[H] Core 2 Gaming Benchmarks

AMD is not limitless in thier ability to produce inventory with many sockets. 754, 939 940? and AM2 is too much for any company. I hope they still have a 64 bit option for the really cheap market but if all turions are dual core I guess there's no real need.
 
Thanks to those of you that actually read the articles before commenting. It is appreciated and it shows. :)

We are waiting now to get our hands on retail processors to do more testing and will likely be doing gaming and application testing while keeping focus on real-world uses. Additionally we will be moving forward and comparing CPUs while bracketing them by price in the comparisons. Obviously there will still be "flagship" comparisons down the road as they are fun to see.

For those of you that did not like this one, you will likely hate the next one too. That said there are plenty of other sites that have a different testing philosophy that may suit you better. I do think our views on testing how different components impact your computing experience do have a lot of value and that much of the synthetic and canned benchmarks we see used now days are simply broken. I do know one thing for certain; it would make for a very boring Web if we all shared the same opinion.

Thanks for reading our content and thanks for voicing your opinions. I try to read all of it.
 
Hello Kyle,

I found your benchmarks not usefull for my case. I am more inclined to buy a good processor and an average/value videocard.
Lets say I am inclined to a 6600 level graphics card. Then in my case a 1024x768 in my 17" LCD is good compromisse between speed and quality.

I think benchmarks showing the average and minimum speed as very usefull.
Why not have it at 1024x768? Will I have a better experience with higher minimum fps using Conroe 2? Or are you discarding readers like me?

Thanks
 
pascal said:
Hello Kyle,

I found your benchmarks not usefull for my case. I am more inclined to buy a good processor and an average/value videocard.
Lets say I am inclined to a 6600 level graphics card. Then in my case a 1024x768 in my 17" LCD is good compromisse between speed and quality.

I think benchmarks showing the average and minimum speed as very usefull.
Why not have it at 1024x768? Will I have a better experience with higher minimum fps using Conroe 2? Or are you discarding readers like me?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Well I think that most of our readers have the ability to figure out if a CPU will power a game just fine at 1600x1200, this it will work just as well or better at 1024x768.

As for average and minimums, I know that HardOCP was the site that made minimum framerate reporting a standard.

Certainly in your case you will remain GPU limited in almost any game you play if you buy avg/value video cards. So your upper end CPU is not going to come into having much if any impact on your gaming.

This CPUs & Real-World Gameplay Scaling article I think attests to HardOCP not discarding any readers. We tested 6600s & 7800s on both Intel 3.4GHz 3.2GHz 2.8GHz and AMD FX-60 4800+ 3800+ CPUs then also did a fairly detailed look at Single Core Vs Dual Core. The fact is that hardly any press was generated by that article because other webmasters refused to link it. Funny that it pointed out that many sites' "AMD is gaming King" mantra was really not that true, or that the scales did not tip like their benchmarks showed.

So maybe you should ask some other site owners who exactly is getting discarded. We are looking out for the readers that are concerned with their real world computer experience. Certainly some folks live and die by SuperPi, and it is a fun competition and measuring stick among hardware enthusiasts, but at the end of the day I want HardOCP to focus on what specific hardware facilitates at an application level.
 
I'm sorry, but CPU's just are not about performance in today's games. It's highly important for people to understand what the more theoretical performance levels of CPU's happens to be, because most don't upgrade CPU's nearly as commonly as GPU's.

So yes, you are exactly right that anything above about a mid-range CPU buys you exactly didly squat in games at the resolutions where people actually play (regardless of video card). But if you're on a budget of, say, $300 for a CPU upgrade, then you want to know which CPU has the best absolute performance. That means you don't give a rat's ass about the resolutions at which you're going to be gaming today, because that doesn't tell you didly squat about how long your CPU is going to last as a decent gaming processor.

And, of course, there are always the penis measurers who just want a fast CPU to have a fast CPU, and for them you're also not helping anything by just providing benchmarks at gaming resolutions.

Articles about gaming on slower CPU's compared to faster CPU's at GPU-limited resolutions are important, however, for people who want to upgrade with as little money as possible. But this kind of article is utterly useless unless you give people some indication as to how low they can actually go in price before gaming starts to suffer. Comparing high-end CPU's like this is just plain pointless.
 
I don't think calling it 'old' is really accurate, Geo :)

Fairly good read, but I thought they could have made it much more succinct. Six pages is a big much for what they had to say.
 
