Originally Posted by SH64
I see your point & i'm not here promoting for the Conore , otherwise i'd post this thread in the CPU section .. its all about benchmark results.
2) like what Tygerwoody said : 55% difference is 55% .. sole framerate numbers are not the issue here unless the reader is some kind of a n00b who dont understand simple math.
now if i say - for another game - that a 4800+ gets 25fps & the Conore gets 39fps would that make you or the reader happy ?? because its the same percentage afterall.
what matters though .. at the end of the day the guy with the E6700 had better experiance in BFMEII than the guy with the 4800+ (i.e. higher minimum & avarage framerate).
3) As for upgrading .. well you have to go DDRII sooner or later .. its the future. both AM2 & Intel Core 2 chipsets requires it so at least you're not wasting money by getting those.
4) Those are stock numbers & everyone here knows that the Conore is a hell of an overclocker (& much better than the X2s at that) .. so with a little o/cing you could achieve 15fps+ with no problems.
so let me stress again that from a *technical standpoint* this is a very nice increase in performance for a CPU dependent game.
I wasn't trying to be a dick, my post above just explains my sentiments a bit more. I just hate seeing people dumping perfectly good AMD systems for conroe when a faster GPU is money better spent still. My current rig is competing with conroe / 7800 GTX SLI / 7900 GTX SLI / Crossfire rigs in 3dmark 06 and 05. My x2 3800 is running at 3 Ghz with my memory running DDR500 2.5-3-6-2. I managed 9300 in 3dmark 06 and 14,600 in 3dmark 05 - with an X2 and a 7950 gx2.
A well tuned X2 system can hold it's own with conroe in high res gaming since the GPU is still the bottleneck.