PDA

View Full Version : Will Conroe make a "SEEable" difference vs. FX60 in games?


kwynjunk
05-29-06, 10:05 AM
For games that are out and are coming out within a year to 2 years, will you SEE a difference in performance vs. the AMD FX60?

For instance, I mean, If conroe is running Far Cry at 150 FPS while the FX60 is only running it at 120 FPS(hypothetical #'s), I can't see the difference. I think anything above 60 FPS is not noticable to the human eye????

On F.E.A.R., Conroe may get 79 FPS and the FX60 may get 63FPS (minimum frame rates with all settings maxed). Again, I think another not noticable difference.

So...within the next 1 to 2 years, will any games come out where you can SEE the difference? (ex. a game so CPU dependent that with the FX60 minimum frames will drop below 50fps and minimum frames will be 70fps and UP on Conroe)

I just bought an FX60 and wonder how long before I will buy Conroe.

|MaguS|
05-29-06, 10:18 AM
It will be most noticable in games that are severly CPU limtied like Source Based titles and even Oblivion in some cases.

kwynjunk
05-29-06, 10:18 AM
the faster the better...

....future proofing.

How bout in 1 to 2 years?

Will you be able to "SEE" anything? Pretend there are no such thing as benchmarks and you have only your eyes to gauge the games and their performance.

jolle
05-29-06, 10:21 AM
Just run with that FX60 until its too slow for what you´re doing with it..
Its no point in ditching it for a conroe just cause they got a faster model, use it until you feel its time for a new CPU, and when that time comes, look at whats available on the market and choose from that.
dx10 is around the corner... cpu performance will be a big factor...
how so? I thought the drivermodel and new APIs would reduce the CPU overhead significantly.
Other then devs building new games for newer hardware, as they always do..

Dazz
05-29-06, 10:38 AM
If you bought an FX60 it will be god for quite a while, Conroe will come down in price and more afordable. I would stick with what you got. Think about it this way you will need to upgrade ram board and processor so it will be expensive.

ViN86
05-29-06, 10:47 AM
just to put it in perspective, i plan to have my X2 for quite a while. yes conroe offers performance gains, but will it be like goin from a pentium 1 to an athlon64? no.

id save for a DX10 compatible vid card for vista.

a12ctic
05-29-06, 10:50 AM
my next upgrade is a x2 4400, and i dont plan on that for 2 years heh

i <3 my 3000+@2.7ghz

Sazar
05-29-06, 12:02 PM
For games that are out and are coming out within a year to 2 years, will you SEE a difference in performance vs. the AMD FX60?

For instance, I mean, If conroe is running Far Cry at 150 FPS while the FX60 is only running it at 120 FPS(hypothetical #'s), I can't see the difference. I think anything above 60 FPS is not noticable to the human eye????

On F.E.A.R., Conroe may get 79 FPS and the FX60 may get 63FPS (minimum frame rates with all settings maxed). Again, I think another not noticable difference.

So...within the next 1 to 2 years, will any games come out where you can SEE the difference? (ex. a game so CPU dependent that with the FX60 minimum frames will drop below 50fps and minimum frames will be 70fps and UP on Conroe)

I just bought an FX60 and wonder how long before I will buy Conroe.

Intel procs do just fine in games today compared to the a64's, but why then do people buy the a64's?

Difference may not be "seeable" in all instances but people just like getting FAST things.

I am happy with my baby at the moment, I can't see myself making any tangible upgrades till vista drops and we have the hardware at that time to make choices about :)

a12ctic
05-29-06, 12:37 PM
sazar, personaly i think that the a64's run pretty much all app's better than the p4's, also in gaming performance, i honestly cant see a difference between a steady 30 fps and a steady 100 fps ;)

CaptNKILL
05-29-06, 12:47 PM
i honestly cant see a difference between a steady 30 fps and a steady 100 fps ;)
You are very lucky :lol:

*looks at sig; then at wallet*

:(

a12ctic
05-29-06, 12:51 PM
You are very lucky :lol:

*looks at sig; then at wallet*

:(
i know, i think its a big illusion to try to get me to buy expensive computers, once i turn off the fps meter as long as it doesnt dip below 30 i really dont notice it, it seems a little different for lcd's though, i seem to be able to see up to 35 fps on lcd's, thats why i stick with my crt, saves me a lot of money.

CaptNKILL
05-29-06, 01:02 PM
i know, i think its a big illusion to try to get me to buy expensive computers, once i turn off the fps meter as long as it doesnt dip below 30 i really dont notice it, it seems a little different for lcd's though, i seem to be able to see up to 35 fps on lcd's, thats why i stick with my crt, saves me a lot of money.
Heh, I remember playing DoD (half-life mod) a while ago at 1280x960 with 4xAA and 16xAF on my geforce 4 ti 4400 and I just couldnt figure out why the game felt choppy then smooth then choppy then smooth. It turned out it was vsync cutting my framerate in half. From 85 to 42.5. Its rediculous. When something runs at 85fps most of the time, its painfully obvious when it suddenly ISN'T :p

a12ctic
05-29-06, 01:16 PM
i loved my ti 4400 hehe, i dont know maby im a super human or something

CaptNKILL
05-29-06, 01:21 PM
i loved my ti 4400 hehe, i dont know maby im a super human or something
Na, you just dont see it :lol:

ViN86
05-29-06, 05:15 PM
i know, i think its a big illusion to try to get me to buy expensive computers, once i turn off the fps meter as long as it doesnt dip below 30 i really dont notice it, it seems a little different for lcd's though, i seem to be able to see up to 35 fps on lcd's, thats why i stick with my crt, saves me a lot of money.
usually you can notice a difference between about 75 fps and lower because thats the standard refresh for most lcd's. when you get below the refresh rate, you have a couple monitor frames displaying the same image, thats when i tend to notice it.

CainSyris
05-30-06, 10:55 AM
For games that are out and are coming out within a year to 2 years, will you SEE a difference in performance vs. the AMD FX60?

For instance, I mean, If conroe is running Far Cry at 150 FPS while the FX60 is only running it at 120 FPS(hypothetical #'s), I can't see the difference. I think anything above 60 FPS is not noticable to the human eye????

On F.E.A.R., Conroe may get 79 FPS and the FX60 may get 63FPS (minimum frame rates with all settings maxed). Again, I think another not noticable difference.

So...within the next 1 to 2 years, will any games come out where you can SEE the difference? (ex. a game so CPU dependent that with the FX60 minimum frames will drop below 50fps and minimum frames will be 70fps and UP on Conroe)

I just bought an FX60 and wonder how long before I will buy Conroe.


Ask yourself this. Why did you get an FX60 vs a X2 3800+, X2 4400+ or X2 4800+? Would you find a *visible* difference between those different CPU's? If no, then you won't see a difference between Conroe and your FX60. If yes, then sure, you would. I suspect if you paid over 1k for your FX, high end CPU just to have 200mhz over the almost half-THAT-price-4800+, yes, you'll be one of those that notices the noticable performance difference between what was once high end (FX60) and what is high end (FX62) or will be high end (potentially Conroe).

That said, it's still a fairly fast system. Just not top of the line. Hope you didn't pay over 1k for that FX60 less than a month ago because... well, you should have waited. ;)

Riptide
05-30-06, 11:19 AM
The reality is that most games are not CPU limited when run in high resolutions w/AA, AF, and HDR turned on/up. I'm sure the Conroe will help sometimes but in many situations you won't be able to see a difference.

Personally I'll stick with my X2 for the time being.

saturnotaku
05-30-06, 11:24 AM
Personally I'll stick with my X2 for the time being.

:werd:

My X2 is more than enough for the gaming I do on the PC. Now that I have my 360, I have even less reason to want/need to upgrade anytime soon. I'll have to see how Vista shapes up when it arrives, but even then I'm sure there will be a transition period where having XP will continue to be viable.

Riptide
05-30-06, 11:30 AM
Being a folder there is a case to be made for me to buy one. Games aside. But I've got to many other obligations now - the days of throwing money at the computer any time something new comes out are over with. Now I'm actually going to have to PLAN my upgrades. :(

grey_1
05-30-06, 08:30 PM
But I've got to many other obligations now - the days of throwing money at the computer any time something new comes out are over with. Now I'm actually going to have to PLAN my upgrades.
__________________

Doesn't that suck?:p

Acid Rain
05-30-06, 08:58 PM
Na, you just dont see it :lol:Bingo. To me, a v-synced 60 is nice and smooth, but a v-synced 85 provides a more solid image, with much tighter action, if you know what I mean.

On topic, I agree with the idea of keeping your cash around for a DX10 compatible graphics setup and not going Conroe yet.

bkswaney
05-30-06, 10:00 PM
Being a folder there is a case to be made for me to buy one. Games aside. But I've got to many other obligations now - the days of throwing money at the computer any time something new comes out are over with. Now I'm actually going to have to PLAN my upgrades. :(


I hear that. Sound like me. I have twin 6YO boys to worry about now.

I plan all upgrades these days and sometimes that falls though. :(

sabersix1
05-31-06, 02:00 AM
THE Biggest reason for AMD to take up Desktop Market Share was the fact the Nvidia only made NF4 SLI Core Logic Boards for AMD for a solid 6 months before the chanel came out with the Crush16 for intel. And then most of the decent SLI boards for intel didn't even arrive till last fall with the Dual x16 for Intel with the Dell/Nvidia/Intel deal. But You can bet your bottom dollar that Nvidia is not going to miss out on(or forget) Conroe. As the channel will be releasing NF5 590 x16's nest week at Computex.

CainSyris
05-31-06, 03:06 AM
THE Biggest reason for AMD to take up Desktop Market Share was the fact the Nvidia only made NF4 SLI Core Logic Boards for AMD for a solid 6 months before the chanel came out with the Crush16 for intel. And then most of the decent SLI boards for intel didn't even arrive till last fall with the Dual x16 for Intel with the Dell/Nvidia/Intel deal. But You can bet your bottom dollar that Nvidia is not going to miss out on(or forget) Conroe. As the channel will be releasing NF5 590 x16's nest week at Computex.


Because of my projector setup (which requires a DVI to HDMI cable), it looks like I'll need Conroe + nVidia SLI if I want to use a dual-video card setup for my main PC platform now. Given that, looks like I'll need to go nVidia in motherboards again.

How I wish nVidia would open up SLI to Intel motherboards. That way, I wouldn't have to deal with nVidia's broken technologies when they fall through.

Riptide
05-31-06, 08:23 AM
_

Doesn't that suck?:p
Yes and no. The tradeoff is that I have my own house. Believe me, it's a lot of work (lawn mowing, cleaning, etc.) but it's got some advantages.