I think "worthless" is pretty harsh. I think they are entirely relevant for helping someone decide if they need to upgrade their cpu at all right now, or whether they can safely wait for improvements in price/performance. (Edit: Caveat for multi-gpu types tho --I was disappointed they didn't include that.)
 
First thanks for your response Kyle.
FrgMstr said:
As for average and minimums, I know that HardOCP was the site that made minimum framerate reporting a standard.
Click to expand...
Congratulations for that, and I hope you will keep it.

FrgMstr said:
Certainly in your case you will remain GPU limited in almost any game you play if you buy avg/value video cards. So your upper end CPU is not going to come into having much if any impact on your gaming.
Click to expand...
A 6600 level videocard at 1024x768 at standard quality is not GPU limited when playing Quake 4 or Half-Life 2. Diminished returns maybe start to show but not GPU limited.

FrgMstr said:
This CPUs & Real-World Gameplay Scaling article I think attests to HardOCP not discarding any readers. We tested 6600s & 7800s on both Intel 3.4GHz 3.2GHz 2.8GHz and AMD FX-60 4800+ 3800+ CPUs then also did a fairly detailed look at Single Core Vs Dual Core. The fact is that hardly any press was generated by that article because other webmasters refused to link it. Funny that it pointed out that many sites' "AMD is gaming King" mantra was really not that true, or that the scales did not tip like their benchmarks showed.
Click to expand...
I will read it with more detail later, but I was thinking in something presented in a different way. More like: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=1650

FrgMstr said:
So maybe you should ask some other site owners who exactly is getting discarded. We are looking out for the readers that are concerned with their real world computer experience. Certainly some folks live and die by SuperPi, and it is a fun competition and measuring stick among hardware enthusiasts, but at the end of the day I want HardOCP to focus on what specific hardware facilitates at an application level.
Click to expand...
Synthetic benchmark have its value as the real applications benchmark. But agree for most readers real applications have more meaning.

Also I think Chalnoth has some valid points.
 
geo said:
I think "worthless" is pretty harsh. I think they are entirely relevant for helping someone decide if they need to upgrade their cpu at all right now, or whether they can safely wait for improvements in price/performance.
Click to expand...

Problem is that the CPUs tested were only the newly arrived Core 2 Extreme E6800, Core 2 Duo E6700 and the fastest & most expensive AMD CPU, that most people don't buy. So, with these 3 CPUs alone, I doubt it could have been helpful to many who are looking to upgrade.
 
Woo-eee! Now we got a good ol' flamewar between sites!

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/720/720046p1.html

INCREASED PAGE HITS FOR ALL!

As Firingsquad's reply illustrates, the flames were stoked (hell, ignited) by the childish and obnoxious nature of the HardOPC review. While I disagree with HardOCP's methodology with respect to CPU testing, the tabloid style of the article was the most grating aspect. Alternative benchmarking methodology? Fine, and in most cases appreciated.

Labelling other sites that don't conform to your methods as engaging in a deliberate misinformation campaign, with HardOCP as the sole vanguard of truth and justice?

Well, let's just say I hear O'Reilly is looking for a new intern.

But hey, thanks Kyle. If there's one thing we need more in journalism (being very liberal with the word) as a whole, it's sensationalism.

Edit: Just finished both articles. I found it ironic that Firing Squad labels theirs a "rant", when in tone it's actually far more mature than Kyle's original review, and especially his reply (Firing Squid! Kyle brings da funnay!). The reason Firingsquad created that article? No, it's not because HardOCP labelled every other site as "dishonest" and they felt that was crossing the line, it's because they're threatened by HardOCP's bold new venture into "real word" benchmarking.

Cripes, how far up your own ass can a person be?

I wait with bated breath HardOCP's Nvidia G80 Review. "HardOCP's reviews Nvidia's new 8900GTX, and reveals that FiringSquad is run by FAGS!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Frankly is rather sad for both sites.

Firing Squad's rant was just that, a drawn out rant that didnt come even close to providing a real reason why HardOCP benchmarks are bad. And then HardOCP can do nothing but name call and proclaim themselves above all others and then say they dont "benchmark" anymore.

Seriously, what a laugh and rather pathetic from both ends.
 
Dave Glue said:
Woo-eee! Now we got a good ol' flamewar between sites!
...
I wait with bated breath HardOCP's Nvidia G80 Review. "HardOCP's reviews Nvidia's new 8900GTX, and reveals that FiringSquad is run by FAGS!"
Click to expand...

Ahaha, GREAT post. Summed my thoughts up nicely. What's worst is that I actually agree with Geo -- [H]'s approach is different (and usually pretty competent), which is such a rarity in webjournalism these days, that it serves as an excellent opportunity. Being able to analyze the numbers pretty well on my own, I am not really into the [H] style, but you know, they do things diff'tly and that's ok! People can benefit from their approach, I think, and the news page was pretty good for awhile (it's still relatively thorough)...

BUT, the puerile attitude of [H] clearly points towards its true inteded target -- not "hardcore" overclockers and computer nerds, anymore, but 13-yr-olds (or "men" with a suspended-at-13-years-old maturity level) with little-to-no in-depth knowledge on the subject. Eventhe news page is more and more of an editorial than a news page, and you know, I honestly can't help but wonder if my steadily developing distaste for the site is just that I don't like Brent as much as I used to enjoy Kyle... regardless of my opinion -- that is the danger you run into with an editorial site.

It seems clear that [H] is doing quite well with their brand of journalism, so... I imagine Kyle will say, hey don't read us, and our site is popular, so nyah! And that is, of course, what I'll do... but I'll miss [H], I'll miss the old [H], it wasn't bad. And, you know, I'll be happy to point out my disappointment when the issue pops up! ;D

PS the [H]forums are still full of amazing people who do a lot for the community, and for that i still have to thank Kyle :eek:
 
The article is useful when considered within the context of "Is it worth it to upgrade a current high-end AMD based rig". If you are currently playing the games tested at high resolutions then buying a new Core 2 based system will yield you little advantage in those games.

If you are looking to replace an older system, you should check out more reviews before making the decision. Whether a review is useful or "good" is depending on your point of view. Taking any single review as gospel and ignoring the rest will just limit your understanding.
 
IMO, if HardOPC were serious about evaluating the impact of CPU performance on games in real world scenarious they should have included benchmarks of CPU-limited games. How about a Rome: Total War savegame of a battle involving two huge armies? Games like Civ4 and Galactic Civilizations II could have been benchmarked by measuring the time takes the CPU to complete the turn in a late-stage game on a huge map. And I'm pretty sure there are anumber of RTS games out there that are quite CPU limited... and then there are flight sims....
 
News flash Kyle, conducting tests that result in the graphics card being the limiting factor means absolutely squat when you consider it is a CPU Benchmark. Hello? Furthermore, your tests are by no means "real world" when you consider into the equation that the vast majority of gamers do not have FX-62s and 7900 GTXs, nor do they have 20" monitors and game at 1600x1200 with high levels of AA and/or AF. Most people play at 1024x768 or 1280x1024 and have no idea what AA or AF is let alone enable it. Just take a look at Valve's statistics, the evidence is there in plain view. So in essence your tests favor the top two percentile of people that can afford this hardware and do run at those very specific settings...and nothing more. I could even allow you the possibility that you are legitimately 'concerned' for those people in your specific hardware bracket in which an X6800 won't show them any difference over their current 4800+ and 7900 GTX if it weren't for your double standards in previous benchmarks. Is it so convenient that you happen to go on a 'but they're real world' parade the moment the situation switches regarding specific brand performance? I mean really.

The purpose of a benchmark is to see total performance from the specified hardware in order to make an educated decision regarding what hardware to buy that will last you the longest. Comparing the same video card does not show the CPU's performance in any way, shape or form nor does it tell you how that CPU will perform if you put a faster video card in it and by damn the Core 2 shows fairly significant increases when done so. Maybe it is a valid buy considering it is a cheaper, faster and less power consuming solution than the competition after all? No ifs, ands or buts about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rootax
I finally finished my gaming pc upgrade.
Replies
13
Views
2K
digitalwanderer
digitalwanderer
P
GTX 970@1.5Ghz and 2500k vs Q9550 in 70+ benchmarks (+bonus i7-860)
2 3
Replies
42
Views
15K
Malo
Malo
N
How do you feel about next-gen gaming? *remodelled
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
AlNom
A
B
Why Barts is really VLIW4, not VLIW5 (and more on HD 5830/6790 being mainly 128-bit)
5 6 7
Replies
132
Views
37K
Alexko
A
N
Assassins Creed 2
2 3
Replies
46
Views
9K
Alexko
A
Back
Top