What is Digg?80 Comments
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+43The advantage of time demos, is they're reproducible. Real gameplay is not reproducible, and hence not scientific.
- UrsusMorologus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Six games * 2 processors * 3 samples per = 36 samples. Core Duo didn't get lucky on all 36 tests ya know.
- BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21I dunno, I figgure the flagship processor running with the highest everything else possible (to eliminate the possibility of the video card being a limiting factor) is a not too unfair test.
Core2 won, get over it. AMD zealots can try to spin the numbers, but at the end of the day, intel won this match & amd needs to catch up.
And I say this on an athlon64 machine... I *LIKE* amd a lot, but they lost in the low-socket-count arena this time around... - sunyata322, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Big surprise, they're both great, but Core2Duo is slightly better...
- kolop1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18 There is no typical prototype for a mass market system. There are lots of systems with various configurations for the mass market.
- randomvictim, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Unless they used a bot to maneuver the same way both times, this is inaccurate. If I were for example, looking at the floor in the game, rather than looking strait forward, obviously I would have higher frame rates. There is also the fact that they use different motherboards( due to socket ).
- elephantdog, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18For the purpose of testing a CPU they are not very good. As the article mentions the physics engine is often turned off for time demos and the CPU is basically just playing back OpenGL commands not necessarily doing everything from scratch. This is a nice video card / CPU combo test but I expect more for a CPU benchmark. How about raytracing? It taxes the integer and floating point units and can be isolated better from the rest of the system.
How do I know those lag spikes in the graph aren't from paging off the disk?
They didn't really answer what system I should buy to comfortably play all the latest games. In fact since my standard is set to the observable threshold for humans at 70 FPS they fail even that with their 60 FPS and 30 FPS standards. I want a system that can sustain 70 FPS with all the antialiasing and fancy graphics features available, now what can I buy to do that? Does it even exist? - pantuky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Personally, I don't understand what all the hub-bub is about on this thread. The proposition of the test is pretty simple: Your enjoyment of the game suffers when the FPS fall below 45. Your enjoyment is optimal when you are above 60 fps. Most gamers would agree to this proposition. So the questions is pretty straighforward: How much time do I spend below the cutoff point of 45fps? Whatever spends more time below 45 fps is the worse chip. Which ever chip spends less time below cutoff is the better chip.
Core 2 Duo only averages 3% of its game time below 45fps. Athlon spent 10% of its time below the cutoff point of 45 fps. Ergo, both have very good game play, but Intel Core 2 Duo is better. You spend 90% of your time above cutoff with Athlon, you spend 97% of your time above cutoff with a Core 2 Duo. Both figures are good. Intel's figure is better. - icellist, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19The specs listed are totally NOT "typical" nor "mass-market"
Not to mention, FRAPS is a pos for benchmarking anything. It's only real purpose is to take short videos for people who think other people want to see what they do in games. Just.. imo. - elephantdog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Real game play can be more scientific that demos. You just need to use a larger sampling. I'm sure months of game play by hundreds of people would give you just the data that's needed. It would include scenarios the timed demo couldn't possibly predict.
- jejones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Yeah, ideally you'd want it such that whoever was playing didn't know which system he or she was using, to avoid possible bias there. The best way would be to have a system record the player's actions so you'd be guaranteed identical inputs.
That said, much as I like AMD, Intel appears to have removed its collective head from its collective posterior after the Netburst fiasco, and come out with a very good CPU. - MStiles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Or, you could read the article and find out exactly why the graph looks like that.
- mattus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Call me pedantic, but a Core 2 Duo isn't a Pentium 4.
- sunyata322, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7.. aren't they both dual core?...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6i wish articles would stop splitting articles over so many pages
- Splitt3rxx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11that is a stupid way of testing, but clearly intel owns the crap out of AMD now.
- goffy59, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I like both processors and finally Intel steps it up! I cant wait til' AMD comes out with something sweet.
- Ironman11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Thats why they graded the processors by their time spent below a set FPS cut-off point.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Indeed. Joe Schmo does NOT have a PC with an Athlon 64 X2 5000+, 2 GB of RAM, and a GeForce 7900GT video card. This is as high-end as most people can afford (minus the extremely hardcore PC gamers, who buy dual video cards, among other things...)
I'd imagine a PC like this is probably around $2,000, which is about $1,300 more than most people spend on computers these days. What an utterly ridiculous choice of hardware these guys made... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"The advantage of time demos, is they're reproducible. Real gameplay is not reproducible, and hence not scientific."
The disadvantages of timedemos is that there is NO physics, environmental or AI calculation being performed. - LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7iyag... you wouldn't be playing games like Half Life 2 : Episode One, Doom 3, etc etc... on a $700 system with integrated video. that's what $700 systems ship with nowadays, you know...
This is not a bottom feeder comparison. This is definitely what I would consider a mid-range "hot rod" type system that an enthusiast gamer like me would consider when buying parts for a new computer. - justin22290, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I agree 100%.
I really like AMD but even with this test, AMD didn't become the victor. This is just trying to give you the best performance test it possibly can, and I guess maybe I'll consider the intel in my next computer if there isn't anything better out.
Ignore brands, whats the best you can get for the least is the real thing that matters. - shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3they arnt testing the pure force of a CPU they are testing how it stands under games.
a better way to do it is turn all the textures and AA down, all the particles up, then play for a long time, record all the input then use the recording to do it again on the other CPU. - loudnobnoxious, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Why would Core 2 Duo winning surprise anyone? The validity of the tests can be questioned but it doesn't surprise me that C2D came out on top. AMD's architecture isn't exactly "fresh off the press" and this is BRAND SPANKING NEW stuff from Intel, which is a much larger company than AMD. The fact that the Athlon64 can even compete with the newest of offerings from Intel is an awesome feat in my eyes. The ball is in AMD's court and I cannot wait to see what places it back in Intels'.
- mav451, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, but Intel's chips are always cache heavy, so no surprise from blue-camp. AMD is back in the Athlon XP vs. Northwood stage again...except this time, AMD's chips are multiplier locked.
- shogunu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No $1000 CPUs
- Vektuz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When you view graphs and benchmarks for games, remember; Its not the highest or average that matters. Its the LOWEST framerate achieved.
It doesnt matter if you get 1000fps, if it drops to 5 when theres action happening.
I'd rather have 30 fps constant, then have 150 and drop to 5 when theres a firefight (because thats when you really, really NEED the performance). - soapboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Processor releases from these two companies are like decades-long matchs of "You got served"
Each company will one-up the other as time goes by... - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Integrated video? How about a $700 system with a mid-range
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Editor messed up.
What I was saying was, who says integrated video is mid-range? What about a $160 7600, which plays those games just fine? Even a 6800 will play them.
I played Doom 3 and HL2 on a P4 B, CPUs make very little difference in those games. - sedition, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"I want a system that can sustain 70 FPS with all the antialiasing and fancy graphics features available, now what can I buy to do that? Does it even exist?"
They mention at the begining that they're testing for the "average" user. Not the power gamer. You can surely have what you want if money is no object. - jeezus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's certainly a non-standard way of doing testing, but that doesn't mean that it's not valid. The fact that it uses very non-specific constraints (time spent above or below an arbitrary FPS threshold) is counterbalanced by the fact that the test itself has a fairly significant margin of error, Like another poster is said, most people don't immediately run benchmarks when they upgrade their rig. Instead, they say, hey, i can play Oblivion where before I couldn't.
This is also the second time ExtremeTech has run those tests.
Taken together (ExtremeTech's "traditional" benchmarks plus these "real-life" tests) , the two offer a pretty comprehensive evaluation of the C2D and the new Athlon X2. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Patrick Norton on DL.TV said his games under Vista were loading like 30% faster than XP ! That is a good jump in performance. MSFT must be doing something right after all.
- sunyata322, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If you didnt notice they listed the prices as $301 for the X2 5000+ and $316 for the Core2Duo E6600 (albeit these are 'wholesale' prices), but I don't know what 3x price difference you are speaking of.
- MStiles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Not "typical," just "mid-range." We're talking sub-$350 CPUs and a sub-$300 graphics card. The whole rig would cost $1500 or less.
- MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If you account for the fact that you can find (non-SLI) AM2 motherboards for as low as $60 (Intel 975X motherboards start at about $150), and Core 2 chips use DDR2-1066 memory, which costs about twice what DDR2-800 costs for the AMD chips, AMD seems like a much better value proposition. You probably wouldn't spend $60 on a gaming motherboard, but for a midrange system, you'd can get a sub-$100 AM2 motherboard and put together a good system.
That, and you can't buy Core 2 chips yet... Newegg's taking pre-orders at drastically inflated prices. - quakeIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My comments were both correct. I guess some people have no respect for the humble truth.
This comment has deeper meaning, I hope. - Champ2020, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2is the intel core 2 duo a 64 bit porcessor?
- synd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yes.
- Genma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2this is a processor test, not a video card test. why would you choose to do a time demo over something more realistic like this if you were using the same cards? everything besides the mobos are identical. the only thing I think is missing from this bench is a time demo along with their real-world test, in the same session, to eliminate excuses from the fans. I would imagine the same results, with a closer margin.
now someone should digg a story to a time demoed bench, where intel owns amd again. and when we see comments like "but time demos don't use cpu! not scientific!" we can link to this digg and laugh. - unununium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't see a point getting higher than 85fps since I just get tearing and it makes it harder to play the game.
- drum_bum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wow, there is someone who know what that is! Good call
- MrBurns, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@elephantdog: I dont know, from where you have the information, that a human can observe 70 fps. A human can observe max. 25 fps. The reason, why some games need a frame rate of 60 or 70 fps to run smooth is just that the frame rate is normally not constant. But I think the thresholds are rather high, because for HL2 30 fps is enough...
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2A better test of CPUs would have been an encoding test. Those games are 80% GPU-bound, CPUs make little difference.
- transistor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1the article claims that the intel is 30% faster than the amd. I think the intel also costs that much more.
other than that, the article takes advantage of the fact that intel just released this chip,. granted that i've heard other articles as well that state the intel chip is faster than amd. - kristov, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Which is great for the consumer.
- mav451, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1And this is a surprise to who? I've already had dozens of tech sites tell me this the past few weeks. I guess better late than never, though the "Real World" benching is oddly reminiscent of a certain [H]'s controversial take on the same subject matter...hehehe
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2drum_bum, the submitter, uses the flag of Brittany:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretagne - code_of_life, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2well, who'd have thunk? Intel finally gets back its crown
- Highstand, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5I'm not trying to rain on their parade, but I am curious at what point can you actually conceive the difference in frames per second. Can you really distinguish 76 fps versus 90? How much of a difference in fps has to occur before you actually notice it affecting your game play?
-
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is