Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Does AMD's Athlon 64 X2 6000 Have Any Kick Left?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Core
  • AMD
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
February 20, 2007 10:21:31 AM

A new Athlon 64 X2 top model launches, squeezing 3.0 GHz out of AMD's 90 nm silicon. It cannot end Intel's Core 2 Extreme supremacy, but AMD's aggressive pricing fuels the price war, making the 6000 somewhat affordable.

More about : amd athlon 6000 kick left

February 20, 2007 11:35:49 AM

The article says that the 6000+ is able to play in the league of C2D 6600E but when you consider that it costs 140$ more then everyone knows who´s the winner. Not to mention the vast OC opportunity for C2D.
February 20, 2007 11:49:53 AM

The other issue with this Article is they have no benchmarks for the E6600. Yet it goes on to compare this CPU to the E6600.

The E6700 easily beats the X2 6000+ on nearly every benchmark.
It would be important to see how the x2 6000+ did against the E6600.
For a price premium of well over $100, it would need to be significant.
However, since the performance difference between the E6600 and E6700 is not great, I doubt it would have.

What I really want to see here are OC tests from the latest Brisbane steppings. I am seeing many reports of 3.0+ ghz from $105 CPUs.

This would be fantastic for very low budget PCs.
Related resources
February 20, 2007 11:53:48 AM

Wonder if it'll be OC'able?
February 20, 2007 12:25:52 PM

Max to get out've the processor is probably 3.2
Dont expect the highest tiered processor to overclock much.

Amd processors cant run so fast compared to intel's offering.
February 20, 2007 12:56:51 PM

there are benchies in the CPU chart...you can check them over there
February 20, 2007 12:56:56 PM

6000 will not save AMD, but I know what will.

AMD 10,000.

All AMD must do is buy C2D's wholesale, sand down the tops of the chips, reprint their own logo on it... repackage... remove/add pins where needed for it to fit into AM2

I will take my reward in dollar bills please 8)
February 20, 2007 12:57:21 PM

Bah, so much spin from this AMD PR dude I'm dizzy.

Why not just a straight statement from these guys for once:

AMD finds themselves in a unique position at this point in time to control the bottom 1/3 of the processor market through cut rate pricing and yesterday's process technology. We feel we offer signifigant performance advantages over VIA . . .
February 20, 2007 12:59:06 PM

lol....
February 20, 2007 1:13:33 PM

The 6000+ is in large extent just a place holding product, something that is there for the sake of being, just like the FX-70,72 and 74. It's neither cheap, nor performing.
February 20, 2007 1:17:44 PM

It does seem to me reasonable that this chip would fit well in those situations where someone already has an AM2 set-up and only wants to upgrade the process instead moving to Intel and having to buy a new chip, motherboard, and disassemble the whole thing and reassemble the system, reinstall windows and drivers.

I wonder though: How much trouble would you get into just replacing the CPU and letting Windows go through it's "find new hardware" routine?
February 20, 2007 1:26:12 PM

Quote:
It does seem to me reasonable that this chip would fit well in those situations where someone already has an AM2 set-up and only wants to upgrade the process instead moving to Intel and having to buy a new chip, motherboard, and disassemble the whole thing and reassemble the system, reinstall windows and drivers...quote]

Have to agree with Gneisenau here. This is not for people who are planning to buy a new system...for the money you could get more from a C2D system. However, if you already plunked down the cash for an AM2 system, this seems like a good value. the $100-$150 price increase over the 6600 is mitigated by the cost of a decent (meaning no $70 low budget entery-level Mobo) motherboard. Again it depends how you upgrade your system. If you do motherboard and processor simultaneously go C2D, if you just want a processor upgrade for you AM2, this might work, but you also might be better off trying to hold out a little longer for the new AMD architecture. (Personally, I would prefer to wait for the "worst" of the new architecture than the "best" of the dying one).

(edited for crappy spelling)
February 20, 2007 1:27:01 PM

Quote:
The 6000+ is in large extent just a place holding product, something that is there for the sake of being, just like the FX-70,72 and 74. It's neither cheap, nor performing.


You said it all in one statement "Place holding products", that are in reality not good enough to hold a place near the top of the price/performance charts, too pricey. Some AMD loyalist might purchase this chip, however, I really don't see a wholesale rush for the X2-6000.

