Thank god we don't have to upgrade.

You know, nobody's forcing anybody to upgrade. If you want to, do it. If you don't, then don't. I want to upgrade, I'm not sure where, so I sit and read reviews from everywhere I can, weigh the results from what I know about the sites, laugh at Kyle from [H], and then come here to sort it out by comparing peple who have had it for a lot longer's scores. (Yes, I know that's improper English.)

Based on my research, there's no GOOD choice right now. You have Conroe, fast, with buggy boards and RAID issues, AM2, which is a lot like my 939, except I have to buy new RAM and a new board, for very similar performance, or I can stay 939 on an EOL'ed socket. I'm waiting for a real reason to even repair my system.

We can argue all day till we're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, none of the options look all that inviting. Conroe will not make a real difference in anything but my compiling, and if I compile my kernel to take advantage of it a simple 3800 X2 can run rings around it. (the joys of Linux, total scaleability.) The issue is then not what does everyone need to do but what do YOU need to do. None of us get up in the morning and use our PCs for the exact same thing, so why say the exact same setup every time for everyone? Doesn't make sense to me...

Oh well, I'll probably get flamed for this, but it's just my opinion, and I don't really care if no one shares it. Being a Linux user, I bet I look at things differently anyway...

Really, if you already have a socket 939 single core, it's much easier to upgrade to an X2 than to C2D. $150 for 3800 X2 vs $700 for mobo, ram and E6600? If that extra 15% is really worth that much to you, go for it.

Or reuse your old DDR1 and $70 + chip cost(Like an e6300 that will blow an x2 out the water and overclocks quite nicely http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...duo-e6300.html )

http://www.asrock.com/product/775Twins-HDTV%20R2.0.htm
http://www.komplett.co.uk/k/ki.asp?sku=321920 ($70 USD).

DDR and e6300, how does that work........

I don't need the latest and greatest, I just "updated" last fall (from an NF2) and if need be will get an X2 in the future.

My rig is fast enough (yup, I would like it to be faster) but I will not fork out for the upgrades until I think it is needed.

I will look with envy but I will not miss the extra speed that the Conroe guys are throwing out..............my stuff runs great right now.

:toast:

Raybo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fhpchris

is conroe faster than A64 in real world gaming? no.

---

Awesome fanboy remark, as real-world gaming benchmarks did prove it had a quite a lead over AMDs.

I dunno you AMD fanboys interpreted, but you realize Hardocp was running at high resolutions, which GFX are bottlenecks?

1280X1024 16XAF in oblivion? Don't tell me there is no GFX bottleneck for that

Here's my take:

Conroe is fast. Very fast. At encoding it's clear that conroe destroys AMD, at least in 32 bit. Now when it comes to gaming, not much a difference. Conroe does take the lead by up to 20 fps at times, but that is with CPU power hungry CF/SLI.

BUT conroe does clock MUCH higher (unless the retail chips start to suck) than AMD, so even if it's hardly faster clock for clock, a 3.6 conroe will crush a 3ghz amd.

On the other hand, conroe has serious board issues. If you want dual cards, you need a 975 board. From what I gathered, the infinity is finicky, P5W DH is buggy at times, and the badaxe likes to randomly die. That's just from what I've read. 965 looks good but it's slightly slower than 975 and we don't know a whole lot about it. Keep in mind that there's still a lot of boards that are not released yet and it's early so we can expect BIOS fixes. There's also the ATI and Nvidia chipsets coming up.

Being a gamer I've decided to stick with AM2. I'd rather get a better video card instead. If I hadn't sunk my money into one of the best AM2 boards, I'd probably go conroe. If you're coming from 939 or single core, or you do a lot of encoding, then it's worth it to jump over. If you're already on AM2, then why bother. Unless you HAVE to have the best and you can afford it.

My 2 cents.

Maybe Intel fanboys should stay in the Intel forum... Why come over here an start ch!t... Just wondering? :)

maybe fanboys should post on blogs so we can get down to playing with some hardware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celeron Gamer

Awesome fanboy remark, as real-world gaming benchmarks did prove it had a quite a lead over AMDs.

I dunno you AMD fanboys interpreted, but you realize Hardocp was running at high resolutions, which GFX are bottlenecks?

1280X1024 16XAF in oblivion? Don't tell me there is no GFX bottleneck for that

---

Which once again proves that an X2 is more than adequate to handle gaming. Believe it or not, most people don't game at 640x480 with no AA or AF. If you already have a very capable AMD platform, why sink your money in C2D when you can upgrade your graphics card for the same amount and get much better performance? If I were building a whole new PC, I'd go C2D, but going from an X2 to C2D wouldn't help much for the price.

It works with the board linked to, it supports Conroe, DDR1, & DDR2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arisythila

Friends from Microsoft say they are helping AMD work on RHT, They are designing an update for windows XP, Vista will come with it.

~Mike

---

Sorry, what is RHT?

Great, except the abortion boards have never been worth squat.... They're designed and sold as a cheap way to bragging rights. :slapass:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by afireinside

Here's my take:

Conroe is fast. Very fast. At encoding it's clear that conroe destroys AMD, at least in 32 bit. Now when it comes to gaming, not much a difference. Conroe does take the lead by up to 20 fps at times, but that is with CPU power hungry CF/SLI.

BUT conroe does clock MUCH higher (unless the retail chips start to suck) than AMD, so even if it's hardly faster clock for clock, a 3.6 conroe will crush a 3ghz amd.

On the other hand, conroe has serious board issues. If you want dual cards, you need a 975 board. From what I gathered, the infinity is finicky, P5W DH is buggy at times, and the badaxe likes to randomly die. That's just from what I've read. 965 looks good but it's slightly slower than 975 and we don't know a whole lot about it. Keep in mind that there's still a lot of boards that are not released yet and it's early so we can expect BIOS fixes. There's also the ATI and Nvidia chipsets coming up.

Being a gamer I've decided to stick with AM2. I'd rather get a better video card instead. If I hadn't sunk my money into one of the best AM2 boards, I'd probably go conroe. If you're coming from 939 or single core, or you do a lot of encoding, then it's worth it to jump over. If you're already on AM2, then why bother. Unless you HAVE to have the best and you can afford it.

My 2 cents.

---

Great post....... :)

Regards-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

maybe fanboys should post on blogs so we can get down to playing with some hardware.

---

:toast: :toast: :woot: :clap:

One way or the other I will always be a few steps behind the cutting edge.

Hey.........it's just the way I am.

:toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobalt

Sorry, what is RHT?

---

reverse hyper-threading

Quote:

---

BUT conroe does clock MUCH higher (unless the retail chips start to suck) than AMD, so even if it's hardly faster clock for clock, a 3.6 conroe will crush a 3ghz amd.

---

I agree with this statement but the thing is most of us probably game @ 1280x1024. Looking at the benchmarks so far, a 600mhz scale is not going to add much in performance, maybe 1-5 fps. So again I don't see a reason to upgrade just yet. Although better MoBo support may change things.

I was (or maybe I still am) one of the AMD guys that was ready to jump ship as soon a conroe came out. I was ready to dump my MoBo, ram, CPU, then reinstall Windows, blah, blah, blah. Now I'm just glad I don't have to right now (it's becoming a PITA) meaning if it was THAT much faster I would HAVE to upgrade. I have upgraded 5 times over the past 2 years and I have to say my current rig is holding out longer than I thought it would. The 7900 series gpu wasn't that much better than my 7800. The AM2s are not that much faster than my CPU. Conroe is proving to be in the same boat.

If the diff ends up being like that of a P4 V.S A64 in gaming..Intel here I come:p:

So what does reverse hyper threading do...what is it???

I gather it has something to do with changing two cores into one...

Well if you don't game all the time, and instead do other things like, oh, encode stuff, 3d render, etc, Conroe will rock our Athlons. :)

The only reason it doesn't in games is cuz the GPU becomes the bottleneck first typically.

And, btw, Conroe pricing isn't too bad actually. Especially when you read about how the low models overclock. Held back by the board though. Maybe DFI will save the day there.

I'm looking for an X2 on the cheap, any body willing to give me a deal yet?


:toast:

Two things come of this.

AN Oced X2 can match a conroe in gaming performance. And, upcoming 65nm X2s which should be able to clock much higher will match Conroe OCs on air :) .. well at least we'll see the 3ghz ceiling listed. With 3.2 and 3.4ghz on air being seen with higher multi's.

Perkam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rodman

Looking at all the Conroe (intel) gaming benchmarks tells me I don't have to upgrade for awile as the performance between Conroe and AMD 64 is about the same. If anything I will get a X2;) Woo-Hoo:D

---

Once you are off your drugs, try looking at the benchmarks again.


http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6184

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...2_performance/

http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/10351

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?...&page=13&pp=20

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1988804,00.asp

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...splay.php?f=59

http://www.behardware.com/articles/6...-duo-test.html

http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=489587

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Ha..._e6700/16.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...duo-e6300.html

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ssfear1600.gif

That 5 fps difference between a 2.8ghz and 2.93ghz chip is MASSIVE!

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33048

He said it's pretty fast and all.The only bad thing was the system crapped out on him while doing any 3D stuff.Probably mobo related.

Anyway,the really interesting part of his coverage was the following quote from the end of his article:

Quote:

---

From what I have seen, all the rumors were true. There is no cheating, no trick drivers, no baked setups, or anything underhanded, it is just faster. Several potential AMD responses have crossed my inbox, but until they show up and are independently measurable, Conroe is the fastest thing you can buy, and completely lives up to the hype. µ

---

Note the plural in responses :).What could those be? :D