digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Intel Core 2 Duo & Extreme Gaming Performance

enthusiast.hardocp.com — HardOCP tests Intel's Core 2 Duo and Extreme using real-world gaming. Don't let a bunch of canned benchmarks lie to you about gaming performance, real gameplay experience tells a different story. Unless of course you game at 800x600.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • InorganicMatter, on 10/12/2007, -17/+17Wow, quite a comeback by Intel. No doubt, they deserve this after the last few years of backsliding...
    • dawgma, on 10/12/2007, -21/+15Can I will call you IgnorantBrainMatter instead?

      Because the article demonstrated, as far as gaming is concerened, that the Core Duo and Extreme offered NO real difference compared to AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62.
    • corkster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Yeah, but what about power consumption, and price vs the FX-62?
    • dawgma, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5I didn't consider that. But as far as I'm concerned, I just want to know how it performs.
    • daza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Price is a mammoth issue. You need to look at the price to performance ratio. And Intel has made a serious come back here.
    • dawgma, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8Yeah, you're right. $530 is half the price of an AMD Athlon 64 FX 62.. and the Core Duo performed just as well. So that's great that you can get the same processing power for half the price.

      But in the end.. it's not a huge advance in processing speed. The affordable Core Duo does nothing to improve gaming, and the encoding benchmarks noted a 15% increase in performance.

      That doesn't sound very fantastic to me. I thought processor *speeds* were supposed to double each year. Meaning a 100% increase in performace for encoding etc. But you have to look back years to find a processor that performs half as fast as processors today.
    • Zophras, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Do you even care about the other improvements?

      http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTExMCwyLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
    • dawgma, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Zophras

      I do now. In fact, I actualy mentioned it in the post which you just commented on. See?

      "But in the end.. it's not a huge advance in processing speed. The affordable Core Duo does nothing to improve gaming, and the encoding benchmarks noted a 15% increase in performance."
    • camix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Wow HardOCP is really not showing what this processor can do. Their benchmarks were really limited. I really prefered the Anandtech review better. Check out:

      http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795

      HardOCP seems bias in this article just my opinion...
    • Antialias, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@dawgma

      If you're refering to Moore's law with the doubling every year comment, the law states, "the number of transistors on a chip will double every 18 months". This has nothing to do with the speed of the processor, at least not directly. If processor speed really doubled every year, by my rough estimation, starting around 91 with the 486 at 33mhz, we should be at approximately 1 Thz(1000 Ghz) processors right now.
    • WATYF, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I wouldn't just call it bias... this article smacks of fanboyism. They've done everything they can to play down the giant step forward that Conroe brings us (not only raw performance, but lower power consumption, and ridiculously low price for performance). This is just an attempt to make it look like Conroe doesn’t do ANY better at gaming performance (regardless). And they did it by taking an upper/mid-grade video card and raising the game settings enough so that the limit of the video card they were using was just about reached (which puts all the load limits on the GPU), and then they did tests which concluded that there "wasn't much difference" between Conroe and the FX series. And for good measure, he even has the Shadow settings lower on the FX-62 than he does on the Conroes (oops). Then he tries to pass of this complete waste of a review as an attempt to get a "real-world" idea of performance... no... that's not a real-world idea of performance... that's a custom-tune test used to paint the picture you want it to paint.

      If you run a test that puts most/all of the load on the GPU, then you're not really testing the CPU at all... you're testing the video card... that's all. He might as well have done a review between the FX-62, the X6800 and a fish sandwich... in which case the fish sandwich probably woulda performed on par with the Conroe since ALL THE FREAKING LOAD IS ON THE GPU. :o)

      The worst part is that the comments to the article (and even some digg comments here) are filled with AMD fanboys saying that they "always knew" the leaked Conroe numbers were inflated... no... [H]ard OCP's numbers are deflated... by a lousy test methodology. The most anticipated CPU in as long as I can remember comes out and they post a review that basically doesn't even demonstrate the abilities of the CPUs involved in the test?? Sorry... that's a little fishy.

      If someone wanted to know real-world gaming improvements of Conroe, they would run benches with SLI/Crossfire (which is what high end gamers are using) and set things up evenly across platforms, then run tests that actually make use of the CPU, instead of running bogus tests that don't tell you much of anything about the CPU you're using in them. And since his reply to that was, "Well, SLI wasn't available yet", I would just say, "Then wait until it is available before you post a bunch of BS on your website and make yourself look like a flaming fanboy."

      WATYF
  • infiniti029, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23The bottom line:

    "The fact of the matter is that real-world gaming performance today greatly lies at the feet of your video card. Almost none of today’s games are performance limited by your CPU."
    • gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Exactly. These results are evidence that all of the benchmarks at higher resolutions are GPU limited, as almost everyone here (hopefully) already knows. The Core 2 can't magically make a GPU run faster, and this is a great demonstration of that.
    • WATYF, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3...but why bothering using the release of an highly anticipated CPU (with huge performance increases) just to setup a test system that is custom made (by putting the load limit on the GPU) to prove that it's possible to get the same performance out of two different CPU's? If he wants to prove that GPU's are the bottleneck, then go grab an older CPU, and a mid-grade one, and a high-end one and sure, even the newest one (Conroe) and show people that on SOME systems, your GPU is the problem, and a better CPU won't help with certain gaming scenarios.

      But that's not what this article accomplishes... he didn't need Conroe to prove that GPU's are the bottleneck... but he used it (and it's only high-end competitor) to make it look like there was no difference between the CPUs when it comes to gaming, that's just not true (as is confirmed by basically every other tech review website on the entire internet as of today).

      WATYF
    • MasterTreb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The reason I'm buying it is so that I can run, VC++, Firefox, and Winamp under whatever else I have open.
  • jeffsiler, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Very fair article, but why am I surprised coming from HardOCP. It looks like the performance lead isnt that great with a high end graphics card but I am still very interested in getting a e6600 c2d.

    thanks kyle
  • schmiggyjk, on 10/12/2007, -20/+9Is this a joke? No digg.

    Way to GPU limit the benchmarks thus attempting to negate any major performance benefits of core 2 vs amd fx....
    • Emasoft, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6 Limiting the benchmarks? Those of HardOCP are not benchmarks, but real world tests. Read the article.
      The settings used on Oblivion are exactly the mine. Very informative test.
    • frgmstr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Actually what we wanted to see was if there was any difference in the real-world gaming experience if they had matching high end graphics solutions. What we found out was that the CPUs had little to do with the gaming experience in many of today's popular games. This is something anyone with a recently upgraded gaming system will surely want to know.

      Our article here looks to more CPU-centric applications that show the true power of the Core 2 processors and just how they are exploited.
      http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTExMCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
    • antdude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I have an Athlon 64 3200+ (754 CPU) with 2 GB of RAM and Windows XP Pro. SP2. I also have a GeForce 6800 (AGP; 128 MB) [being RMA due to problems so using my old ATI Radeon 9800 Pro AIW card]. Are you saying I am GPU limited and I should upgrade my video card? I was hoping to upgrade my motherboard, CPU (Conroe or Athlon 64 X2 dualcore), and RAM later this year or when Vista comes out to keep up with the latest games. My detailed system specifications are shown in here: http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/computers.txt (primary/gaming box).

      Right now, Obilivion, Call of Duty 2, and other newer games etc. are not smooth on my system with all graphic details at maximum. I don't use FSAA, but do crank up anisotropic (16X). In FEAR, I got like 25 FPS average with its timedemo.

      So should I just upgrade my video card again (AGP) or will my CPU be a bottleneck? I am still going to keep my old parts like my old IDE HDDs, SB Audigy2 ZS, PS/2 mouse, 17" CRT, Antec case, PSU, CD-RW burner, DVD-ROM drive, etc. to save money (don't make that much :P).
    • GraceMolloy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7that's a tough one. that's actually still a pretty good chip. and very overclockable. but if you're going to get a new vid card you'd prolly want to go PCIe to get the better choice of cards. which means a new MB anyway.

      so while you don't NEED to do a full upgrade it's kinda a damned if you do damned if you don't sort of deal.

      all boils down to what you can afford.
    • innerspirit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2If they wanted to test real-world performance and concluded that it is not greatly affected by CPU power, why do they go on and ramble that the new core duo processors are not worth the price because there was no huge difference in performance? The fact that games arent made with processors in mind anymore does not mean one processor is not much more cost/effective than the other. In any case, some gamers want the fastest no matter what, and the fact that current games dont take advantage of such high processor power and take it on the GPU is irrelevant because a highly effective processor would still be a good long term investment.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8emasoft, so you noticed that in Oblivion specifically, you can raise your settings and still get better performance with the Conroe?

      I have to go with the others on here. When AMD won all kinds of CPU tests and used less power, it was "go AMD". When Intel wins in CPU tests and uses less power, it's "but why bother to upgrade, CPU speeds don't matter".

      Very lame. Very inconsistent.
    • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11But when the AMD processors won those tests, there were realistic and important differences in performance. You can't tell me that you can tell the difference between a computer playing a game running at an average of 57.5 FPS and one running at 59. I'm sorry, thats impossible. They're being honest: they never implied that the new processors aren't better for other things not related to gaming, but with concern for gamers deciding over which processor to buy for better performance in games, they proved that theres not a noticeable difference in performace. They never said: don't buy the new Intel proccessors, they just said: don't buy them because you think youll get an importance increase in performance in games. Buy them for different reasons. They're being very fair... (and oblivion is only 1 game. the majority of the ones they tested had no noticeable difference)
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12ignokt1:
      Yeah, AMD showed much better numbers, didn't they:
      http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTA2NSw3LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

      But wait, it was because HardOCP used timedemo numbers, just like they say it is useless to do in their Intel review.

      In other tests, similar to those used to plug the FX-62 here, the Intel chips show 20-30% performance advantages.

      But HardOCP plays that down.

      A big double standard here.
    • hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1What does "the mine" mean?
    • antdude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3GraceMolloy: Yeah. I am going to wait a bit longer. I want to see what AMD is going to do to complete Conroe. But then its newest CPUs will expensive.
  • szelij, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Price war! Price war! Price war!

    Let's all shout for a price war so it'd be cheaper for us..
  • MalcolmGlazer, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4im in

    PRICE WAR PRICE WAR
  • frgmstr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yes, everyone is surely going to win on the consumer side of things. Both CPUs are great for today's applications, the Intel CPU is surely the better overall when you look at the big picture. AMD will be dropping prices next week. I am not sure if the leaks are right though.
    • nil8r209, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I would have liked to seen an emphasis on the price of the AMD 64 FX-62 vs. the Core 2 Duo E6700, and more importantly the more affordable E6600's performance vs. the FX-62.

      I would imagine that the pricing/performance "sweet spot" E6600 is where most gamers will wind up and I doubt that the FX-62 will be priced anywhere near $350, even after drastic price cuts. Thats real world.
  • KyleBaFraud, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2How in the world is a FRAPs capture different from a time demo in the same section of the game? The difference is that a FRAPs capture can vary up to 10%, not really a "real world" test now is it? Yet another article that is designed to drive web traffic and not actually provide useful information. We have the biggest Intel release in the last four years and all of a sudden CPU performance is not important, it has been since AMD held the the performance crown at the [H]. The only conclusion is that Kyle once again is following the money that lands in his pockets, it was Intel a few years ago, then VIA, now AMD. Some of the replies by Kyle have been a joke tonight, blaming Intel for not having 975x or ATI numbers when all of the websites got the press kits at the same time. It appears some people worked a lot harder than Kyle in the last two weeks.
    • frgmstr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Actually our thoughts on this are not new at all and were published months ago when all the websites in the world were proclaiming AMD the KING of Gaming. It is ridiculous. The fact is that the CPU just is simply not the lynch pin when it comes to gaming anymore. You can read up here.

      http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTAwMiwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

      We used 965 and not 975 because of the more advanced memory controller, and we did not use CrossFire because it is a problematic and little-used platform.

      We moved away from canned benchmarks years ago because they do not show the real player experience. And to be specific, we do not base our analysis on the FRAPS data, we simply use it to represent the frame rates to our readers.

      Thanks for listening. :) Running Quake benchmarks just ain't what it used to be.
  • GraceMolloy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3check out the extremetech article on this also. they showed that on low detail gaming the Core 2 smoked AMD but that on high res high detail it was a VERY small difference.
    http://digg.com/hardware/REVIEW_Intel_Core_2_Conroe_Kicks_AMD_s_Butt
    ie. Yes the new Intel helps some on Gaming (not much though)
    However it SMOKES the AMD on basically everything else.
  • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Its all about the price. The E6700 costs a ton less than the AMD FX-62, and performs better. Other than the price, I dont see any difference between teh E6700, X6800, and the FX-62. I dont see the difference between the E6700 and the X6800 in terms of gaming. 2-3 FPS is not worth hundreds of dollars. Even to the billionaires who dont know what to do with their money.
  • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6from the article:

    "As for the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62, all of our testing shows that it does trail the two new Intel CPUs in gameplay performance. So, if you wanted to point one out as being a “winner” then for sure it is the new Intel Core 2 X6800 and E6700. But, if you look at the amount of difference between the AMD and Intel CPUs, you will see that it isn’t enough to amount to anything."

    In other words, the Intel wins. Even the 2nd-tier Intel beats the top-tier AMD. And the Intel is cheaper, runs at a lower clock speed, costs less, takes less power and makes less heat.

    If HardOCP had tested the 3rd tier Intel (as others did), they likely would have found that it also outperforms the FX-62. Other sites have found that even the sub-$200 Intels match the FX-62 in gaming.

    And the Intels whallop the FX-62 by 30% in other tests (even the cheaper Intel). Although of course in less CPU intenstive tests the edge down because replacing your CPU doesn't speed up your hard drive.
    • Nocturnal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Those 30% tests were watered down timedemos which HardOCP pointed out. They weren't done by actual reviews sites with no bias towards Intel. This article is the real deal, a legit one too. I mean sure, some of you may get the wrong idea seeing the AMD advertisement or whatever but I have been reading HardOCP for several years and their reviews are usually on the spot. I'm sure Anandtech will have a review up by tomorrow too, check there shortly.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Nocturnal: actually the 30% tests I was referring to appear in the Music, Images, & Movie Performance tests on HardOCP. Are you impuning HardOCP's results and testing methodology?

      anandtech has tests up already.

      http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=19

      http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=16

      In Anand's tests, the Intel whups the AMDs.
    • weiran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1No-ones whalloping anyone, look at the results. This was about gaming performance, not some synthetic benchmark or encoding run. GPU is still the leading factor here.

      Basically, if you have a decent CPU now, upgrading to Core 2 Duo won't help your performance, you're better spending your money on a better graphics card.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3What, are you blind?
      from the link I posted:

      Gaming performance:
      Intel X6800: 78.6.
      Intel E6700:73.5
      FX-62: 62.5

      The X6800 is 25% faster. That's a whallop. And in Oblivion, gaming performance.

      Oh, sure but it's with FRAPS, something (like timedemos) that HardOCP would never use to pump up CPU numbers, right?

      http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTA2NSw3LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

      "Half Life 2 - Source 7 Bld 2707 - Custom Timedemo"

      They're playing games here, using one methodology to show a big gain for AMD, then recanting and saying that methodology is flawed when it shows big gains for Intel.

      And you're buying it.
    • weiran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thats one game, out of many they tested.

      Also, all I'm "buying" here is that GPU is the main factor in game performance nowadays, not the CPU. If I were to get a new PC, it would be a Core 2 Duo due to many factors, but just don't kid yourself that upgrading from a high end X2 or FX-62 to the X6800 is going to get your money's worth of performance.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Rise of Legends: 120.5 vs 78.4 (X6800 to FX-62)
      F.E.A.R: 118 vs 101
      Quake 4: 160.4 vs 144.3
      Battlefield 2: 130.3 vs 109.1

      It's not just one game. I didn't even pick the one with the largest disparity.

      Please, just read the articles before you say things that directly contradict it.

      By this methodology (the same one HardOCP used to declare AM2 victory over Pentium D), the Intel Core 2 Duo is beating the Athlons soundly.
  • mephitix, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6This is a great article, you know, without looking at the fact that there's a blaring AMD ADVERTISEMENT at the very top. Hmm... nice to see that they're generously giving us this advice at the very end of the article too:

    "Lastly, I would advise everyone that is thinking of rushing out and purchasing their latest upgrade that we are sure to see HUGE pricing slashes out of AMD before the end of the month."

    Either that's a really bad coincidence or something sketchy is going on here...
    • frgmstr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Uh oh, there are Core 2 Notebook ads all over the place too!
    • ArcaneDevice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I usually like Hard but this article smacks of AMD supporters who sound like they are physically in pain when they have to admit the Intel was faster. Quotes like this:

      "So, if you wanted to point one out as being a “winner” then for sure it is the new Intel Core 2 X6800 and E6700. But, if you look at the amount of difference between the AMD and Intel CPUs, you will see that it isn’t enough to amount to anything."

      and:

      "If you have a higher-end AMD Athlon 64 system platform right now though, there really isn’t any need to go scrambling to Intel Core 2 at this particular time for gaming. I’d wait it out and see what the future brings."

      and:

      "Lastly, I would advise everyone that is thinking of rushing out and purchasing their latest upgrade that we are sure to see HUGE pricing slashes out of AMD before the end of the month."

      make it hard to view an article like this. All the indications in this article reek of bias. At all points they are trying to convice users to stick with AMD while begrudgingly accepting Intel is faster. Even if it's still only a fractional imprvement, the fact is that it's faster.

      Sorry HardOCP, accept a win is a win.
    • satori3000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yes [H] is sometimes biased, but you left out a line there that does mitigate what they are saying here somewhat:
      "If I had an older system and had to put my foot down and choose a system with the future in mind, I would probably lean toward the Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 platform for future proofing if Oblivion were any indication of future games."
      Yes it still has a spin to it, but basically if I were to read this and I was building fresh I might think Intel.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2ArcaneDevice, I want to thank you merely for using bias properly as a noun, instead incorrectly as an adjective like most people on internet boards seem to do.
    • drvelocity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Uhh.. hate to break it to you pal, but "all of these people using 'bias' as an adjective" aren't the idiots, you are. Because the word 'biased'.. is.. an.. adjective. Grammar school over, pay your $5 at the door.
    • Misanthrope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well, it can actually be either. A noun or an adjective, that is. You can have bias, or your opinion can be biased.

      So...really...you're all idiots ;)
    • drvelocity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Except for the fact that I didn't say it couldn't also be a noun, lol. I was merely showing the first idiot an example of where a word that contained "bias" could be used as an adjective. *shakes stick angrily in the air*
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1drvelocity:
      Biased is an adjective.
      Bias is a noun, not an adjective.

      That was my whole point.

      It is common on the internet to see " is bias". This is using bias as an adjective and what I am referring to. (example: http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33689231)

      Please refrain from putting words into my mouth and then calling me an idiot for saying them. Or at least know that if you do so, it makes you look like an idiot, not me.
    • SpinnerOfTales, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not going to throw around names, but you're all wrong. When a person says that something "is bias," that person is using "bias" to modify the verb "is," not any noun. Thus, "bias" is used as an adverb, not an adjective.

      However, regardless of the proper name for the part of speech, not only is it incorrect usage, but it's also painful to any grammarian's brain to see language butchered thus.
  • Nocturnal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I honestly thought Intel had AMD by the balls. I guess I was wrong and so was a lot of others. I guess I'll never believe until the NDA and the ETA is right here and now so I can judge for myself. What a waste. I'm all for the price wars.
    • frgmstr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Well, keep an open mind as this article is specific to gaming. Here is where we show the Core 2 whipping up on the AMD pretty badly. Video encoders rejoice.
      http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTExMCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
    • NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why does no one seem to realize that this is a very good thing either way? Sure, it's not an EXTREME improvement in performance over the AMD chips, but it's enough to force lower prices across the board, and when that happens, AMD and Intel are both forced to innovate, make a newer, faster, better, and most important to them, more expensive processor that wipes the floor with the competition.
    • bigtabs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1NSMike, EVERYONE has realised that a while ago, welcome to the present.
  • UnclePow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3AMD certainly has some ground to make up for now. However, Intel had to pull out a lot of stops to dethrone AMD. I'm sure if you put a 2 MB or 4MB L2 Cache on an A64 you'd see some impressive numbers as well. Intel is making quite a loud appeal to gamers with the new unlocked multiplier on the Extreme version. But AMD still wins in the performance per watt realm, even with a 90 nm process. AMD will catch up, just give it some time.
    • nikaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0What are you talking about? Conroe has better performance per watt. Look at this page: http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=489587&P=6
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Intel wins per watt, per mm^2 of die and per dollar. Why beef about cache sizes? If AMD could put big caches on affordably, they would. But they can't, so they are actually decreasing cache size in the near future.

      Intel holds a technology advantage at the moment and dancing around about how it was done is pointless. The outcome for the user is great. Enjoy. And atlhough AMD's response won't be soon, I expect it will be impressive.
  • T8y8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5High-End gaming stresses the GPU, not the CPU. The tests should have included BF2 with 100 bots or something, that would stress the CPU

    Frankly, they're right, CPU doesn't mean as much in the way of FPS or gaming anymore, the GPU does.

    However, the lower prices and faster video/audio encoding, as well as less heat, have got me sold on Conroe
  • KyleBaFraud, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"by frgmstr 15 minutes ago Block/Report this User
    [comment buried, show commenthide comment] + 2 diggs bury this digg this
    Actually our thoughts on this are not new at all and were published months ago when all the websites in the world were proclaiming AMD the KING of Gaming. It is ridiculous. The fact is that the CPU just is simply not the lynch pin when it comes to gaming anymore. You can read up here.

    http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTAwMiwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

    We used 965 and not 975 because of the more advanced memory controller, and we did not use CrossFire because it is a problematic and little-used platform.

    We moved away from canned benchmarks years ago because they do not show the real player experience. And to be specific, we do not base our analysis on the FRAPS data, we simply use it to represent the frame rates to our readers.

    Thanks for listening. :) Running Quake benchmarks just ain't what it used to be. "

    The 965 boards are very immature at this time and the advanced memory controller does not provide real world benefits. If you had tested the P5B against the P5W you would know this. You could have used a single ATI card, lets say a X1900XTX as a comparison, maybe even CrossFire against SLI by pitting the 975X boards against the NV SLI Intel boards. It was funny that two of the games that would truly benefit from Conroe at this time (FEAR/Q4) were not part of your real world tests. If you do not base your analysis on the FRAPs data that you hold so dear for "Real World" testing, then is your analysis based on the lead advertiser on the front page? It seems to be AMD tonight.
  • KoMoD0, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0OCAU > [H]orde


    We will be regaining out trophey and no1 spot soon too
    • kije, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Kyle has convinced the [H]erd that there's no reason to upgrade to Conroe. I'm thinking OCAU know better.
  • bluemist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm currently running on a P4 630 (3GHz) system with a 7600GT video card.

    Using CS:Source as basis:
    - I basically have the same frame rate at all resolutions until 1280x1024 (my monitor limit).
    - fps is around a respectable 70 when few people are on a server game. It dips down badly when 20+ players are on the game (25-50).

    Am I CPU-limited? Will having a faster CPU like Core 2 Duo avoid the slowdown when many people are on a server?
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2bluemist: it doesn't sound like you are CPU limited in CS:Source. But there are a lot more CPU demanding games than CS Source. If you play CS:Source primarily I wouldn't update anything right now. If you plan on moving to more intensive games soon, you'll need CPU first and then you'll rapidly run out of video card too.
    • bluemist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The day Crysis comes out will be the day I get a decent Core 2 Duo proc/mobo and 'another' 7600GT for SLI power. For now I'm satisfied with my gaming (sans CS: Source slowdowns)
  • mrfx2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That is bs and this is all hype ...ill be the first to buy an intel if they had real world numbers BUT THEY DONT

    AMD and Intel are so close its not even worth talking about IN real world performance.
    We need faster harddrives and ddr3 before we see some true gains.
  • countersoldat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I would advise a look at this review done by Hexus:

    http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6184&page=1

    The Core 2 Duo is looking very, very, impressive. The lowest end model for like $220 is neck and neck with the FX-62. The highest model just lays a smackdown, not only in game benchmarks, but in encoding, etc. Sure, one can whine about how meaningless the gaming benchmarks are b/c they are at 1024 or 800/etc, but that is how they always have been done, and so it is not some vast conspiracy on Intel's part.

    I really don't get all the hate people are dishing on Intel and these processors: they are the fastest out, they use less energy, make less heat, and are not outrageously priced....what's not to like?
    • noGoodNamesLeft, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You evidently haven't spotted that Digg has a large fanboy contingent which appears on XBox/PS3/Wii or Intel/AMD articles.

      The console fanboys are bad enough, but I *really* don't get why anyone would have a loyalty to AMD or Intel beyond the performance of a particular chip or series of chips; they're all just x86 clones with varying performance.
  • hadimirza, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2I just bought a Macbook Pro 2GHZ. Over here in Canada, with tax and all, cost me $2700. I imagine how much it will cost with this chip...notebooks are gonna become unreasonable with prices, but incredibly fast. Cant wait to see the new macs!
  • moussam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2this review was done by a bunch of AMD fanboys. stop being little girls and accept the fact that intel owned AMD and is the KING
  • stephenwq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Its all about price, why does 5 fps matter when theres a $100 per frame price tag on it?
    I'd go with the cheaper intel as they tested, based on what they got (if its legit), currently. When 64bit and Dual core is properly utilised, maybe it will be a different story.
  • rufo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This review, while not complete BS, is really slanted. The facts from benchmarks (and how is a DivX benchmark for instance NOT a real-world benchmark) show that the Intel CPUs have a much better performance for dollar ratio, with Intel's $330 Core 2 Duo beating out in many CPU tests AMD's $1100 FX-62. It's true that this won't make a difference in many games, since many games are GPU limited; however for tasks that *are* CPU bound, you're wasting your money if you were to buy an AMD CPU now.

    Intel's coming back strong... It's up to AMD to drop their prices and then we should have a truly fair comparison.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah. That's a good point.

      If you reach the conclusion that CPU speed doesn't matter (as HardOCP claims), then they should have tested more cheaper Intel chips (or at least simulated them by lowering the multiplier). They could then say "CPU speed doesn't matter and thus we just determined that you could buy the $150 Intel chip and get essentially the same performance as an FX-62" instead of explaining that Intel's new $900 chip doesn't improve performance over AMDs $800 chip.

      Their testing methodology clashes with their conclusion. They had an opportunity here to prove that due to advanced by Intel, you could save almost $800 over what you would have had to spend a week ago to get the same performance. But they missed the mark, they failed to get the right data to assist their thesis.
  • schmiggyjk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Posted on the hardforums by talk2farley:

    "Hard OCP has it in for Intel, apparently? Obviously all of those games were performance-capped by the GPU, especially at high resolutions with all sorts of snazzy graphics options turned on.

    You didn't test CPU performance here. You tested GPU performance. Period. Let's re-run this test with a quad-sli rig at 640x480 with graphics options set to nil and FPS not capped at your monitors refresh rate, and see what happens.

    You are right about one thing: a $1000 Conroe is worthless if you are going to run World of Warcraft. But I'm right about another thing: this article is worthless if you are trying to get a sense of the performance gains of Conroe versus Pentium 4 or the X2/FX.

    How about running a simple synthetic CPU test, and tossing those results into the mix? Maybe because you know what we know, that Conroe would absolutely dominate?

    You try to justify this steaming pile of garbage with the disclaimer that you are testing "real-world game performance." But this is worthless, because you compare the performance of a $500 high-end Conroe with a $1200 to-of-the-line AMD, and only the top of the line AMD. What gives? The FX-62 is no less overweighted for running WOW or anything else out there right now. If you wanted the review to have any meaning whatsoever, at least conclude (reasonably) that you could get away with single-core Pentium 4 in Oblivion if you had sufficient GPU horsepower, at less than $200. Instead you shilled for AMD, even having the audacity to throw in the promise of radical price-cuts before the end of the month, as though it were writ in stone, when in actuality that is pure speculation. AMD hasn't announced any such thing!

    Here's the deal. People do NOT buy top-of-the-line processors today to play GPU-intensive first-person games that were released six months ago. They do so either to improve computing efficiency (recuding start-up times, load-times) or to future-proof themselves for the next 4 years.

    And with that as the goal, OF COURSE a FASTER, CHEAPER Conroe is the right way to go. Period."

    That sums it up.
    • schmiggyjk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I think this storys status, "buried", sums things up quite nicely.
  • iPirate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What's the deal with the CPUs being listed under Video Card?
  • iSlayer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think the review from anandtech is much better than this. Running those resolutions so high makes it more work on the gpu than the cpu itself so its a little inaccurate. This is all about the cpu right?
  • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Why didn't they run something on the other cores?

    Most games can't take any advantage of a dual core processor. I'd like to see these same tests with the second cores loaded down encoding video or something of the sort.
  • intelmole, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So it's a CPU test and they only run GPU benchmarks? What sort of review is that?
    -Mole
  • hansamurai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What a crappy review, it's pretty obvious Hardocp has something hard for AMD.
  • frgmstr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You might want to read this one too. It shows a much different side to the Core 2.

    http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTExMCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

    There is no bias here, just shedding the truth using real gaming and not relying on traditional benchmarks which do not show the real gaming picture...unless of course you game at low res.
  • michaelothomas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So, were we supposed to be surprised that you can crank up game settings and make the video card the limiting factor? I would have much rather seen the [H] find some CPU limiting situations with SLi and CrossFire than take 10 pages to tell me what I already know.

    I suppose the [H]'s mentality of taking raw information away from the user in favor of holding their hand and explaining how things really are is a good thing for a lot of users, but I personally would like to just see all the numbers and reach my own conclusions.
  • leogodin217, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm not an expert on the other games but the test on oblivion was very limited. NO AA, and grass distance set to medium. The grass distance is one of the most CPU intensive operations. They basically tested high end chips with Medium settings in Oblivion. Not a very good test
  • KyleBaFraud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Once again Kyle, how does an inaccurate FRAPs capture in a section of a game that we do not know is CPU or GPU bound a "real world" benchmark. You have been playing favorites for years to the people who pay the most advertising, so why should anyone believe your numbers or conclusions.
  • MordecuS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why does Hard always have to be so negative. Posting their article early to beat everyone to the punch and while he was at it, insinuating that all the other reviews were BS. Thanks Kyle, I will keep Bit-Tech, Anandtech and Toms. Speaking of BS...
    • ghostnet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0They're not always negative. They seem to be in love with Dell. Even though Dell uses those icky intel processors.
    • colinexl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree with you, I love hardocp but this article about gaming is biased against Intel. You can pick up the authors's "negative" tone against Intel pretty easily.
  • Muncher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I dislike this article because:
    1. The entire tone of the article is very arrogant, like they're the only people giving real results
    2. They act like everyone plays games at 1600x1200 with AA and AF
    3. Their test setup is completely GPU bound

    If they had tested the lower end Core 2's as well, they wouldn't have been able to spin this against Intel so badly. If they'd included the E6400, it probably wouldn't have performed much worse than the FX-62 (in this GPU-limited setup). Hopefully their results are useful to someone, they're not to me.
  • tapehands, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I've always liked [H] - but they do have a habit of coming off as assholes. If you can gloss over that, the article has a lot to say. Most people are even missing the point of this article; the title states, "Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance", and links their vanilla run-the-tests-that-everyone-else-runs review in the first paragraph.

