• 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.

Hardocp core 2 duo article

Gerard

Gerard

Gerard

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
40,722
Location
Ireland
 
Last edited:
Yup, prity much what I expected. Although it would have been interesting for them to do some low res benchmarks as well. All they are basically reviewing there is the graphics card.
 
Last edited:
Dunno if low res would be realistic, whos gonna buy a 2.6 or 2.93ghz core 2 and have a 7900\x1900 and play at 800x600?

Quake players come to mind but outside those headcases. :p
 
I understand what you're saying, but it would just show far apart they actually are. Here are some numbers posted at the [H] forums by Kyle himself:

"these are numbers I took this morning. Asus P5B Vs. Abit KN9 SLI using a single 7800GT on both with 2GB of ram at fully stock speeds."

Synthetic Testing

Sandra Memory Bandwidth (2007)

X6800 - INT- 5581
E6700 - INT- 5524
FX-62 - INT- 8705
Sandra CPU Drystone ALU (2007)

X6800 Score: 27059
E6700 Score: 24748
FX-62 Score: 20423


Super Pi Mod v 1.5 – 1M Unit Size

X6800 Score: 17.375
E6700 Score: 19.172
FX-62 Score: 30.547

Applications:

Video Testing: DivX Converter 6.2 (minutes)

X6800 Time: 77
E6700 Time: 84
FX-62 Time: 99

Video Testing: Adobe Premiere Elem v1.0 (minutes : seconds)

X6800 Time: 8:24
E6700 Time: 9:04
FX-62 Time: 11:01

Video Testing: Windows Movie Maker v2.1 (seconds)

X6800 Time: 1:15
E6700 Time: 1:21
FX-62 Time: 1:44

Audio Testing: iTunes 6 ( seconds)

X6800 Time: 19
E6700 Time: 21
FX-62 Time: 20

Photoshop Testing: Photoshop 8 Combined Filters (seconds)

X6800 Time: 172.3
E6700 Time: 186.8
FX-62 Time: 187.9

Games:

UT2003 V2225

X6800 FPS: 201
E6700 FPS: 185
FX-62 FPS: 159

HL2 Source 7 BLDG 2707

X6800 FPS: 157
E6700 FPS: 146
FX-62 FPS: 121

Quake 4 v1.2

X6800 FPS: 182
E6700 FPS: 164
FX-62 FPS: 144

Dual Core / Q4 with Adobe Premiere

X6800 FPS: 128
E6700 FPS: 113
FX-62 FPS: 105

Originally from HERE
 
Last edited:
Gerard said:
Seems in real world gaming the high end duo is around 5-8fps faster than the fx62 at most.
Click to expand...
And also half the price. /thread ;)

Keep in mind we have already seen lots of independant benchmarks of games at resolutions of 1600x1200, this includes games like F.E.A.R and Oblivion, and minimum framerate was concluded to be double in some cases with the Conroes.
 
Last edited:
Gerard said:
Dunno if low res would be realistic, whos gonna buy a 2.6 or 2.93ghz core 2 and have a 7900\x1900 and play at 800x600?

Quake players come to mind but outside those headcases. :p
Click to expand...

Depends what you are trying to test. If you run at high res, chances are the CPU won't be the bottleneck, but the graphics card. At low res you won't risk maxing out the graphics card which gets a better idea about the gaming power of the chip itself.

The other alternative would have been to use an SLI/Crossfire configuration to ensure it's not being gfx limited....
 
There is one factor thats not represented in any of the reviews that I have read so far, but is a key factor...

If comparing conroe to the AMD FX62, based on many results (admitidly using ES chips) conroe overclocks far better than the AMD.

Take the top of the range X6800. These seem to do between 3.5 and 4ghz on air where as an FX62 will just top 3.1ghz. It is rare to find anyone with a Conroe of any type that does not do at least 3.2Ghz.

When you take the better overclock into account the gap between Conroe and the AMD64 grows quite a bit wider and therefor those 4-6 frames per sec in games will increase quite a bit.

Just my thoughts :)
 
I find this article very usefull,
It tells us that conroe is faster, but we already know that.
The only really heavy work I put my computer to is gaming and this confirms that just because a conroe can work out Pi twice as fast as my 939 X2 4600 @ 2.8ghz doesn't mean it worthwhile for me to upgrade.... which is exactly what I needed to hear :)
 
StarShock said:
I find this article very usefull,
It tells us that conroe is faster, but we already know that.
The only really heavy work I put my computer to is gaming and this confirms that just because a conroe can work out Pi twice as fast as my 939 X2 4600 @ 2.8ghz doesn't mean it worthwhile for me to upgrade.... which is exactly what I needed to hear :)
Click to expand...

I'd still personally sell your X2 4600 for £300, maybe more. Maybe your mobo + ram could fetch £120 or w/e.

Buy an E6600 which will get to £70 savings (Assuming you sell for £300) then that leaves you with £190 (70 + 120). Buy some G.Skill for £170 then buy a badaxe, then for £130 upgrade you have a mega machine ;).
 
UKTopGun said:
I'd still personally sell your X2 4600 for £300, maybe more. Maybe your mobo + ram could fetch £120 or w/e.

Buy an E6600 which will get to £70 savings (Assuming you sell for £300) then that leaves you with £190 (70 + 120). Buy some G.Skill for £170 then buy a badaxe, then for £130 upgrade you have a mega machine ;).
Click to expand...


brand new X2 4600's are £200 lol
 
Ok, I know this is a silly question...

Do you all think that its the gfx card chip that might be holding Conroe Extreme edition back or do you think thats the best that you can get out of that CPU? I know that in the past the CPU has held back the Gfx card, but could it now be the other way around??

Stelly
 
I understand what you mean, but I haven't got a clue myself - and I would be interested to find out.

That HardOCP 'review' was the worst one out of all the reviews so far. Have you guys seen all the others? :D
 
killer_uk said:
I understand what you mean, but I haven't got a clue myself - and I would be interested to find out.

That HardOCP 'review' was the worst one out of all the reviews so far. Have you guys seen all the others? :D
Click to expand...

Nope, any linky? and I would love to know if my above post if true

Stelly
 
The ONLY difference that we experienced is that we did have to lower a couple of settings with the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 platform compared to the Intel platforms. This was the internal and external shadows. Luckily, the shadow sliders there are “notched” so it is easy to know exactly what position they are in. With the Intel CPUs, we were able to have this 5 notches up, which is in the middle of the slider for those shadow options. When we tried these same settings on the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 platform, we found performance to be overall lower than the Intel CPUs and not playable.
Click to expand...

so they must have turned it down before benching it. what does that mean?
 
james.miller said:
so they must have turned it down before benching it. what does that mean?
Click to expand...

No I think that this means that they had to turn the shading down with the AMD because it cant run with them on, I think thats what they mean

Stelly
 
yeah, which means the the conroe is faster running shadow level 5 than the a64 is running level 3. They tell you what settings they use on the graph
 
james.miller said:
yeah, which means the the conroe is faster running shadow level 5 than the a64 is running level 3. They tell you what settings they use on the graph
Click to expand...

agreed, so does this mean that your better off getting a ATI graphics card with your Conroe since they handle shading better as well? :)

Stelly
 
well i think its better going for conroe regardless, but that's besides the point lol. All i want is for somebody to review the cpu's using the same settings thruout and lay it all on the table for us to see. Whats the point in claiming they're going to do it fairly if they then review like that? there's no need for skewing the benchmarks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom