottleneck with those cards. My guess is that on a lower end card the bottleneck is still the GPU, which I think is what they said.

Sure seemed on the whole, it was more positive for Intel than AMD.
January 23, 2007 4:59:22 AM

Quote:
It's sad when you can tell what the conclusion of the article will be by reading the first 3 paragraphs of the introduction. They didn't even try to make it seem unbiased.



AMD fanboys just can't take the hit to the ego. It's like when a fat girl asks you if she's fat. She knows she's fat, she just wants someone to tell her she's not.

AMD fanboys don't care where the info comes from, as long as they hear that AMD's still the best...

Ask any half-witted polititian: if 80% of the public is informed and intelligent, you'll still win over 20% of the population by telling them what they want to hear.



you and JJ certainly read a different article than I. What I saw was a comparison of the 8800 on the top chips from AMD/Intel at extremely high resolutions to see if the CPU was a bottleneck. The conclusion is yes.

If they'd gone with a lower resolution, then it would have been even more of a bottleneck with those cards. My guess is that on a lower end card the bottleneck is still the GPU, which I think is what they said.

Sure seemed on the whole, it was more positive for Intel than AMD.

Look at Turpit's quick run down above 1/2 of the benchers were run at different settings to give the AMD system a better showing.... how can you trust anything they review.

The slant is --- it was closer than it really is.... and second, they were not comparing two CPUs they were looking at what uber 'realworld' settings would do on an SLI setup with GPUs, while referencing their screwed up article in july as a reference point, yet did not repeat any data at any resolution releasing the apps from a GPU bottleneck.... it is truly unethical.

They hide the true features of the CPU within the finer details of the review. Just poorly written, poorly executed, and is a shame basically.


In all fairness to the reviewrs, one of my images dropped out of the post :oops: 
So its really only 1/3 of the benches.

In all fairness to Baron and the horde, when 5600 finally really comes out, I would like to see it benched with an 8800 against its Intel cost equivelent. Unless AMD overprices it, I expect it will equal or beat the 6600/6700, whichever it prices out against.

I really dont care for the "we tested the ferrari againt the VW bug for its capacity to carry a sack of groceries in the passenger seat, and it was a tie, so the VW wins because its cheaper." mentality.

Especially if gaming is the sole intent of a system. If thats the case, then the 6800, FX62 and 8800 all fail as it would be much cheaper to buy a console, even a PS3 :roll:
January 23, 2007 5:11:44 AM

Guys, I honestly don't see what the BIG problem with the article is?! When the settings are different between the two platforms, there is also a real world chart that shows what the differences are with identical settings, although a separate table as well would have been better.

As for maxing out the detail settings in some of the games, well, isn't that the whole point of getting SLI 8800GTX? I would do the same if I had such a config.

The problem with the previous article was that they raised the settings TOO high, unrealistically so, in trying to portray the FX-62 as an equal of the X6800.

This time around, even maximum details are not enough to make the GPU the bottleneck, and the X6800 definitely shows higher framerates across all games. Whether these differences are noticeable or not depends on the game of course. If it never dips below 60fps on either platform then it doesn't make much difference either way.

One thing I would change in the article (apart from the missing apples to apples tables) is to highlight the differences ;)  in settings when doing the 'max playable' tests. To many novice or casual readers it may come across as both platforms having similar performance across the board. Even astute readers may miss the finer print should they just skim across the numbers.
January 23, 2007 5:27:35 AM

Quote:
Guys, I honestly don't see what the BIG problem with the article is?! When the settings are different between the two platforms, there is also a real world chart that shows what the differences are with identical settings, although a separate table as well would have been better.

As for maxing out the detail settings in some of the games, well, isn't that the whole point of getting SLI 8800GTX? I would do the same if I had such a config.

The problem with the previous article was that they raised the settings TOO high, unrealistically so, in trying to portray the FX-62 as an equal of the X6800.

This time around, even maximum details are not enough to make the GPU the bottleneck, and the X6800 definitely shows higher framerates across all games. Whether these differences are noticeable or not depends on the game of course. If it never dips below 60fps on either platform then it doesn't make much difference either way.

One thing I would change in the article (apart from the missing apples to apples tables) is to highlight the differences ;)  in settings when doing the 'max playable' tests. To many novice or casual readers it may come across as both platforms having similar performance across the board. Even astute readers may miss the finer print should they just skim across the numbers.


Flight sim X, total war and oblivion all drop below 60FPS(AVG) Did you mean 30FPS?

As far as it goes, an equal test means an equal test. Even so I wouldnt discredit the test for that, just point out the areas in which the setting swere different and which component they favored. What I do have a problem with is assigning value to a component without telling the whole story.

Again, if all your going to do is game, the 8800 E6800 and FX62 are all wastes of money as consoles are cheaper, so from that perspective, the test is pointless. No one needs a review to figure that out.
January 23, 2007 6:19:57 AM

Quote:
Guys, I honestly don't see what the BIG problem with the article is?! When the settings are different between the two platforms, there is also a real world chart that shows what the differences are with identical settings, although a separate table as well would have been better.

As for maxing out the detail settings in some of the games, well, isn't that the whole point of getting SLI 8800GTX? I would do the same if I had such a config.

The problem with the previous article was that they raised the settings TOO high, unrealistically so, in trying to portray the FX-62 as an equal of the X6800.

This time around, even maximum details are not enough to make the GPU the bottleneck, and the X6800 definitely shows higher framerates across all games. Whether these differences are noticeable or not depends on the game of course. If it never dips below 60fps on either platform then it doesn't make much difference either way.

One thing I would change in the article (apart from the missing apples to apples tables) is to highlight the differences ;)  in settings when doing the 'max playable' tests. To many novice or casual readers it may come across as both platforms having similar performance across the board. Even astute readers may miss the finer print should they just skim across the numbers.


Flight sim X, total war and oblivion all drop below 60FPS(AVG) Did you mean 30FPS?

As far as it goes, an equal test means an equal test. Even so I wouldnt discredit the test for that, just point out the areas in which the setting swere different and which component they favored. What I do have a problem with is assigning value to a component without telling the whole story.

Again, if all your going to do is game, the 8800 E6800 and FX62 are all wastes of money as consoles are cheaper, so from that perspective, the test is pointless. No one needs a review to figure that out.

Frankly, true --- consoles now offer resolutions as good as most PC gaming rigs. But I have more fun playing on a PC than on an Xbox, I am hoping they port a copy of Gears of War to the PC.... man what a fun game.

Yeah. I wonder if the conspiracy theory regarding games for PC/Concole is true. I was looking forward to "Destroy All Humans" for PC, but they dropped plans to port it. :cry: 
January 23, 2007 8:40:46 AM

Quote:
Flight sim X, total war and oblivion all drop below 60FPS(AVG) Did you mean 30FPS?

As far as it goes, an equal test means an equal test. Even so I wouldnt discredit the test for that, just point out the areas in which the setting swere different and which component they favored. What I do have a problem with is assigning value to a component without telling the whole story.

Again, if all your going to do is game, the 8800 E6800 and FX62 are all wastes of money as consoles are cheaper, so from that perspective, the test is pointless. No one needs a review to figure that out.


No, I meant 60fps. I said that if the game doesn't get below 60fps then it doesn't matter how much better the Intel platform is, because the differences won't be noticeable.

Of course, as the framerate drops below 60fps, the differences will be discernible to varying degrees depending on the game in question.

I'm not a big fan of consoles - apart from *cough*mod chips*cough* there isn't much you can do to tweak them. I'm a tweaker at heart, and I love pushing my gaming rigs to the limit.

Besides, I'll take a keyboard and mouse any day over a control pad. How the heck people play FPS games with a gamepad, I seriously don't know.

