Last message on previous page:

 
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.  

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

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.

 
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.

 
The guys at [T]ardOCP will just never understand us geeks at teh [M].

 
 
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.

 
 
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.

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.

 
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).

 
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.

 
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.

 
The price difference between the FX-62 and X6800 is really irrelevant in this discussion, because we are comparing platform performance.  
 
Besides, if someone wanted to spend $500 on a CPU, they'd buy an E6700, not an FX-62.  
 
I could go along your path and argue that an E4300 @ 3.4GHz owns an FX-62 at 1/3 the cost, giving you more money to spend on games and hardware.
 
Then you'll probably try to one up me and say the Brisbane X2 3600+ / Biostar mobo combo deal for $169 is cheaper than an E4300 itself, and is 'fast enough' for most games...
 
I think you see where this is leading...    

 
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.
 
Framerate and refresh rate are two different things. 60fps is a HECK of a lot easier on the eyes than 60Hz on a CRT.  

 
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.
 
Framerate and refresh rate are two different things. 60fps is a HECK of a lot easier on the eyes than 60Hz on a CRT.  
 
Oh I know, I was just going on a tangent,  

JumpingJack Wrote:
 

 
 
I agree with you on your main point. I seldom read their reviews because it is very deceptive. You need to really read between the lines to glean any useful information from this review.
 
There are a few useful things to come from reading the review assuming you're in the market for those items. It certainly wouldn't be clear to the average PC user at all what is truly best by glancing at it though. Worse yet, most users without pretty good knowledge and perception could even be swayed to think the worse of the two is actually better for a new build. Thats the biggest problem I have with them doing reviews that way. Its easily confused as to whos on top at any given point in the article to the un-initiated PC user.

It's why us geeks at t3h [M] call them [T]ardOCP.

 
LOL