-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
C2D v X2 = Not as good as you think?
- Thread starter FatRakoon
- Start date
No. It's down to the media and drive used and what speed it can handle and give a good quality burn.easyrider said:
The OP should have done that at the start and we would have avoided some pointless posts.easyrider said:
weescott said:
My point was he should burn 1 disk at a time at a faster speed .
Oh and while hes at it use better quality media
I use 16x Verbatim DVD-R and I burn disks in 8mins with 100% data integrity.
I can burn so many more DVD's doing one at a time at this speed than doing 4 at once at slower speeds.
Its pointless using Fat rakoons method.
Last edited:
Easy, you're annoying. "PMSL ROTFL" makes you sound like a kid, please stop it.
Going right back to the beginning, as you say, FAH shouldn't be using any cpu time when there's other stuff going on. Either the priority of the encoding apps are also on Low, or windows has had a complete 'mare and needs reinstalling pronto.
The memory/dvd burning etc. issues are secondary.
Also, epic post there Rakoon
Going right back to the beginning, as you say, FAH shouldn't be using any cpu time when there's other stuff going on. Either the priority of the encoding apps are also on Low, or windows has had a complete 'mare and needs reinstalling pronto.
The memory/dvd burning etc. issues are secondary.
Also, epic post there Rakoon
w3bbo said:Who the hell buys a GX2 and C2d to play in 800x600? I bought mine to play at the highest res possible with as much AA/AF as possible...the C2D allowed better FPS at this setting than the AMD.
...please take some time to reflect on your pathetic attempt to flame and discredit someone before posting that kind of drivel again.
did you even bother to look at the graphs? how the hell does c2d offer better fps at high resolutions? its all gpu bound? you got to be real stupid not to see what the graphs are showing you.
if you had said that the c2d offers you better fps when your playing games at 800x600 then yea fair play i can come out with no reply to that because your telling the truth. but this:
just tells a whole different story to what your saying.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0
read that if you need more proof.
read that if you need more proof.
It does indeed tell a different story....but please use a review that dosn't use dated hardware on which to base its review - NF4 for conroe?....please 
Who's calling who stupid? Did you even read the end of that review? It even backs up what I have said! Add on all the frills and the C2D increases its lead even further. I'm not going to re write what I stated in my previously edited post so I suggest you go back and read my post previous as I edited it after finding the flawed review you posted. Flawed in that a) it uses old hardware not best designed for C2D. b) It uses a beta game that many will agree is flawed and bugged even in its finshed state. c) It dosn't use AA/AF nor a high res. 1600x1200 is pretty much the norm these days imo.
I will concede the higher the res/settings then the game will become more GPU dependent but a GPU will only go as far as a CPU will allow. An extremely low end CPU would show this to be more prevailent if paired with a high-end GPU, akin to Schumacher driving a Lada - bottlenecking.
Oh and please hold off the insults regardless of whether you believe you are correct or not, its not big nor clever and shows an immature outlook on life tbh.
Who's calling who stupid? Did you even read the end of that review? It even backs up what I have said! Add on all the frills and the C2D increases its lead even further. I'm not going to re write what I stated in my previously edited post so I suggest you go back and read my post previous as I edited it after finding the flawed review you posted. Flawed in that a) it uses old hardware not best designed for C2D. b) It uses a beta game that many will agree is flawed and bugged even in its finshed state. c) It dosn't use AA/AF nor a high res. 1600x1200 is pretty much the norm these days imo.I will concede the higher the res/settings then the game will become more GPU dependent but a GPU will only go as far as a CPU will allow. An extremely low end CPU would show this to be more prevailent if paired with a high-end GPU, akin to Schumacher driving a Lada - bottlenecking.
Oh and please hold off the insults regardless of whether you believe you are correct or not, its not big nor clever and shows an immature outlook on life tbh.
Jokester said:
that earlier graph was done using a 7900gtx
check out this one:
aye its got no conroe in there but im just looking for some conroe benches now with the 8800gtx. from that graph i just posted looks like there is gpu limitation still even with 8800gtx so i doubt conroe will do any higher fps.
Taken from the exact same 'review' site -
Whenever a next-generation GPU such as NVIDIA’s brand new GeForce 8800 line is launched, media outlets such as ourselves always test with the fastest processor we can get our hands on so that we can accurately gauge the full performance potential of the new hardware. As you saw in our GeForce 8800 GTS/GTX Performance Preview, NVIDIA’s latest GPUs are capable of delivering performance numbers over two times faster than the previous generation in games like Dark Messiah of Might and Magic and Oblivion thanks to NVIDIA’s new G80 architecture.
NVIDIA has incorporated new features such as a unified shader architecture with up to 128 stream processors in the GeForce 8800 GTX, which also has a 384-bit memory interface running at 900MHz with 768MB of memory. This pales in comparison to the GeForce 7900 GTX, which featured 24 pixel shaders and 8 vertex shaders, as well as a narrower 256-bit memory interface.
With so much graphics horsepower onboard GeForce 8800 however, some potential 8800 card owners may run into cases where the card isn’t running to its full potential and won’t see these huge performance scaling increases, the card isn’t able to “stretch its legs” so to speak. This can occur frequently in games that are based on aging game engines. Sports titles for instance are often based on the same rehashed game engine year after year. In some cases, performance can even be held back due to a game that’s poorly coded.
But software isn’t the only aspect that can hold back a next-gen card at launch, another culprit is often the CPU.
Quite simply, with next-gen graphics processors delivering 1.5-2X times more performance than their predecessors at launch, the CPU can become a bottleneck in many titles we test with. After all, the clock speed of new CPUs tends to only increase in increments of 100-200MHz; only delivering about 10% more performance with each new processor release. You can see this in benchmarks where you hit the same frame rate regardless of graphics settings (such as increasing screen resolution from 1280x1024 to 1600x1200). As soon as a faster CPU is inserted, your frame rates increase.
This is a situation you’d like to avoid if you’ve just plunked down $700 on a brand new 8800 GTX graphics card, as you’re not getting the most from your money (although being CPU-limited does allow you to crank up the image quality settings for “free”, as you won’t get the performance hit usually associated with these setting changes).
Intel’s latest Core 2 CPUs are based on an entirely new micro-architecture, with a wider execution core, 1,066MHz FSB and unified L2 cache architecture with up to 4MB on-chip. As a result, Core 2 delivers substantially more performance than any previous processor from AMD or Intel, including AMD’s flagship Athlon 64 FX-62.
...anyway this is rapidly turning into a 'tit-for-tat' which is something I will not enter into anymore coz boredom is setting in and its detracting from the OP. You have stated your point and I have mine, best to leave it at that imo.
Whenever a next-generation GPU such as NVIDIA’s brand new GeForce 8800 line is launched, media outlets such as ourselves always test with the fastest processor we can get our hands on so that we can accurately gauge the full performance potential of the new hardware. As you saw in our GeForce 8800 GTS/GTX Performance Preview, NVIDIA’s latest GPUs are capable of delivering performance numbers over two times faster than the previous generation in games like Dark Messiah of Might and Magic and Oblivion thanks to NVIDIA’s new G80 architecture.
NVIDIA has incorporated new features such as a unified shader architecture with up to 128 stream processors in the GeForce 8800 GTX, which also has a 384-bit memory interface running at 900MHz with 768MB of memory. This pales in comparison to the GeForce 7900 GTX, which featured 24 pixel shaders and 8 vertex shaders, as well as a narrower 256-bit memory interface.
With so much graphics horsepower onboard GeForce 8800 however, some potential 8800 card owners may run into cases where the card isn’t running to its full potential and won’t see these huge performance scaling increases, the card isn’t able to “stretch its legs” so to speak. This can occur frequently in games that are based on aging game engines. Sports titles for instance are often based on the same rehashed game engine year after year. In some cases, performance can even be held back due to a game that’s poorly coded.
But software isn’t the only aspect that can hold back a next-gen card at launch, another culprit is often the CPU.
Quite simply, with next-gen graphics processors delivering 1.5-2X times more performance than their predecessors at launch, the CPU can become a bottleneck in many titles we test with. After all, the clock speed of new CPUs tends to only increase in increments of 100-200MHz; only delivering about 10% more performance with each new processor release. You can see this in benchmarks where you hit the same frame rate regardless of graphics settings (such as increasing screen resolution from 1280x1024 to 1600x1200). As soon as a faster CPU is inserted, your frame rates increase.
This is a situation you’d like to avoid if you’ve just plunked down $700 on a brand new 8800 GTX graphics card, as you’re not getting the most from your money (although being CPU-limited does allow you to crank up the image quality settings for “free”, as you won’t get the performance hit usually associated with these setting changes).
