• 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.

Core duo Gaming performance

not much real world difference... bar the price... i can get a E6600 overclock it slightly and get similar performance to a £400-600 flagship CPU... thats the real difference;)
 
No offence against [H]ard Cop...

Let see some proper 3D results, ones that matter, lol, the gfx card is the limiter 111!! once again

*sigh*

:D

I will create a 3D specific/conroe thread
 
Last edited:
That review has been slated numerous times on XS for being very poor, I've not actually looked at it in detail yet, but from what I've heard is pretty biased.
 
Nice article, makes me feel a bit less jealous of all the people getting their shiny new Conroe rigs :D

It is interesting though, it's all well and good that the Core 2 can get sub 10 second SuperPi times and destroy an Athlon at 640x480, but what it really comes down to for me us whether games run faster at proper settings. As said above though it's the price to performance ratio that's the best feature and the real reason to buy one.
 
Last edited:
A much more honest (imho) and better setup review that, while still being rather GPU limited, offers a much less prejudiced and agenda filled look at real world gaming on the 6600 vs the 5000.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/365/1/

Leaves things closer at present (and makes cost more of a factor), though its dependence on GPU that is skewing a lot of it, its where we actually are in real world terms.
 
In real terms [H] neglected the fact that the the GPU is limited at high resolutions (you will see lower processors with similar scores).

I was interested getting Intel's new architecture because the [min] frames per second in games was massivley increased (Oblivian ( although the programmers are getting lax because of the hardware increases compensating for there lack of optimisation.. :mad: )
 
Last edited:
OV3RCLOCK3R, your thread title and post are a bit misleading. The article linked is not about the Core Duo but, rather, about the Core 2 Duo. Although the chips are relatives they are not the same by any means.
 
They cheat in that article. Look at the Oblivion bench. The AMD is running in lower quality settings, they even admit that when they tried the same settings as the conroe it was unplayable.

Some 'effects' have higher effect on the CPU than the GPU, so with most games, and carefull tweaking, you should be able to run higher overall settings on a Conroe, than an AMD and still get equal or better FPS.

Reason for that is the Conroe has a lot more CPU power, so for people who use SLI or Crossfire the difference is far more apparent. However more importantly, normally each new generation of GPU gives similar performance to the previous one in SLI mode. So the next gen of GPU's could easily be fast enough to run at those resolutions and NEED the power of a Core 2 Duo.
 
Possibly one of the crappest 'reviews' I've ever seen. So much for the 'real world' comparison - I don't think anyone needed to see those results as it's obvious the graphics is the limiter. I think anyone who has done science would agree with me on this. You cannot have a variable other than the test subject cause a impact like that as it does not show CPU power at all, all it shows is that graphics is more important with most games these days (which pretty much everyone knows anyway). If they'd claimed it to be proof that graphics are more important than CPU's today, well, they've achieved their goal but they were, well I'll let this explain me:

Dumb review said:
Having more CPU power is a very cool thing, but being able to utilize it is not an easy thing to do nowadays.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you have an SLi or Xfire system, it's pretty easy to show it as was demonstrated by 7900 SLi and X1900 Xfire benches show. More GPU's = not very much gain in performance - CPU's limit how far we can go.

:rolleyes:

Also, where are the exact specs/drivers etc. I could also poo out something like that and call it gospel but I haven't because I'd stand up to ridicule. There aren't enough CPU's used like a P-D or even X2 4400 or 4800 to see ho they fare.
 
Yeah but the point being its ok showing benchies of how fast a conroe is at 640x480 to eliminate gpu probs, but aint real game benchies better at proper rez as no one here is going to run a conroe in 640x480.

Maybe this is showing that games don't need a super fast cpu now adays as its down too the gpu more and showing conroe aint going to help out as much as peeps think.

I sold my P4 3.4 presscot 2 months ago and got a 3800 A64, i asked on these forums and everyone said the amd would murder the P4 in games, but i have found this isn't true i really haven't gained much fps in games at all.
 
I think the main point of the review in question was to demonstrate the fact that many gamers won't see much difference going from a fast A64 rig to Conroe due to GPU limitations. It indicated that those who primarily game won't see much of a difference and they have to be thanked for that. Many average joes will see the synthetic and Super PI benchies and equate them to huge gaming increases which in most cases simply won't happen. The review was not a cpu review but rather aimed at highlighting the advantages of upgrading to Conroe, if any, from a gaming perspective. In that sense it succeeded.

Where the review has to be taken with a pinch of salt is the lack of SLI/Crossfire testing. And it's true when the next generation of GPUs come out the advantages of Conroe are likely to become more apparent. I don't think anyone reading both that review and the FS review will be in any doubt who has the superior product. Right now it's Intel by some way.
 
I understand exactly what you two above are saying, however he doesn't allude to this as being his point of review - in fact, he does contradict what he hopes to achieve - that's what annoyed me. And he states something quite easily disproved with an SLi/Xfire setup - which in fairness, if you have an X6800 or FX62, then you aren't going to be someone who plays on a 7900GT for example.
 
Dont think im gonna go conroe, my x2 at 2.75 doesnt justify it, i will however go quad core later on this year, encoding apps are gonna love me :p
 
I don't know what to do at the moment. I've got no computer at all, except my laptop (IBM Thinkpad T41). Now, I could either go Core Duo and be portable or Core 2 Duo and be fixed whilst keeping my current laptop. Clock for clock, the Core 2 is faster than the AMD in virtually everything, and consider the clocking potential is far higher on the Core 2, it might make sense but I'm not sure. Gamig wise at least Intel have produced a desktop rival to the AMD which now beats it.
 
Wow. Mixed opinions about the HardOCP review then...

I don't like their testing methods, or their collective ego, but I am glad they did lots of high-res testing because it's shown me Core 2 isn't going to help me out much, if at all, at 1600x1200 :(
 
Jimbo Mahoney said:
Wow. Mixed opinions about the HardOCP review then...

I don't like their testing methods, or their collective ego, but I am glad they did lots of high-res testing because it's shown me Core 2 isn't going to help me out much, if at all, at 1600x1200 :(
Click to expand...


Does it say that?

I read that the GPU became the bottleneck once resolution was 1600 x 1200, not the CPU... maybe I'm wrong!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom