Jump to content

Conroe is NOT faster, hardly any difference says [H]


Recommended Posts

We have proven here that the flurry of canned benchmarks based on timedemos showing huge gains with Core 2 processors are virtually worthless in rating the true gaming performance of these processors today. The fact of the matter is that real-world gaming performance today greatly lies at the feet of your video card. Almost none of today’s games are performance limited by your CPU. Maybe that will change, but given the trends, it is not likely. You simply do not need a $1000 CPU to get great gaming performance as we proved months ago in our CPU Scaling article.

 

When it comes to playing games, the only persons that need to be even a little concerned with upgrading their CPU to a Core 2 processor might be those with high-end SLI, CrossFire, or GeForce GX2 video cards and we have yet to prove that due to the testing limitations we ran into. Then, and only then, you might see an Intel Core 2 processor deliver a performance advantage.

 

Lastly, I would advise everyone that is thinking of rushing out and purchasing their latest upgrade that we are sure to see HUGE pricing slashes out of AMD before the end of the month.

Forum Discussion: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1075804

Article: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

 

heh, that sucks, I was really hoping conroe would deliver, I guess it fell short acording to [H] damn it... well at least people wont be rushing out to get conroe, and will enjoy the awesome pricing on AMD.. :cool:

sig-YF19a.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As what i have read is that Core 2 duo 6700 selling for ~500 $ is outperforming Athlon FX 62 selling for ~1000 $, especially in Games. Read here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795

 

I was AMD minded all the time but hey, roughly 1/2 of the price for better Performance!

 

I think i ll go for Intel

 

Would be interesting to see Benchmark with Core 2 Duo and LockOn though ... Link or own Experience would be much appreciated

 

edit: BTW LOCKON is very much CPU-limited !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

S!

 

Brati

"Helicopters can't fly; they're just so ugly the earth repels them." (THX Rich :thumbup: )

 

33rdsignatureimage7klmu6.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the cpu is the limitation in lockon ;)

 

read the article, it looks like it's a lot of smoke and mirrors with conroe. that said I cant wait to get user benchmarks with it.

 

it's really interesting [H] a major site found hardly any difference, while others did, thus why I say, "says [H]" in the title..

 

Users/time will tell.

sig-YF19a.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree that LockOn is very CPU limited, but I'd say that many games are also CPU limited.

 

On my older PC (Athlon XP-3200) I played Lomac with many different video cards (9800Pro, X800Pro, X800XT, X850XT) and I can say that the graphic cards made the difference mostly when adding effects and graphic features like AA and AF. I couldn't see a HUGE fps jump when switching from 9800Pro to X800XT (more than in fps, the gain was in image quality, that was a huge leap).

 

Instead when I switched to my new platform (Venice 3000@2900 Mhz, DDR600 and X850XT PCI-E) performance improved greatly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main point is..

 

If you have a 939 based system or comparable, there is no point in core2, sure is faster, but playing at the resolutions we play, etc.. We won't see a HUGE difference.

 

Sure people bench CPU's @ 640x480, but tell me what gamer plays at those settings?

 

In reality, we wont know until someone here builds a core2 system and posts benchmarks which we can then compare against our hardware.

sig-YF19a.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way u mention is the only way to bench CPU´s, low resolution and no effects / Quality Settings to see the Power of the CPU. Due to LockOn being CPU limited, we should see pretty big Frame Rate Increases with Conroe because the Power is much higher. even on a X800 XT with a Socket 754 Athlon 64 3400+ LockOn is CPU limited, i can turn resolution down from 1280x1024 to 1024x768, can turn off AA from 4x to none, can turn AF from 16X to none with allmost NO effect on FPS !!! So its sheer CPU Power Lockon needs and Conroe has it obviously for half of the Price of an Athlon FX 62. Thats it, i m on Conroe in a few month.

 

S!

 

Brati

"Helicopters can't fly; they're just so ugly the earth repels them." (THX Rich :thumbup: )

 

33rdsignatureimage7klmu6.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know tech, I dont need the explanation. No offence ;)

 

read what I said...

 

Sure people bench CPU's @ 640x480, but tell me what gamer plays at those settings?

Do we play @ the same settings we bench?

 

Im not debating conroe being faster, that it is.. but what I'm trying to find out is..

 

Will we see a difference in games the way we play them? (In my case for LockOn @ 1920x1200 8x TASS + 16AF, etc.) and again, yes I know LockOn is cpu limited, but you can't push settings like these with a 9800pro either...

 

cheers on getting a core2 rig, post some numbers and we'll compare. :)

 

PS: and before you reply, yes I agree.. CPU limited games SHOULD see a good improvement, but the last word will be when numbers come out from LockOn.

 

Oh and who in their right mind would buy an FX62 today?

sig-YF19a.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SIMHQ Review:

 

"Flaming Cliffs continues the pattern of Intel's Core 2 parts dominating, though the performance scores are much closer than with the titles previously discussed. The X6800 outperformed the FX-62 by roughly 20% across all tested resolutions since Flaming Cliffs sees a smaller change in its reported frame rate with resolution scaling compared to most other titles. Likewise, the E6700 also outscores the FX-62 in a similar pattern, though at just a few frames slower than the Extreme part at each resolution; the higher clock frequency of the X6800 (2.93 GHz) showed very little impact compared to the E6700's 2.67 GHz clock speed. And the 955 was outperformed by 50% by the Core 2 parts and by roughly 20% by the FX-62."

 

I think all is said as far as LockOn is regarded;)

 

Cant wait to buy this thing :joystick:

 

S!

 

Brati

 

PS: NEODARK, Please edit the Thread Title in "Conroe IS faster ...." ;-)

"Helicopters can't fly; they're just so ugly the earth repels them." (THX Rich :thumbup: )

 

33rdsignatureimage7klmu6.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The title means that [H]ardOcp found almost no difference, thus the "says [H]". :) (either way, I cant edit the title)

 

Oh, and I have an FX62 of sorts ;) (its actually tad faster due to the memory running out of spec)

 

PS: I never claimed conroe was slower, it definitelly IS faster, But I dont think you understood the concept I was trying to get across with the title. :)

 

Oh, and thanks for that link Colt :thumbup:

 

EDIT: here is the graphic we all want:

 

Conroe_LOFC.jpg

sig-YF19a.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

??

Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the price difference between the X6800 and E6700

I can see why SimHQ gives the E6700 the higher rating.

-> Core 2 Duo E6700 score: 9.6

-> Core 2 Extreme X6800 score: 9.1

 

What really got my attention was that the E6700 posted

78fps @ 800x600 and 74fps@ 1600x1200!

Same narrow band for the X6800 -

81fps @ 800x600 and 75fps@ 1600x1200!

 

 

Based on that I'm most curious about knowing if the Core2's improve the MINIMUM FPS at all.

I'd gladly sacrifice some top end FPS to gain better minimum FPS.

 

Good read. Looking forward to more reviews in the next couple weeks.

 

Thanks for digging out the SimHQ article for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After taking a closer look at the [H]ardOCP article along with a few other articles at other sites I think the point [H]ardOcp is trying to make is that in most "bleeding edge" games its possible to turn up the graphics options and effects so that the GPU (not the CPU) then becomes the limiting factor.

 

I think thats [H]ardOCP's take on how the average gamer plays his games - maxed out as far as possible and still have playable frame rates.

 

Needless to say there are wide differences in how testing and reviews take place - let alone the results.

 

new1527js.th.jpg

 

I DID notice in the [H]ardOCP results table that the CoreDuo CPUs had HDR Enabled Shadows at 5th Slider notch but the FX-62 CPU had HDR Enabled Shadows at 3rd Slider notch

 

Another review of CoreDuo game play using Oblivion (and hand run - not canned time demos [H]ardOCP was complaining about) showed these results.

 

new1519gw.th.jpg

 

No one expects people to run out and get a new system (AMD or Intel) for just a few extra FPS. But Im sure those of us in the market for our next new system will be watching closely to see how this all shakes out in the next couple of months.

 

It's looking like a win-win situation for at the moment no matter which type CPU you end up going with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't [H] always pro-AMD? ....

 

Sounds like fanboi syndrome.

 

Having only had AMD cpu's for over almost ten years, I do think Intel's latest cpu's are good, better than AMD, cooler and cheaper.

 

The reason AMD will be cutting prices is because that is ALL they can do. They have nothing new coming up until late 2007/2008. By then Intel will have made progress too, don't forget it.

 

Besides, why cut prices if your product is so much better? ... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks good to me. I've had AMD for last couple of years - it looks Intel beats the beast. I wonder how does it overclock?

51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-)

100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-)

 

:: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky

tail# 44 or 444

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. I kept diggin, and found awesome air cooled OC info on that CPUs.

51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-)

100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-)

 

:: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky

tail# 44 or 444

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how does it overclock?
I've seen overclocking reviews show 3.4Ghz on the stock HSF and up around 4Ghz with a good aftermarket HSF.

 

That includes the E6600 (2.4GHz) overclocking to ~3.4Ghz stock and near 4Ghz with a better HSF. Pretty impressive for a $316 CPU - it matches up well against the more expensive E6700 and the much more expensive X6800.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...