You should probably see this

[Tsuwamono]

Here is Something you should probably look at. Now the AMD 5200 is basicly a FX62 but with a slightly slower clock which can be fixed quite easily.

Now this is probably going to start a flame war from all these people pissed off that they paid 300$ for a mobo and then another 400$ on a CPU that isnt even as fast as the X6800 in the review. But for those of you who are open minded. You can actually see the FX 62 BEAT the great X6800, intels pride and joy, in this test.

Ofcourse the FX62 is quite pointless when you can get the 5200X2 and OC it VERY mildly to get to and past FX62 speeds.

I think i may have been right when i predicted AMD would be back at intels throats quite quickly. Ofcourse this is hardly beating the Conroes as much as would justify the word "Kicking ass" but after everyone made all that hype about conroe kicking AMDs ass. It seems quite lower then KICKING ass to me.

PS. Please dont flame with AMD Fanboy crap because i gave you some kind of info to use against intel. And Intel fanboys please dont flame because you are pissed that you switched possibly prematurely.

 

[Don66]

Originally posted by: Tsuwamono
Here is Something you should probably look at. Now the AMD 5200 is basicly a FX62 but with a slightly slower clock which can be fixed quite easily.

Now this is probably going to start a flame war from all these people pissed off that they paid 300$ for a mobo and then another 400$ on a CPU that isnt even as fast as the X6800 in the review. But for those of you who are open minded. You can actually see the FX 62 BEAT the great X6800, intels pride and joy, in this test.

Ofcourse the FX62 is quite pointless when you can get the 5200X2 and OC it VERY mildly to get to and past FX62 speeds.

I think i may have been right when i predicted AMD would be back at intels throats quite quickly. Ofcourse this is hardly beating the Conroes as much as would justify the word "Kicking ass" but after everyone made all that hype about conroe kicking AMDs ass. It seems quite lower then KICKING ass to me.

PS. Please dont flame with AMD Fanboy crap because i gave you some kind of info to use against intel. And Intel fanboys please dont flame because you are pissed that you switched possibly prematurely.

Flamebait
Grabs my coffee and lawn chair.
I think i'll make some smores:laugh:

 

[Budman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

 

[Tsuwamono]

Lol i know don, but its better for the people who actually know what they are talking about to know about reviews like this. That way the people who are actually intellegent can refer to something for both sides of the arguement.

 

[Bobthelost]

What, that even crossfired X1900XTs are not enough to require a 6800 CPU? Yeah thanks for that.

 

[Tsuwamono]

lol theres one.

 

[dexvx]

So you're comparing XFire'ed X1900's to SLI'ed 7900's?

Why not compare SLI'ed 7900's to SLI'ed 7900's and leave the X6800 vs the FX-62? There are plenty of people using modded SLI drivers on 975x boards to enable SLI on them. Or worse comes to worse, just buy an Nvidia 570-SLI board. You are showing tests that are completely GPU bound on DIFFERENT GPU's. I'm betting a "lowly" E6300 will probably score just as high as the X6800 in this situation.

 

[lopri]

This has been discussed many times already. You can throw in my Opteron 146 @3.0GHz and it will beat the FX-62 @2.8GHz easily.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: Tsuwamono
lol theres one.

Yeah, because everyone who disagrees with you is a fanboy. None of them can tell when you're making a really shite comparison.

I don't know (or care) if you're a fanboy yourself, but i smell the stink of an agenda.

 

[Tsuwamono]

what agenda would i have? Ya if AMD wins the benchmarks i get to rule the world. you caught me bob.....

Dexvx if you notice there is X6800s with x1900s AND 7900s and same for the FX62..

 

[NoStateofMind]

"Nothing to see here folks, move along..."

 

[Tsuwamono]

i find it compelling information personally. Obviously some people dont think so

 

[Bobthelost]

Compelling in what way?

 

[F1shF4t]

Stock thing are not that interesting u get what u pay for (not talking bout fx and ee one cause they are rip off), meh those kind of numbers have been seen before when p4c 3.2ghz kicked athlon xp's 3200+, when a64 kicked prescots and when athlon xps obliterated willammette.

Overclocking on the other hand is where the fun begins, i would wanna try my hands at a e6400 or e6600, but me wallet has too many holes in it at the moment

 

[Tsuwamono]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Compelling in what way?

Well mostly because there is actually a benchmark there were the FX 62 beats the X6800 slightly.

But ever since the release and before the release of conroe everyone said that the e6600 would beat ANYTHING AMD had and the X6800 would obliterate everything AMD had.

This benchmark however shows that AMD is still holding strong when you pit the high end VS the high end or AMDs 5200 vs the E6600 which after seeing this benchmark i think would do much better then most believe.

It raises questions like;

"Could some people have been paid off?"

"Could some games just react better with intel cpus or amd cpus?"

"Is it possible that the reviewer might have had preconceptions about the intel CPUs which could have infuenced his review in some way? Either for or against AMD or intel"

These are things i believe that reviews like this bring up. It could be possible that just putting out enough hype on intels part may actually have swayed some benchmarks in their favor.

I used to like intel alot back in the 486-about P3 days. I had never really heard much about AMD really so i had no preconceptions when i first tried out my first AMD (AMD Athlon 900Mhz) and i was blown away at how well it did with gaming. Im not sure but i think that if you use physcology enough on the consumer you dont even have to build that much faster of a chip. you just let the hype do the trick.

Just saying that sometimes we can be influenced more then we believe strickly by words and sometimes actual performance isnt the issue.

Anyway, i dont think i quite worded that properly so it might have gone over alot of peoples heads on that one.

 

[Vegitto]

Meh, I don't buy it until I see apples to apples, IE, an X6800 vs an FX-62 with the same RAM, same vidcard(s), same PSU, same everything except the mobo and the CPU.

After that, I'll make my own conclusions .

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: Tsuwamono

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Compelling in what way?

Well mostly because there is actually a benchmark there were the FX 62 beats the X6800 slightly.

1)Games are a crap test of CPU power. We all know that so the worth of those comparisions there are negligable as comparisons of CPUs.

2) Since the following page shows the FX -62 being slapped about by the 6800 it's pretty obvious that the games on that page are GPU limited. (This should be obvious from the settings, which are nice and high/realistic)

3) As such you see an advantage for the chipsets for the (slightly) more mature AM2 system (not exactly a quantum leap in hardware from 939) when it's a purely GPU based bottleneck.

4) That this is a comparison of motherboards should be obvious when you see that the difference between the top end FX -62 system and the bottom end one is (in CoD 2) ~9%. Since the RAM, CPU, HDs etc. etc. is kept the same and the only thing being changed is the motherboard i suspect you can see where this performance drop/increase is coming from.

You looked but you failed to understand the charts properly. You're trying to use GPU tests that are chipset specific to make comments about CPU performance. If you'd said that the AMD compatible chipsets were more mature and worked better in some high end gaming roles then you'd be right. But you said that it was due to the CPU. Which is wrong. Very, very wrong.

Summary:
A top of the line CPU is not needed for gaming, motherboards NOT CPU make a significant difference in performance, but that varies from game to game and application to application.

edited to be less confrontational.

 

[Tsuwamono]

slaped about? i wouldnt say that. i would say its faster in most applications. And as for 1. i only play games so IMO AMD is still the safer bet when you take into account that intel changes their chipsets like women change clothes. While AMD changes chipsets but all CPUs work on all their chipsets providing its on the right socket.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: Tsuwamono
slaped about? i wouldnt say that. i would say its faster in most applications. And as for 1. i only play games so IMO AMD is still the safer bet

60% increase in CoD2 at low res?
33% increase in quake 4 @ low res?
33% increase in HL 2 @ low res?
33% (or more) improvement in encoding times?

I'd call that slapped about.

when you take into account that intel changes their chipsets like women change clothes. While AMD changes chipsets but all CPUs work on all their chipsets providing its on the right socket.

You're wrong on that i'm afraid. AMD have done that before too, socket A is a prime example.

Either way your orriginal post was wrong and your interpretation of the article deeply flawed.

(edited to make less confronatational, i'll get it right eventually.)

 

[Tsuwamono]

We arent in the 90s anymore... Intel does it in the present. and AM2 supports AM3 hense why im building am2.

And thats all on low res. High res is a different story. Your also compareing brand new technology to old technology. Thats like saying "My p4 beats your Athlon 900mhz" its obvious that thats going to happen.

 

[Saku]

Bob does this in every thread he posts on lol, lighten up buddy.

 

[markymoo]

I can take a E6300 and run it faster than a fx62 and for more than 1/3rd of the price!!! then spend money on more graphics and still cost me less.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: Tsuwamono
We arent in the 90s anymore... Intel does it in the present. and AM2 supports AM3 hense why im building am2.

And thats all on low res. High res is a different story. Your also compareing brand new technology to old technology. Thats like saying "My p4 beats your Athlon 900mhz" its obvious that thats going to happen.

1) We have nothing to prove that AMD won't do it in a year or two, nothing to show that AM2 boards around now will be able to support the FSB (or make use of the FSB of the chips), manage the voltages, or generally hack it at all. All we have is press releases.

2) High res is motherboard dependant more than CPU as that link clearly shows. WHY DO YOU KEEP AVOIDING THIS? Why do you still seem to be supporting your theory that the CPU is of any significance?

3) You made the comparison between FX - 62 and 6800EE, You are the person who claimed that the FX - 62 was as fast as a 6800EE, You are the one who started throwing allegations of corrupt reviewers around. Don't start crying that it's not fair now.

Your orriginal post is still wrong. Then again you're never going to admit it, nor are you going to accept your errors above. I think i've done enough of a job ripping it apart to show that so here i leave the thread, obviously all questions above are rhetorical.

Saku: I have a low tolerance for those who refuse to accept they are mistaken. Making mistakes is fine, i've done it plenty of times, refusing to learn is not.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Lock this thread

 

[markymoo]

that RD580 board reminds me of white chocolate i want to eat it. enuff said lol

Anandtech review quote
"Overclocking changes everything though, as our 2.592GHz E6300 ended up faster than AMD's FX-62 in almost every single benchmark."

The 5200+ is slower than the fx62.......

@Tsuwamono
show me a fx62 overclocked to 4ghz+ or 100% oc on air - you cant
you do well to reach 3.1 for the fx62 to reach 3.6 it needs phaze change. -20 -30

you posted this in the overclocking thread so oc cpus count

stands behind bob