__________________
You can't fall off the floor.
February 20, 2007 1:28:20 PM

So long as you were not going from single-core to dual core there is nothing for Windows to do. If you went to "Dual-Core" you would need to

1)Goto "Computer" in "Device Manager" and change the driver to "ACPI MultiProcessor PC" or something similar. Otherwise only one of the CPUs would be used.
February 20, 2007 1:31:30 PM

Good grief, the gaming benchmarks were crap. WhoTF buys a top of the line processor and runs games at 1024x768?? Talk about spinning the gaming benchmarks in favor of Intel so they can say Intel dominates across the board...
February 20, 2007 1:48:47 PM

I really doubt you could get 3.2Ghz out of that chip stable at least not for long.
February 20, 2007 1:53:14 PM

If someone had a descent AMD motherboard why would they dump it buy another motherboard that is on par with the one they had just to get a C2D? The total cost of ownership would be more than the $140.

In my opinion that is who these AMD cpu offerings are designed for; people that want better performance out of their existing MB's or people that are diehard AMD fans for whatever reason.

I have an ASUS A8n-SLI 939/3200+ board that was purchased when it first came out and was on the AMD wagon for some time. I have now made that my HTPC machine and have a couple of C2D ASUS boards so I am NOT a fanboy of AMD but it was all about timing for me. If the new AMD cpu's are all I hear they are to be from some inside sources I have to find a very good reason to dump my 2 $300+ ASUS motherboards just to get the new AMD chip. It will be much cheaper to get a bigger and badder Intel chip to put into my current MB's socket if needed.


At the same time I am hedging my bets because I have a spot for another machine but I am waiting to see what the new AMD offering is really like.

1)The 939 was my old game machine
2)I have a P4 2.4 oc'd to 2.8 as my general purpose machine
3)Asus P5W64 - business machine
4) Asus P5WDG2-WS-Pro NEW Game machine & General Purpose machine

My daughter needed a new machine so setup #2 went to her. The #1 setup is now my HTPC. I have combined uses of my game machine and my general purpose machine for the moment #4. so I have an opening for a new machine BUT as stated earlier I am waiting for the new chip release to make a decision. I said all that to make the point about timing. The new ATI card comes out in a couple of months and the new AMD CPU I figure not too far behind that. Competition will kick in and bring down the price on both classes of units I need to consider.

If there is a kick@** level of performance I just can't bypass I will buy AMD and use it as a solitary game platform again and a new DX10 card. It is all about timing and total cost of ownership.
February 20, 2007 1:57:47 PM

Quote:
I really doubt you could get 3.2Ghz out of that chip stable at least not for long.


they said they got 3.28 with the STOCK COOLER.
February 20, 2007 2:14:25 PM

How about letting us know what other chips have the F3 stepping? The 5200 is a nice deal these days, and with overclocking, it and the 6600 seem to be the only two chips to consider, unless you can make due with less or like wasting money. Now if Newegg will only get some more of Abit's mATX boards in stock, lol.
February 20, 2007 2:21:23 PM

It would have been more helpful to have the E6600 in the test with the other processors so we can get a better idea of the performance that the 6000+ was giving.
February 20, 2007 2:21:27 PM

HEMI, i'll disagree with you on a small point...its a known fact that year old cpu's and older run games best when the desktop Resolution of 1024x768x32 bit is matched with the gaming resolution.

When you have matching resolutions from desktop to game, the game runs more efficiently by not wasting your precious time having to change its' video mode.

Now as for cpu's of the last 6 months this could be a different story just like u seem to be saying. Where ur desktop and game resolution dont have to match.

From my experiences of playing mmorgs over the last 10 yrs, it seems best to keep the same res in line from desktop to game.

Even when ALT-TABBing back to desktop while your game is running makes the game feel smoother on the transition, keeping the same res.
February 20, 2007 2:24:45 PM

Why is this even important? It's just a filler CPU. AMDTI is just buying time while they scramble to out do Intel, (if they ever can).

Let me know when AMDTI dose something newsworthy.
February 20, 2007 2:44:25 PM

I'm not disagreeing with that, but being that the 6700 is there, and there are many reviews out there showing comparisons between the 6600, 6700, and 6800, I don't find it too critical of an issue.
February 20, 2007 2:50:50 PM

Quote:
Good grief, the gaming benchmarks were crap. WhoTF buys a top of the line processor and runs games at 1024x768?? Talk about spinning the gaming benchmarks in favor of Intel so they can say Intel dominates across the board...

Just checking in for a bit... now on to my comment.

You run games at low resolutions when testing CPU's so that all the strain is shifted from the GPU to the CPU. That way, there is a smaller margin of error and you know that you are testing the effect of the CPUs performance and not the GPU.
February 20, 2007 2:58:46 PM

I think the 6000+ (and even the 5600+) compete very well with the E6600. It seems to me that the 6000+ often trades blows with the E6700.

However, the C2D still clearly have the price, energy and overclocking edges. And yes, they said it hit over 3.2 on stock cooling.

edit - gotta change this - the 6000+ OCCASIONALLY reaches the E6700.
February 20, 2007 3:13:57 PM

Think for yourselves people. Just look at some of the benchmarks on other sites like hardocp, and some of toms benches on how the 8800 needs the latest hardware.

I agree with HEMI, no idiot in his right mind would spend gobs of loot on rigs like we all run, then run them at 1024. I really don't give a shit what a game or 3dmark scores at 1024...and I sure as hell don't care what any game runs like on a core 2 duo, at 1024, with NO AA, NO AS.

The fundamental problem with Toms hardware reviews is that they are recommending people upgrade their hardware, or you might as well not bother buying an 8800 card. They claim the core2 duo is just so much faster than the X2 or FX series, that you are losing out if you don't get a core2 with the card. Funny thing.....look at the benchmarks at 1600x1200, 2048 and above. Personally, I run a 30" dell LCD, and want a system that can perform at 1600 or above. I know not everyone has that sort of LCD, but the dell 24" are pretty common, as is the 1600x1200 resolution is common among gamers.

As for me, I haven't been that impressed with the Core 2 duo, and I'm sure as hell not going to upgrade my X2, when I am forced to buy memory and a new motherboard. I have no doubt it's a good chip and platform, but for everyone to jump ship from an X2 or FX, to the core 2, without thinking, it's just rediculous. I'd venture to guess that the core 2 duo at the same mhz as mine (2.64ghz), runs games at nearly identical framerates on my 8800GTS. But hey, who am I, I'm just a realistic gamer that runs games at 2048/4xAA or 8xAA/ 16x AS. I guess I like my stuff to look good and play well, not just benchmark at 2fps higher than the previous platform.

Wake up people....

Edit : Even more hilarious, the 2.6ghz FX keeps up with the 2.9ghz 4mb L2 cache version of the core 2 duo at higher resolutions. None of those marks justify an upgrade if you ask me.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/29/geforce_8800_nee...

Look at that page, and the one before it on Fear.
February 20, 2007 3:17:39 PM

Quote:
Good grief, the gaming benchmarks were crap. WhoTF buys a top of the line processor and runs games at 1024x768?? Talk about spinning the gaming benchmarks in favor of Intel so they can say Intel dominates across the board...


You run games at low resolutions when testing CPU's so that all the strain is shifted from the GPU to the CPU. That way, there is a smaller margin of error and you know that you are testing the effect of the CPUs performance and not the GPU.

So why not just benchmark at 800x600? Intel coulda really blown the 6000 outta the water there. :roll:

Like i said, very few people buy the top of the line CPU to run it at some low resolution with AA and Ansi turned off! Pathetic.
February 20, 2007 3:37:21 PM

Apparently you are dead set with having your own conclusion in mind. That makes you unreceptive to being taught. That pattern, if left for a prolong period can leave you simple minded and dim witted. You know. A moron.

If you are comparing the differences between two CPU's, you set the gaming test to have the CPU do all the work, therefore testing the CPU's performance and not that of the graphics card. Its simple. The matter is not about top of the line CPU's, and running games with AA/AF or no AA/AF, its a simple testing procedure that every tester worth their hardware uses. If you want to determine the effect of a component in a desired setting, you use an appropriate metric. Once again, testing at low resolutions shows the true impact of the CPU on performance, with no interference from the graphics processor.

Think about it. It ain't that hard to realize.
February 20, 2007 3:39:24 PM

I didn't read all of the posts on here so if I am bein repetitive sorry.

Anyway

What bugs me about this article is the CPU's they decided to compare the 6000+ to.

They show that it is slower than a Quad core (ie Q6600) and faster then the Pentium D and the older models of the same processor (ie 5600+). How does it compare to the E6400 or E6600? It seems like common sense to include these...

Disclaimer: I know that intel's processors are better/cheaper etc. It just bugs me that when comparing this proc. to intel's they do it vs Quad cores and Old CPU's... the only good bench comparison is the E6700, which is cheaper and outperforms the 6000+.
February 20, 2007 3:40:09 PM

Quote:
HEMI, i'll disagree with you on a small point...its a known fact that year old cpu's and older run games best when the desktop Resolution of 1024x768x32 bit is matched with the gaming resolution.


That doesn't make any sense. Year old CPUs? the 6000+ is new, the 6800 is top of the food chain for Intel right now. Today's games don't care what the desktop resolution is... atleast the every game i'm playing currently.

Quote:

Even when ALT-TABBing back to desktop while your game is running makes the game feel smoother on the transition, keeping the same res.


So alt-tab speed from game to the desktop should be a data point while benchmarking?
February 20, 2007 3:42:20 PM

So that I can say "my system benchmarks higher than yours"? Is that the reason I would want to buy a new core 2 duo? Or should I buy a platform based on what I use it for? So if I game at 2048, which I usually do, with AA/AF set to a very high level, and the X2 runs it as good or better, why should I upgrade?

Don't be a "moron", and buy products based on your needs. If you read my previous posts, the thing that really annoys the hell out of me is the recommendation that you HAVE to have it, if you buy a new video card.

Who's gettin paid?
February 20, 2007 3:42:34 PM

Quote:
So why not just benchmark at 800x600? Intel coulda really blown the 6000 outta the water there. :roll:

Like i said, very few people buy the top of the line CPU to run it at some low resolution with AA and Ansi turned off! Pathetic.


The problem is:
Why buy a processor with inferior performance at a higher price?
February 20, 2007 3:44:26 PM

Quote:
So that I can say "my system benchmarks higher than yours"? Is that the reason I would want to buy a new core 2 duo? Or should I buy a platform based on what I use it for? So if I game at 2048, which I usually do, with AA/AF set to a very high level, and the X2 runs it as good or better, why should I upgrade?

Don't be a "moron", and buy products based on your needs. If you read my previous posts, the thing that really annoys the hell out of me is the recommendation that you HAVE to have it, if you buy a new video card.

Who's gettin paid?

*Slams head in desk at ignorance*

I'm not even going to bother explaining it to you. The answers are there, you and Hemi are just to blind to see them.
February 20, 2007 3:46:35 PM

Quote:
So that I can say "my system benchmarks higher than yours"? Is that the reason I would want to buy a new core 2 duo? Or should I buy a platform based on what I use it for? So if I game at 2048, which I usually do, with AA/AF set to a very high level, and the X2 runs it as good or better, why should I upgrade?

Don't be a "moron", and buy products based on your needs. If you read my previous posts, the thing that really annoys the hell out of me is the recommendation that you HAVE to have it, if you buy a new video card.

Who's gettin paid?


If you don't need to upgrade, you can just read the report and say, "I am now satisfied and I don't need to upgrade."

The report was done to let others to know the relative performance of some products and give some buyers to know what to buy.
February 20, 2007 3:48:34 PM

We are blind, and at least $400-500 richer running our "old" inferior X2 platforms.

And yet....they perform just the same for what we do.

Baahhhhhhhhhhh

you know what animal makes that sound?
February 20, 2007 3:55:02 PM

Quote:
We are blind, and at least $400-500 richer running our "old" inferior X2 platforms.

And yet....they perform just the same for what we do.

Baahhhhhhhhhhh

you know what animal makes that sound?


uhm... you can get a C2D setup (cpu+Mobo) for less than $300... they gave you 200 bucks to take the X2 cpu/mobo off their hands?!?

Decent Mobo/C2D ~ $300
Decent Mobo/X2 ~ $200

All other components are going to be the same, you saved a hundred dollars and got a slightly lower performing PC... What is your point?
February 20, 2007 3:56:21 PM

Quote:
Apparently you are dead set with having your own conclusion in mind. That makes you unreceptive to being taught. That pattern, if left for a prolong period can leave you simple minded and dim witted. You know. A moron.

If you are comparing the differences between two CPU's, you set the gaming test to have the CPU do all the work, therefore testing the CPU's performance and not that of the graphics card. Its simple. The matter is not about top of the line CPU's, and running games with AA/AF or no AA/AF, its a simple testing procedure that every tester worth their hardware uses. If you want to determine the effect of a component in a desired setting, you use an appropriate metric. Once again, testing at low resolutions shows the true impact of the CPU on performance, with no interference from the graphics processor.

Think about it. It ain't that hard to realize.


Your ideology on benchmarking is like putting two vehicles on a dynomometer and only comparing the power at 2500 RPMs.

If you're satisfied to spend $$$ on a top of the line system to play games at 1024x768 with no AA or Ansio turned on, then good for you. I think most people upgrade so they can play games at the highest resolution they can, with the most eye candy enabled, so they get the best experience possible.
February 20, 2007 3:57:49 PM

Quote:
uhm... you can get a C2D setup (cpu+Mobo) for less than $300... they gave you 200 bucks to take the X2 cpu/mobo off their hands?!?

Decent Mobo/C2D ~ $300
Decent Mobo/X2 ~ $200

All other components are going to be the same, you saved a hundred dollars and got a slightly lower performing PC... What is your point?


I think he is now comparing the high-end products.

Good mobo / E6700 ~$500-600
Good mobo / x2 6000+ ~$600-700

What is the point of having x2 6000+?
February 20, 2007 3:59:14 PM

Quote:
We are blind, and at least $400-500 richer running our "old" inferior X2 platforms.

And yet....they perform just the same for what we do.

Baahhhhhhhhhhh

you know what animal makes that sound?


uhm... you can get a C2D setup (cpu+Mobo) for less than $300... they gave you 200 bucks to take the X2 cpu/mobo off their hands?!?


You forgot to figure in the cost of RAM. Myself, I can't justify spending another 250-300 on DDR2 when my DDR-based 939 Opteron system is benchmarking at a decent resolution with AA and such cranked up within 5-10 FPS the top-o-the-line C2D. LOL
February 20, 2007 4:00:03 PM

Quote:
uhm... you can get a C2D setup (cpu+Mobo) for less than $300... they gave you 200 bucks to take the X2 cpu/mobo off their hands?!?

Decent Mobo/C2D ~ $300
Decent Mobo/X2 ~ $200

All other components are going to be the same, you saved a hundred dollars and got a slightly lower performing PC... What is your point?


I think he is now comparing the high-end products.

Good mobo / E6700 ~$500-600
Good mobo / x2 6000+ ~$600-700

What is the point of having x2 6000+?

Yeah, IMO when comparing lower end, you can save some money and get almost the same performance with AMD, but the higher end its obvious that you should go intel.
February 20, 2007 4:05:58 PM

Quote:
Apparently you are dead set with having your own conclusion in mind. That makes you unreceptive to being taught. That pattern, if left for a prolong period can leave you simple minded and dim witted. You know. A moron.

If you are comparing the differences between two CPU's, you set the gaming test to have the CPU do all the work, therefore testing the CPU's performance and not that of the graphics card. Its simple. The matter is not about top of the line CPU's, and running games with AA/AF or no AA/AF, its a simple testing procedure that every tester worth their hardware uses. If you want to determine the effect of a component in a desired setting, you use an appropriate metric. Once again, testing at low resolutions shows the true impact of the CPU on performance, with no interference from the graphics processor.

Think about it. It ain't that hard to realize.


Your ideology on benchmarking is like putting two vehicles on a dynomometer and only comparing the power at 2500 RPMs.

If you're satisfied to spend $$$ on a top of the line system to play games at 1024x768 with no AA or Ansio turned on, then good for you. I think most people upgrade so they can play games at the highest resolution they can, with the most eye candy enabled, so they get the best experience possible.
Bullshit. My idea of testing is to test the component. This is not the same as testing a car to a low rev. You are testing an individual component. How hard is that for you to understand. Shesh. People complain about synthetic benches because they're not real world, yet bitch about testing the component in a setting that will effectively measure its effect on performance. That effect is therefore amplified when testing at higher resolutions.

Let me break it down for you.
If CPU A's performance in a CPU dependent test is greater than the performance of CPU B, then when playing at a higher resolution the added performance of GPU C will make CPU A's performance higher still than that of CPU B + GPU C.
February 20, 2007 4:10:42 PM

I know that the core 2 duo is a better all around chip for encoding (if you do that sort of thing all day), and it does well in most areas.

I think what Hemi and I are trying to say is, they reviewers act like you are going to be so impressed....blown away at the core 2 duos 60% increase. Some people browse through the benchmarks, read em, and go buy it. I've seen people that upgraded their X2 systems to the core 2, I just think it's really stupid, unless you are creating DVDs and converting/endoding mpeg files all day long, I just don't see how a few FPS on the newest core 2 duo system is worth it in gaming. Trust me, I have the money to buy the core 2, or a few of them, but it DOESN'T do enough for me to justify the buy or hassle. I think reviewers need to look at realistic use.
February 20, 2007 4:12:16 PM

Quote:
I know that the core 2 duo is a better all around chip for encoding (if you do that sort of thing all day), and it does well in most areas.

I think what Hemi and I are trying to say is, they reviewers act like you are going to be so impressed....blown away at the core 2 duos 60% increase. Some people browse through the benchmarks, read em, and go buy it. I've seen people that upgraded their X2 systems to the core 2, I just think it's really stupid, unless you are creating DVDs and converting/endoding mpeg files all day long, I just don't see how a few FPS on the newest core 2 duo system is worth it in gaming. Trust me, I have the money to buy the core 2, or a few of them, but it DOESN'T do enough for me to justify the buy or hassle. I think reviewers need to look at realistic use.


Quote:
If you don't need to upgrade, you can just read the report and say, "I am now satisfied and I don't need to upgrade."

The report was done to let others to know the relative performance of some products and give some buyers to know what to buy.
February 20, 2007 4:12:50 PM

Quote:
We are blind, and at least $400-500 richer running our "old" inferior X2 platforms.

And yet....they perform just the same for what we do.

Baahhhhhhhhhhh

you know what animal makes that sound?


uhm... you can get a C2D setup (cpu+Mobo) for less than $300... they gave you 200 bucks to take the X2 cpu/mobo off their hands?!?


You forgot to figure in the cost of RAM. Myself, I can't justify spending another 250-300 on DDR2 when my DDR-based 939 Opteron system is benchmarking at a decent resolution with AA and such cranked up within 5-10 FPS the top-o-the-line C2D. LOL
You neglect to point out that if you are using the "cheaper" AM2 socket you require low latency RAM while the 775 platform that Core 2 runs on does not. Low latency RAM if I can remember correctly, is, yes, more expensive than normally timed RAM.
February 20, 2007 4:14:15 PM

And midrange stuff changes daily, lol.
February 20, 2007 4:16:00 PM

Quote:
At $459, the 6000+ is the most affordable Athlon 64 top model we've seen yet, and it is capable of playing in the league with a Core 2 Duo E6600.


I hate to be crass about this, but this review sucks. Where the hell are the benchmarks for the E6600 or E6300? And putting a Pentium D in there... what's the point of that?

Come on guys. This is the most pathetic CPU review i've seen on this site in years.

***disappointed***
February 20, 2007 4:16:51 PM

Lets put this thread to rest....I think daninja wins the E-Penis game. If everyone else is happy with their slightly smaller E-Penis, I think we are good.
February 20, 2007 4:20:15 PM

Quote:
Lets put this thread to rest....I think daninja wins the E-Penis game. If everyone else is happy with their slightly smaller E-Penis, I think we are good.


I think this post is offending. :?
February 20, 2007 4:21:36 PM

Quote:

Your ideology on benchmarking is like putting two vehicles on a dynomometer and only comparing the power at 2500 RPMs.

If you're satisfied to spend $$$ on a top of the line system to play games at 1024x768 with no AA or Ansio turned on, then good for you. I think most people upgrade so they can play games at the highest resolution they can, with the most eye candy enabled, so they get the best experience possible.

Bullshit. My idea of testing is to test the component. This is not the same as testing a car to a low rev.


But it is... look at the benchmarks for the article "8800 needs the fastest CPU" The AMD FX60 came back with the same video card to match and even surpass the Intel 6800 at high resolutions. I understand that it can be faster at low resolutions, but like my original post... who pays top dollar for a CPU to run it at low res with no eye candy. I'll wait for a more thorough review on caming with this CPU to see what it's capable of.

Quote:

Let me break it down for you.
If CPU A's performance in a CPU dependent test is greater than the performance of CPU B, then when playing at a higher resolution the added performance of GPU C will make CPU A's performance higher still than that of CPU B + GPU C.


But that is not the case... you need to look at high resolution gaming benchmarks.
      • 1 / 3
      • 2
      • 3
      • Newest