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

[epsilon84]

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI2MiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

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.

 

[aBg_rOnGak]

...and while people talking about G70 or R600, i'm still stuck with my years old ATi 9550 .....but alas, i wanted to see the result of that benchmark too...

 

[r0ck]

I like their Apples to Apples benches.

Overall the Intel platform experience was “smoother”.

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*

 

[epsilon84]

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.

 

[r0ck]

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.

 

[sirheck]

you tell,em j.j. :lol:

 

[r0ck]

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"

 

[epsilon84]

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI2MiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

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.

 

[ches111]

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: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[cryogenic]

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 )

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 )

 

[sirheck]

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 )

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 )

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:

 

[Whizzard9992]

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.

 

[ches111]

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.

 

[sirheck]

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:

 

[epsilon84]

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.

 

[sirheck]

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

but if the intels are oc,ed then the fx-60= fx-30 :lol:

 

[Heyyou27]

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.

 

[r0ck]

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

 

[sirheck]

like i said. (about)=close.

those extra 10fps or (about) arent that big of a deal.

 

[epsilon84]

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?

 

[sirheck]

its kinda like(about) the thermal paste debate.

to me 10 or so fps is like 1c.

no noticable difference except in the benchies.

 

[celewign]

Hmmm... yeah.... could be different tests, I guess. That's fishy.
-cm

 

[sirheck]

doesnt the e6300 about equal the fx-60 or 62 when oc,ed heavily?

 

[cryogenic]

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 )

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 )

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 .

 

[epsilon84]

its kinda like(about) the thermal paste debate.

to me 10 or so fps is like 1c.

no noticable difference except in the benchies.

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.