Intel’s latest Core 2 CPUs are based on an entirely new micro-architecture, with a wider execution core, 1,066MHz FSB and unified L2 cache architecture with up to 4MB on-chip. As a result, Core 2 delivers substantially more performance than any previous processor from AMD or Intel, including AMD’s flagship Athlon 64 FX-62.
...anyway this is rapidly turning into a 'tit-for-tat' which is something I will not enter into anymore coz boredom is setting in and its detracting from the OP. You have stated your point and I have mine, best to leave it at that imo.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,871
- Location
- UK
A64 FX-60 2.6 GHz VS C2D X6800 2.93 GHz
---------------------------------------------
E6600 vs X2 4800+. Both at 2.4Ghz using GX2
---------------------------------------------
E6600 vs X2 4800+. Both at 2.4Ghz using GX2
Last edited:
Hmm...
Ok, the AMD now has only 1GB just like the Conroe.
Its still doing the same thing. The lag on the AMD has increased, but only slightly, and certainly a lot less than I had expected it to, and its still managing to run multiple apps and jump between them better than the conroe is doing.
This whole thread has gone totally away from my original post.
I really dotn give a freaky fat flying f??? about any benchmark results. They have stopped impressing me years ago because 9/10 times, a game does not actually play any better whether it gives out 100FPS or 101, it seems to me, that just because something gives out that extra 1 FPS, all of a sudden, the system that does it in 100FPS has all of a sudden become a pile of No Swearing!? sod that. I really dont care one tiny bit about that. I do care that running a whoel host of apps on both my conroe and my AMDs are showing that the AMDs can handle them all better than the conroe... Much better.
Ok, so going back to basics, they are both now running only 1GB ( 2x512MB )
With Folding on both cores, here is what I ran
StarOffice8 ( And opened up a Spreadsheet and a 32MB DOC )
PaintShop Pro 8 ( And loaded up a whole Directory of Pictures )
DVDSANTA ( And started to convert 7 AVI Files that are 120MB Each )
Ran 4 instances of DVD-to-ONE on copies of the same DVD and converted the DVD down to as small as poss )
Imported 3 DVD Files into TMPGENC and built them up into one DVD
The files I used are copies of each other - Just to do the tests by the way.
I then ran Need For Speed Underground 2, Most Wanted and Carbon at the same time ( This is for kicks more than usefullness ) as well as UTClassic and 2004 God knows why I do this, cos they can argue like hell to gain top stop it seems
But either way, I dont care, one game always ends up on top, and the others just get chucked into the background and this particular exercise is completely poinless really.
The AMD was playing CTF in UT2K4 and I was a good couple of minutes into the game by the time the conroe was showing me anything other than the desktop. I ESCaped *** game and ALT-TABbed through to each of the DVD2ONE programs and they came up in less than a quarter of a second.
The Conroe was still showing me a black screen from one of the games.
Anyway, I quit the games on the AMD and then canceled all the running apps and quit the program and then shut down.
NFSU2 came up first, I quit it and then the others were minimised and I opened these up and quit them, but they took a fair few secodns each to come up, this never happened on the AMD and then I quit them all and then quit the DVD/AVI Programs too.
Ishut it down and even shutting down took 30 odd seconds!
The Conroe was quicker at a few apps, but dire when loaded up with loads of them.
I still have not seen anyone actually prove me wrong on this, only some stupid benches of graphic card / game performance, and this is somethign I am not disputing.
So, Im thinking that maybe a few people have indeed doen this and seen that I am in fact correct.
Ok, the AMD now has only 1GB just like the Conroe.
Its still doing the same thing. The lag on the AMD has increased, but only slightly, and certainly a lot less than I had expected it to, and its still managing to run multiple apps and jump between them better than the conroe is doing.
This whole thread has gone totally away from my original post.
I really dotn give a freaky fat flying f??? about any benchmark results. They have stopped impressing me years ago because 9/10 times, a game does not actually play any better whether it gives out 100FPS or 101, it seems to me, that just because something gives out that extra 1 FPS, all of a sudden, the system that does it in 100FPS has all of a sudden become a pile of No Swearing!? sod that. I really dont care one tiny bit about that. I do care that running a whoel host of apps on both my conroe and my AMDs are showing that the AMDs can handle them all better than the conroe... Much better.
Ok, so going back to basics, they are both now running only 1GB ( 2x512MB )
With Folding on both cores, here is what I ran
StarOffice8 ( And opened up a Spreadsheet and a 32MB DOC )
PaintShop Pro 8 ( And loaded up a whole Directory of Pictures )
DVDSANTA ( And started to convert 7 AVI Files that are 120MB Each )
Ran 4 instances of DVD-to-ONE on copies of the same DVD and converted the DVD down to as small as poss )
Imported 3 DVD Files into TMPGENC and built them up into one DVD
The files I used are copies of each other - Just to do the tests by the way.
