You should probably see this

[Shimmishim]

i don't own an intel system quite yet...

but i do know for a fact that the conroes/allendales overclock much better than the am2 fx or x2 chips.

people are easily running intel chips anywhere from 3.2 to 3.7 for 24/7 use on simple air cooling.

i don't hear about amd systems running 3.2 to 3.7 w/o exotic cooling for 24/7 use.

 

[Avalon]

Most of us know that as you increase the resolution in a game, you become more and more GPU limited, so it's no surprise that an FX-62 can match an X6800 when you crank your game enough. That's all that's really happening. If you play at more mid range resolutions, such as 1280x1024, there is a more pronounced difference.

Encoding gets massive boosts with Core 2, as well.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

 

[thilanliyan]

You're looking at a motherboard review...picking out a game benchmark with res and detail maxed out (taxing the video card rather than the CPU) and then claiming that AMD is better? Maybe you should join HardOCPs test team.

We all know that at that res and detail, the video cards are limiting...we don't need YOU to tell us that.

 

[wilki24]

Hmm... I have a 7950GX2, and recently went from a 3700+ to a e6600 @ 3.2 and I've noticed quite a bit of difference. WoW no longer stutters during AV (40 on 40 pvp), and my fps in Org jumped from 35-40fps to 50-55fps during peak times when there are dozens of players on screen at once. (I run at full detail, AA, etc)

Note: I have a LOT of addons loaded.

I noticed that Auto Assault has less freezing moments as well.

Oblivion seems to be able to handle outdoor scenes with lots of grass better, as I don't quite dip down to 20fps like I used to. I also have a lot of mods for Oblivion running as well.

If you want to run at 1920x1200, I'd highly recommend C2D. Oh, and video encoding freakin flies compared to my old A64.

 

[Keysplayr]

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.

Do you really believe the things you are saying here? If you don't conduct tests with games at low resolutions, news flash!!!! You aren't truly seeing a CPU bench, but a GPU bench. Higher resolutions turn the load over to the GPU's. Even current mid range CPU's can keep the highest powered vid cards well fed with data. But enough people have said this to you in this thread. If at this point you still do not get it, it's because you don't want to.

 

[DrMrLordX]

This entire thread is moronic. The OP linked to a page that shows us more about the effectiveness of Crossfire implementations on ATI and Intel motherboard chipsets than anything else. Do you mind explaining how the top two benchmarks were won by the FX62 + SLI while the last was won by an X6800 + Crossfire rig?

CPUs were not stressed here. The only pages with information relevant to CPU performance were 6 and 7.

 

[Tsuwamono]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
This entire thread is moronic. The OP linked to a page that shows us more about the effectiveness of Crossfire implementations on ATI and Intel motherboard chipsets than anything else. Do you mind explaining how the top two benchmarks were won by the FX62 + SLI while the last was won by an X6800 + Crossfire rig?

CPUs were not stressed here. The only pages with information relevant to CPU performance were 6 and 7.

The reason i linked it is because alot of us are gamers and thats where we want the performance. Thats why i linked it. So you can stop flameing it now and go back to your corner and put your little cone hat back on.

 

[sandorski]

hmmmmmm

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: Tsuwamono

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
This entire thread is moronic. The OP linked to a page that shows us more about the effectiveness of Crossfire implementations on ATI and Intel motherboard chipsets than anything else. Do you mind explaining how the top two benchmarks were won by the FX62 + SLI while the last was won by an X6800 + Crossfire rig?

CPUs were not stressed here. The only pages with information relevant to CPU performance were 6 and 7.

The reason i linked it is because alot of us are gamers and thats where we want the performance. Thats why i linked it. So you can stop flameing it now and go back to your corner and put your little cone hat back on.

Yeah, but they are right. If the performance gaps close at high res/high detail, and then open up again at lower resolutions, you're looking at a GPU bench.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: 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

But you failed to realize that Intel lags w/ FSB. Intel's percentage in OC does not directly reflects percentage in performance, unlike AMD(because of AMD's IMC and HTT).
Another word if you overclock E6400 by 50% the increase in performance is a mere 15% (FSB limiting it), but if you overclock AMD 50% you will see 50% increase in performance (because of IMC and HTT). Those are know facts and been tested, so don?t question the validity of my statement (for +/- 5% error).
This thread shows that most of the hype about core 2's being 30%-40% better than AMD were false and due to paid per review (Intel's massively spending $$$$ for the reviews, still on going, including anandtech).
I used to give Anantech a lot of credite and respect, But since the "new king is born " I have found: even Mr. xxxxx can be bought.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
Another word if you overclock E6400 by 50% the increase in performance is a mere 15% (FSB limiting it), but if you overclock AMD 50% you will see 50% increase in performance (because of IMC and HTT).

Where do you come up with this crap?

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
But you failed to realize that Intel lags w/ FSB. Intel's percentage in OC does not directly reflects percentage in performance, unlike AMD(because of AMD's IMC and HTT).
Another word if you overclock E6400 by 50% the increase in performance is a mere 15% (FSB limiting it), but if you overclock AMD 50% you will see 50% increase in performance (because of IMC and HTT). Those are know facts and been tested, so don?t question the validity of my statement (for +/- 5% error).

Wow, where do you get your BS from? The only way to overclock a Core2 is by raising the FSB, so a 50% overclock means you raised your FSB by 50%. It scales pretty linearly in non-GPU bound benchmarks. The whole FSB being bottlenecked is just hype generated by some fanboi (cough Sharikou). The fact of the matter is, even Quad-Core Kentsfield, sitting on a 1066FSB still scales pretty linearly (in fact as good as 2x DC Opterons) in non-GPU bound benchmarks:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4317


Since you dont trust Anand, I'll just link you XBit-Labs:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300_12.html


Edit: Ironically, the X2-3800+ @ Stock scales worse than the E6300, according to Xbitlabs.

 

[Hard Ball]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: OcHungry
But you failed to realize that Intel lags w/ FSB. Intel's percentage in OC does not directly reflects percentage in performance, unlike AMD(because of AMD's IMC and HTT).
Another word if you overclock E6400 by 50% the increase in performance is a mere 15% (FSB limiting it), but if you overclock AMD 50% you will see 50% increase in performance (because of IMC and HTT). Those are know facts and been tested, so don?t question the validity of my statement (for +/- 5% error).

Wow, where do you get your BS from? The only way to overclock a Core2 is by raising the FSB, so a 50% overclock means you raised your FSB by 50%. It scales pretty linearly in non-GPU bound benchmarks. The whole FSB being bottlenecked is just hype generated by some fanboi (cough Sharikou). The fact of the matter is, even Quad-Core Kentsfield, sitting on a 1066FSB still scales pretty linearly (in fact as good as 2x DC Opterons) in non-GPU bound benchmarks:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4317


Since you dont trust Anand, I'll just link you XBit-Labs:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300_12.html


Edit: Ironically, the X2-3800+ @ Stock scales worse than the E6300, according to Xbitlabs.

Well you have to look at specific applications.

C2D's 128 bit Vector datapath would blow K8 away in SIMD rich applications, every day of the week and twice on sunday. There simply wouldn't be any contest there.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
But you failed to realize that Intel lags w/ FSB. Intel's percentage in OC does not directly reflects percentage in performance, unlike AMD(because of AMD's IMC and HTT).
Another word if you overclock E6400 by 50% the increase in performance is a mere 15% (FSB limiting it), but if you overclock AMD 50% you will see 50% increase in performance (because of IMC and HTT). Those are know facts and been tested, so don?t question the validity of my statement (for +/- 5% error).
This thread shows that most of the hype about core 2's being 30%-40% better than AMD were false and due to paid per review (Intel's massively spending $$$$ for the reviews, still on going, including anandtech).
I used to give Anantech a lot of credite and respect, But since the "new king is born " I have found: even Mr. xxxxx can be bought.

BUHAHAHAHA

I like you.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: 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

But you failed to realize that Intel lags w/ FSB. Intel's percentage in OC does not directly reflects percentage in performance, unlike AMD(because of AMD's IMC and HTT).
Another word if you overclock E6400 by 50% the increase in performance is a mere 15% (FSB limiting it), but if you overclock AMD 50% you will see 50% increase in performance (because of IMC and HTT). Those are know facts and been tested, so don?t question the validity of my statement (for +/- 5% error).
This thread shows that most of the hype about core 2's being 30%-40% better than AMD were false and due to paid per review (Intel's massively spending $$$$ for the reviews, still on going, including anandtech).
I used to give Anantech a lot of credite and respect, But since the "new king is born " I have found: even Mr. xxxxx can be bought.

Your post makes Rain Man cry.
Have a cookie.


P.S. Click it.

(RichUK, I absolutely LOVE that link in your sig!)

 

[Shimmishim]

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: OcHungry
But you failed to realize that Intel lags w/ FSB. Intel's percentage in OC does not directly reflects percentage in performance, unlike AMD(because of AMD's IMC and HTT).
Another word if you overclock E6400 by 50% the increase in performance is a mere 15% (FSB limiting it), but if you overclock AMD 50% you will see 50% increase in performance (because of IMC and HTT). Those are know facts and been tested, so don?t question the validity of my statement (for +/- 5% error).
This thread shows that most of the hype about core 2's being 30%-40% better than AMD were false and due to paid per review (Intel's massively spending $$$$ for the reviews, still on going, including anandtech).
I used to give Anantech a lot of credite and respect, But since the "new king is born " I have found: even Mr. xxxxx can be bought.

BUHAHAHAHA

I like you.

i don't know why but that made me laff...

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: OcHungry
Another word if you overclock E6400 by 50% the increase in performance is a mere 15% (FSB limiting it), but if you overclock AMD 50% you will see 50% increase in performance (because of IMC and HTT).

Where do you come up with this crap?

not any better or worse crap than you claiming core 2 is 30% faster.
For those who don?t believe my 15% figure increase in performance, you should know that it's not all about FSB. It's about HTT direct connect in sync w/ cpu speed and memory speed integrated w/ cpu speed. Intels FSB divides performance by 4 (4x FSB=25% of memory speed) where as AMD's HTT is direct(100%). I know it's hard for you to understand the theory. But just go ahead experiment w/ Superpi 32M. Try your 6400 at stock and at 50% increased in speed (that is if you don?t burn down the house and don?t freeze the system)
Might not want to try 50% because of liabilities. Just try 25% and see if it translates to 25% increase in performance (Super pi 32M). It will not. Try it.

 

[dmens]

christ. the fact that cache is not even a big factor in superpi performance kinda screws your argument. also, i hate to braek it to you, but there's a bus clock in the HT controller, and it isn't the same as the core clock.

you're right, i have absolutely no idea how your "theory" works. but since you seem confident, maybe you can explain to me how FSB systems won't scale linearly on overclocks, whereas HT systems will. this ought to be entertaining.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Originally posted by: dmens
christ. the fact that cache is not even a big factor in superpi performance kinda screws your argument. also, i hate to braek it to you, but there's a bus clock in the HT controller, and it isn't the same as the core clock.

you're right, i have absolutely no idea how your "theory" works. but since you seem confident, maybe you can explain to me how FSB systems won't scale linearly on overclocks, whereas HT systems will. this ought to be entertaining.

Grabs :beer:
Sits
Waits

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: OcHungry
Another word if you overclock E6400 by 50% the increase in performance is a mere 15% (FSB limiting it), but if you overclock AMD 50% you will see 50% increase in performance (because of IMC and HTT).

Where do you come up with this crap?

not any better or worse crap than you claiming core 2 is 30% faster.
For those who don?t believe my 15% figure increase in performance, you should know that it's not all about FSB. It's about HTT direct connect in sync w/ cpu speed and memory speed integrated w/ cpu speed. Intels FSB divides performance by 4 (4x FSB=25% of memory speed) where as AMD's HTT is direct(100%). I know it's hard for you to understand the theory. But just go ahead experiment w/ Superpi 32M. Try your 6400 at stock and at 50% increased in speed (that is if you don?t burn down the house and don?t freeze the system)
Might not want to try 50% because of liabilities. Just try 25% and see if it translates to 25% increase in performance (Super pi 32M). It will not. Try it.

WTF?

FSB is limiting performance? Stop talking out of your ass OcHungry.

Do you realise the FSB/clockspeed ratio REMAINS THE SAME on locked multiplier chips when overclocking?

E6400 @ stock = 2.13GHz/1066MHz FSB, where the FSB is 1/2 the CPU clockspeed.

E6400 @ 3.2GHz uses a 1.6GHz FSB, the FSB/clockspeed ratio is the same as a stock E6400.

It's about time this idiot got banned, all he does is spread FUD. C2D it's by far the best performing CPU atm, and even more so when overclocked.

 

[Conky]

Here's a couple of pages from that same review link or this page both showing the Intel beating the FX-62 in every single benchmark related to Photoshop, Winrar, or multimedia.

But that's not as fun as trying to compare GPU bound game benchmarks, is it?

Take the videocard out of the equation and the Intel wins every single time.

 

[dexvx]

SuperPi 8M (32M Available @ XS)

E6300 (1.83Ghz) @ Stock = 321.652s
X2-3800 (2.0Ghz) @ Stock = 445.875s

E6300 @ 2.94 Ghz = 214.297
X2-3800 @ 3Ghz = 317.829

Scaling:

E6300 @ 60% overclock is 50% faster, .833 Scaling Factor (of 1.0)
X2-3800 @ 50% overclock is 40% faster, .8 scaling Factor (of 1.0)

 

[raincityboy]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
But you failed to realize that Intel lags w/ FSB. Intel's percentage in OC does not directly reflects percentage in performance, unlike AMD(because of AMD's IMC and HTT).
Another word if you overclock E6400 by 50% the increase in performance is a mere 15% (FSB limiting it), but if you overclock AMD 50% you will see 50% increase in performance (because of IMC and HTT). Those are know facts and been tested, so don?t question the validity of my statement (for +/- 5% error).
This thread shows that most of the hype about core 2's being 30%-40% better than AMD were false and due to paid per review (Intel's massively spending $$$$ for the reviews, still on going, including anandtech).
I used to give Anantech a lot of credite and respect, But since the "new king is born " I have found: even Mr. xxxxx can be bought.

links? Any proof?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: 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..

On a different motherboard chipset. We can probably guess that RD580 has a better BIOS/driverset than Intel 975x for crossfire. Similar to how the 965 is slower than 975x

nothing special here...sheesh...do a single GPU test and we'll see