So basically, Conroe is another Northwood situation again

[imported_Crusader]

So Intel has themselves a decent chip now. But the A64s aren't "blown out of the water" by any stretch of the imagination.

Blown out of the water was the Athlons vs pretty much every Pentium4 created besides Northwood.

I like Conroe, just stating that the performance increase and its prowess is prob a TAD overblown.
Its a nice chip, and faster than AMDs. Not by enough to warrant most users to run out and by one though (unless they love running Pi and encoding videos ect)

For the average gamer here though, it makes little sense unless you have a SLI/Xfire rig. Even then its not mindblowing.. if you have a 3800+ or above A64 as Brent Justice stated here http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTAwMiwxNiwsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=

Originally posted by: Brent Justice
For our died-in-the-wool gamers that are spending a few hundred dollars or more on your high end video cards, make sure your AMD Athlon 64 processors are at least 2.4GHz in processor speed, and your Intel processors clock in at least at the 3.2GHz mark. If you let your CPUs fall below these levels, odds are that you are not using your GPU to its fullest ability.

I have nothing against Conroe, or AMD.. but I am sticking with Brents (still relevant) suggestion as far as CPUs relate to GPU scaling.

I'm sure the dyed-in-the-wool Intel fanboys though want everyone to run out and buy one of these chips...

Whoever gives me reverse HT first gets my dollar. I dont give a damn if it is fictional, if someone puts it out there, I'm replacing my 2.5ghz A64 period.

 

[redbox]

Ya for me the performance difference doesn't make it worth while to switch. I would have to buy a new motherboard and new ram and then a conroe. I am really holding out for AMD's pricedrops though. I have been wanting an X2 if not an opteron.

 

[imported_Crusader]

I agree that seems to be the reasonable way for most of us to go.

What do you think of H's opinions on dual core gaming though?

Dual Core Problems


In our gameplay we did come across some problems that we believe are associated with dual core CPUs, games and possibly drivers. There were times in some games, such as F.E.A.R. that we would ?feel? a slowdown in the framerate. It was as if we were moving along smoothly and then out of no where, unexpectedly in situations not typical of bringing the framerate down we would feel a change in the framerate. Now, it wasn?t enough of a drop to bring us below 30 FPS or cause the game to not be playable. It was however a slight annoyance because when you are at a high framerate and the framerate drops, let?s say for example from 80 FPS to 50 or 40 FPS you feel that change in the framerate and it may bother you.


We feel this is a problem with dual core CPUs because we did not experience this problem with the single core 2.8 GHz Prescott or our regular single core FX-55 we test with on a regular basis. This was only felt on the dual core CPUs. We aren?t sure if this is a game problem with the way it interacts with the CPUs or if it is a driver problem as well, all we know is that it happened with the dual core CPUs and it didn?t happen with the single core CPUs.


Another issue which really isn?t a problem is some weird framerate capping in World of Warcraft with dual core CPUs. Head back to page 6 of this evaluation and look at the World of Warcraft graphs. Look at the Pentium 4 2.8 GHz Prescott single core CPU graphs. You can see that the framerate has a maximum that goes well up to 100 FPS. Now look at the dual core CPU graphs. It seems the framerate is being capped at around 65 FPS. This is extremely odd, we verified VSYNC was off, our monitor was at 75 Hz anyways at 1600x1200, yet the framerate seemed to be capped at 65 FPS. This only occurred with the dual core CPUs. It is a weird issue but one that wasn?t detrimental to gameplay since 65 FPS is plenty of performance for smooth gameplay. It was just worth noting because there does seem to be something different going on in World of Warcraft between single and dual core CPUs.

Tad disturbing for me, I like my current "fast" single core.
"Fast" meaning fast enough for me and my GPU to not hold it back.

I know everyone is now saying reverse hyperthreading is fake ect but then again thats the INQ.. :S Not the beacon of all knowledge.

I'm going to wait a bit and see if anything else surfaces on RTH as I'm not really even sold on dual core yet, for a gamer such as myself. I think my money would be better spent on a 7950GX2.. by the time I upgrade past that, (if its going to be released) Reverse HT and faster CPUs will be out anyway.

