[nugget]

Sorry if this is a double post.

http://www.hothardware.com/viewartic...leid=794&cid=1

 

[WaGsIe]

licks lips

 

[claymanhb]

Wow...finally a decent intel. May be going back...

 

[DEMON32]

Awesome.I'm definitly going to buy that e6700 when it comes out.

edit:Only $529 thats cheaper then the amd i was going to buy

 

[Ste]

Hmm...these don't look as favourable as the Anandtech results. The res is kept low to avoid the bottleneck on the GFX. Would be interested for this site to do the same review at 1280*1024 and above with all the eye candy on.

 

[kagaos]

But AMD still kicks intels butt, with the fx60 right?

 

[DEMON32]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste Hmm...these don't look as favourable as the Anandtech results. The res is kept low to avoid the bottleneck on the GFX. Would be interested for this site to do the same review at 1280*1024 and above with all the eye candy on.

But if they had the bottle neck on the gfx card(s) wouldn't the power all be on them.You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the 2 cpus.
edit:to kagaos.Yeah amd will still kick butt,but conroe will kick AZZ!!!

 

[pauldovi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nugget Sorry if this is a double post. http://www.hothardware.com/viewartic...leid=794&cid=1

This was posted several times 2 weeks ago.... :withstupi

 

[Ropey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste Hmm...these don't look as favourable as the Anandtech results. The res is kept low to avoid the bottleneck on the GFX. Would be interested for this site to do the same review at 1280*1024 and above with all the eye candy on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotHardWare.com Conroe's largest lead yet is shown in these low resolution F.E.A.R. demo runs. This test at low res takes the burden off the GPUs and places it more significantly on the CPUs in the two test systems. You're looking at 46% more frame rate from the 2.66GHz Conroe system versus AMD's 2.8GHz overclocked Athlon 64 FX-60.

46% more frame rate when the graphics are turned down to remove the graphics subsystem from the equation - good idea.

R

 

[Ste]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEMON32 But if they had the bottle neck on the gfx card(s) wouldn't the power all be on them.You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the 2 cpus.

Exactly and this is with 2 x1900xtxs. The GFX cards still bottleneck the A64s in games, so although Conroe looks way better than the A64s you wouldn't really see the difference in games with current cards.
Maybe the next gen will make strides to utilise the CPU more, but to me, this further casts doubts on the validity of the Anandtech results that showed a massive lead for Conroe, even at high res and with high AA, AF etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ropey 46% more frame rate when the graphics are turned down to remove the graphics subsystem from the equation - good idea. R

Yes, this is great news if you play FEAR at these resolutions. I don't though and I doubt many people really do.

 

[pauldovi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kagaos But AMD still kicks intels butt, with the fx60 right?

Ummm did you not read the results. The 2.66Ghz Conroe destroyed the 2.8Ghz FX60....

 

[Ropey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste Exactly and this is with 2 x1900xtxs. The GFX cards still bottleneck the A64s in games, so although Conroe looks way better than the A64s you wouldn't really see the difference in games with current cards. Maybe the next gen will make strides to utilise the CPU more, but to me, this further casts doubts on the validity of the Anandtech results that showed a massive lead for Conroe, even at high res and with high AA, AF etc. Yes, this is great news if you play FEAR at these resolutions. I don't though and I doubt many people really do.

This makes no sense whatsoever as the gameplay at 640 X 480 will remove the graphics GPU subsystem from the equation. Certainly enough to create a valid benchmark (as far as benchmarks go at any rate). This is not about graphics cards, this is about CPU's so let's keep on the track of the new CPU.

It's about time to admit that this processor may be far better than the six year old Athlon refreshes. It's not sinful to admit such a new processor is better than the old one and those who maintain that the problem is the graphics subsystem in such benchmarks are using a pitifully useless argument.

R

 

[Ste]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ropey This makes no sense whatsoever as the gameplay at 640 X 480 will remove the graphics GPU subsystem from the equation. Certainly enough to create a valid benchmark (as far as benchmarks go at any rate). This is not about graphics cards, this is about CPU's so let's keep on the track of the new CPU. It's about time to admit that this processor may be far better than the six year old Athlon refreshes. It's not sinful to admit such a new processor is better than the old one and those who maintain that the problem is the graphics subsystem in such benchmarks are using a pitifully useless argument. R

I don't think you understand my point. The Conroe looks to be a far superior CPU to the A64 range. However, if the GFX cards bottleneck its performance, in games, then for gaming you won't really see any performance increase until the GFX cards progress enough to fully utilise it.

 

[Ropey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste I don't think you understand my point. The Conroe looks to be a far superior CPU to the A64 range. However, if the GFX cards bottleneck its performance, in games, then for gaming you won't really see any performance increase until the GFX cards progress enough to fully utilise it.

That is because your point makes little sense as with dual 7900GTX's and a 40" LCD TV with F.E.A.R. will easily make use of this CPU in 1600 X 1200 and I know this and all you have to do with this graph is extrapolate to 1600 X 1200 as it is at 1024 X 768. Not make use of it?

R

 

[claymanhb]

LOL...all the AMD fanboys are freaking out. This is great.

 

[pauldovi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste I don't think you understand my point. The Conroe looks to be a far superior CPU to the A64 range. However, if the GFX cards bottleneck its performance, in games, then for gaming you won't really see any performance increase until the GFX cards progress enough to fully utilise it.

You may not be able to notice the performance difference, but your wallet will, as this Conroe costs half of the FX60. Also, note why do people buy all these fancy computer parts. I doubt you can see a difference between one 7900GTX and SLI 7900GTX... But people do it.

 

[Ste]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ropey That is because your point makes little sense as with dual 7900GTX's and a 40" LCD TV with F.E.A.R. will easily make use of this CPU in 1600 X 1200 and I know this and all you have to do with this graph is extrapolate to 1600 X 1200 as it is at 1024 X 768. Not make use of it? R

But the benchmark in this post uses dual x1900xtxs in Crossfire and needs to lower the res to reduce the bottleneck and show off the CPU in FEAR.
I'm not saying that the benchmark isn't valid, it is. Reducing the bottleneck on the GFX cards shows what the Conroe is capable of in comparison to the A64s.
This makes me wonder whether the Anandtech results really show what we think they're showing. All I'm saying is that I'm not going to blindly follow one set of benchmarks in terms of real world performance.

 

[ENTERPRISE]

Wow nice find..I can wait for Conroe im going to have to get one i think..I relaly want them to Pit them against a few more AMD'S just to put them to shame lol. no before you say it im not a fanboy lol. That FX60 is classically getting Owned.

 

[Ropey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste But the benchmark in this post uses dual x1900xtxs in Crossfire and needs to lower the res to reduce the bottleneck and show off the CPU in FEAR.

It's just the opposite. They don't NEED to lower the res to reduce the bottleneck as the graphic showing the comparision at higher res shows the processors abilities at that res also. They lower it to PROVE that the Conroe at stock (we are talking CPU's here) is far abler to handle what is being thrown at it than the FX-60 overclocked.

This is the main point. Take the graphics out of the equation. Raw CPU power is what we are talking about here and IS the reason they removed the GPU processing out of the equation.

This provides a more equalized platform for raw CPU power. This IS the Intel CPU forum, not the ATI Video Card Forum. Please stay on track.

R

 

[Ste]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ropey This is the main point. Take the graphics out of the equation. Raw CPU power is what we are talking about here and IS the reason they removed the GPU processing out of the equation. This provides a more equalized platform for raw CPU power. This IS the Intel CPU forum, not the ATI Video Card Forum. Please stay on track. R

I completely agree, this is what i've been saying though. The benchmark is completely valid for the CPU. It removes the GFX card from the equation and shows that the Conroe is a better CPU

My only point here is that we can't generalise these results to res of 1280*1024 and above as the site doesn't provide them. Hence why I said that it would be interesting to see these resolutions included in the benchmark.

Just to clarify again; I'm not saying the A64 is a better CPU. The Conroe looks to be far superior. My only hesitation is whether this extra power will translate to extra gaming performance at the resolutions I play at, currently.