• 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.

Conroe is hype

Associate
Joined
30 Jan 2003
Posts
1,514
Location
Cardiff
im sticking with AMD :)

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.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxMSwsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=


real world fps > "timedemos"
 
Associate
Joined
21 Aug 2006
Posts
1,908
Location
Stafford
I agree that in gameplay you wouldnt see the diff between 40fps and 50fps, But the point is if u can get an E6600 to perform as well as an fx at twice the price, you'd have to be a real die hard fan to waste the extra cash

"When compared head-to-head, the overclocked Core 2 Extreme outperformed its AMD counterpart by nearly 30 percent across the board."
 
Associate
Joined
26 Dec 2002
Posts
319
I love amd too, but the fact is reviews and benchies don't mean **** to me, what I hear on forums thats what goes (user exprience).

The AM2 FX 62 retails around £550inc. vat, what make sense to me is I can purchase a cheap intel chip and whip any amd chip currently on the market. Even the cheapest C2D 6300 are faster then most current AMD CPU's.

Your Choice - Your Money !

Don't swear! FF.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Apr 2004
Posts
13,491
easyrider said:
A 120 quid 6300 clocked to 3ghz is faster than any current AMD chip.

Your statement is laughable IMO :p

Yep LOL

Intel have kicked AMDs bottom this round. You are mad to by AMD when a Cheaper/similar C2D will perform better and then overclock more so its 50-60% quicker.
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Dec 2005
Posts
40,065
Location
Autonomy
Concorde Rules said:
Yep LOL

Intel have kicked AMDs bottom this round. You are mad to by AMD when a Cheaper/similar C2D will perform better and then overclock more so its 50-60% quicker.


Looks like he's going conroe after all he's asking about a conroe mobo to get in mobo section :p
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Feb 2006
Posts
3,421
Location
Staffordshire
Duke said:
Um that is a very old article..

He's actually spot on.

A quicker CPU can, and will stuff data into the GPU more quickly but its the graphics card do all the rendering and more or less 90% of the game you are playing - with exception of some physics calculations, sound (If using on board) and positional data on online game maps)

This can be easily proved by building 2 identical systemsEXCEPT for CPU. Eg:

One with a 939 Athlon 3200 and on with a 939 FX60. There WILL be a slight performance distance due to the exceptions I mentioned above BUT its time to get real.....

To use Counter Strike Source as an example...

I have a Rig (see Sig) that dishes out 164 FPS at 1280X1024 with everything totally maxed out.

My cards aren't exactly bleeding edge but, my TV runs at 25FPS - as does any TV sho I think its safe to say that my FPS are more than playable on my TFT monitor at 164FPS. I don't really care if somebody has managed 200FPS by splashing out £1000 more than I have because the difference will be totally inperceptable to the human eye.

Synthetic benchmarks aren't worth the paper they are written on unless comparing identical rigs with only the GFX card as the test subject. This will provide a direct comparison between the two cards with the identical rig giving a fair and even platform.

AndyOcUK
OcUK Tech
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Dec 2005
Posts
40,065
Location
Autonomy
hedgey said:
im sticking with AMD :)

You simply do not need a $1000 CPU to get great gaming performance as we proved months ago in our CPU Scaling article.



We know,

Just get a 6300 for 120 quid clock it and flatten anything in the AMD range.
Its simple.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
32,119
Location
Rutland
That hardocp article has been slated for its methodology. The truth is that Conroe is the faster CPU.

I'm not sure you're example is the best Andy, in older games its not going to be noticeable but as software advances you're always going to need more CPU power, so a faster CPU (especially if it costs the same or less than the alternative) is always going to be a wise investment.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Sep 2005
Posts
27,427
Location
Utopia
hedgey said:
im sticking with AMD :)

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.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxMSwsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=


real world fps > "timedemos"

You may not see the difference between 50fps and 60fps... but will you see the difference between 20fps and 30fps? Yup... thought so. My friends has switched from AMD to Core2 and said he has noticed a massive difference in the smoothness and frame rate of games... from FPS to RTS he says it has made a noticeable difference in minimum framerate at 1680*1050.

I have just bought a Conroe rig and though I have yet to install iI guarantee I will notice a difference in my gaming. In fact, 'd put money on jt.

The principle is quite simple, in the vast majority of games a 3ghz FX-67 will beat a 2.2ghz 4400+. So a Conroe clocked at 3ghz, which roughly equals a 3.7ghz FX-67, will beat all of them. It's not rocket science, and CPU power DOES matter.

Do you own a Core2? Nah, didn't think so... :)
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
22 Jun 2006
Posts
12,132
There is also the age old issue of the bottleneck, no use having a screaming GPU if your CPU can't shovel a peanut, you need a balance and a faster CPU will help you with the inevitable graphics card upgrades. Sure a 64 3200+ may be able to produce 90% of the performance in games but when the next gen comes along and the next gen after that and so on, that margin will move.

Common thing for benches to ignore minimum frame rates too and generally how smooth gameplay is, faster CPU does make your game smoother, Oblivion is a good example.
 
Associate
Joined
30 Nov 2005
Posts
117
25 fps is fine for video.. gaming is a whole diffirent story. Playing CS:S it very noticable when you have less than than 60 fps. I can offer some insight into cs:s benefit from my Opteron 146 @ 2.9Ghz compared to my now conroe @ 3.5Ghz I have kept the same gfx card (7800 GT). Using a demo that I have recorded and running the timedemo command (the video stress test is useless as it has no physics claculations) my average fps on the Opteron was dead on 100fps, the same timedemo ran on my conroe was 145fps however had my Opteron have been able to clock higher I am sure at 3.5ghz it would have been pretty similar fps as the conroe but the fact is it couldnt. Going from 100-145 I will not notice much difference to be fair, it just means if i am averaging higher my lowest fps will be higher, at a pure guess at an average of 145 fps I presume my lowest fps would not go below the high 80's -low 90's and from keeping an eye ingame this is about right.

I have only had AMD CPU's since the K6 series so I am no Fan Boy of Intel infact quite the opposite, but this E6400 cost me £150 and is a huge overclocker, I know I can get the chip to go to aroun 3.8ghz but it would require a bit more tweaking I dont see the point..yet. Conroe are not hype at all, thats like calling the opteron all hype! The price to performance ratio of conroes is excellent and there is no denying that unless you are a fool! Will you see huge gains using a conroe over an Opteron or FX62? Probably not, but it is better none the less and that we havent seen from Intel for a while!
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
6 Feb 2004
Posts
7,765
Location
Rugeley
A 6300 clocked at 2.60 outperforms a fx62 in everything, its upto you if you want to waiste another £400+ on a amd, i aint a intel fan boy have always used amd but intel owns this round simple as that, and ive not heard of one 6300 that aint clocked too 2.8ghz and above easily.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Feb 2004
Posts
4,009
easyrider said:
We know,

Just get a 6300 for 120 quid clock it and flatten anything in the AMD range.
Its simple.
i agree, for gaming theres no point getting more than a 6300 such great value for the performance it gives
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Sep 2003
Posts
14,716
Location
London
hedgey said:
Conroe is hype
Yup!

But than again most PC hardware is about hype. Still as someone who has always used INTEL processors I'm glad to see them back in the thick of it :)

It's been just 8 months since I upgraded from a Northwood P4 to A64 Opteron (146 then quick upgrade to 170) so I am still enjoying the ride and I am not about to replace my whole system in order to shave 20 seconds off my Super-Pi times :p

I can understand people that have done a big upgrade to Conroe, or those that have been running say a mono-core A64, but anyone running an X2 or Opteron dual-core must be pretty die hard to splash out £xxx.xx amount of money just to have the fastest possible machine, still each to their own and whatever floats your boat as they say, but it makes me chuckle some of the phrases that Conroe-ists are using to describe it performance. .

i.e "OMG My new Conroe absolutely DESTROYS my overclocked x2" etc

Probably get itchy by the time quad core has settled down, having said that I wonder how long it will take for allot of software/games to *really* make the most from these multi core wonders. .

Peace!
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Dec 2005
Posts
40,065
Location
Autonomy
Big.Wayne said:
Yup!

But than again most PC hardware is about hype. Still as someone who has always used INTEL processors I'm glad to see them back in the thick of it :)

It's been just 8 months since I upgraded from a Northwood P4 to A64 Opteron (146 then quick upgrade to 170) so I am still enjoying the ride and I am not about to replace my whole system in order to shave 20 seconds off my Super-Pi times :p

I can understand people that have done a big upgrade to Conroe, or those that have been running say a mono-core A64, but anyone running an X2 or Opteron dual-core must be pretty die hard to splash out £xxx.xx amount of money just to have the fastest possible machine, still each to their own and whatever floats your boat as they say, but it makes me chuckle some of the phrases that Conroe-ists are using to describe it performance. .

i.e "OMG My new Conroe absolutely DESTROYS my overclocked x2" etc

Probably get itchy by the time quad core has settled down, having said that I wonder how long it will take for allot of software/games to *really* make the most from these multi core wonders. .

Peace!

You are still on your opty 170?,

I sold mine for 240 quid while I could.My upgrade to conroe cost me about 100 quid by the time I sold my mobo and ram.

I'm not die hard to splash out £xxx.xx amount of money just to have the fastest possible machine.

I sold at the correct time and upgraded to a faster cpu,thats it.

Now if i had of left the upgrade longer, then I would have got diddly squat for my 170 combo and the upgrade to conroe would have cost me a lot more.

But TBH the description you mention "i.e "OMG My new Conroe absolutely DESTROYS my overclocked x2" etc is not far from the truth TBH.

As my conroe clocked to 3.8ghz really does eat my old opty 170 @ 2.8ghz for breakfast. :D

This is not a made up and amplified behond reason.This is fact and from experience.

Unless AMD do something quick their cpu line up is already antiquated!

:D
 
Back
Top Bottom