• 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?

Vegeta said:
I dont know how people say CPU doesnt make a massive difference, try running your CPU low and then try running your CPU high, theres a world of difference.
Click to expand...


this is exactly the point it DOESN'T. overclock your cpu to the highest it will go, run at the HIGHEST resolution AND quality settings your graphics card can handle and run fraps, note the location in game and note the fps you are getting looking at a couple different area's. then go clock down the cpu lots and you tell us what the difference is. there will be a difference but it will be minimal.

if you are running 3dmark 01, 03 you'll notice a huge difference when you drop that cpu speed, but thats not what i'm talking about, real world gaming difference is what this thread is about. you'll be surprised. if you want afterwards do the same thing but drop the resolution down to something the gfx can handle stupidly easily(ie 1280x1024 with low quality everything if you have a x1900/7900 or something) and you'll see why reviews can be misleading.


as for games going multithreaded, it will happen, its happened. it doesn't always give the boost you really want, but its still do-able. a few games already can use both, maybe not as brilliantly as people wanted, but again, its hard to see because as a 3Ghz p4 is plenty for gaming when you're gfx limited, 2x3Ghz cores won't really do much for you.
 
Last edited:
james.miller said:
so you missed the part about games being up to 100% faster at high res then?
Click to expand...


games are NOT 100% faster at higher res, thats ONE, not official review that contradicts EVERY other preview/review i've seen so far, not anandtech, not any other site i've seen at all, probo 10 or more previews show that, they all indicated exactly what i said, low resolution big difference showing its a better cpu, at high res almost zero fps difference. as i said, every past newer and faster cpu has shown the same pattern, every proper preview has shown the same pattern, just one out of all logic and sense shows something different and everyone suddenly believes it.
 
james.miller said:
dont use caps locks to try and shove your opinion down my throat :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


from a review site i seem to remember OCUK having issues with so won't say the name

Far Cry - 1024x768 - speed (average FPS, higher is better)
174.48 162.35 125.1 130.2 109.06
Quake 4 - 1600x1200 - 4x AA 16x AF (higher is better)
115.8 113 111.7 107.23 108 ,

low res big diff, high res no diff, sorry, not clear, the cpu results are in this order , x6800, e6600, fx62, fx60 and some presler at the end, an EE. even a presler beats a fx60 by half a frame because its all pretty much gpu limited. those are the kind of results every site has shown except one. one out of i don't even know how many.
 
missed out splinter cell

Splinter Cell: CT - 1600x1200 - 4x AA 8x AF (higher is better)
63.87 64.01 63.31 62.33 62.05


EDIT:- that above was supposed to be an edit too :p

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=11

ok its yonah but the point being the diff cpu's all show almost identical performance at high res, very diff at low res.

and the page after shows that all games were completely gpu limited even at lower res because they are so intensive, cpu simply did not make the slightest difference.
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
games are NOT 100% faster at higher res, thats ONE, not official review that contradicts EVERY other preview/review i've seen so far, not anandtech, not any other site i've seen at all, probo 10 or more previews show that, they all indicated exactly what i said, low resolution big difference showing its a better cpu, at high res almost zero fps difference. as i said, every past newer and faster cpu has shown the same pattern, every proper preview has shown the same pattern, just one out of all logic and sense shows something different and everyone suddenly believes it.
Click to expand...
Ok, tell me ANYGAME to run and i WILL prove it, my monitor resolution is 1680X1050 and when I put the details on high this should most defiently be enough to find the limits of my x1800xt (it does).
I can gurantee you 100% my cpu @ 2.6ghz will beat the pants off my cpu at stock 1.8ghz GURANTEE it, tell me to run a game I will go and do it for ya.
 
Last edited:
If a game is CPU limited then having a faster CPU will improve the bottleneck. If the game is not CPU limited then it stands to reason that having a faster CPU is going to make much of a difference to FPS (unless you believe the Conroe chip can render FPS in a significant and meaninful way - which i don't).

Therefore, for most games which we believe, are GPU limited a faster CPU can't make that much of a difference. At resolutions most people play at, most games are GPU limited.

The only anomaly I can think of are poorly coded games where data is hanging around waiting for CPU cycles.

This was the original point I asked at the beginning of the thread - how can Conroe improve FPS in a game which is typically GPU limited. Or are we now believing that games are both GPU and CPU limited? Something doesn't add up here, and since all the 'tests' have been done under Intel defined conditions, I don't believe it until I see it :)
 
well, the thing is the ones that guy did(ok didn't read whole thread) but sound like he just got an ES cpu and did test's himself. all the "done with intel there on system they set up" previews don't show anything like that kind of boost. you got it spot on with gpu limited games there really is very little gain if any from a great cpu. i do a lot of stuff other than gaming and find a faster cpu very beneficial so will get one. i run a benchmark or two , 3dmark and maybe some superpi purely to just check a new install is working as it should be, i don't tweak the hell out of anything or post my scores up in forums, if i did then i'd get a conroe for now ;)


the main thing is, if you need a new system(on something old) then theres really very little reason not to go conroe as they pretty much are faster at every single price point (well in a few days ). as for upgrading from a 939 system just for gaming, you won't notice any difference so i wouldn't do it just for that.

the other thing to say is, out of most poorly coded games, its generally the gfx side of thing thats poorly done. overuse of lighting, or poor use of effects when it doesn't really change how things look, as in, there can be too much of a good thing.


if thats your current system set up in your sig then, well, let us know what your budget is and i'll tell you where's best to spend the money. it all depends, due to the board you have if you said you had £300 i'd normally say grab a x1900 as that will easily make the biggest difference with your set up, but you're on agp. the 7800(i think) agp is so overpriced because its the only agp high end card you can really get so IMHO is a waste of cash overall.

if you had say £500 i'd say get the £150 conroe, a £70 motherboard, drop £70 on very cheap gig of mem and then find maybe get a x1900gt if you can find one(seem to be very rare in the uk) or a 7900gt i guess. also guessing after release(within a few days) the cheapest conroe will drop a lot, its supposed to be $167 or so, how that equates to £152 i have no clue.
 
