X6800 review out early, with overclocking results!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-Mag

That's exactly what I wanted to see. However, something concerns me.

We all know that benching at lower resolutions shows off CPU performance better, right?

Here are the results copied directly from that thread for the FEAR test:

1024x768, 4xAA 16xAF, all max:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: Min 60 | Avg 142 | Max 370
Conroe @ 3GHz: Min 78 | Avg 162 | Max 485

1600x1200, 4xAA 16xAF, all max:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: Min 25 | Avg 43 | Max 172
Conroe @ 3GHz: Min 53 | Avg 86 | Max 310

Can someone tell me why the 1024 resolution has an average difference of 12% while the 1600x1200 shows a difference of 50%? Thats a little counter intuiative don't ya think?

---

Well I guess FEAR does a lot of calculations on the CPU. After all almost every PC ships with at least a P4 3GHz.

So at 1600x1200 there's so much stuff to calculate that the Opteron simply can no longer handle it thus lowering the performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFrOuT

getting a FSB 800 is not an idea i like specially when u don't know its price

i suggest saving more and buying the E6300 which is not that expensive AT ALL

---

That will definitely be the cpu to buy

a) by september hopefully it will be mid to low 100s
b) low fsb is just stock. I can overclock it to wherever I like with little worry about expensive memory and northbridge limitations. low fsb is better than a high stock fsb. remember, with low fsb comes high multi.
c) intel has a long track record of bottom line cpus overlocking well. remember the 533fsb 2.8 prescott? 2.4c northwood?

edit: PLUS, a dual core conroe for less than 200 bucks is OBVIOUS, even without the overclocking considerations. I mean, it's dual core, it's a conroe, and it'll be less than 200 bucks. but you say it's not a good idea.

edit2: I just hope I'm not missing anything, this isn't like a celeron or anything, right (half the cache, etc.)?

640x480 and 800x600

they're kidding right ?

lol, I just realized it has the same exact multi as the E6300. I'm stupid. So I suppose the only difference between the E4200 and the E6300 is stock FSB? The only reason to pay more for the E6300 is if the binned conroes turn out to have large discrepancies, so that average overclocks between the two turn out to be large. hopefully that won't happen, and hopefully the E4200 is cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lestat

640x480 and 800x600

they're kidding right ?

---

well, they are after all testing cpu power only. larger resolutions will be less sensitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathanael

So at 1600x1200 there's so much stuff to calculate that the Opteron simply can no longer handle it thus lowering the performance.

---

Uhh... :slap:

When increasing resolution there is more for the GPU to calculate NOT the CPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

You couldn't fine a topic about this review?Man there were at least 2 of them...
Search harder next time.And the test is not showing us anything we didn't know earlier...

---

I believe a saw a link way down in some thread(that's where I found this), but I have not seen anywhere where this review has it's own thread. Maybe it does, I donno. XS is getting so damn big now! Suppose that's a good thing tho. :D Please provide link(s) to a thread here for this review as the topic. Thanks!

the resolution would have nothing to do with it unless somewhere in that review, since the translator doesnt work, they state they are running in software mode, then yes,,, and hell yes those are hella high results.!