What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
40 Comments
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31We need more real hardware articles like this on Digg. I don't want to hear about any more ($*!(&*%$! Zunes & iPods.
- affanjam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12My computer has better graphics than real life.
- WarMace, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Highest playable settings is more real to me than measuring framerates above 30. If my eyes can only register at 30fps, then i want to know whats the max settings i can run and keep the average fps above 30.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I wouldn't say that.
Core 2 Extreme x6800
-2.93Ghz
-L2 Cache, 4mb shared
-$970.00
Athlon FX-62
-2.8Ghz
-L2 Cache, 2 x 1mb
-$525.00
If You look at the specs the Core 2 is 4.75% faster than the Athlon and has 2 to 4 times the cache depending on how you look at it and the Core 2 is only has a large game play advantage on Flight simulator X and a small advantage on Medieval for around twice the price
Not to say that Core 2 is a bad CPU but the Athlon is still a solid CPU - jman8888, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Must Get 8800GTX *Drools*
I also find it weird how Amd was so close in some of them. - frgmstr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@ soogy, please read the article before passing judgment, that is all I ask, thanks. :)
"Now, since I am picking on Intel a bit above, it is only fair to say that the Core 2 Duo did prove to be an overall better CPU than AMD’s in many other arenas. An Intel Core 2 Duo is going to make it into my next system build, but that choice will be based on many things and gaming performance advantage will likely not be the main reason for that choice. I point this out to hopefully quell some of the “YOU AMD FANBOY!!!” cries before they happen."
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTExMCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0
"With today’s fastest video cards, we certainly saw more differences between our AMD and Intel processors than we did at the launch of the Core 2 Duo, and certainly more differences than we saw in March of last year. Undoubtedly, the Core 2 Duo allowed us a better gaming experience overall. Also we saw some examples where we were again GPU bottlenecked in games even with these massively fast BFGTech 8800 GTX cards."
"There is undoubtedly a world where the Intel Core 2 Duo reigns supreme, but in the world of gaming that power is not near as apparent. We again see games remain very GPU dependent, but the GeForce 8800 series of GPU is allowing us to begin to see the Core 2 Duo flex its muscle. One thing is for sure. If you are building a gaming system, your big money is better spent on your video cards than your processor as you are never likely to see any true differences in your gaming experiences without a hugely powerful GPU. If you do however have the alpha-male of video card(s), Intel’s Core 2 Duo can provide you with a better gaming experience."
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI2MiwxMCwsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q= - asdfrewq, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@WarMace
Realise that in many games an average framerate of 30 means it could range anywhere from less then 10 to greater then 60 depending on the scene being rendered. You might not be able to notice the jumps to 60fps, but you damn well will notice when framerates start dropping below 20fps. Even though an average of 30 sounds fine on paper, in the real world you'd probably prefer something around the 50-60 mark. - frgmstr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Please keep an open mind on the results and please understand that we do no do "reviews" in the conventional manners that will be found on most tech websites.
"We thought it was time to upgrade our system configuration and visit real world gaming on our PCs again. Given that gaming has yet to truly embrace multi-core CPUs, we are going to pit AMD’s high end Socket AM2 Athlon 64 FX-62 (2.8GHz) against Intel’s Core 2 Duo X6800 (2.93GHz). The systems are “identical” with our CPUs being isolated to see if one or the other gives a better gaming experience. To compare, what we do is play games with them, just like you would at home. We scale up the resolution on high end displays then see which system will allow us to turn on more eye candy, if any. You will see charts that represent our experience and give you a no-nonsense “Gameplay Advantages” section that hammer home exactly that." - samanathon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Maximum PC has a great article on this video card this month . . .
- frgmstr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Every E6300 processor I have tested here at HardOCP will do 3GHz+, and all of the ones I purchased were less than US$200. An E6300 is going to make it into my next system build. :)
- armourer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@cougar681
Those are all CPUs buddy - matt.rubin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Times like these i hate being a AMD Fanboy
- Abjure, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4They're still around, are you stupid?
- soogy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He's speaking metaphorically, as in the AMD which vanished back in early 2006.
- crashflow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Intel Core 2 Duo
- frgmstr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ elev2
You are putting words into our mouth there. We in no way said or suggested that. This comparison is specific to gaming and only gaming. We did give several links to past articles that were outside of the scope of gaming and fully disclose the Core 2 Duo to be a superior processor.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTExMCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0
The fact remains though, untill we all own $1200 worth of video card, we will likely not see our CPUs unleased to their fullest extent due to video card bottlenecks. To quote from my conclusion:
"With today’s fastest video cards, we certainly saw more differences between our AMD and Intel processors than we did at the launch of the Core 2 Duo, and certainly more differences than we saw in March of last year. Undoubtedly, the Core 2 Duo allowed us a better gaming experience overall. Also we saw some examples where we were again GPU bottlenecked in games even with these massively fast BFGTech 8800 GTX cards."
"There is undoubtedly a world where the Intel Core 2 Duo reigns supreme, but in the world of gaming that power is not near as apparent. We again see games remain very GPU dependent, but the GeForce 8800 series of GPU is allowing us to begin to see the Core 2 Duo flex its muscle. One thing is for sure. If you are building a gaming system, your big money is better spent on your video cards than your processor as you are never likely to see any true differences in your gaming experiences without a hugely powerful GPU. If you do however have the alpha-male of video card(s), Intel’s Core 2 Duo can provide you with a better gaming experience." - xelloss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Intel
- caligula_jones, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6it's always hard to do any sort of cross-platform comparison while retaining accuracy, but hardocp does it better than most!
it's definitely a good read. - Azewaldo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While the X6800 beats the FX-62 at the same price ($1000), you could instead get the E6700 ($500) for the same performance at half the price.
- lartones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I guess you get what you pay for.For a greater price, you get more performance, basically amd and intel are both the same anyways.AMD forced Intel to make it so users can control the clock speeds of their processors. Both Good processors.
- elev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Soogy still has a strong point. These "Real-World" tests by the [H] seem to say that it doesn't matter if your CPU is 20% faster in other tests, all that matters is the playability of your current favorite game. It seems like they are missing the point of the benchmarks. If Motor Trend started doing "Real-World" testing ala the [H[ we wouldn't get 0-60, 60-0, 1/4 mile, slalom, or lane changing tests. They would evaluate the Viper no better than a Corolla because they both get you to work in about the same time. These tests are trying to apply practicality and utilitarianism where it doesn't belong (an enthusiast market).
- brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I recently got ONE to replace my 7800GT SLI's - worth every penny - it is an amazing card.
Running 1920x1200 highest everything in BF2142 *no problem* with a 4800 X2.
$500 yes thats alot for a video card but a value compared to the performance increase I would have gotten switching to the DDR2/Conroe platform. - frgmstr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks for your thoughts and opinion. I have been doing this for 8 years now and think that many tech readers out there are interested in the results no matter what market they are part of. If I did not think it would be interesting and worth discussion, I would not have submitted it to Digg. We submit very few of our stories overall. That said, I think that this article could surely be of use to people looking to buy or build a new computer. Just because you want a $600 video card is no reason to spend $1000 on a CPU that will never show you any benefit compared to something else. That said, we have some scaling articles in the future as well. Our method of testing does however take a lot of resources to efficiently accomplish. I wish we could get the parts in, throw 12 canned benchmarks, write it up in the morning and publish, but the fact is that those result really don't convey much meaning to me anymore. Anyway, that is another story for another time. :)
- Hindu_Wardrobe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I don't feel like reading it... who wins?
- elev, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1frgmstr,
I just think you are trying to bring way too much rationale to a very extreme corner of a niche market. No one who owns a 8800 GTX SLI setup is going to read your article and say to themselves "Whew, thank goodness I didn't spend $500 to upgrade to a much faster C2D/Mobo as a compliment to my $1200 GPU setup, because [H] thinks my 1yr old AMD CPU is GOOD ENOUGH."
This kind of logic belongs in the mid-level market. Show people the kind of game play advantages between ~$200 CPUs or GPUs. That is were level headed conclusions are most useful. - l1ght, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0There never was....
Would have liked to see a HL 2 Episode 1 benchmark though. Although the source engine is very CPU limited. - MikeEnIke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I miss AMD :( They used to be teh pwnage.
- christianw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1soogy = owned
- DavidL6, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Gundam's remarks are right on the mark.
- soogy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8A very good article? This is another GPU-limited test by [H]. People got pissed at this review the first time around (back when they "reviewed" the early Conroe models).
Let me make this clear. Do you know why the "tables have turned", as they put it? Because the last time around, they used an even more limited video card. At least this time, the GPU is powerful enough to keep up with the new Intel CPU a bit better than before.
Go ahead, turn down the graphics settings so the card isn't the limiting aspect. Watch how the gap widens considerably.
This "real-world" test is hardly real-world at all. In a couple of months, new, better, faster video cards will be released, then the AMD processors will simply be even worse off, because THEY will be the limiting aspect, not the video card.
[H]ard|OCP is biased towards AMD. Yes, they're a great company, I love their processors, but they ARE the weaker link in this round of CPUs (until K8L). - annihilator675, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0no...
- armourer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0That might be true,
but
Core 2 Duo E6300
-3.54 Ghz OC
-L2 Cache, 2mb shared
-$180
It's so hard out there for an amd fanboy....
:( - angrycat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Does my cats litterbox have intel or AMD inside?
- Gundam, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2It would be worth digging if they came from a real source, AnandTech comes to mind...
- Gundam, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Ya, you are right you don't do reviews at TardOCP you do ***** editorials. You post what felt best to you, an entirely subjective mark, which is different for each person. What you end up with doesn't give us reproducible tests, and contains nothing that isn't bound by opinion. While you have some valid points about benchmarking not being perfect they give us a better indication of performance then your opinion does.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Its not really a fair comparison if they dont use the same settings for each platform. "Highest playable settings", if different, do not equate to real-world.
- paulj2k, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Sweet
- shadus, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4It was a very good article really, I think the choice of the monitor really affected the outcome signfiicantly, I doubt on my system, regardless of processor I could tell a difference in frame rate at 1600x1200. If I had a few thousand extra dollars laying around right now I'd consider an upgrade to a duel-sli setup with a 30" lcd... mm... oblivion would be totally bad ass in that scenario.
- cougar618, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Why are you trying to compare a GPU to a CPU?
- winston856, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Very nice article.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is