You should probably see this

[gramboh]

To the OP, are you going to cry when Nvidia G80 and ATI R600 come out and FPS in games is no longer GPU bound to the point that an AMD @ 2.6GHz can max FPS?

This eliminates the argument that you should buy AMD if all you do is play games. The next generation of GPUs will be out in the next 3-4 months, and most people don't change MB/cpu that often.

To the clown talking about C2D OC not scaling linear, HAHA.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: 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)

/thread

 

[cmdrdredd]

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.

I'm going to question where you get these numbers from because you provide no links that show a 50% OC on AMD getting 50% more performance.

And lets do math here shall we... 1.83Ghz E6300 running at 3.2Ghz is a 74% increase in clock speed yes? There's no 15% or any other number you can randomly toss in there.

Now...go run 3dmark06 ok? Tell me if your prescious AMD system will break 6400 on the CPU test. It won't. And that's a test that removes other variables from the equation and it's purely a test of your CPU.

 

[cmdrdredd]

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.

*shrug* I run my E6400 at 3.2Ghz every damn day and no my dog's hair didn't turn orange, I didn't grow a 3rd ear, and my house is not on fire.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: 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)

/thread

this just proves your ignorance.
the 3800 @ 3ghz is 317 seconds? which is a 5m:28s= not spi 32m.
link please. lets see 32m that will use memory along w/ cache and not just cache used on 4m spi. 32m spi needs about 256mb of memory to run in case you need to know.
show me a link for superpi 32m 50% overclocked and I'll show you what I mean.
But let me put some data together to stop you from odor profusion when replying.
see you in 24
this is the reply to all the odor profusers- not you tuxdave, sorry about that

EDIT
here are couple of 6400's both overclocked. It's 1M spi, but proves my point any how:
E6400 @ 4119mhz (515mhz FSB) ........16.531s link
E6400 @ 3279mhz (410mhz FSB)......... 17.297s link
difference in overclock is: 4119/3279=25.6%
difference in spi 1M is: 17.297/16.531= 4.6%
Conclusion:
overclock E6400 by 25.6% and get 4.6% improvement. The ratio of improvement is 5.5 times (25.6/4.6=~5.5) less than AMD if overclocked the same percentage.
Rest my case

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Beachboy


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

Exactly. I don't see why the OP is obsessing over a victory for a particular SLI implementation.

We went through all this "Core 2 doesn't matter for games!" BS weeks ago, why do we have to start it all over again?

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
this just proves your ignorance.
the 3800 @ 3ghz is 317 seconds? which is a 5m:28s= not spi 32m.
link please. lets see 32m that will use memory along w/ cache and not just cache used on 4m spi. 32m spi needs about 256mb of memory to run in case you need to know.
show me a link for superpi 32m 50% overclocked and I'll show you what I mean.
But let me put some data together to stop you from odor profusion when replying.
see you in 24
this is the reply to all the odor profusers- not you tuxdave, sorry about that

EDIT
here are couple of 6400's both overclocked. It's 1M spi, but proves my point any how:
E6400 @ 4119mhz (515mhz FSB) ........16.531s link
E6400 @ 3279mhz (410mhz FSB)......... 17.297s link
difference in overclock is: 4119/3279=25.6%
difference in spi 1M is: 17.297/16.531= 4.6%
Conclusion:
overclock E6400 by 25.6% and get 4.6% improvement. The ratio of improvement is 5.5 times (25.6/4.6=~5.5) less than AMD if overclocked the same percentage.
Rest my case

Congratulations, despite all evidence showing you to be too stupid to breathe and type at the same time you've managed to not only register, but post on a bulletin board.

I could waste my time explaining why i consider you to be the intelectual inferior of snot, hell i think i will:

1) You can't work out numbers 93% overclock vs 54% (roughly) is not a 25.6% difference.
2) You can't read your own links (which show different RAM timings)
3) You trust those links
4) You failed to find anything to say that AMD would do as well going from a 50% OC to a 90% OC.
5) You don't seem to realise that is important.
6) You seem to think that AMD still has a much superior RAM handling ability, thankfully it doesn't.
7) You can't use puncuation and your grammar sucks.

 

[Kyanzes]

The OP linked the wrong page of the review, let me help him out.

 

[Tsuwamono]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost

Originally posted by: OcHungry
this just proves your ignorance.
the 3800 @ 3ghz is 317 seconds? which is a 5m:28s= not spi 32m.
link please. lets see 32m that will use memory along w/ cache and not just cache used on 4m spi. 32m spi needs about 256mb of memory to run in case you need to know.
show me a link for superpi 32m 50% overclocked and I'll show you what I mean.
But let me put some data together to stop you from odor profusion when replying.
see you in 24
this is the reply to all the odor profusers- not you tuxdave, sorry about that

EDIT
here are couple of 6400's both overclocked. It's 1M spi, but proves my point any how:
E6400 @ 4119mhz (515mhz FSB) ........16.531s link
E6400 @ 3279mhz (410mhz FSB)......... 17.297s link
difference in overclock is: 4119/3279=25.6%
difference in spi 1M is: 17.297/16.531= 4.6%
Conclusion:
overclock E6400 by 25.6% and get 4.6% improvement. The ratio of improvement is 5.5 times (25.6/4.6=~5.5) less than AMD if overclocked the same percentage.
Rest my case

Congratulations, despite all evidence showing you to be too stupid to breathe and type at the same time you've managed to not only register, but post on a bulletin board.

I could waste my time explaining why i consider you to be the intelectual inferior of snot, hell i think i will:

1) You can't work out numbers 93% overclock vs 54% (roughly) is not a 25.6% difference.
2) You can't read your own links (which show different RAM timings)
3) You trust those links
4) You failed to find anything to say that AMD would do as well going from a 50% OC to a 90% OC.
5) You don't seem to realise that is important.
6) You seem to think that AMD still has a much superior RAM handling ability, thankfully it doesn't.
7) You can't use puncuation and your grammar sucks.

wtf? lol you have nothing left to say so instead or presenting fact you go at his grammar and spelling? Who cares. this isnt a spelling contest or english class. We arent all back in school here man.

Not only that but you have no links to prove anything you say. he does, just because the links might not be trust worthy doesnt mean you should discount them so heavily. Just because it doesnt have a huge intel logo in the top left doesnt mean its bad.

Get over it. CONROE is better.. but in my OP i stated that AMD isnt that far behind and as a gamer i trust AMD more. I also stated that AMD will COME BACK fairly soon. I didnt say "AMD Teh Pwnz0rs Intel" So stop being an ignorant poster. Read the posts carefully, accept that their are different views on the same facts and get over it.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Originally posted by: 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

Mind if I join ?

 

[F1shF4t]

so how long will people continue arguing what is better... darn its like their life depends on prooving it. Conroe has a performance advantage, a good one when overclocked, i mean come on i can admit it, and i have most of my comps amd. Which one of them suits better (x2, c2d or low end chips) depends on who is buying it, its not a matter to buy what performs best. (otherwise everyone would buy the extreme edition conroe)

This topics will continue till new amd chip is released then everyone will talk how bad intel is, then they release a new one and it will be talk how bad amd is, and so on
These topics are just useless, should be locked on sight.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: 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)

/thread

this just proves your ignorance.
the 3800 @ 3ghz is 317 seconds? which is a 5m:28s= not spi 32m.
link please. lets see 32m that will use memory along w/ cache and not just cache used on 4m spi. 32m spi needs about 256mb of memory to run in case you need to know.
show me a link for superpi 32m 50% overclocked and I'll show you what I mean.
But let me put some data together to stop you from odor profusion when replying.
see you in 24
this is the reply to all the odor profusers- not you tuxdave, sorry about that

EDIT
here are couple of 6400's both overclocked. It's 1M spi, but proves my point any how:
E6400 @ 4119mhz (515mhz FSB) ........16.531s link
E6400 @ 3279mhz (410mhz FSB)......... 17.297s link
difference in overclock is: 4119/3279=25.6%
difference in spi 1M is: 17.297/16.531= 4.6%
Conclusion:
overclock E6400 by 25.6% and get 4.6% improvement. The ratio of improvement is 5.5 times (25.6/4.6=~5.5) less than AMD if overclocked the same percentage.
Rest my case

LoL, let me smack you down right now with real facts.

1) They are 2 different systems that you randomly dug up from imageshack.
2)

The 3.2Ghz system is running 1 instance.
The 4.1Ghz system is running 2 instances of SuperPI at the same time.

Now that you factor in 2 instances of SuperPI, lets recalculate:

Lets Assume going from 1P -> 2P yields a +80% increase in performance when running 2 threads (and this is VERY VERY generous):

3,2Ghz system: 2*(17.297/.80) = 43.2s
4.1Ghz system: 2* 16.531 = 33.1s

Ratio = 30.5% increase on a 25.6% increase in speed. OMFG-WTF-BBQ. 30.5% increase in speed with only a 25.6% increase in clock speed. Why? The FSB is also running 25% faster on the 4.1Ghz system. The 4.1Ghz system also uses tighter timings.

Now this is on 2 seperate and completely different systems with different memory timings and what not. In fact, this is done by TWO different people. Nice try though, at your PR FUD. Oh and BTW, this is SuperPI 1M (which uses about 32M of memory).

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: 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)

/thread

this just proves your ignorance.
the 3800 @ 3ghz is 317 seconds? which is a 5m:28s= not spi 32m.
link please. lets see 32m that will use memory along w/ cache and not just cache used on 4m spi. 32m spi needs about 256mb of memory to run in case you need to know.
show me a link for superpi 32m 50% overclocked and I'll show you what I mean.
But let me put some data together to stop you from odor profusion when replying.
see you in 24
this is the reply to all the odor profusers- not you tuxdave, sorry about that

EDIT
here are couple of 6400's both overclocked. It's 1M spi, but proves my point any how:
E6400 @ 4119mhz (515mhz FSB) ........16.531s link
E6400 @ 3279mhz (410mhz FSB)......... 17.297s link
difference in overclock is: 4119/3279=25.6%
difference in spi 1M is: 17.297/16.531= 4.6%
Conclusion:
overclock E6400 by 25.6% and get 4.6% improvement. The ratio of improvement is 5.5 times (25.6/4.6=~5.5) less than AMD if overclocked the same percentage.
Rest my case

LoL, let me smack you down right now with real facts.

1) They are 2 different systems that you randomly dug up from imageshack.
2)

The 3.2Ghz system is running 1 instance.
The 4.1Ghz system is running 2 instances of SuperPI at the same time.

Now that you factor in 2 instances of SuperPI, lets recalculate:

Lets Assume going from 1P -> 2P yields a +80% increase in performance when running 2 threads (and this is VERY VERY generous):

3,2Ghz system: 2*(17.297/.80) = 43.2s
4.1Ghz system: 2* 16.531 = 33.1s

Ratio = 30.5% increase on a 25.6% increase in speed. OMFG-WTF-BBQ. 30.5% increase in speed with only a 25.6% increase in clock speed. Why? The FSB is also running 25% faster on the 4.1Ghz system. The 4.1Ghz system also uses tighter timings.

Now this is on 2 seperate and completely different systems with different memory timings and what not. In fact, this is done by TWO different people. Nice try though, at your PR FUD. Oh and BTW, this is SuperPI 1M (which uses about 32M of memory).

This is the stupist reply so far.
1)Both images were from same site that has spi data.
2) From the get go you claimed that 2 instances of pi is just as good and same as one instance(whenever was asked from you), but now you claim otherwise.
3) why would it matter if there are 2 users using same cpu, same memory and timings, and same chipset/motherboard? If you look at AMD side you will see none of these criteria's matter much (different motherboard or memory brand).
Quit being bias and be fair to yourself. Dont experiment this for me or prove That I am wrong (I am not). Do this experiment however pleases you, the end result is not pretty.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: 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)

/thread

this just proves your ignorance.
the 3800 @ 3ghz is 317 seconds? which is a 5m:28s= not spi 32m.
link please. lets see 32m that will use memory along w/ cache and not just cache used on 4m spi. 32m spi needs about 256mb of memory to run in case you need to know.
show me a link for superpi 32m 50% overclocked and I'll show you what I mean.
But let me put some data together to stop you from odor profusion when replying.
see you in 24
this is the reply to all the odor profusers- not you tuxdave, sorry about that

EDIT
here are couple of 6400's both overclocked. It's 1M spi, but proves my point any how:
E6400 @ 4119mhz (515mhz FSB) ........16.531s link
E6400 @ 3279mhz (410mhz FSB)......... 17.297s link
difference in overclock is: 4119/3279=25.6%
difference in spi 1M is: 17.297/16.531= 4.6%
Conclusion:
overclock E6400 by 25.6% and get 4.6% improvement. The ratio of improvement is 5.5 times (25.6/4.6=~5.5) less than AMD if overclocked the same percentage.
Rest my case

Ok show a damn link for AMD then dumbass.

end of discussion. You're hopeless

You know why you can't provide a link to some AMD system running at the same clockspeed using the same test? Two reasons
1)AMD systems (I own 2) cannot clock up as high without very expensive and exotic cooling methods.
2) AMD would get slaughtered on this test, you know that so you start bringing magical numbers from magical fairy land and hope we buy it. Forget it dude...you lose.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost

2) You can't read your own links (which show different RAM timings)
.[/quote]
I suppose you read the ram timings different? arent both 4-4-4-11(12) (tras 11 vs 12 =not much effect)
I am not going to respond to the rest of your post because its worthless.

Folks if you have conroe please try this experiment for you own sake and see what you get. end of story.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: Bobthelost

2) You can't read your own links (which show different RAM timings)
.

I suppose you read the ram timings different? arent both 4-4-4-11(12) (tras 11 vs 12 =not much effect)
I am not going to respond to the rest of your post because its worthless.

Folks if you have conroe please try this experiment for you own sake and see what you get. end of story.[/quote]


No, end of story is in a CPU test C2D is faster than anything AMD has right now. It doesn't matter how much gain you say you get from overclocking, does your AMD system go to 400+Mhz FSB and 3Ghz+ from a 2.1Ghz CPU? No it doesn't and it won't unless you have phase cooling on it.

The numbers do not lie...faster is faster and C2D is faster.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: 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)

/thread

this just proves your ignorance.
the 3800 @ 3ghz is 317 seconds? which is a 5m:28s= not spi 32m.
link please. lets see 32m that will use memory along w/ cache and not just cache used on 4m spi. 32m spi needs about 256mb of memory to run in case you need to know.
show me a link for superpi 32m 50% overclocked and I'll show you what I mean.
But let me put some data together to stop you from odor profusion when replying.
see you in 24
this is the reply to all the odor profusers- not you tuxdave, sorry about that

EDIT
here are couple of 6400's both overclocked. It's 1M spi, but proves my point any how:
E6400 @ 4119mhz (515mhz FSB) ........16.531s link
E6400 @ 3279mhz (410mhz FSB)......... 17.297s link
difference in overclock is: 4119/3279=25.6%
difference in spi 1M is: 17.297/16.531= 4.6%
Conclusion:
overclock E6400 by 25.6% and get 4.6% improvement. The ratio of improvement is 5.5 times (25.6/4.6=~5.5) less than AMD if overclocked the same percentage.
Rest my case

Ok show a damn link for AMD then dumbass.

end of discussion. You're hopeless

You know why you can't provide a link to some AMD system running at the same clockspeed using the same test? Two reasons
1)AMD systems (I own 2) cannot clock up as high without very expensive and exotic cooling methods.
2) AMD would get slaughtered on this test, you know that so you start bringing magical numbers from magical fairy land and hope we buy it. Forget it dude...you lose.

Don?t count your chicks before hatched.
I was going to do that. Remember? I said see you in 24? its been less than 14hrs. I am gathering spi data of my own machine (so no one Q? the validity of where I got it and not same system)
Just hold on and don?t Assume otherwise. because you will make an as.....yourself.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: 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)

/thread

this just proves your ignorance.
the 3800 @ 3ghz is 317 seconds? which is a 5m:28s= not spi 32m.
link please. lets see 32m that will use memory along w/ cache and not just cache used on 4m spi. 32m spi needs about 256mb of memory to run in case you need to know.
show me a link for superpi 32m 50% overclocked and I'll show you what I mean.
But let me put some data together to stop you from odor profusion when replying.
see you in 24
this is the reply to all the odor profusers- not you tuxdave, sorry about that

EDIT
here are couple of 6400's both overclocked. It's 1M spi, but proves my point any how:
E6400 @ 4119mhz (515mhz FSB) ........16.531s link
E6400 @ 3279mhz (410mhz FSB)......... 17.297s link
difference in overclock is: 4119/3279=25.6%
difference in spi 1M is: 17.297/16.531= 4.6%
Conclusion:
overclock E6400 by 25.6% and get 4.6% improvement. The ratio of improvement is 5.5 times (25.6/4.6=~5.5) less than AMD if overclocked the same percentage.
Rest my case

Ok show a damn link for AMD then dumbass.

end of discussion. You're hopeless

You know why you can't provide a link to some AMD system running at the same clockspeed using the same test? Two reasons
1)AMD systems (I own 2) cannot clock up as high without very expensive and exotic cooling methods.
2) AMD would get slaughtered on this test, you know that so you start bringing magical numbers from magical fairy land and hope we buy it. Forget it dude...you lose.

Don?t count your chicks before hatched.
I was going to do that. Remember? I said see you in 24? its been less than 14hrs. I am gathering spi data of my own machine (so no one Q? the validity of where I got it and not same system)
Just hold on and don?t Assume otherwise. because you will make an as.....yourself.

I think you will because I will clock my C2D to the same speed as your AMD ok? and we'll see who wins. Oh and do you mean to say it takes your system 24hours to run superPi? :Q

 

[n19htmare]

I didn't know Sharikou was a member here.

Hmmmm

 

[Tsuwamono]

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake
so how long will people continue arguing what is better... darn its like their life depends on prooving it. Conroe has a performance advantage, a good one when overclocked, i mean come on i can admit it, and i have most of my comps amd. Which one of them suits better (x2, c2d or low end chips) depends on who is buying it, its not a matter to buy what performs best. (otherwise everyone would buy the extreme edition conroe)

This topics will continue till new amd chip is released then everyone will talk how bad intel is, then they release a new one and it will be talk how bad amd is, and so on
These topics are just useless, should be locked on sight.

I do admit that conroe beats AMDs current stuff. Thats just the way technology works. But i was stateing with the benchmarks that in gaming the difference at high resolution is actually very small and in some cases the AMD CPU beats the conroe by a small margin and keep in mind the price too. AMD at like 200-400$ less depending on your build specs thats a pretty sweet deal if your a gamer.

Given if you do DVD encoding, Super PI or other stuff that nobody ever does then ya conroe beats AMD cpus by a good margin of 20-30%. But since i dont do those things and AMD has had a better track record RECENTLY(past few years) with its chipsets then intel has i decided to get AM2.

Im still trying to figure out why people get so emotional about this lol. Its a processor. If you guys want to buy conroe, buy conroe. If i want to buy AM2 how is it anyone elses problem? lol Just doesnt make any sense lol

I find it retarded that you are crying like a little girl cmdrdredd because OcHungry actually disproved something you said. Grow up man. so AMD won one or two benchmarks. Nobody is disputing that Conroe is faster then AMD we are just saying its not AS FAST as YOU would like to believe it is.

 

[n19htmare]

Originally posted by: Tsuwamono

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake
so how long will people continue arguing what is better... darn its like their life depends on prooving it. Conroe has a performance advantage, a good one when overclocked, i mean come on i can admit it, and i have most of my comps amd. Which one of them suits better (x2, c2d or low end chips) depends on who is buying it, its not a matter to buy what performs best. (otherwise everyone would buy the extreme edition conroe)

This topics will continue till new amd chip is released then everyone will talk how bad intel is, then they release a new one and it will be talk how bad amd is, and so on
These topics are just useless, should be locked on sight.

I do admit that conroe beats AMDs current stuff. Thats just the way technology works. But i was stateing with the benchmarks that in gaming the difference at high resolution is actually very small and in some cases the AMD CPU beats the conroe by a small margin and keep in mind the price too. AMD at like 200-400$ less depending on your build specs thats a pretty sweet deal if your a gamer.

Given if you do DVD encoding, Super PI or other stuff that nobody ever does then ya conroe beats AMD cpus by a good margin of 20-30%. But since i dont do those things and AMD has had a better track record RECENTLY(past few years) with its chipsets then intel has i decided to get AM2.

Im still trying to figure out why people get so emotional about this lol. Its a processor. If you guys want to buy conroe, buy conroe. If i want to buy AM2 how is it anyone elses problem? lol Just doesnt make any sense lol

I find it retarded that you are crying like a little girl cmdrdredd because OcHungry actually disproved something you said. Grow up man. so AMD won one or two benchmarks. Nobody is disputing that Conroe is faster then AMD we are just saying its not AS FAST as YOU would like to believe it is.

I really don't care what you buy, whatever floats your boat.

It was your original post that was misleading and is no different that what HardOCP had... did you read their thread?

what you proved was simple, well known fact among gamers. TODAY'S GAMES ARE LIMITED BY THE GPU, NOT THE CPU. You basically proved with your link that yes, GPUs are the limiting factor on very high settings, especially with a single card setup.

with SLI and XFIRE becoming more and more affordable and new GPUs on the way... it's just gonna get worse for amd.

What you failed to mention was the benchmarks on the very same links that DO NOT INVOLVE the Graphics card. how did the FX-62 do in those?

If you can get a 5200x2 and overclock it.... you can sure get a E6600 and over clock that too... and mind you it will overclock much further than the 5200x2... If you can OC one, you can ALSO OC the other....

It's not that we get all emotional.... most of us could really care less. But it's different when someone is passing mis-information with intent to twist the actual results....
You know VERY well that those benchmarks are limited by the GPU, yet you clain the FX-62 to be a superior chip when it comes to gaming...it's not.

Heck, I can put a Geforce 6600 on a X6800 and 3800X2 and say that both are same because both got such and such FPS on such and such game.... when we know well that X6800 will wipe a 3800X2 off the face of this earth..

Facts are Facts. Intel has regained the lead (I know you're not denying it).

OCHUNGRY: I really don't have much to say to you. I HONESTLY believe you have no idea what you are talking about. You are blinded by your hate for Intel. You're the kind that would worship AMD even if they craped on a socket and gave it to you.

 

[n7]

This thread is a joke.

It was designed to turn into a FUD-filled flamefest, which it is.

 

[thecrecarc]

i wonder how much the OP and OcHungry are getting paid... (if they arent the same person)

is it alot? hm... maybe i could get a job....

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Tsuwamono

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake
so how long will people continue arguing what is better... darn its like their life depends on prooving it. Conroe has a performance advantage, a good one when overclocked, i mean come on i can admit it, and i have most of my comps amd. Which one of them suits better (x2, c2d or low end chips) depends on who is buying it, its not a matter to buy what performs best. (otherwise everyone would buy the extreme edition conroe)

This topics will continue till new amd chip is released then everyone will talk how bad intel is, then they release a new one and it will be talk how bad amd is, and so on
These topics are just useless, should be locked on sight.

I do admit that conroe beats AMDs current stuff. Thats just the way technology works. But i was stateing with the benchmarks that in gaming the difference at high resolution is actually very small and in some cases the AMD CPU beats the conroe by a small margin and keep in mind the price too. AMD at like 200-400$ less depending on your build specs thats a pretty sweet deal if your a gamer.

Given if you do DVD encoding, Super PI or other stuff that nobody ever does then ya conroe beats AMD cpus by a good margin of 20-30%. But since i dont do those things and AMD has had a better track record RECENTLY(past few years) with its chipsets then intel has i decided to get AM2.

Im still trying to figure out why people get so emotional about this lol. Its a processor. If you guys want to buy conroe, buy conroe. If i want to buy AM2 how is it anyone elses problem? lol Just doesnt make any sense lol

I find it retarded that you are crying like a little girl cmdrdredd because OcHungry actually disproved something you said. Grow up man. so AMD won one or two benchmarks. Nobody is disputing that Conroe is faster then AMD we are just saying its not AS FAST as YOU would like to believe it is.

disproving me? what the hell are you on? You're as bad as him. I and others already pointed out how stupid you and he are by showing you that BOTH systems were not identical chipsets. Crossfire or SLI depends heavily on the chipset, BIOS, and drivers. So if you compare a RD580 which is built around crossfire vs a 975x which adds it just as an afterthought...then you're not being fair. So shutup already cause you're wrong about everything.

 

[markymoo]

its well known fx62 has been tweaked to run games fast from the start. but try to do heavy number crunching or everyday professional applications such as winrar or mpeg or adobe work, rendering and multi tasking. fx62 is disappointing. it sucks at floating point calculations. the high end p4 were better than fx62 then also. in fact reviewers said last few years if you play games get a fx62 or if you do anything else get a pentium 4 but nobody could afford a fx62. you show us one game benchmark and you think it owns. conroe is the all rounder. enter the core2 for a third of the price. which has more performance per watt. smart large core cache technology.

users want hardcore stability. you wont get that with amd. amd boards use that crappy horrible Via chipset which uses a software driver to get stable and even then it still crashes. its fragile cos its been tweaked so much. i know i used to build 20 pcs a day with top quality parts and qc everyday for 3 years.

just because conroe dont have a intergrated memory controller in the chip it still owns.

your facts are wrong and to make up for it you got to insult people and get personal shows your ignorance more. thats right 99% of reviewers and techs have been bought off and they all liars. right so its all because hype those amd fanboys leaving for intel. why have hardcore amd fans for years jumping ship after they done there own benchmarks and found conroe superior...so we should believe your one benchmark over the thousands that show support for c2d being superior and all this on lower watts.

lets say for arguments sake the fx62 is faster. with the lower cost of conroe i could afford to buy superior graphics and more ram to kick amds butt even more.

kids are buying allendales and making them run faster than the expensive fx62 and that makes people happy and makes the fx62 a ripoff. conroe with less watts means more power in reserve to push it and in 2007 it be more so.

@Tsuwamono
i think your just looking for some action.
you show a GPU benchmark. how can you compare dependant on graphics?

@OcHungry
Your like a captain and skipper going down with there sinking ship.