Conroe Reviews Released - Page 5 - 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 07-15-2006, 11:38 AM   #41 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
idiotec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,748
Default

That [H] review is completely flawed for various reasons.

They call this a "real world" test, but chose to only bench at one resolution? So everyone in the "real world" games at 1600x1200? I would say that based on the popularity of LCD's, benching at 1280x1024 is extremely relevant.

They do not emphasize the fact that, whether or not we call it a GPU bottleneck or not, there is undoubtedly a GPU cap at high resolutions. All this article does is once again prove that point more than anything else.

If they wanted to show "real world" high resolution gaming, why not include SLY/Xfire benches? This is yet another situation where the much stronger processing power of Conroe would show its strength.

Any good review should show results with different resolutions and settings and then let the reader decide. Remember that this was supposed to be a CPU review, not a GPU review (which it ended up more resembeling). This article was obliviously just written with an agenda.

This is the first review I have seen [H] do this way, why start with Conroe? This same argument could have been made with A64 vs. P4, but of course in those reviews all resolutions were shown and the A64 was "the King of Gaming." Why all of a sudden is the opinion that "oh, the CPU doesn't really matter in gaming anyways"?

Anyways, there are heaps of reviews out there, and it really takes looking at many of them to get the whole picture. It is incredibly misleading to try to create an opinion from this review alone.
__________________

__________________

BE HEARD - Techonvent
DS3 | E6400 - 3.2GHz 24/7 | 2GB OCZ PLat. PC6400 | 6800GT | Zippy 460W
What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left.
idiotec is offline  
Old 07-15-2006, 01:08 PM   #42 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,790
Default

Quote:
Seriously Gaara, are you going to argue against people like Anand of Anandtech and Kyle Bentet of [H]ardOCP? And me?
No I'm not going to argue with you because I agree with everything you had to say, except for the fact that you misuse the term bottleneck

A bottleneck is defined as a point in an operation that is slower than all other points of that operation. You've just told me that a CPU and GPU each have their own operations to perform, therefore they have no bearing on the speed of execution of either of those operations, therefore they do not bottleneck each other. It's simple
__________________

__________________
Intel C2D E6320 / AMD Athlon X2 3800+
Gigabyte 965P DS3 / DFI nF4 Ultra-D
2GB OCZ Gold PC2-6400 / 2GB OCZ Gold PC4000
eVGA 8800GTS 320MB / eVGA 6800GS 256MB
150GB Raptor / 74GB Raptor
2x500GB / 320GB
OCZ GameXStreme 850w / OCZ StealthXStream 600w
gaara is offline  
Old 07-15-2006, 01:16 PM   #43 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: West Babylon, New York
Posts: 2,021
Send a message via AIM to Pepsiboy700 Send a message via MSN to Pepsiboy700
Default

I guess it all comes down is Conroe going to be what seemed the greatest price vs performance deal or am I just going to think of these like I did of P4's?
__________________
i3 540 @ 3066 MHZ
4GB DDR3 1600 1T 9-9-9-28
2x 750GB
HD 5750 @ 850/2400
Thermaltake 630W
Antec Lanboy Air
Pepsiboy700 is offline  
Old 07-15-2006, 04:22 PM   #44 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by idiotec
That [H] review is completely flawed for various reasons.

They call this a "real world" test, but chose to only bench at one resolution? So everyone in the "real world" games at 1600x1200? I would say that based on the popularity of LCD's, benching at 1280x1024 is extremely relevant.
And they DID show 1280x1024 resolution benchmarks at the end of their review. Might help to read the whole thing through.

Quote:
Originally posted by idiotec
They do not emphasize the fact that, whether or not we call it a GPU bottleneck or not, there is undoubtedly a GPU cap at high resolutions. All this article does is once again prove that point more than anything else.
Yes, the article proves that point, therefore there is no need to emphasize such an obvious fact.

Quote:
Originally posted by idiotec
If they wanted to show "real world" high resolution gaming, why not include SLY/Xfire benches? This is yet another situation where the much stronger processing power of Conroe would show its strength.
First of all, because this was not a GPU review. And furthermore, because 99.9% of people don't have 7900GTX SLI systems. That was the whole point of the article, to show "real world" gaming that applies to the 99.9% of people out there. The point of the review was not to show the processing power of Conroe. It was to show how Conroe performed when in regular situations that almost all of the computer gaming world faces. And if had read the article completely, you would see that they had planned to use a 7950GX2 videocard, but ran into problems. They ended up settling for a single 7900GTX, and will do a 7950GX2 review later on.

Quote:
Originally posted by idiotec
Any good review should show results with different resolutions and settings and then let the reader decide. Remember that this was supposed to be a CPU review, not a GPU review (which it ended up more resembeling). This article was obliviously just written with an agenda.
The whole point of the review was to show how real-world results would be. No one looking at these processors is going to run at 1024x786 or lower resolutions. Tell me, are you ever going to run at that resolution? Like I said above, this was NOT supposed to be a CPU review only. It was supposed to be a CPU review showing how it would perform in real-world situations, you need to understand that first.

Quote:
Originally posted by idiotec
This is the first review I have seen [H] do this way, why start with Conroe? This same argument could have been made with A64 vs. P4, but of course in those reviews all resolutions were shown and the A64 was "the King of Gaming." Why all of a sudden is the opinion that "oh, the CPU doesn't really matter in gaming anyways"?
They DID do this with the Athlon 64s also. And they came out with the same results. It was done MONTHS ago.

Quote:
Originally posted by idiotec
Anyways, there are heaps of reviews out there, and it really takes looking at many of them to get the whole picture. It is incredibly misleading to try to create an opinion from this review alone.
The "heaps" of reviews out there that actually show improvements are run with 7900GTX SLI or X1900XTX Crossfire systems. It only takes this one review to show that you won't be seeing any improvements in games by going to a better processor.

Quote:
Originally posted by gaara
No I'm not going to argue with you because I agree with everything you had to say, except for the fact that you misuse the term bottleneck

A bottleneck is defined as a point in an operation that is slower than all other points of that operation. You've just told me that a CPU and GPU each have their own operations to perform, therefore they have no bearing on the speed of execution of either of those operations, therefore they do not bottleneck each other. It's simple
I just read my post through and I have no idea how you got that from it. Yes, you obviously know the definition of a bottleneck. But no, the GPU is NOT independant of the CPU. The GPU has to recieve instructions from the CPU, and if the GPU already cannot execute the amount of instructions it gets from a slower CPU, much less a faster CPU, then that is the very definition of the definition of a bottleneck; "A point in an operation that is slower that all other points of that operation."

:shakes head:
AntiKryptonite is offline  
Old 07-15-2006, 05:14 PM   #45 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
idiotec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,748
Default

Quote:
First of all, because this was not a GPU review. And furthermore, because 99.9% of people don't have 7900GTX SLI systems. That was the whole point of the article, to show "real world" gaming that applies to the 99.9% of people out there. The point of the review was not to show the processing power of Conroe. It was to show how Conroe performed when in regular situations that almost all of the computer gaming world faces. And if had read the article completely, you would see that they had planned to use a 7950GX2 video card, but ran into problems. They ended up settling for a single 7900GTX, and will do a 7950GX2 review later on.
I won't waste time replying to all your little remarks, but this one is key. It shows you completely miss the point. Your exactly right this is NOT a GPU review, but IS a CPU review. The **** thing is called "Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance." Not showing multiple resolutions and not including SLI/Xfire is a worthless review, period. Saying that the point of the article is not to show the processing power of Conroe? Again, look at the freaking name of the article. If it was just to prove the point that current games are capped with a single GFX card, make the article about that, don't use a CPU review to try to prove that point. A point that everyone freaking knows any ways. And yeah, I have read the whole article, I saw the blurb about wanting to use a 7950X2. Well, wish in one hand and sh!t in the other......

Quote:
The whole point of the review was to show how real-world results would be. No one looking at these processors is going to run at 1024x786 or lower resolutions. Tell me, are you ever going to run at that resolution? Like I said above, this was NOT supposed to be a CPU review only. It was supposed to be a CPU review showing how it would perform in real-world situations, you need to understand that first.
Again, as I said, this just shows you 100% are missing the point. It is A CPU REVIEW! That is why it is such a BAD one! If they want to prove a point about single card gaming. MAKE IT IT'S OWN ARTICLE!!!!
__________________

BE HEARD - Techonvent
DS3 | E6400 - 3.2GHz 24/7 | 2GB OCZ PLat. PC6400 | 6800GT | Zippy 460W
What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left.
idiotec is offline  
Old 07-15-2006, 05:34 PM   #46 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53
Default

Well then it would seem that we have differing views about the point of the article. This is the point of the article, as noted in the review itself;

Quote:
To see what exactly is the difference between gaming on Intel's newest and AMD's newest. What does real-world gaming get you with these new processors?
Since you seem unfamiliar with [H]ardOCP's ways of doing thigns (like I said, they did the exact same thing with AMD, proving the uselessness in games), let me explain that "real-world gaming" to them is NOT resolutions of 800x600 and 1024x786. It is running through a game at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 resolutions, like most of the gamers would do, that would get these processors.
AntiKryptonite is offline  
Old 07-15-2006, 06:53 PM   #47 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,790
Default

Quote:
the GPU is NOT independant of the CPU.
Yes it is dude, it has a dedicated processor, dedicated memory and it's own internal memory bus and cache...if a GPU wasn't independant that wouldn't make any sense as the purpose of a GPU is to create a specialized processor for drawing and rendering images to pull that load off the CPU

You're trying to tell me that a CPU does half the work and then sends an unfinished instruction to the GPU to finish the job. It doesn't work that way, they work simulteanously and each complete every single instruction sent to them. An operation isn't an operation until it passes through a pipeline, gets decoded and analyzed at various stages, and becomes usable and readable to the computer. A half finished instruction is impossible as the computer won't be able to understand what it's supposed to do with it

Point being, regardless of how powerful your CPU is your GPU will always have a constant FLOPS rate, and vice versa. They aren't directly connected to one another and are not dependant on one another to operate. You either have a slow CPU that is "bottlenecking" itself or you have a slow GPU that is "bottlenecking" itself
__________________
Intel C2D E6320 / AMD Athlon X2 3800+
Gigabyte 965P DS3 / DFI nF4 Ultra-D
2GB OCZ Gold PC2-6400 / 2GB OCZ Gold PC4000
eVGA 8800GTS 320MB / eVGA 6800GS 256MB
150GB Raptor / 74GB Raptor
2x500GB / 320GB
OCZ GameXStreme 850w / OCZ StealthXStream 600w
gaara is offline  
Old 07-15-2006, 07:19 PM   #48 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53
Default

Yes, the GPU is like a mini-PC in itself, but it gets told what to do by the CPU. It doesn't grab it's instructions out of thin air. CPU - Central Processing Unit.
AntiKryptonite is offline  
Old 07-15-2006, 08:18 PM   #49 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,790
Default

I'm positive I went over this before...CPU is responsible for acting as the brain of the game and the GPU is responsible for acting as the eyes, that said, CPU uses it's own unique instruction sets (MMX, SSE, 3DNow!, x86-64 etc) whereas GPU has it's own unique instruction sets written for it (DirectX, OpenGL) so yes it does grab instructions out of thin air. The only time the GPU needs stuff sent to it is when there's a level change and it needs to pull new textures and shades off the hard drive and store them in your VRAM for use, and even then we're talking about I/O bandwidth which can get as high as 6.4Gb/sec needed to fill up at MOST 512MB of VRAM, so you're looking at less than 1/6 of a second which is hardly a bottleneck
__________________
Intel C2D E6320 / AMD Athlon X2 3800+
Gigabyte 965P DS3 / DFI nF4 Ultra-D
2GB OCZ Gold PC2-6400 / 2GB OCZ Gold PC4000
eVGA 8800GTS 320MB / eVGA 6800GS 256MB
150GB Raptor / 74GB Raptor
2x500GB / 320GB
OCZ GameXStreme 850w / OCZ StealthXStream 600w
gaara is offline  
Old 07-15-2006, 10:20 PM   #50 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53
Default

Sorry but I think your concept is just plain wrong. :/ The videocard has to get it's instructions from the CPU. Every single benchmarks out there supports my claim, I don't see any supporting yours.
__________________

AntiKryptonite 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 02:32 PM.


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