    From what the article says, the new Core 2 processors are not for gamers. Take the quote referring to not being able to run a 7950GX2 on the Core 2 Platform; "Sadly, we ran into some issues, due to the product%u2019s immaturity, and therefore we have used a single GeForce 7900GTX."

    Also, you could go after the $599 E6700 and call it a "value"....or you could just as easily buy a socket 939 opteron 165 for about $330, then spend the difference for a nice watercooled setup. Between being able to overclock the hell out of the system, and the added bonus of motherboard support for the 7950GX2, you would have a killer gaming rig.

    I actually would have liked to have seen something added to the tests, though. I know when I'm playing games, I'm usually doing something in the background....why not throw in video encoding? or folding? That would be a true test of not only the dual-core nature of these processors, but how much raw horsepower they have.
  • Destinatus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Biased and useless article. This article proves it's useless when it tests the CPUs and says at the end that the CPU doesn't even matter anyway (so why bother with the benchmarks?). It says the e6700 c2d barely out performs the 64 fx, but the BIG difference is that Intel's is 50% cheaper. Everyone seriously needs to let go of their brand loyalty.
  • neocitron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2when you make your entire life about technology.. you tend to develop a bias... it's unavoidable.... some of these authors need to step outside once in a while, enjoy other things....
  • JethroXP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What I find funny about the comments here claiming that the article was anti-Intel and pro-AMD is that after reading all four articles at HardOCP, I became very excited about building a new system around one of these new Core 2 Duo CPUs. If their intent really was to be anti-Intel and drive me away from Core 2 Duo, they failled with me, which makes me suspect that perhaps that really wasn't their intent and that a few conspiracy theorists here are reading waaay to much into what HardOCP had to say. Look at the graphs, that alone speaks volumes to me, and those graphs show the Core 2 Duo leading the way in virtually every area tested.
  • Axion22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To everyone who is complaining about this article, you are missing the point.
    What are a bunch of synthetic benchmarks going to mean to your pathetic human form? Nothing.
    The article lays it all out, you will not notice the difference in gaming between a Core 2 Duo or AMD FX-62.
    They cranked up all the settings to make it 'real-world' because NOBODY PLAYS THEIR SETTINGS AT 800x600 with the eyecandy turned off!
  • DaSnipe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't like the tone of the article but I can see where Kyle is going with this. Everyone's going to have 800x600 or 1024x768 benchies showing great performance over existing AMD's go for it. He did do a second article. He's doing this article to show if there's any difference at higher resolution's or resolutions that I play at. He's right cuz I like to play at 1680x1050 (Dell 2005fpw FTW) and showing that it's not necessarily a good upgrade for someone for just got an X2 or a dual-core Opty as there's not much diff in GPU-bound cases.
  • DaSnipe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Edit was giving me an error, change middle 2 lines

    Everyone's going to have 800x600 or 1024x768 benchies showing great performance over existing AMD's so if you're getting a brand new setup (forget about upgrades for most ppl, new cpu/mobo/ram combo ain't cheap) then go for it. He did do a second article for other things than gaming.
  • somecallmeTim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here's what I got out of the article:
    1) If you already have good gaming system, there is no reason to upgrade "right now" as these new Intel CPU's won't give you that much improvement. Yes, I read the [H]'s article on how the new Intel CPU's work elswhere and I'm impressed with what they can do.
    2) If you have an older system, the this looks to be a great upgrade path if you are in the market for a great gaming system
    3) I didn't see any "bias" and they gave the "win" to Intel, if there really was a win.
    4) "Real World" gaming gains are minimal at this time, but we've known that. Synthetic benchies have been suspect in my mind since the DB wars of the early early 90's.
    I'm looking to upgrade my wif'e's computer, she's currently running an XP2500+ system, and for the money I'm now leaning towards the new Intel CPUs. I don't see much of a boost from my current A64 system (3400+ @ 4000+) to merit upgrading my sytem and moving her into my hardware. Would make more sense to upgrade her rig. Impressive CPU's I will admit.
  • etempest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Article showed one thing if gaming is the most important thing to you, Intel won but AMD was not too far behind.

    Next comes the big questions. Price/Performance ratio.
    And the result = Intel better performance & better price.

    As also pointed out, if you have a high end system now.. it may not be worthwhile to upgrade unless you have money to blow.

    Also Intel & Amd is going to enter a price war. So I think it boils down to this:
    When you are ready to buy your next cpu, what is your budget, what is the best price/performance ratio when you buy.
  • anthonyverre, on 07/12/2008, -0/+0Guys, want the real deal: check out this: http://www.extremegamingtour.com/default.aspx
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.