Anyway, this is a platform test, so obviously the best CPUs from each camp will be used. It doesn't mean people actually use these CPUs though - we all know flagship CPUs have horrendous price/performance ratios. Hardly anyone will buy the X6800/FX-62 for gaming, but (at least here at THG) many people will be overclocking C2Ds and X2s to similar if not greater speeds than the X6800 and FX-62 anyway. :wink:
January 23, 2007 9:01:45 AM

Quote:
No, I meant 60fps. I said that if the game doesn't get below 60fps then it doesn't matter how much better the Intel platform is, because the differences won't be noticeable.

I must dissagree with this!
It is important because you can get a less expencive CPU like E6600/E6400 and have a better/same gaming performance than/as FX-62. Also E6600/E6400 have other advantages over FX-62:
- E6600 has better overall performance
- both are much more energy efficeint
- both are cooler
- both are much more overclockable
- both perform excellent with cheap RAM, like DDR2-667 CL5
- both require less expencive PSU
January 23, 2007 9:20:10 AM

Quote:
No, I meant 60fps. I said that if the game doesn't get below 60fps then it doesn't matter how much better the Intel platform is, because the differences won't be noticeable.

I must dissagree with this!
It is important because you can get a less expencive CPU like E6600/E6400 and have a better/same gaming performance than/as FX-62. Also E6600/E6400 have other advantages over FX-62:
- E6600 has better overall performance
- both are much more energy efficeint
- both are cooler
- both are much more overclockable
- both perform excellent with cheap RAM, like DDR2-667 CL5
- both require less expencive PSU

Dude, don't get your knickers in a knot and give me a freaking lecture (lol), I know very well the advantages C2D holds over AMD, I'm merely talking about the gaming experience above or below 60fps. I'm an avid gamer and I personally can NOT tell the difference between 60fps and 100fps, but 60fps and 40fps I would notice in a heartbeat.
January 23, 2007 1:53:42 PM

Quote:
Nice getting to the details.... the review was worst than I thought.... jeeeze these morons love to set the deck in AMD's favor.... :) 

This is undoubtedly the most bias website on the net..... again, worthless.


Pretty much so. I would like to see results on all benchs with both systems set to equal levels. Otherwise its just BS.

The suprising thing is, even stacking the deck in the FX62s favor, it still got beat out.

If you read the article, actually, you'll find a careful discussion of exactly that!

Equal levels.

And also what you sacrafice for the FX-62 to get good framerates in certain games.

It's all very careful and does just what you are asking for also.
January 23, 2007 2:06:05 PM

Quote:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI2Miwx...

While I still think their 'max playable settings' style of benching is questionable, as it depends on the reviewers tolerance levels for low framerates, at least they provide the traditional apples to apples charts as well when different settings are used for the 'max playable' tests. Their in depth analysis of the actual gameplay experience is also to be commended. Most sites just give you the numbers and say 'Core2 is better' without actually explaining whether the numbers represent an actual noticeable improvement in the gaming experience.

Credit where credit is due, I think HardOCP did a much better job with this article than their previous 'real world gaming CPU comparison' where Kyle's AMD bias was clearly showing through. This article is concise and to the point. Well done [H].

Now, if they were to do a similar article for a single 8800GTS/GTX I'll be a happy man. Let's face it, not many of us are running SLI 8800GTX setups. ;) 


The guys at [T]ardOCP will just never understand us geeks at teh [M].
January 23, 2007 2:17:39 PM

Quote:
It's sad when you can tell what the conclusion of the article will be by reading the first 3 paragraphs of the introduction. They didn't even try to make it seem unbiased.



AMD fanboys just can't take the hit to the ego. It's like when a fat girl asks you if she's fat. She knows she's fat, she just wants someone to tell her she's not.

AMD fanboys don't care where the info comes from, as long as they hear that AMD's still the best...

Ask any half-witted polititian: if 80% of the public is informed and intelligent, you'll still win over 20% of the population by telling them what they want to hear.



you and JJ certainly read a different article than I. What I saw was a comparison of the 8800 on the top chips from AMD/Intel at extremely high resolutions to see if the CPU was a bottleneck. The conclusion is yes.

If they'd gone with a lower resolution, then it would have been even more of a bottleneck with those cards. My guess is that on a lower end card the bottleneck is still the GPU, which I think is what they said.

Sure seemed on the whole, it was more positive for Intel than AMD.

Look at Turpit's quick run down above 1/2 of the benchers were run at different settings to give the AMD system a better showing.... how can you trust anything they review.

The slant is --- it was closer than it really is.... and second, they were not comparing two CPUs they were looking at what uber 'realworld' settings would do on an SLI setup with GPUs, while referencing their screwed up article in july as a reference point, yet did not repeat any data at any resolution releasing the apps from a GPU bottleneck.... it is truly unethical.

They hide the true features of the CPU within the finer details of the review. Just poorly written, poorly executed, and is a shame basically.


But that wasn't the point. The point was that on those benches (every test with an apples-to-apples chart) you coudn't play with the same level of detail. It's not about FPS, it's about playability and you could get better details (in most cases) on the core2 and you got better FPS on virtually every test with the core2 (as I recall, there were a couple of tests where they were virtually identical even with identical settings).

IMO, you're reading too much into this. If they were saying buy a new AMD rig, I'd agree with you, but they're not. If I were to take anything out of this, it's that you're better off spending money on a video card up grade than a CPU upgrade (in most cases).

Personally, I think the benchmark is somewhat useful (in theory, but I'd rather see it scaled down to some lower resoultions with different cards).

I don't really care if one machine can operate at 50fps and the other goes at 55. What I do care about is at what resolutions and what level of detail can I play Vanguard at (which is similar to what they tested).

Show me that at various resolutions, and I have a very useful test.

For reference, it's currently got zones that are virtually unplayable at 1280x1024/balanced using an x800XL (which has similar perf to a 7600gt, I think)...generally outdoors are no better than 24fps.

Then again, what I want is more of a video card test than a CPU test...but I still think there's little to complain about this article.
January 23, 2007 3:01:04 PM

Quote:
It's sad when you can tell what the conclusion of the article will be by reading the first 3 paragraphs of the introduction. They didn't even try to make it seem unbiased.



AMD fanboys just can't take the hit to the ego. It's like when a fat girl asks you if she's fat. She knows she's fat, she just wants someone to tell her she's not.

AMD fanboys don't care where the info comes from, as long as they hear that AMD's still the best...

Ask any half-witted polititian: if 80% of the public is informed and intelligent, you'll still win over 20% of the population by telling them what they want to hear.



you and JJ certainly read a different article than I. What I saw was a comparison of the 8800 on the top chips from AMD/Intel at extremely high resolutions to see if the CPU was a bottleneck. The conclusion is yes.

If they'd gone with a lower resolution, then it would have been even more of a bottleneck with those cards. My guess is that on a lower end card the bottleneck is still the GPU, which I think is what they said.

Sure seemed on the whole, it was more positive for Intel than AMD.

Look at Turpit's quick run down above 1/2 of the benchers were run at different settings to give the AMD system a better showing.... how can you trust anything they review.

The slant is --- it was closer than it really is.... and second, they were not comparing two CPUs they were looking at what uber 'realworld' settings would do on an SLI setup with GPUs, while referencing their screwed up article in july as a reference point, yet did not repeat any data at any resolution releasing the apps from a GPU bottleneck.... it is truly unethical.

They hide the true features of the CPU within the finer details of the review. Just poorly written, poorly executed, and is a shame basically.


But that wasn't the point. The point was that on those benches (every test with an apples-to-apples chart) you coudn't play with the same level of detail. It's not about FPS, it's about playability and you could get better details (in most cases) on the core2 and you got better FPS on virtually every test with the core2 (as I recall, there were a couple of tests where they were virtually identical even with identical settings).

IMO, you're reading too much into this. If they were saying buy a new AMD rig, I'd agree with you, but they're not. If I were to take anything out of this, it's that you're better off spending money on a video card up grade than a CPU upgrade (in most cases).

Personally, I think the benchmark is somewhat useful (in theory, but I'd rather see it scaled down to some lower resoultions with different cards).

I don't really care if one machine can operate at 50fps and the other goes at 55. What I do care about is at what resolutions and what level of detail can I play Vanguard at (which is similar to what they tested).

Show me that at various resolutions, and I have a very useful test.

For reference, it's currently got zones that are virtually unplayable at 1280x1024/balanced using an x800XL (which has similar perf to a 7600gt, I think)...generally outdoors are no better than 24fps.

Then again, what I want is more of a video card test than a CPU test...but I still think there's little to complain about this article.

Well, it *does* beg the question about buying AMD. First, it's clear few will play at that huge resolution on a giant monitor, and most won't have a dual 8800 GTX, so.....

The $450 price difference from FX62 to X6800 is actually meaningful since it could be used to buy games, dual Raptors, and/or held in reserve for future upgrades, etc.

I think the review is one of the very best (of hundreds, or actually more than 1000) I've ever read, and answers a lot of questions that are posed on this forum, and even what much discussion is about here.

It's the most important review for any high end gamer I've read.
January 23, 2007 4:03:35 PM

Kind of interesting that they never did this type of review back during the recent K8 vs. P4 era. It would have shown P4 to be on equal footing with K8 which is of course BS.

AMD should send Mr Bennett a check for this oustanding piece of spin.
January 23, 2007 4:10:57 PM

Quote:

Dude, don't get your knickers in a knot and give me a freaking lecture (lol), I know very well the advantages C2D holds over AMD, I'm merely talking about the gaming experience above or below 60fps. I'm an avid gamer and I personally can NOT tell the difference between 60fps and 100fps, but 60fps and 40fps I would notice in a heartbeat.


lol. ...don't get your knickers in a knot...

I'll have to use that one day.

The human eye samples images at about 70Hz, so anything above ~70fps is unnoticible with the naked eye (unless you're on meth).
January 23, 2007 6:10:40 PM

Quote:

Dude, don't get your knickers in a knot and give me a freaking lecture (lol), I know very well the advantages C2D holds over AMD, I'm merely talking about the gaming experience above or below 60fps. I'm an avid gamer and I personally can NOT tell the difference between 60fps and 100fps, but 60fps and 40fps I would notice in a heartbeat.


lol. ...don't get your knickers in a knot...

I'll have to use that one day.

The human eye samples images at about 70Hz, so anything above ~70fps is unnoticible with the naked eye (unless you're on meth).

75Hz on CRTs is as low as I go. 60Hz isn't good for the eyes.
January 23, 2007 6:14:46 PM

Quote:
I think the review is one of the very best (of hundreds, or actually more than 1000) I've ever read, and answers a lot of questions that are posed on this forum, and even what much discussion is about here.

It's the most important review for any high end gamer I've read.

:roll:
January 23, 2007 6:29:20 PM

Quote:

Dude, don't get your knickers in a knot and give me a freaking lecture (lol), I know very well the advantages C2D holds over AMD, I'm merely talking about the gaming experience above or below 60fps. I'm an avid gamer and I personally can NOT tell the difference between 60fps and 100fps, but 60fps and 40fps I would notice in a heartbeat.


lol. ...don't get your knickers in a knot...

I'll have to use that one day.

The human eye samples images at about 70Hz, so anything above ~70fps is unnoticible with the naked eye (unless you're on meth).

That's not true. At 1920x1440, I can see flicker at 75hz. 85hz is fine....and I know this, because I have Vista RC2 and XP on this machine, but for some reason, Vista will not display at 85hz, and i had to change the resolution to get it back to that point. At lower resolutions, as I recall, 75hz doesn't bug me.
!