Last edited:
The improvement to Fear and Oblivion looks significant and well worth it though not essential of course. I agree most games it wont make any practical difference but of course theres always something newer coming.


I was just looking quickly at the prices, is the 6300 and 6400 7x multipler and 8x. For 30 quid difference I guess anything less then 6400 is silly
 
drunkenmaster said:
well, the thing is the ones that guy did(ok didn't read whole thread) but sound like he just got an ES cpu and did test's himself. all the "done with intel there on system they set up" previews don't show anything like that kind of boost. you got it spot on with gpu limited games there really is very little gain if any from a great cpu. i do a lot of stuff other than gaming and find a faster cpu very beneficial so will get one. i run a benchmark or two , 3dmark and maybe some superpi purely to just check a new install is working as it should be, i don't tweak the hell out of anything or post my scores up in forums, if i did then i'd get a conroe for now ;)


the main thing is, if you need a new system(on something old) then theres really very little reason not to go conroe as they pretty much are faster at every single price point (well in a few days ). as for upgrading from a 939 system just for gaming, you won't notice any difference so i wouldn't do it just for that.

the other thing to say is, out of most poorly coded games, its generally the gfx side of thing thats poorly done. overuse of lighting, or poor use of effects when it doesn't really change how things look, as in, there can be too much of a good thing.


if thats your current system set up in your sig then, well, let us know what your budget is and i'll tell you where's best to spend the money. it all depends, due to the board you have if you said you had £300 i'd normally say grab a x1900 as that will easily make the biggest difference with your set up, but you're on agp. the 7800(i think) agp is so overpriced because its the only agp high end card you can really get so IMHO is a waste of cash overall.

if you had say £500 i'd say get the £150 conroe, a £70 motherboard, drop £70 on very cheap gig of mem and then find maybe get a x1900gt if you can find one(seem to be very rare in the uk) or a 7900gt i guess. also guessing after release(within a few days) the cheapest conroe will drop a lot, its supposed to be $167 or so, how that equates to £152 i have no clue.
Click to expand...

That is my current rig and I've got about £800 to buy a new system. However, and this point has surprised me too, I play Oblivion on this spec and have enjoyed the game fine including the stellar graphics. I'm now getting bored of the game, so I asked myself, if I bought a high end spec machine, would I start enjoying/playing Oblivion again? The answer is 'no'. So I'm now asking myself, do I need a new rig to play games, and how much difference do shiny new graphics make?

I do agree though, at the moment it looks like Conroe all the way, but not for playing games, which seems to be the point the test review sites are making.
 
galadial said:
That is my current rig and I've got about £800 to buy a new system. However, and this point has surprised me too, I play Oblivion on this spec and have enjoyed the game fine including the stellar graphics. I'm now getting bored of the game, so I asked myself, if I bought a high end spec machine, would I start enjoying/playing Oblivion again? The answer is 'no'. So I'm now asking myself, do I need a new rig to play games, and how much difference do shiny new graphics make?

I do agree though, at the moment it looks like Conroe all the way, but not for playing games, which seems to be the point the test review sites are making.
Click to expand...

But not for play games? How did you work that out??

Stelly
 
Jeez I cant wait till some of you guys actually get your hands on a retail chip and do some gaming benchmarks (on a retail board).
If you can replicate the double minimum framerate scores at the high res`s in Fear and the like I will be most impressed ! ;)
 
galadial said:
I'm not sure it will make a big difference to GPU limited games.
Click to expand...

a lot of sites are saying that the CPU has limited the GPU and with Conroe they are seeing a lot of increases in frame rates

Stelly
 
Stelly said:
But not for play games? How did you work that out??

Stelly
Click to expand...
Apparently Oblivion is the only game that exists at the moment, and no one is making any more games until AMD brings out its new processors.
 
The way I see it, even if it games are gpu limited, and you dont notice the difference in games, its a cpu that will literally last you aaaaages over most other cpu's especially so far as gaming is concerned.
 
Stelly said:
a lot of sites are saying that the CPU has limited the GPU and with Conroe they are seeing a lot of increases in frame rates

Stelly
Click to expand...

no they aren't, infact only one is. anandtech have said for 2-3 years theres little point benchmarking games for a cpu review in high res as it shows no difference, this is why all the top sites benchmark with a top end card at only 1280x1024 or even 1024x768, so they are only cpu limited(didn't even work for cod and fear as both are very gpu limited even down at 1280x1024).


galadial, you've got it. i mean theres very little argument to get anything other than conroe, no its not going to add 30% to all your framerates, but it will be faster even though you can't see it, and for anything you do that is cpu intensive it will be kickass. added to the fact you can get a relatively cheap one and yes it will last you for ages. but certainly won't be anywhere near as fast as anything available in jQ107(quad core's from both companies out). but who cares, get one.

personally i do like to play in best resolution possible, my crt doesnt' do above 1600x1200 at a decent refresh so i stick to that, with high quality settings which makes the x1900xt perfect for me. for right now, i'd say grab a x1900xt(possibly gt as they seem to be modding to 48 pipes), a cheaper conroe, a cheaper board and semi decent 2gig set of mem. that should be under £800 easily. there is almost nothing a £80 775 board can't that a £170 board can't do, except glow in the dark and have excessive, unused 58 phase power and pointless heatpipes ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom