All of you who claim "REAL WORLD performance"

[acegazda]

Originally posted by: Amplifier
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say OP. There really aren't many brandloyal posters on this forum.

As far as CPU limited, we aren't cpu limited until the marginal fps per dollar is increased more by putting money into the CPU instead of the GPU and then you have to account for things like the chips ability to overclock and the application but im getting ahead of myself.

Conroe looks to be king for now and amd is slashing prices and that makes me happy.

Uhhh... you obviously havn't visited the video forum lately, i think you'd change your opinion.

To the second point, true dat. I'm probably either going to go with a s939 gaming rig or a scaled down c2d rig w/ a lesser gfx card.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: dev0lution

anyway OP what ancient games do you play .20:15 my ass. a 7900gtx/x900xtx can barely handle oblivion at 1280x1028 with everything maxed out.
pfft 20:15
maybe if you turn of foliage,shadow,bloom,hdr,AA,AF, then you'll have oblibion playable on ay single card today and that res. .

Is this english? I got lost somewhere with all the .'s and typos.

well i'll fix it. but did you really expect me to car about grammar and spelling while posting on an internet forum.
sorry i was in a hurry to live my life.

 

[DeathReborn]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Remember when 7800GTXes came out? How did Anand show that 7800GT(X)es were pwnage? They had to run at 20:15 resolution with AA and AF for the 7800GTXes to flex their wings, especially with SLI.

Why?

Because otherwise you're CPU limited.

So does this mean 7800s weren't that great because most of us didn't run at 20:15 resolution? NO

So shut up AMD fanboys, and recognize Conroe is 20% faster, and even if you don't have dual GPUs today, the next generation of GPUs may double performance once again or at least increase performance by a significant margin that you are once agian CPU limited.

Now if you wake up and join the "Real World" you'll find that there is a very small group that runs high end SLI/CF setups. Most will run mid range or old mid/high end cards that can't hope to perform at 20x15.

OP = Intel Fanboy that tries too hard.

 

[Regs]

When I first read the title of the thread I was expecting to see a nerd rap song about how Mr.Conroe killed little Ol' K8 in the ghetto.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
I will be building a dual WC Xeon (higher performing than a single CPU Conroe system) box within the next few months. I have a nice monitor (Viewsonic VX922) and it runs at 1280x1024.

So, the statement that "Anyone building a Conroe system isn't going to run at 1280x1024" is inaccurate.

Do I wish my monitor would do 1600x1200 natively? Yep. But it doesn't.

If youre spending that much on xeons, why cant you get a new display?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: DeathReborn

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Remember when 7800GTXes came out? How did Anand show that 7800GT(X)es were pwnage? They had to run at 20:15 resolution with AA and AF for the 7800GTXes to flex their wings, especially with SLI.

Why?

Because otherwise you're CPU limited.

So does this mean 7800s weren't that great because most of us didn't run at 20:15 resolution? NO

So shut up AMD fanboys, and recognize Conroe is 20% faster, and even if you don't have dual GPUs today, the next generation of GPUs may double performance once again or at least increase performance by a significant margin that you are once agian CPU limited.

Now if you wake up and join the "Real World" you'll find that there is a very small group that runs high end SLI/CF setups. Most will run mid range or old mid/high end cards that can't hope to perform at 20x15.

OP = Intel Fanboy that tries too hard.

Regardless of the OPs intent, the makeup of gamers here at anandtech isnt anything like the demographic of all gamers out there.

I would say that the majority of gamers here have high end hardware, and would benefit tremendously from conroe.

 

[akshayt]

high end hardware won't benefit at all from conroe, except in rare cases that too only marginally, instead of 3 notched in oblivion in shadows to 5 notches, that sit. all other games and settings tested so far being the same.

if you have a single 1900xtx then there is no point, if you have 2 X 1900XTX then yes

 

[bennylong]

what's this real world stuff???

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Cheesehead
I spend my money on my girlfriend. I'm buying an AM2 2800+, and overclocking it.
In the real world, I have a girlfriend, and I will be able to play games on my shiny new PC.

Hehe, I have a wife and two kids, but that's not stopping me from aquiring my Conroe rig.

 

[Keysplayr]

The "real world" is the only place left where die hard AMD fans can sort of feel comfortable. That H article is their bible for as long as they can stretch it out. They do not wish to hear anything about GPU limitations whatsoever. I'm not talking about the normal AMD fans, who for the most part are pretty cool. I'm talking about the nuts.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: Allio

Originally posted by: gersson
@ that res games are CPU limited, so FOR

NVIDIA GeForce 7800 Series 28,656
NVIDIA GeForce 7900 Series 783
ATI Radeon X1800 2,081
ATI Radeon X1900 1,698

Out of 700,000 respondents. We are talking "real world" here, right? I bet the other 670,000 people are pretty severely CPU limited with their 6600s and 9800 pros :roll:

I'm not sure what anyone's point is here. Intel has released a faster chip that is significantly faster at everything than the AMD counterpart. Very, very few people are going to notice a difference in gaming performance because very, very few people have the kind of video subsystem to stress it. Of course, very, very few people are actually going to buy one of these high-end core processors anyway. Those who do will probably get it with an X1300 Pro in their $2499 Dell.

If you're building a new high-end gaming system you'd obviously go with the Core because it's faster and better value for money, but I think people upgrading from X2s would be pretty damn stupid to spend $800 on a platform change when you could get a bigger gaming boost from a couple of X1900 XTs anyway.

Ummm the context is high end card -- more specifically a 7800 GTX. So drop the 9800 Pro shiz.

 

[nyker96]

It's ok to support conroe but not ok to not allow other people's opinions. That isn't a healthy reaction to differing opinions.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: lopri
So thing is this.

1. Conroe trounces A64.
2. Unfortunately today's games are pretty much GPU bound, and can't really help Conroe to strech its muscle.
3. If your workloads involve heavy CPU utilization, upgrading to Conroe will be very beneficial.
4. If your main CPU load results from gaming, and if you have a system built within past 12 months, Conroe won't do you much good. (Most of us, Pragmatists)
5. Then again, if you're a type of "geek" who likes to have a new tech and enjoys OC'ing to see improved bench results, you'll still want to try out Conroe. (Most of us, Hobbiests)

So I'm finding myself in #4 and #5. I have a feeling many others are same. I use my computer for surfing, e-mailing, word processing and spread-sheet'ing, sometimes video editing after a trip or a party, and photo managing/editing here and there, and chatting, and watching movies and listening to music, and playing games. (Phew) Plus, I have a bad habit of buying hardware just for the sake of that hardware.

I know some of you do use apps that push your CPUs to the max, but really, other than those folks, how many of you run 3DMax here? How many of you run database with your precious Opteron rig or soon-to-be-built Conroe-rig? The No.1 CPU heavy activity under current home PC usage scenarios is undoubtedly gaming. That's why so many people were fascinated when the first Conroe benchmarks from Taiwan were disclosed, and were disappointed to see it's still the GPUs that matter in gaming.

I doubt anyone here can possibily deny the superiority of Conroe over A64. But the impact on individuals will be different. What I don't understand is, often times people impersonify hardware and objectify people. One could have different views on certain hardware but does that justify an attack on others?!

So to the OP who hasn't been back to his own thread:

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Remember when 7800GTXes came out? How did Anand show that 7800GT(X)es were pwnage? They had to run at 20:15 resolution with AA and AF for the 7800GTXes to flex their wings, especially with SLI.

Why?

Because otherwise you're CPU limited.

So does this mean 7800s weren't that great because most of us didn't run at 20:15 resolution? NO

You should have stopped right there.

Originally posted by: DLeRium
So shut up AMD fanboys, and recognize Conroe is 20% faster, and even if you don't have dual GPUs today, the next generation of GPUs may double performance once again or at least increase performance by a significant margin that you are once agian CPU limited.

This was totally unnecessary and only makes me wonder.. your (hopefully) physical age. (See, a comment like this is what we call "name-calling", which will be inevidently accompanied by a counter name-calling. )

Let's talk about tech. Not about people. There are other forums you can unload your stress to your heart's content.

I guess he said it all lol /thread!

 

[OBCT]

It's not a matter of denying that Conroe is faster, it's a matter of company reputation. For me personally, I've used 2 Intel machines and a few AMD's. Both intel machines have caused me problems in the past. Those problems make me skeptical of Intel, so I'm not about to try out a new processor/architecture. If Intel released Conroe a month ago, then I'd probably go for it. But I need a computer for college but mid-August, so I don't have time to wait and see how Conroe would be for me. And thus, I go for AM2. Sue me if you disagree.

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: acegazda

Originally posted by: Amplifier
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say OP. There really aren't many brandloyal posters on this forum.

As far as CPU limited, we aren't cpu limited until the marginal fps per dollar is increased more by putting money into the CPU instead of the GPU and then you have to account for things like the chips ability to overclock and the application but im getting ahead of myself.

Conroe looks to be king for now and amd is slashing prices and that makes me happy.

Uhhh... you obviously havn't visited the video forum lately, i think you'd change your opinion.

To the second point, true dat. I'm probably either going to go with a s939 gaming rig or a scaled down c2d rig w/ a lesser gfx card.

Some people can only run dual-cards from a particular manufacturer. That seems to be where most of the friction there comes from. Are there people who are actually brand loyal there because if you see them say amp called them dumb.

 

[sandorski]

Ugh.

What we got here is failure to communicate.

"Real World" obviously means different things to different people or has degrees of accuracy. I thought this thread was going to be Synthetic benches(SiSoft Sandra and others) vs Real World benches(Games, Rendering times, etc). Imagine my shock when I discovered it was about screen resolutions!! 😱

 

[acegazda]

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: acegazda

Originally posted by: Amplifier
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say OP. There really aren't many brandloyal posters on this forum.

As far as CPU limited, we aren't cpu limited until the marginal fps per dollar is increased more by putting money into the CPU instead of the GPU and then you have to account for things like the chips ability to overclock and the application but im getting ahead of myself.

Conroe looks to be king for now and amd is slashing prices and that makes me happy.

Uhhh... you obviously havn't visited the video forum lately, i think you'd change your opinion.

To the second point, true dat. I'm probably either going to go with a s939 gaming rig or a scaled down c2d rig w/ a lesser gfx card.

Some people can only run dual-cards from a particular manufacturer. That seems to be where most of the friction there comes from. Are there people who are actually brand loyal there because if you see them say amp called them dumb.

I see threads all the time in which people say "don't reccomend me an ATI video card, I like nvidia" or "ATI gfx cards pwn all!" and a massive flame war erupts, seldom resulting in any bans due to the lack of moderating in that particular forum. Don't worry, I tell them that every time. Ooppennmiinndeddnness

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: gersson

Originally posted by: Allio

Originally posted by: gersson
@ that res games are CPU limited, so FOR

NVIDIA GeForce 7800 Series 28,656
NVIDIA GeForce 7900 Series 783
ATI Radeon X1800 2,081
ATI Radeon X1900 1,698

Out of 700,000 respondents. We are talking "real world" here, right? I bet the other 670,000 people are pretty severely CPU limited with their 6600s and 9800 pros :roll:

I'm not sure what anyone's point is here. Intel has released a faster chip that is significantly faster at everything than the AMD counterpart. Very, very few people are going to notice a difference in gaming performance because very, very few people have the kind of video subsystem to stress it. Of course, very, very few people are actually going to buy one of these high-end core processors anyway. Those who do will probably get it with an X1300 Pro in their $2499 Dell.

If you're building a new high-end gaming system you'd obviously go with the Core because it's faster and better value for money, but I think people upgrading from X2s would be pretty damn stupid to spend $800 on a platform change when you could get a bigger gaming boost from a couple of X1900 XTs anyway.

Ummm the context is high end card -- more specifically a 7800 GTX. So drop the 9800 Pro shiz.

PLus unless everyone buidling a Core 2 Duo is going to buy Ass-rock boards they need PCI-e...that rules out 9800's....

 

[maluckey]

Yup! Conroe is faster...

Yup! AMD will respond with something to minimize or overcome the deficit...

Yup! Intel will rebound..

Yup! Who cares if the people benefitting from the rivalry are we ourselves.

(gets some popcorn and rejoins the "Real World" on MTV).

 

[harpoon84]

You know, what applies to Conroe vs A64 regarding GPU bottlenecking also applies to A64 vs P4.

Now admit it - pre Conroe, how many times has it been sprouted around that gamers should get an A64 because it was faster than a P4 at games?.

If you compare a P-D to an A64 X2 at 1600x1200 16xAA/8xAF, you're very likely to get a similar conclusion - the GPU is the bottleneck at high resolution gaming.

Yet it didn't stop people recommending A64s for the past 3 years due to it's strong gaming performance. And I can't see how Conroe can be critisied for this aspect since it has effectively just taken A64's spot as performance king.

 

[orangat]

The performance increase of the conroe is at least as significant over anything AMD had in the past over the P4. If people are going to argue real world, then the AMD had no advantage in the past either since games are somewhat gpu limited anyway.

The conroe however is simply significantly faster in almost all benchmarks including gaming and runs cooler to boot.

 

[kman79]

To be honest, I haven't seen much of these AMD Fanboys in this forum. I see a lot of "Fanboy" type of commetns in the Video forums between ATI and nVidia though.

I'm actually in a dilema right now. I need to build a new box and don't know which company to go with. My AMD Rig has been rock solid since I built it. and that why I'm still contemplating on maybe sticking with AMD. The new box will be used for mainly gaming and some video editing. I doubt the new monitor I buy will have a lower resolution than 1600X1200, and most games are GPU limited above that. I'll wait two months, and if I can't easily find an E6600 for a reasonable price, I'll be building another AMD machine.

 

[agent2099]

Originally posted by: dexvx
http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

Last update was April 2006, so its still fairly recent.

95% of people (of 710,000 responses) were running 1280x1024 or below.

You have to look at their CPUs as well.


If you buy a $300-$500 CPU, are you going to be gaming at 1280x1024 and below?

 

[Munky]

I game at 1280x960 using a x1900xt, and if you've ever tried FEAR or Oblivion at max settings then even that resolution will stress the x1900xt. Granted, if someone was building a new high end rig then Conroe is a better choice regardless what resolution you play at, but if right now I had a choice between a Conroe and a faster next gen video card, I'd still take the video card.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: agent2099

Originally posted by: dexvx
http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

Last update was April 2006, so its still fairly recent.

95% of people (of 710,000 responses) were running 1280x1024 or below.

You have to look at their CPUs as well.


If you buy a $300-$500 CPU, are you going to be gaming at 1280x1024 and below?

Depends entirely on the game. Oblivion stresses the best GPUs at 1280x1024 w/HDR.

It also depends on the persons monitor, I'm still using a 19" CRT and the max res it displays at a good refresh rate (85Hz for me) is 1360x1024.

Non widescreen 17" and 19" LCDs also don't go over 1280x1024, so there's a lot of factors.

And truth be told, how many people will actually end up getting the higher end E6700/X6800 Conroes? Most will go the E6600 and below, I really don't see any reason other than bragging rights to go over an E6600, it just doesn;t make sense financially.