I then ran Need For Speed Underground 2, Most Wanted and Carbon at the same time ( This is for kicks more than usefullness ) as well as UTClassic and 2004 God knows why I do this, cos they can argue like hell to gain top stop it seems
But either way, I dont care, one game always ends up on top, and the others just get chucked into the background and this particular exercise is completely poinless really.
The AMD was playing CTF in UT2K4 and I was a good couple of minutes into the game by the time the conroe was showing me anything other than the desktop. I ESCaped *** game and ALT-TABbed through to each of the DVD2ONE programs and they came up in less than a quarter of a second.
The Conroe was still showing me a black screen from one of the games.
Anyway, I quit the games on the AMD and then canceled all the running apps and quit the program and then shut down.
NFSU2 came up first, I quit it and then the others were minimised and I opened these up and quit them, but they took a fair few secodns each to come up, this never happened on the AMD and then I quit them all and then quit the DVD/AVI Programs too.
Ishut it down and even shutting down took 30 odd seconds!
The Conroe was quicker at a few apps, but dire when loaded up with loads of them.
I still have not seen anyone actually prove me wrong on this, only some stupid benches of graphic card / game performance, and this is somethign I am not disputing.
So, Im thinking that maybe a few people have indeed doen this and seen that I am in fact correct.
I believe you since I can't check it myself, there's no reason at all for you to lie and no one else has come along and said any different.
Question is where do we go from here? I sounds like my usage is very similar to yours, lots of apps at once including some pretty intensive ones and system responsiveness is far more important to me than raw performance in a single application.
We really need to hear from a few other people with similar, high spec AMD and Intel systems to try the same kind of thing.
Question is where do we go from here? I sounds like my usage is very similar to yours, lots of apps at once including some pretty intensive ones and system responsiveness is far more important to me than raw performance in a single application.
We really need to hear from a few other people with similar, high spec AMD and Intel systems to try the same kind of thing.
I don't know the exact ins and outs of processors and such forth... but maybe this is explainable by the fact that amds have a lower latency on the ram. So yes a conroe maybe the faster cpu, but it accesses the ram slower 
I'm not saying this is true, for all i know i might just be getting things mixed up, but what i heard was that, the CAS (?) is lower on the amd so it does more per clock or something, but the ram is high on the conroe is faster so it pushes more down the pipe?
Is this a bit like the ati - nvidia. the ati has fewer pixel pipelines but high clock so it pushes x number of pixels, while the nvidia has more pipelines, but slower clock so it pushes x number of pixels also. lets just say the ati can push 3 pixels down 16 lines, whilst the nvidia can push 2 down 24 lines... that equals 48 each. Then put this into cpu context with conroe being ati... pushing more data per clock and the amd pushing less data over a bigger clock? I think i have just confused myself.
I'm not saying this is true, for all i know i might just be getting things mixed up, but what i heard was that, the CAS (?) is lower on the amd so it does more per clock or something, but the ram is high on the conroe is faster so it pushes more down the pipe?
Is this a bit like the ati - nvidia. the ati has fewer pixel pipelines but high clock so it pushes x number of pixels, while the nvidia has more pipelines, but slower clock so it pushes x number of pixels also. lets just say the ati can push 3 pixels down 16 lines, whilst the nvidia can push 2 down 24 lines... that equals 48 each. Then put this into cpu context with conroe being ati... pushing more data per clock and the amd pushing less data over a bigger clock? I think i have just confused myself.
FatRacoon very interesting what you are testing here...
Certainly I believe reviews need to test for heavy multitasking such as this in the future. Can anyone else with a Core 2 Duo and AMD X2 test this please?
Also the benchmarks posted are off topic, as single application performance is not in dispute.
P.S. Easyrider can you post without patronisiong and the huge ego you come across as having? Without wanting to break rules you come across as a smart arse and it's runining an interesting thread.
Certainly I believe reviews need to test for heavy multitasking such as this in the future. Can anyone else with a Core 2 Duo and AMD X2 test this please?
Also the benchmarks posted are off topic, as single application performance is not in dispute.
P.S. Easyrider can you post without patronisiong and the huge ego you come across as having? Without wanting to break rules you come across as a smart arse and it's runining an interesting thread.