The General
Banned
- Messages
- 5,191
Yeah I am waiting til G80 to build my new computer.
E6600 for sure.
E6600 for sure.
Conroe Reviews Released
- Thread starter Infomatic
- Start date
- Status
NosBoost300
I poop on the rug
- Messages
- 10,220
- Location
- Bellflower, CA
ehh.. with all this pushing back... and talking about how cpu's don't matter much in gaming... i think i may as well just stick to amd.. seeing as their prices are going to drop.. it'll save me a pretty penny too
BennyV04988
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,835
NosBoost300 said:
I think it's you nosboost that needs to read harder. He said there was NO such thing as GGGGGGGGGGGGPU limitation.
Not cccccpu limitation. And what is the middle about anyway? "wtf?!?!?! etc..."
And an FX-57 would kick the **** out of a sempron in gaming. what are you smoking? If your using anything better than a 6200 with a game less than oblvion, gpu limitation is minimal.
PP Mguire
Build Guru
- Messages
- 32,592
- Location
- Fort Worth, Texas
This is getting rediculous Nubius went to Seattle for college.
Nubius went to Seattle for college.AntiKryptonite
Banned
- Messages
- 53
Are you people daft? Do you seriously think that these processors are going to be priced that high? You've got to be kidding me...you're taking the price of the highest-end, most expensive processor, and trying to guess the prices of the budget segment from that. Does that sound ridiculous to anyone else?
A E6300 isn't going to cost $247 and a E6600 isn't going to cost $425, which is what you'd get if you were looking at the price of the X6800. You always have price gouging at the very high-end segment. As was predicted on OC Forums, the price deviation shouldn't be more than around $20, higher OR lower.
You seem to have forgotten that the E6700 that they used in the [H]ardOCP benchmarks costs half as much as the FX-60, and still matches it (beats it actually). Gaming at high resolutions isn't an accurate measure of a processor's performance. Did you look at anything other than the [H] benchmarks? I posted like 5 or 6 more below that. Look at ANY of them, and no Athlon 64 even comes close to touching the E6600. A $316 ($20 more or less) that beats anything AMD has? Remember, most people don't game, and those that do, have absolutely no reason to go for AMD anymore, because Conroes are so cheap. AMD IS SCREWED.
Instead of trying to make it clear, why don't you try listening to someone else for a bit? You're absolutely correct in saying that you don't need an Uber strong CPU to play a game, but its not for the reasons you describe. Games are getting more and more complex by the day. What you described up there was the CPU handling the AI and the Physics in a game.
I'm going to break it off, since its a mini-essay in itself.
---------------------------------------
Now, the reason the GPU bottlenecks; A GPU has to recieve instructions. Those instructions have to come from the CPU. Now, a GPU is a much stronger processor than a CPU, in terms of raw power. However, the GPU has to perform much more complex operations than the CPU. The GPU has to actually execute, while the CPU just has to tell it what to do. In such a situation, you can imagine that the CPU is "stronger" than the GPU. The reason the bottleneck occurs is because the CPU is already sending more instructions to the GPU than the GPU can execute. To move up to a faster CPU, to increase the amount of instructions sent to the GPU, will not help you because the GPU is already executing as fast as it can. Therein lies the bottleneck.
Further support for this argument comes from our dear friend, Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion. Now, you and I agree that a faster CPU won't help you in a game, for whatever reason. However, it is painfully clear in Elder Scrolls 4 that the CPU does make a difference. Now, if you're in a GPU-intensive environment, like outside in the forest, then there is a GPU bottleneck, and the CPU will not make a difference. However, once you get into a not-so-GPU-intensive area like the inside of a town, then that GPU bottleneck is removed (to a certain extent). But the reason for the FPS increase is because of the tasks of the CPU that we outlined above; calculating AI and Physics. Anyone that has played ES4:Oblivion knows how many characters there are in cities. That amounts to an ENORMOUS amount of AI and Physics calculations for the CPU. So much, infact, that a better CPU makes a world of difference. At this point, the CPU is actually being pushed, and a better CPU will improve your FPS.
I don't think I've mentioned this yet, but the reason a CPU doesn't make a difference in MOST of TODAY's games, is because even our lower-end CPUs are enough to handle the amounts of AI and Physics that are thrown at them. It is estimated that a Athlon 64 3200+ could easily be paired with a 7900GTX and would handle games that came out like 3 months ago. Maybe push that up to a A64 3500+ or 3700+ for today's games, and you're set...for now.
So why do people go for a Dual Core Opteron165 @ 2.8Ghz? Good question. But its the same reason that people should get a Conroe if building a new PC, even for gaming.
---------------------------------------
I just feel the need to say: I told you so.
Contrary to popular belief, Nubius is not God. He CAN be wrong. His beliefs, like all of ours, are only founded on his own observations. There IS room for error. I have many MANY articles to back up my beliefs, I'm not seeing anything from anyone else.
Indeed, exact same as you. I'm building in Jan '07, you?
Not if it was a high-end Sempron. And it depends more on the processor than the videocard, determining where the bottleneck occurs. With a 3200+, you have to go higher than a 7900GT before you will get any increase by going to a higher processor.
The only time when you don't have the CPU as a bottleneck in high-res gaming is when you're using a system with something like Dual X1900XTXs in Crossfire, or a 7950GX2. That is what Anandtech did, which is why we got to see a significant and clear difference in the FPS in their benchmarks. [H]ardOCP used a single 7900GTX (LOL), and that wasn't strong enough to stress these behemoths of CPUs.
Which further supports my bottlenecking explanation. Seriously Gaara, are you going to argue against people like Anand of Anandtech and Kyle Bentet of [H]ardOCP? And me?
A E6300 isn't going to cost $247 and a E6600 isn't going to cost $425, which is what you'd get if you were looking at the price of the X6800. You always have price gouging at the very high-end segment. As was predicted on OC Forums, the price deviation shouldn't be more than around $20, higher OR lower.
reggie_da_man said:
You seem to have forgotten that the E6700 that they used in the [H]ardOCP benchmarks costs half as much as the FX-60, and still matches it (beats it actually). Gaming at high resolutions isn't an accurate measure of a processor's performance. Did you look at anything other than the [H] benchmarks? I posted like 5 or 6 more below that. Look at ANY of them, and no Athlon 64 even comes close to touching the E6600. A $316 ($20 more or less) that beats anything AMD has? Remember, most people don't game, and those that do, have absolutely no reason to go for AMD anymore, because Conroes are so cheap. AMD IS SCREWED.
gaara said:
Instead of trying to make it clear, why don't you try listening to someone else for a bit? You're absolutely correct in saying that you don't need an Uber strong CPU to play a game, but its not for the reasons you describe. Games are getting more and more complex by the day. What you described up there was the CPU handling the AI and the Physics in a game.
I'm going to break it off, since its a mini-essay in itself.
---------------------------------------
Now, the reason the GPU bottlenecks; A GPU has to recieve instructions. Those instructions have to come from the CPU. Now, a GPU is a much stronger processor than a CPU, in terms of raw power. However, the GPU has to perform much more complex operations than the CPU. The GPU has to actually execute, while the CPU just has to tell it what to do. In such a situation, you can imagine that the CPU is "stronger" than the GPU. The reason the bottleneck occurs is because the CPU is already sending more instructions to the GPU than the GPU can execute. To move up to a faster CPU, to increase the amount of instructions sent to the GPU, will not help you because the GPU is already executing as fast as it can. Therein lies the bottleneck.
Further support for this argument comes from our dear friend, Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion. Now, you and I agree that a faster CPU won't help you in a game, for whatever reason. However, it is painfully clear in Elder Scrolls 4 that the CPU does make a difference. Now, if you're in a GPU-intensive environment, like outside in the forest, then there is a GPU bottleneck, and the CPU will not make a difference. However, once you get into a not-so-GPU-intensive area like the inside of a town, then that GPU bottleneck is removed (to a certain extent). But the reason for the FPS increase is because of the tasks of the CPU that we outlined above; calculating AI and Physics. Anyone that has played ES4:Oblivion knows how many characters there are in cities. That amounts to an ENORMOUS amount of AI and Physics calculations for the CPU. So much, infact, that a better CPU makes a world of difference. At this point, the CPU is actually being pushed, and a better CPU will improve your FPS.
I don't think I've mentioned this yet, but the reason a CPU doesn't make a difference in MOST of TODAY's games, is because even our lower-end CPUs are enough to handle the amounts of AI and Physics that are thrown at them. It is estimated that a Athlon 64 3200+ could easily be paired with a 7900GTX and would handle games that came out like 3 months ago. Maybe push that up to a A64 3500+ or 3700+ for today's games, and you're set...for now.
So why do people go for a Dual Core Opteron165 @ 2.8Ghz? Good question. But its the same reason that people should get a Conroe if building a new PC, even for gaming.
---------------------------------------
gaara said:
I just feel the need to say: I told you so.
P.P. Mguire said:
Contrary to popular belief, Nubius is not God. He CAN be wrong. His beliefs, like all of ours, are only founded on his own observations. There IS room for error. I have many MANY articles to back up my beliefs, I'm not seeing anything from anyone else.
The General said:Yeah I am waiting til G80 to build my new computer.
E6600 for sure.
Indeed, exact same as you. I'm building in Jan '07, you?
BennyV04988 said:And an FX-57 would kick the **** out of a sempron in gaming. what are you smoking? If your using anything better than a 6200 with a game less than oblvion, gpu limitation is minimal.
Not if it was a high-end Sempron. And it depends more on the processor than the videocard, determining where the bottleneck occurs. With a 3200+, you have to go higher than a 7900GT before you will get any increase by going to a higher processor.
The only time when you don't have the CPU as a bottleneck in high-res gaming is when you're using a system with something like Dual X1900XTXs in Crossfire, or a 7950GX2. That is what Anandtech did, which is why we got to see a significant and clear difference in the FPS in their benchmarks. [H]ardOCP used a single 7900GTX (LOL), and that wasn't strong enough to stress these behemoths of CPUs.
Which further supports my bottlenecking explanation. Seriously Gaara, are you going to argue against people like Anand of Anandtech and Kyle Bentet of [H]ardOCP? And me?
BennyV04988
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,835
antikryptonite. 4 post. thank you so much for the effort you put into this one! lol. amazing post. clear and to the point. I have a proposition for you...Is this conroe...possibly..future proof for at least a year then? most gpus (non sli) are sooo far behind this cpu when oc'd it will take some time for them to surpass one another eh?
AntiKryptonite
Banned
- Messages
- 53
Wow, I got a Thank You. That just made my day. :classic:
Yea, it's guaranteed futureproof against videocards for a LONG time, way more than a year. And if comparing to other CPUs, its future-proof until mid-2007 when K8L comes out. Even then, the Core 2 Duos are probably going to be extremely competitive with K8L (which is not guaranteeing anything), if not actually beating K8L. Intel's Quad-Cores are also going to be out by that time, though I don't see the logic in getting one with today's lack of multithreaded apps.
Back to the processors; these are amazing, it is one of the largest jumps in computing history. Its crazy when you think of how little computing performance actualy increased over the last almost 5 years since the Athlon 64s came out. We've had manufacturing process size reductions, DDR to DDR2, etc, etc. But none of that really helped. Now, we have this amazing behemoth from Intel.
The day is good. <3
Yea, it's guaranteed futureproof against videocards for a LONG time, way more than a year. And if comparing to other CPUs, its future-proof until mid-2007 when K8L comes out. Even then, the Core 2 Duos are probably going to be extremely competitive with K8L (which is not guaranteeing anything), if not actually beating K8L. Intel's Quad-Cores are also going to be out by that time, though I don't see the logic in getting one with today's lack of multithreaded apps.
Back to the processors; these are amazing, it is one of the largest jumps in computing history. Its crazy when you think of how little computing performance actualy increased over the last almost 5 years since the Athlon 64s came out. We've had manufacturing process size reductions, DDR to DDR2, etc, etc. But none of that really helped. Now, we have this amazing behemoth from Intel.
The day is good. <3
Well, the gaming difference is relatively small among the higher-end models, but it's a nice boost for the price in the $200-$300 range. Also, th extreme version is esentially a stock overclock. Nothing you couldn't do yourself. In fact, you'd probably get better results from your own OCing.
Curry Viking
Baseband Member
- Messages
- 68
Its not that bad for me because the E6600 here is about $570, originally i was going to build a 939 system with an X2 4400+ which was around $675, now the 4400+ on AM2 is over $700 so no thanks, i'm buiding a Conroe system as soon as more motherboards come out and they're cheaper.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
