Conroe Reviews Released - Page 4 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-14-2006, 03:52 PM   #31 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,191
Default

Yeah I am waiting til G80 to build my new computer.

E6600 for sure.
__________________

The General is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 03:54 PM   #32 (permalink)
Hard Gay Nahalem! Fooo!
 
NosBoost300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bellflower, CA
Posts: 10,154
Send a message via AIM to NosBoost300
Default

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
__________________

__________________
Current Build:
Intel 3770k @ 4.4 GHZ | Galaxy GTX 770 SLi | 16 GB G.Skill Sniper | ASrock z77 Extreme4
2xSamung 840pro 128GB in Raid | 2x1TB Seagate | Antec 750 Watt GamerSeries
Media Build:
Intel Core i3 3220 | Galaxy GTX 650 | 8 GB Corsair Vengeance | ASrock B75M | Samsung 840 120GB
NosBoost300 is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 04:39 PM   #33 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Spartan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 814
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by NosBoost300
what happened to nubius.. i just noticed he was missing
He's on some trip. Check out the OT section.

G80 all the way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

























Until R600!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Spartan is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 08:25 PM   #34 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
BennyV04988's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,835
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by NosBoost300
he was just saying that the cpu doesnt bottleneck game performance.. that its the gpu doing it all..

pretty much summed up, gpu is all your fps... only thing cpu is doing is sending it the movements and such... sooooo just read harder

wtf?!?! that was weird.. thats not what i quoted?!?!?!?! i guess you added some stuff and i just clicked when you changed it.

anyway.. i just noticed one of those new things.. two part relationship.... the only thing the cpu is sending off is calculations to the **** gpu... and a craptacular cpu like a sempron could handle it well enough... so a sempron to an fx57.. that'll give you like a whopping 2 fps increase.. so freaking what! cpu's just arent what you really need in a game
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.
__________________
3DMARK VANTAGE: 11,500
GPU: MSI GTX 260 @ 650MHz/1175MHz
CPU: Intel E6750 @ 3.4GHz/1.33v/60c
HSF: Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro
MOBO: MSI P6N SLI-FI 650i
RAM: G.SKILL 3x1GB DDR2 800
SND: Creative Audigy 4
SPK:Logtech X-540s
MOS: Logitech MX600 Wireless Laser
LCD: HANNS-G 28" Widescreen
BennyV04988 is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 09:13 PM   #35 (permalink)
Build Guru
 
PP Mguire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 28,313
Default

This is getting rediculous Nubius went to Seattle for college.
__________________
"Resolution is just a number." #Ubisoft
Origin/Steam = PP_Mguire Twitch = pp_mguire Instagram = ppmguire PSN = PP_Mguire

Access to my Plex PM me.
PP Mguire is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 11:40 PM   #36 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53
Default

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.

Quote:
Originally posted by reggie_da_man
I'm honestly not that impressed with Conroe. AMD is not screwed. Look at the preformance difference, it's minimal. It's nice not to have a biased benchmark for once. Imagine what will happen when AMD comes out with their 65nm CPU's. As I said a long time ago...if the Conroe truly does prove to be better I might make a switch but not now. I'm sticking with AMD.
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.

Quote:
Originally posted by gaara
and once again, there is no such thing as a freaking GPU bottleneck. I don't know how to make it clear, the CPU is only responsible for compiling information such as how certain enemies attack or how the environment reacts which literally has nothing to do with framerate, the GPU is responsible for collecting all the information the CPU sends it and drawing the appropriate picture as quickly as possible
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.

---------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by gaara
obviously these things are already hitting as high as 4GHz so I guess there's no reason for anyone to complain
I just feel the need to say: I told you so.

Quote:
Originally posted by P.P. Mguire
Of Nubius was here, he would have a mile long explination of how there is no bottlenecking.
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.

Quote:
Originally posted by The General
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?

Quote:
Originally posted by BennyV04988
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?
AntiKryptonite is offline  
Old 07-15-2006, 12:03 AM   #37 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
BennyV04988's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,835
Default

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?
__________________
3DMARK VANTAGE: 11,500
GPU: MSI GTX 260 @ 650MHz/1175MHz
CPU: Intel E6750 @ 3.4GHz/1.33v/60c
HSF: Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro
MOBO: MSI P6N SLI-FI 650i
RAM: G.SKILL 3x1GB DDR2 800
SND: Creative Audigy 4
SPK:Logtech X-540s
MOS: Logitech MX600 Wireless Laser
LCD: HANNS-G 28" Widescreen
BennyV04988 is offline  
Old 07-15-2006, 12:18 AM   #38 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53
Default

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
AntiKryptonite is offline  
Old 07-15-2006, 01:56 AM   #39 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 201
Send a message via AIM to Orayn
Default

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.
Orayn is offline  
Old 07-15-2006, 03:14 AM   #40 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 68
Default

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.
__________________

Curry Viking is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.