 

[redbox]

While I do like a single core right now for gaming I do believe dual core is where it is heading and the implintations of dual core will get better and probably be better than what we have now with single core. For the X2 3800+ to do me any better in gaming though it is going to have to overclock to at least 2.6 if not farther. That being said I don't just game I do alot of video editing and I will take any advancement in that.

As far as the problems they have noticed with dual core while it is bad to hear about them I doubt that WOW getting capped at 65fps is going to hurt that game. IMHO once a frame rate gets high enough it really is a non issue on wether you are getting 80fps or 100fps. The game is still going to be extremely playable, plus your not missing that much.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Crusader
So Intel has themselves a decent chip now. But the A64s aren't "blown out of the water" by any stretch of the imagination.

Blown out of the water was the Athlons vs pretty much every Pentium4 created besides Northwood.

I like Conroe, just stating that the performance increase and its prowess is prob a TAD overblown.
Its a nice chip, and faster than AMDs. Not by enough to warrant most users to run out and by one though (unless they love running Pi and encoding videos ect)

For the average gamer here though, it makes little sense unless you have a SLI/Xfire rig. Even then its not mindblowing.. if you have a 3800+ or above A64 as Brent Justice stated here http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTAwMiwxNiwsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=

Originally posted by: Brent Justice
For our died-in-the-wool gamers that are spending a few hundred dollars or more on your high end video cards, make sure your AMD Athlon 64 processors are at least 2.4GHz in processor speed, and your Intel processors clock in at least at the 3.2GHz mark. If you let your CPUs fall below these levels, odds are that you are not using your GPU to its fullest ability.

I have nothing against Conroe, or AMD.. but I am sticking with Brents (still relevant) suggestion as far as CPUs relate to GPU scaling.

I'm sure the dyed-in-the-wool Intel fanboys though want everyone to run out and buy one of these chips...

Whoever gives me reverse HT first gets my dollar. I dont give a damn if it is fictional, if someone puts it out there, I'm replacing my 2.5ghz A64 period.

Oh please, Athlon 64's suffered from the same issue if you use the "real world" gaming settings as well. If Conroe isn't blowing the Athlno 64's out of the water I don't know what you would call "blowing out of the water", an Pentium 4 HT still has it's uses vs Athlon 64.

 

[redbox]

While conroe does amaze me with how well it performs even on 1600x1200 tests. I still don't think placing my money on the cpu is the best way to spend my gaming dollar. Just to break it down a little if I was to build a conroe system I would need: cpu: about $300 when they get in stock, motherboard: about $200 when they get in stock, and ram: about another $200. That's $600 and I am still stuck with my 7800gt. If I go with AMD's price dropped X2's I get a $150-200 cpu and money for a new gpu perhaps the G80. For me it all comes down to the dollar, now if I had a big o' piggy bank and was shitting on a gold toilet while lighting my cigars with $50's then I would have no problem droping the bills for one of Intel's fine cpu's.

For one Intel's availability worries me and I tend to take anandtech's view on this:

In the worst case scenario for Intel, Conroe's limited retail availability could result in a price to performance ratio equal to or worse than AMD's Athlon 64 X2.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: redbox
While conroe does amaze me with how well it performs even on 1600x1200 tests. I still don't think placing my money on the cpu is the best way to spend my gaming dollar. Just to break it down a little if I was to build a conroe system I would need: cpu: about $300 when they get in stock, motherboard: about $200 when they get in stock, and ram: about another $200. That's $600 and I am still stuck with my 7800gt. If I go with AMD's price dropped X2's I get a $150-200 cpu and money for a new gpu perhaps the G80. For me it all comes down to the dollar, now if I had a big o' piggy bank and was shitting on a gold toilet while lighting my cigars with $50's then I would have no problem droping the bills for one of Intel's fine cpu's.

For one Intel's availability worries me and I tend to take anandtech's view on this:

In the worst case scenario for Intel, Conroe's limited retail availability could result in a price to performance ratio equal to or worse than AMD's Athlon 64 X2.

So you wouldn't be selling off your old CPU, motherboard and RAM. Not to mention a P965 motherboard will not be going for 200US....

 

[cheesehead]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: redbox
While conroe does amaze me with how well it performs even on 1600x1200 tests. I still don't think placing my money on the cpu is the best way to spend my gaming dollar. Just to break it down a little if I was to build a conroe system I would need: cpu: about $300 when they get in stock, motherboard: about $200 when they get in stock, and ram: about another $200. That's $600 and I am still stuck with my 7800gt. If I go with AMD's price dropped X2's I get a $150-200 cpu and money for a new gpu perhaps the G80. For me it all comes down to the dollar, now if I had a big o' piggy bank and was shitting on a gold toilet while lighting my cigars with $50's then I would have no problem droping the bills for one of Intel's fine cpu's.

For one Intel's availability worries me and I tend to take anandtech's view on this:

In the worst case scenario for Intel, Conroe's limited retail availability could result in a price to performance ratio equal to or worse than AMD's Athlon 64 X2.

So you wouldn't be selling off your old CPU, motherboard and RAM. Not to mention a P965 motherboard will not be going for 200US....

Not likely, considering the seductive pull of F@H work units.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: redbox
While conroe does amaze me with how well it performs even on 1600x1200 tests. I still don't think placing my money on the cpu is the best way to spend my gaming dollar. Just to break it down a little if I was to build a conroe system I would need: cpu: about $300 when they get in stock, motherboard: about $200 when they get in stock, and ram: about another $200. That's $600 and I am still stuck with my 7800gt. If I go with AMD's price dropped X2's I get a $150-200 cpu and money for a new gpu perhaps the G80. For me it all comes down to the dollar, now if I had a big o' piggy bank and was shitting on a gold toilet while lighting my cigars with $50's then I would have no problem droping the bills for one of Intel's fine cpu's.

For one Intel's availability worries me and I tend to take anandtech's view on this:

In the worst case scenario for Intel, Conroe's limited retail availability could result in a price to performance ratio equal to or worse than AMD's Athlon 64 X2.

So you wouldn't be selling off your old CPU, motherboard and RAM. Not to mention a P965 motherboard will not be going for 200US....

I thought I heard something about the 965 not supporting crossfire. I want an intel crossfire board.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Cheesehead

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: redbox
While conroe does amaze me with how well it performs even on 1600x1200 tests. I still don't think placing my money on the cpu is the best way to spend my gaming dollar. Just to break it down a little if I was to build a conroe system I would need: cpu: about $300 when they get in stock, motherboard: about $200 when they get in stock, and ram: about another $200. That's $600 and I am still stuck with my 7800gt. If I go with AMD's price dropped X2's I get a $150-200 cpu and money for a new gpu perhaps the G80. For me it all comes down to the dollar, now if I had a big o' piggy bank and was shitting on a gold toilet while lighting my cigars with $50's then I would have no problem droping the bills for one of Intel's fine cpu's.

For one Intel's availability worries me and I tend to take anandtech's view on this:

In the worst case scenario for Intel, Conroe's limited retail availability could result in a price to performance ratio equal to or worse than AMD's Athlon 64 X2.

So you wouldn't be selling off your old CPU, motherboard and RAM. Not to mention a P965 motherboard will not be going for 200US....

Not likely, considering the seductive pull of F@H work units.

But how is upgrading an existing S939 to X2, compared to getting a second system with Conroe in addition to keeping the Athlon 64 a fair comparison?

Of course the second option will cost more money, your going to have 2 system instead of one.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: redbox
I thought I heard something about the 965 not supporting crossfire. I want an intel crossfire board.

Ok, so this upgrade is gonna put a major strain on monetary funds any way, are you want to go X1900 XT Crossfire because if so, then you can use the additional computational power of Conroe, not to mention the energy efficiency, becuase an X1900 XT Crossfire system woul use alot of energy.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Another Northwood situation? Uh, I'd be surprised if Intel managed to mangle their next core revision as badly as they mangled Prescott. Not gonna happen. Furthermore, Conroe is a HUGE step forward for the CPU industry for one major reason: They've produced a chip that is decisively faster than the current industry performance leader without producing a chip that consumes more power than the current industry performance leader. More performance with less power is the path to success. Many CPU enthusiasts have been wanting a chip like Conroe since Banias hit the notebook market.

AMD has given us a platform with potential for lower power consumption (AM2) without any real improvements to performance (at least not per clock anyway, and with anemic clock speed increases).

Conroe is a big deal. If you wanna miss out on it, go ahead. You could be waiting for a long time for a CPU upgrade if you keep waiting for "reverse hyperthreading". Besides, it won't be long before 3.2 ghz P4s and 2.4 ghz A64's will become limiting factors on gaming rigs. In a few games (Oblivion) they are already if you have a nice SLI setup, Crossfire setup, or 7950GX2.

Personally I want a Conroe for every possible computing task I might wish to complete. Currently, the things I do that consume the most CPU time involve video encoding or transcoding for which my Sempron 2800+ is not particularly well-suited. Having an overclocked E6300 under the hood would be sweet.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: redbox
I thought I heard something about the 965 not supporting crossfire. I want an intel crossfire board.

Ok, so this upgrade is gonna put a major strain on monetary funds any way, are you want to go X1900 XT Crossfire because if so, then you can use the additional computational power of Conroe, not to mention the energy efficiency, becuase an X1900 XT Crossfire system woul use alot of energy.

I am not plaining on it for right now. Later in 2007 and I do mean later I will probabaly look to replace my motherboard cpu and ram. I am not going to buy any 1900 or 7900 I am waiting untill DX10 gpu's or their refreash. As far as the energy thing the conroe is better than the P4 but it isn't like the conroe is going to turn me into an energy saving super hippie. I will be fine with an AMD X2 untill the conroe comes out and the foaming and drooling at the mouth enthusiasts stop raising the price on them.

I am not even sure if I am going to go crossfire I just want the support to be there. I have an SLI board now and have only used SLI once and for a short while. Even if I did go with conroe I doubt it is going to help a crossfire or SLI system to get 12fps more when the frames are already at 96. That to me is an unneeded performance increase. There will be a difference I am sure with newer harder to run games, but I suspect the case will be about the same. I get better return for my money when I pick a gpu to upgrade instead of a cpu.

There will be a time when I am eyeing conroe and giving it that come hither look, but that won't be for some time.

 

[Pugnate]

Goddamit I hate fanboys.

Athlon has been BLOWN out of the water. The $310 chip performs on the same level as the $1100 Intel chip.

What else do you need? Seriously some of you need to take that thumb out of your rear ends.

I am an AMD user too and won't be upgrading my processor for a long time, yet I have no shame in admitting that AMD was slaughtered.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: Pugnate
Goddamit I hate fanboys.

Athlon has been BLOWN out of the water. The $310 chip performs on the same level as the $1100 Intel chip.

What else do you need? Seriously some of you need to take that thumb out of your rear ends.

I am an AMD user too and won't be upgrading my processor for a long time, yet I have no shame in admitting that AMD was slaughtered.

Yes conroe is good we have been hearing that for months now. I am just waiting untill all of the dust falls to see where the price performance will land. I expect this chip to be a hot chip and we all know what demand does for a chip that won't see more than 25% shipment. It's all in the dollar for me.

If I didn't already have a really nice motherboard with pretty decent ram I would probably be looking right at conroe, but I'm not because of the high cost of admission. Ya AMD got a good licken. I just want to see how good they can play the price war with intel. When Intel got their junk handed to them with the first dual core what did they do? They lowered their prices and quite a bit too. I just hope AMD follows suit and I get a nice cheap X2.

 

[Polish3d]

As long as Conroe is the good overclocker it seems to be, it's a winner by far.

If I can get an E6600 to around 4ghz on water, that means I have a chip which is roughly double the speed of what I have currently. That's no fking joke, and I can't wait.


(4ghz + 25% avg. performance over A64 = 5ghz A64! x 1.7 standard for AMD vs. P4 = ~ 8-9 ghz P4!)

 

[n7]

Hmm, so Crusader isn't just an insane nVidia fanboi, but also an insane AMD fanboi. :roll:

We all know games are GPU-limited @ 1600x1200+ resolutions.

That's not news, well, not to most of us anyway.

But that doesn't mean C2D isn't still a massive leap above A64s.

A64s were a big leap over P4s at the time, but not even they were as big of a jump as C2D.

 

[Paratus]

[ H ] had something to prove I think. They basically just showed that yep GPU's are the limiting factors for games.....again..


I may lend [ H ] my 9600XT so they can say 'Hey! conroe doesn't help at low rez either.


posted via Palm Life Drive

 

[Paratus]

DP

 

[Keysplayr]

You must be going off those GPU limited gaming benchmarks alone Crusader. Where have you been? Core 2 Duo, E6600, E6700 and E6800's are all ahead of AMD's flagship, and very often by considerably huge margins. When A64 came out, even the Northwoods could do some things better than the A64's. Video encoding for example. This Core 2 Duo blows them out across the board not winning a single bench.
And the price. Very important factor here as well.
Those folks that are happy with their 939 rigs and feel no need to upgrade should of course stay where they are, but those looking to upgrade to an AM2 system should definately think twice EVEN with the supposed massive AMD price cuts coming shortly.
Even if AMD reduces it's flagship by 50%, it still cannot beat a mere E6600 that still would be @ 200 dollars cheaper and constantly outperform it. Like a lot of review sites are saying, the performance of Core 2 Duo cannot be ignored, and neither can the price.

 

[Paratus]

Hey Keys,

Lets run our P4s at GPU bound rezs and tell everyone we are just as fast as an A64!

posted via Palm Life Drive

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: Paratus
Hey Keys,

Lets run our P4s at GPU bound rezs and tell everyone we are just as fast as an A64!

posted via Palm Life Drive

QFT, thats what AMD fanboys dont seem to understand, benchmarking at gpu limited res tells us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about cpu performance... i bet even a P D 805 would do fine in that "review" :roll:

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Paratus
Hey Keys,

Lets run our P4s at GPU bound rezs and tell everyone we are just as fast as an A64!

posted via Palm Life Drive

Yeah, this is pretty much what the H article was shooting for. Don't get me wrong, the H article has it's uses for people who WILL be GPU bound due to their graphics power limitations, but the article did not truly interpret the true power of the Core 2 Duo setups they used. I also believe the FX-62 should have scored higher, because that GPU limitation existed for both sides, much moreso for the Conroe.

 

[8steve8]

what H explains and all the reviews show is that

the difference of an AMD x2 and a intel Core 2 Duo is irrelevant
FOR GAMES.

and thats all it says.

but any smart person on here knew that before reading a single review.

 

[imported_Crusader]

Why downplay the facts brought up by H? If you are GPU bound in most cases, what is wrong with that?

All thats saying is theres no need for conroe and the huge swap involved.

Then theres the issue that availability might be tight, and pricing might go sky-high.. we dont know because no one can buy the attractive lower end and lower priced models yet.

How does this make me a AMD fanboy? :disgust: ....
I think it just bugs the INTEL fanboys out there that people are looking at this with an open mind and NOT just looking at SuperPI scores!

I'm concerned about gaming as most are, and all the variables need to be considered within that realm!
If its worth buying, I'll buy it... but its not, what else do you want?
Theres a large percentage of us, while respecting/admiring Conroe do not find it worth purchasing.

Yes I'd buy it today over a AM2 rig. Is that what you want to hear? (EDIT- IF YOU COULD PURCHASE ONE, and when you can at a reasonable price *cough*.. kthx.)
I'm still saying that its not worth buying for gaming if you have a 2.4ghz+ A64.

If you read my posts in this thread, thats all I'm saying.. whats the feckin problem, fanbois??

Then to keep the performance within a reality check, this is more of a Northwood situation than anything. Sure, you can get a Conroe to 4ghz on water ect, but thats far and beyond more than a gaming rig needs.. so why would I purchase that?

I think the issue many of the INTEL FANBOIS have now, is that not everyone is declaring their undying love for conroe and willing to stab their own mother to buy one.
A64 was/is a great design, and it holds up well in many realms such as gaming where things are frequently GPU-bound.

As long as I'm not holding back whatever GPU I'm using, I frankly dont give a damn what CPU I have.