• 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.

Will Conroe make any difference to games?

galadial

galadial

galadial

Associate
Joined
5 Jan 2004
Posts
663
At some point my aged machine will need upgrading and I was wondering if the new Conroe chip will make any difference at all to games? Since my computer can do everything else I throw at it, I'm questioning the hype/value of buying a Conroe if I can pick up a dirt chip AMD chip? Even with an x1900** card, you'll be GPU limited?
 
galadial said:
At some point my aged machine will need upgrading and I was wondering if the new Conroe chip will make any difference at all to games? Since my computer can do everything else I throw at it, I'm questioning the hype/value of buying a Conroe if I can pick up a dirt chip AMD chip? Even with an x1900** card, you'll be GPU limited?
Click to expand...
Isn't the opposite the case at the moment? GPUs are being held back by CPUs, hence why F.E.A.R etc show marked increases in FPS in Conroe systems.
 
Conroe is the best at everything. The E6400 is only £180 but gives the same performance as an FX62, which costs over £700. So not only are they cheap, value for money wise, but they give a better gaming experience than their AMD equivilants.
 
Durzel said:
Isn't the opposite the case at the moment? GPUs are being held back by CPUs, hence why F.E.A.R etc show marked increases in FPS in Conroe systems.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to this effect? I thought all the benchies were done at ultra low resolutions to ensure there was no GPU bottleneck?
 
It would be interesting to know why the Core processor was slightly worse performing in COD2 - one of the most intensive games test out there. Just seems to be the anomolous result out of all the others...

EDIT: Anandtechs preview also suggested a much closer gap in FEAR - in fact a non existant one when the 2mhz core is compared to the 2ghz amd 3800
 
Last edited:
yeah. it could well be GFX limited at that point, though its strange that with a higher minimum AND max fps, the conroe still pulls a slighty lower average framerate lol
 
The fact things begin GFX limited at a point where the effect of a fast processor is no longer relevent (i.e. at the settings people actually want to play at) makes the 20% advantage the core chips apparently have pretty much irrelevent in real world teams. Why play at 160fps min at low settings limited by cpu when you can play at 60fps min with max settings limited by gpu?
 
The most compelling reason I found for Conroe was the thread showing the Oblivion results. Oblivion is probably the most pain you can put your system through game wise, and what sold me was not so much the increase in max or average frame rates, but the almost 100% gain on minimum frame rates - which is where it all counts really.
 
It depends on a million factors whether the cpu will infact make a difference.
Say oblivion outside - your likely to not see a huge increase as the gpu is pushed to its limits as is.
But indoors the GPU easily can draw the fps and some more dependant on the cpu power, here is where the opteron is likely to see a large increase.
The conroes will also see large increase in games like F.E.A.R @ ultra high resolutions and details mainly because.
1, the games coding isnt the greatest lol
2, the game really pushes the cpu at these details, and the fps will increase as the cpu will be pushing the gpu higher at those details.

However there are other games that dont require the cpu to be that great, rather they burden the gpu heavily, therefore in these games the difference is minimal.
Overall you will see massive increases when its allowed to show it.
 
Just looking at that website heres a perfect example of how a conroe will beat the opteron.

"1024x768, 4xAA 16xAF, all max:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: Min 60 | Avg 142 | Max 370

Conroe @ 3GHz: Min 78 | Avg 162 | Max 485"


This doesnt show massive difference, only an extra 20fps average, which sounds a lot, but isnt when your average fps is 142-162.

"1600x1200, 4xAA 16xAF, all max:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: Min 25 | Avg 43 | Max 172

Conroe @ 3GHz: Min 53 | Avg 86 | Max 310"

TWICE THE FPS! thats undenyable, shows that when the cpu is being utilized to push the gpu harder, the conroe really takes over.
 
You remebered correctly:

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
1600x1200, Full HDR, 8xAF, Everything Maximum
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: Min 15 | Avg 83.993 | Max 689
Conroe @ 3GHz: Min 29 | Avg 132.776 | Max 1546
 
fenderbass86 said:
Conroe is the best at everything. The E6400 is only £180 but gives the same performance as an FX62, which costs over £700. So not only are they cheap, value for money wise, but they give a better gaming experience than their AMD equivilants.
Click to expand...


is that what your going to be going for the 6400???
 
I am most impressed by the Minimum frame rates. This is where it really matters to me.

(starts saving for Conroe)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom