PDA

View Full Version : Conroe benches (ie the *bleep* of AMD)


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Zelda_fan
06-29-06, 02:14 PM
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/306/merom-et-conroe-test-des-core-2-duo/page11.php
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/306/merom-et-conroe-test-des-core-2-duo/page12.php

These are just the games benchmarks

In UT2004 the X6800 is nearly double the FX-62

http://amd.justgotowned.com

|MaguS|
06-29-06, 02:16 PM
Wish it was in english wana know the OC setup... getting the E6600 to 3.6 is awsome!

Superfly
06-29-06, 02:20 PM
Only a matter of time now until AthlonXP1800 or A12ctic craps on this thread, LOL - I wonder what BS they will come up with this time.

Zelda_fan
06-29-06, 02:22 PM
Only a matter of time now until AthlonXP1800 or A12ctic craps on this thread, LOL - I wonder what BS they will come up with this time.

After these benchmarks A12ctic and AthlonXP are going to be putting their hands behind their asses and running for cover.

nemecb
06-29-06, 02:24 PM
Okay...now where are the benchmarks that somebody with a Conroe is actually going to care about? Nobody's playing FEAR at 640x480 on a Conroe. I realize that it was intended to make the game CPU limited, but I doubt that under normal circumstances the performance is going to exactly match those graphs (which is not to say that Intel won't still dominate - Conroe could be further ahead under real conditions).

Anyway, I smell prices coming down. They need to wait a month or two until I have money though. Cheap dual-core upgrade FTW!:D

a12ctic
06-29-06, 02:34 PM
Have fun and post whatever is on your mind as long as you can keep it clean. And keep the BS to a minimum. Please.

stop breaking the rules zelda

nemecb
06-29-06, 02:37 PM
(popcorn)

Zelda_fan
06-29-06, 02:40 PM
http://img318.imageshack.us/img318/285/pwnd2uv.jpg

Superfly
06-29-06, 02:41 PM
stop breaking the rules zelda

You see!!!!!!! I was right, LOL

Only a matter of time, well at least he is predictable, a tool of the first order.

six_storm
06-29-06, 02:42 PM
I'm still waiting for a reputable source ([H]ardOCP or such) for benchies. I do plan on building a nice gaming/media rig next year so I'll see plenty of benchies by then by peeps on here.

Superfly
06-29-06, 02:47 PM
I'm still waiting for a reputable source ([H]ardOCP or such) for benchies. I do plan on building a nice gaming/media rig next year so I'll see plenty of benchies by then by peeps on here.


as am I and most other people with a brain, whats funny here is a12ctic's AMD tunnel vision, almost as funny as his reasons for that tunnel vision in the first place.

pkirby11
06-29-06, 02:50 PM
First off, I find the title of this thread disgusting and inapropriate. Raping of AMD, nice title makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Mods please change the title of this thread, it's offensive. It has nothing to do with beating AMD, I just find the word rape offensive.

Second, would someone please, please, please stop post these stupid benchmark reviews. Why? Because, how many of you here play UT2K4 at 640x480 and 800x600? Honestly how many of you play at 1280x1024? Why is it, that Conroe can only be benched at these low resolutions? Is Intel afriad of the lack luster performance at 1600x1200 and above? I'm really curious, because if you want to take back the gaming crown you need to bring A game to the resolution most hard core gamers are going play at.

Now I for one was going to buy Conroe, still might for that matter I have to wait until I see launch day benchmarks. Anandtech has them, they are still under NDA, which makes me wonder how and were these people got there scores and processors. They can't be legit or they're Intel controlled benchmarks. I want independent in lab results at a resolution higher than this 800x600 BS!

Look, I'm an AMD fan boy like you could never believe but I want the best for my system. Getting a $400 ot $600 processor that smokes an FX-62 that cost $1000 is damn impressive. In fact it's good enough to make me say to hell with AMD. But heres my problem, yes those benchmarks are all impressive especially when you OC the cpu, which I wouldn't any ways. However, I wonder if there is something Intel is afriad of and that would be this, could it be that the architecture doesn't scale well at higher resolutions. Do they start running into problems with there FSB? I don't know I don't have a Conroe, but I don't think there is any one any more that plays at that resolution. Why is Intel or reviewers so afriad of anything higher?

I just want to see, maybe the FX-62 is close or about the same at higher resolutions and Intels scared. Maybe I'm full of it, but I personally won't believe all the Conroe hype until I see some 1680x1050 resolution benchmarks. Or at least 1600x1200, and maybe there out there and I just missed them who knows.

But please change the title of this thread.

CaptNKILL
06-29-06, 02:51 PM
Okay...now where are the benchmarks that somebody with a Conroe is actually going to care about? Nobody's playing FEAR at 640x480 on a Conroe. I realize that it was intended to make the game CPU limited, but I doubt that under normal circumstances the performance is going to exactly match those graphs (which is not to say that Intel won't still dominate - Conroe could be further ahead under real conditions).

I agree.

I bet if you run UT2007 at 40x30 resolution on a geforce 2 mx you'll see a huge benefit from a CPU upgrade. It doesnt mean its realistic at all.

Yes these benchmarks are impressive, but what they need to be doing is testing CPU heavy situations (ie, where the resolution doesnt make a difference) and showing the minimum and average framerates.

Zelda_fan
06-29-06, 02:57 PM
I agree.

I bet if you run UT2007 at 40x30 resolution on a geforce 2 mx you'll see a huge benefit from a CPU upgrade. It doesnt mean its realistic at all.

Yes these benchmarks are impressive, but what they need to be doing is testing CPU heavy situations (ie, where the resolution doesnt make a difference) and showing the minimum and average framerates.

Running the game at 640x480 IS A CPU HEAVY SITUATION. Obviously no one plays the game at 640x480, but if you run a game at 1600x1200 the graphics card will prevent it from going over 100fps and the CPU will only be at like 30%.

The best way to test a CPU against next-gen games is to take current-gen games and run them at very low resolutions. Once Conroe starts being tested with games like Oblivion you'll see what I'm talking about.

Zelda_fan
06-29-06, 02:59 PM
First off, I find the title of this thread disgusting and inapropriate. Raping of AMD, nice title makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Mods please change the title of this thread, it's offensive. It has nothing to do with beating AMD, I just find the word rape offensive.


But please change the title of this thread.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6490/wambulance1xy0bw5yt.gif

Zelda_fan
06-29-06, 03:01 PM
Look, I'm an AMD fan boy like you could never believe but I want the best for my system. Getting a $400 ot $600 processor that smokes an FX-62 that cost $1000 is damn impressive. In fact it's good enough to make me say to hell with AMD. But heres my problem, yes those benchmarks are all impressive especially when you OC the cpu, which I wouldn't any ways. However, I wonder if there is something Intel is afriad of and that would be this, could it be that the architecture doesn't scale well at higher resolutions. Do they start running into problems with there FSB? I don't know I don't have a Conroe, but I don't think there is any one any more that plays at that resolution. Why is Intel or reviewers so afriad of anything higher?


Anyone who isn't a complete idiot knows why you test a CPU at low resolutions.

Superfly
06-29-06, 03:03 PM
Running the game at 640x480 IS A CPU HEAVY SITUATION. Obviously no one plays the game at 640x480, but if you run a game at 1600x1200 the graphics card will prevent it from going over 100fps and the CPU will only be at like 30%.

The best way to test a CPU against next-gen games is to take current-gen games and run them at very low resolutions. Once Conroe starts being tested with games like Oblivion you'll see what I'm talking about.

Agreed, whats wierd is the number of people that dont "get" this its not rocket science after all?? - whats so hard to understand??? do people really think that these benchies are run at 640x480 becuase thats the resolution the testers think we game at??!!! - WTF lol thats so stupid.

a12ctic
06-29-06, 03:13 PM
how can you not find these benchies wierd? i forget were a read it (maby toms?), but i read a review on the new xeons based on the core2 and they were just on par with the opterons, a little better in some situations, and a little off in others, of course, these were more workstation benchies but still...

pkirby11
06-29-06, 03:24 PM
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6490/wambulance1xy0bw5yt.gif

Look act like a little baby and post cute picture all you want Zelda_fan, I find that word offensive. Wether you like it or not, I'm going to post my complaint about it and I'm far from being easily offended. For all you know I might know someone who was raped? Ever think of that? Probably not you're to busy trashing AMD to think about who you might or might not offend.

Ohh and by the way, complete idiot or not, you my friend must be king of the idiots. I don't give a damn if the CPU is impressive, want to know why? Because I have a top of the line GPU setup, if the Conroe CPU doesn't make a damn bit of difference over my FX-60 or FX-62 why bother upgrading? So instead of showing me how great the CPU is theoretically, show me how great it is in the real world. The real world to most gamers is any resolution that doesn't look like crap. I'm not going to buy a Conroe based on numbers at a resolution I never will play.

So you sir are the idiot, of course I know what the review sites and Intel are doing, they're trying to get me to believe there Core 2 Duo chips are outstanding. So show me something that impresses me, 800x600 doesn't impress at all.

pkirby11
06-29-06, 03:28 PM
Agreed, whats wierd is the number of people that dont "get" this its not rocket science after all?? - whats so hard to understand??? do people really think that these benchies are run at 640x480 becuase thats the resolution the testers think we game at??!!! - WTF lol thats so stupid.

I think you need more ??????? and ???!!!! in your post along with a couple more WTF and I'll believe it's not rocket science. :D

I'm sure they know that it's not the resolution we game at. So instead of showing my crap that doesn't benefit me one bit show me what the Conroe can do over the current best at resolution that mean something.

Superfly
06-29-06, 03:29 PM
yet another Conroe benchmark thread turned into unreadable and pointless crap. I think you guys should all get a promotion to the ignore list.

bye.

nemecb
06-29-06, 03:32 PM
Heh, it was Zelda_fan who gave it the fanboy title. A normal title would be something like "Conroe benches" or even "Great Conroe benches" but no, it has to be "the (I now see censored word) of AMD". Nobody here is blameless (including myself. WTF was I thinking posting in this thread?).

Superfly
06-29-06, 03:38 PM
I think you need more ??????? and ???!!!! in your post along with a couple more WTF and I'll believe it's not rocket science. :D

I'm sure they know that it's not the resolution we game at. So instead of showing my crap that doesn't benefit me one bit show me what the Conroe can do over the current best at resolution that mean something.

its been explained to you over and over and over again and yet you still feel you have to take issue with me over it? you can obviously read so thats not the problem?

Which part of my post says gamers only play games @ 640x480 or 800x600? grow up and go away, its clear you wont be buying Conroe so FO to a thread where someone gives a s**t.

CaptNKILL
06-29-06, 03:44 PM
Agreed, whats wierd is the number of people that dont "get" this its not rocket science after all?? - whats so hard to understand??? do people really think that these benchies are run at 640x480 becuase thats the resolution the testers think we game at??!!! - WTF lol thats so stupid.
No it isnt that, its just that I think it does nothing to show us 450fps vs 350fps when there are plenty of situations in other games where they could be showing us if Conroe actually brings up those 30fps situations caused by a real LOAD on the CPU.

I dont care what resolution they run at, Im saying they need to run benchmarks where the resolution DOESNT MATTER, rather than making the benchmark about as meaningless as a sandra CPU score. Seriously, what does that number tell you? It tells you the CPU can get you extremely high frames per second when theres nothing going on. Id rather know how the CPUs handle huge amounts of geometry, lighting, physics and ai calculations.

I understand WHY they benchmark at 640x480, Im not an idiot :p

Im just saying these benchmarks tell us nothing of real world gaming performance. Whether its AMD or Intel, I always say the same thing. People need to sit down and find some CPU limited situations in games (like I did with oblivion) and make them a "standard" test. I got in touch with a guy from Firingsquad when he released some Oblivion benchmarks early on, and I showed him the CPU limited situations. Any of his CPU benchmarks after that took those areas into account in Oblivion and the information was actually usefull for those looking at Oblivion CPU performance, as opposed to running the game at 1x1 resolution and showing how many thousands of frames per second each CPU gets when looking at the sky.

a12ctic
06-29-06, 03:48 PM
No it isnt that, its just that I think it does nothing to show us 450fps vs 350fps when there are plenty of situations in other games where they could be showing us if Conroe actually brings up those 30fps situations caused by a real LOAD on the CPU.

I dont care what resolution they run at, Im saying they need to run benchmarks where the resolution DOESNT MATTER, rather than making the benchmark about as meaningless as a sandra CPU score. Seriously, what does that number tell you? It tells you the CPU can get you extremely high frames per second when theres nothing going on. Id rather know how the CPUs handle huge amounts of geometry, lighting, physics and ai calculations.

I understand WHY they benchmark at 640x480, Im not an idiot :p

Im just saying these benchmarks tell us nothing of real world gaming performance. Whether its AMD or Intel, I always say the same thing. People need to sit down and find some CPU limited situations in games (like I did with oblivion) and make them a "standard" test.

LOLOLOL FANBOI U RUINED THE THREAD OMG