[H] Core 2 Gaming Benchmarks

[Skrying]

[H] Core 2 Gaming Benchmarks and Media Benchmarks

[H] has Core 2 gaming benchmarks up, and........ Core 2 not all what its cracked up to be for gaming.

Why am I not surprised?

As for the media benchmarks, not a real surprise this time because the Core 2 does beat around the FX-62 pretty well.

I must say this is what I was expecting the whole time. Depending on pricing and performance of the Core 2 lower end parts I'll probably move over to Intel. As my computer is turning more into a HTPC and media benchmarks matter more to me than they use to. Either way, I dont think we'll see doom and gloom for AMD and with their price cuts they could still maintain a healthly spot in the low budget gamer rigs.

Gaming:

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Media:

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTExMCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

Core 2 Pricing and Specifications:

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwNiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Power Consumption:

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTExMSwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

 

[hoom]

Move along: threads got merged.

 

[Skrying]

Actually, I beat him by one minute.

I also think my title is a bit more accurate.

But if I must, I'll submit to the "first applied to" rule.

Also, I updated the first post to include the media benchmarks of Core 2 at [H] now.

 

[Mize]

Plus I didn't link so I'm classier

 

[Albuquerque]

Now wait a minute...

We're comparing scores at 1600x1200? What happened to testing in situations where you're CPU limited when benchmarking a CPU? How is full res, full transparency AA and AF going to make this a benchmark of CPU power? (to be fair, two of the tests didn't use AA)

Why am I not surprised that they somehow came out exactly the same? Gee, let me think, maybe because they were hitting the fillrate limit of the card?

 

[Skrying]

Now wait a minute...

We're comparing scores at 1600x1200? What happened to testing in situations where you're CPU limited when benchmarking a CPU? How is full res, full transparency AA and AF going to make this a benchmark of CPU power? (to be fair, two of the tests didn't use AA)

Why am I not surprised that they somehow came out exactly the same? Gee, let me think, maybe because they were hitting the fillrate limit of the card?

Because testing a specific point for the CPU doesnt really paint you a true picture. What's the point of spending $500+ when you only notice a difference in 800x600? Its not like you game at that resolution if you're spending that kinda money on hardware. The benchmarks show you that Core 2 alone is not going to improve your FPS.

I'm interesting in SLI and Crossfire benchmarks to see if the extra GPU performance makes things wider (possible) but I dont see the Core 2 being the gaming holy grail that it was being pushed as. Instead its a nature progression of a more current CPU...... just like you'd expect. Nothing amazing really.

I do believe the media benchmarks are fairly impressive though, they show real improvments, but for me I'm still curious about the lower end parts and what they performan like compared to the similair priced AMD competition.

The story here really is that for gaming its a evolution and not a revolution, which should have been known for awhile, but we all know how hype is.

 

[Albuquerque]

Yes, we all know the hype. So the people who have the moolah to buy a $1000 FX-62 i think we can assume will have a 1600x1200 monitor. But what about those folks who bought a $999 Dell with a low-end E6600 in it? They're likely running on a 17" LCD they got for free with purchase, and are running (at best) 1280x1024. They're probably running a different video card too.

So, where are THOSE benchmarks? If we're going to say that hype is the only thing driving this, then what do we make of the folks on XtremeSystems.org who are beating the everloving crap out of every overclocked, overvolted and phase-change-cooled AMD X2 and Opteron on the planet with air-cooled Conroes?

This has always been my complaint with the [H] and their benchmarks They go out to test something, and come back saying "Gee, it's the same as everything else pretty much" when they jack around with non-equal settings.

 

[Skrying]

What are you talking about? Air cooled? No, all the records are also coming from LN2 cooled and phased cool Conroes.

Those low end Dell people dont have high end cards and will therefore be graphics card limited even more, making those fancy CPUs even more pointless. Where are those benchmarks? Who knows, all I've heard about is the high end Conroe's, so I'm not to surprised HardOCP doesnt have them either or isnt allowed to posts numbers of them.

I dont want this thread to come down to a agruement over the [H] benchmark style. Frankly, what these numbers show that the new Core 2 high end in gaming with a tradiontal gamer setup really isnt that much more impressive, if at all, than current high end X2's.

I simply dont know what you're trying to say with your post, its makes little sense to me.

 

[Albuquerque]

Ok, let me help then:

Dell provides desktop machines with base-processors (base in this case will be the low-end Conroe at like 2.4ghz or something) for cheap; we're talking like $600. Most "noob" gamers know the video card is what makes the world go 'round, so they opt for the $199 additional for an NVIDIA 7900GT along with their gig of ram and 2.4ghz Conroe. So compare a $999 rig at 1280x1024 resolutions to a system with a $1000 processor in it along with a dual-SLI 7900GTX rig, and tell me which performs better at 1280x1024? You're going to hit the CPU limit before the GPU limit at that res, unless you start messing with the AA/AF settings.

Now as for XtremeSystems, it sounds like you need to go check it out. I know there are vapo-chilled, water cooled and even liquid-nitrogen cooled Conroes out there that lead the pack. But continue looking, and you'll find that on air cooling they're getting speeds in excess of 4ghz. I'm not talking about one or two, I'm talking about handfuls.

And then have a look at a 4ghz Conroe on air cooling compared to the local variety of 4ghz phase-change-cooled AMD X2's and Opterons in the same forum. And THEN notice the spanking that's being applied, and the cost difference between the two.

I found it funny in [H]'s article that they rib-poke the Core 2 Extreme model's pricetag because it's basically performing the same as the "vanilla" E6700, but somehow don't make that same connection with the FX-62. Odd, don't you think?

 

[Skrying]

Lets get the first part of your equation, a $600 base system from Dell will not include a 2.4Ghz Conroe, as a 2.4Ghz Conroe is actually a relatively high end part in the Core 2 lineup. We're talking more along the lines of the 1.8Ghz part.

We currently do not know the performance of these parts as they have not been covered yet from what I've seen. So making any hypothesis about this is already pointless since we have no clue about the low end Core 2's yet.

But you miss the point of the article. The article is to show at this point a system of similair status of the one used in the rig will get no benefit from going to a high end Core 2, as the A64 will keep up with it already in that regrad.

Until more testing is done we cant really come to the conclusion if the CPU is GPU limited or not.

Also, there's no way in hell I'm going to believe some people at a forum that were given processors FOR MARKETING REASONS about their performance. Call me weird, I guess.

Also, about the "rib-poking" it was done to the FX series from the start and to previous Extreme editions since the start, basically saying once again there's no point in buying these $1000 CPU's when the $500 brothers perform within 5% for half the price.

 

[Albuquerque]

Alright, so then let's just focus on the benchmark.

An Intel $500 processor at lower clockspeed was just shown to be equal to a $1000 AMD processor, and you're unimpressed. Care to elaborate?

 

[Skrying]

Alright, so then let's just focus on the benchmark.

An Intel $500 processor at lower clockspeed was just shown to be equal to a $1000 AMD processor, and you're unimpressed. Care to elaborate?

LMAO!

And a $500 X2 also keeps up with the $1000 AMD processor and for the most part the $1000 Intel processor. You cant seem to get around the fact that all I'm saying is that the $1000 processors from both camps are completely pointless for anything but being king of the hill. Their $500 brothers and sisters perform nearly the exact same, its been like that since the arrival of the FX and Extreme Edition processors from both AMD and Intel. Nothing new here, that's why I'm not impressed.

I'm not exactly unimpressed, as it was what I was expecting.

 

[IgnorancePersonified]

yeh well the impression I had about a month ago was that simialry priced blue processors would be 20% faster in just about everything...

 

[Albuquerque]

Wait? Where in this thread did you go off about $1000 processors being pointless? I don't recall reading that here. Maybe you can point me in that direction? The only thing I see you saying about $1000 processors is this: Edit: yeah, ok, I did miss it. My bad...

[H] has Core 2 gaming benchmarks up, and........ Core 2 not all what its cracked up to be for gaming.

Well guess what? When you're at the fillrate limit of the card, you really don't have a good comparo on how "cracked up" your processor really is for gaming, now do you? In the shenanigans they claim as a benchmark to demonstrate the effectiveness of the given processors, they've done absolutely no such thing. They've instead shown what happens when you ram a video card straight into the bleeding edge where it can budge no further.

So, how are you able to use THIS benchmark of all things to claim that somehow Core 2 is "not all what it's craked up to be for gaming"? Care to elaborate on that?

 

[John Reynolds]

I skimmed through the [H] article rather quickly (glad to see that I'll soon be lying to my readers according to Kyle) and are comparative TDP ratings even mentioned? If not, talk about missing a salient point!

 

[Skrying]

I skimmed through the [H] article rather quickly (glad to see that I'll soon be lying to my readers according to Kyle) and are comparative TDP ratings even mentioned? If not, talk about missing a salient point!

There's 4 different Core 2 articles, one does cover power consumption and does indeed note that the Core 2 is superior in this area.

I think it was rather stupid of them to divide them into 4 seperate articles.

 

[Accord1999]

yeh well the impression I had about a month ago was that simialry priced blue processors would be 20% faster in just about everything...

Well, if you look at the other Hardocp review of video, audio encoding and content creation, Conroe is >20% faster. It would take a 4GHz AFX to match the X6800.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTExMCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

 

[Skrying]

Well guess what? When you're at the fillrate limit of the card, you really don't have a good comparo on how "cracked up" your processor really is for gaming, now do you? In the shenanigans they claim as a benchmark to demonstrate the effectiveness of the given processors, they've done absolutely no such thing. They've instead shown what happens when you ram a video card straight into the bleeding edge where it can budge no further.

So, how are you able to use THIS benchmark of all things to claim that somehow Core 2 is "not all what it's craked up to be for gaming"? Care to elaborate on that?

The hype (which is what I was refering to when I said "not all its cracked up to be") would have you thinking that the Core 2's would automatically give you a magical 20% performance increase in gaming, which is clearly not the case for most people out there. In fact, you'll see no difference unless you're running a very high end video system (SLI/Crossfire with 7900s and X1900s).

I do not support the generalizations made in the article. I do believe that Core 2 is pretty darn nice, not all it was being made out to be, but indeed its nice and a improvment. But this was what I was expecting which was not suggested by all the hype and rumors.

 

[Accord1999]

But it's there, if you have enough GPU power.

On the other hand, you can also now get about the same amount of gaming power as the most powerful pre-Conroe x86 CPUs with a <$250 E6400.

 

[Albuquerque]

I have a hard time accepting that the "hype" somehow suggested that fillrate-limited games were somehow going to get a noteable boost out of any processor upgrade. But I suppose, depending on the audience, they may ignore such a fact and then cry foul later. I still believe there's a lot more benchmarking to be done, especially at the lowest end of the Conroe line.

What does an E6400 do in the face of an X2 machine?