Ah yes, I feel like I'm back in 2003. Except replace evey instance of "A64" with "Conroe", and "Prescott" with "Opteron". ;)
Printable View
Ah yes, I feel like I'm back in 2003. Except replace evey instance of "A64" with "Conroe", and "Prescott" with "Opteron". ;)
how does opty 165 compare to conroe in oblivion?
according to the post in the news section .. amd has 4x4 ready for conroe .. i guess in q4 of 06 .. should be quite interesting
I agree. Looking at 100% GPU limited gaming benchmarks run at 1600x1200 with 4xTR SSAA, 16xAF and max IQ settings tells me that I don't have to upgrade either since A64 and X2 are no faster than my old P4C. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by rodman
LOL, if there was no Conroe would you be thinking about upgrading?
If the numbers at [H] would have been greater in favor of Conroe would you have felt you "had to upgrade"? Even if your happy with what you have now?
I don't understand why if a guy doesn't have the very best that AMD has to offer, why is he concerned about how fast Intel is if AMD is the only cpu you want.
Most on XS upgrade hardware for the fastest benchs or faster gaming rigs.
They don't have too, they want to.;)
Your powers of observation are astute indeed. Bravo.Quote:
Originally Posted by arisythila
But, seriously, thanks anyway for pointing that out. In fact, considering that I was running an overclocked FX-60 just 2 weeks ago, its an important point. I don't say that Conroe is best because I run one, I run one because its the best. That's what I do....run the best. I assemble THE best systems possible at the given buget.
I have no issue with anyone making a logical argument that based on their GPU set up, and their choice of games, that the expense of a full move to a Conroe system may not be warranted. But, the truth of the matter is that my response to anyone who says that would be "no $hit sherlock." The simple fact that graphical high end games have been GPU limited has been known for YEARS. So I can only commend everyone who feels the need to repeat this for their keen mastery of the obvious. Again bravo.
However, the point of this thread is not about whether upgrading to "a better cpu" regardless of brand would be beneficial or not considering all the relevant details of the specific system as a whole, or the intended purpose of the system. No, its a blanket comment about Conroe's gaming ability which reeks of fanboyism. When A64 debuted and nudged the Intel chips by a few fps in high res gaming, AMD fans sprung chubbies and rejoiced and named the New King. Now Intel comes along and leapfrogs A64 by an even larger margin then the A64 leapt over the Intel Netburst chips, and all the AMDroids want to say "it don't matter...we're GPU limited anyway." Talk about fanboyism at its pinnacle.
No one "has to" upgrade. No one "had to" upgrade when A64 came out either. Frankly, with the logic in this thread, everyone who purchased an A64 set up was fool. A much cheaper low end P4 solution would have been the better fit since everything is GPU limited anyway. But, in the end, the near future will tell the truth. When folks start plunking down less money on the more mainstream Conroe chips and get performance exceeding that of the high end AMD set ups, the reality will set in.
I certainly didn't mean to get anyone's panties in a bunch in here. Now I know why I usually do not venture into either the AMD or Intel forums too much. As someone who could care less about CPU brand, I just thought I'd comment on a phenominon I've seen happen repeatedly over the last few product cycles.
EDITED- Tried to keep the wording toned down as I don't want to cause any personal arguments here.
Well said. The only loyalty I have is to my dollar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdzcpa
Conroe does not beat A64 by, "A larger margin" than Clawhammer beat 130nm P4 stuff.
I run both architectures, and in 64 bit A64 reclaims alot of that lost speed.
Conroe is faster, but not by ~10-15% more assuming A64 runs 64 bit.
I am comparing a 2.8 GHZ FX 62 to a Conroe@2.93. It will be interesting to see how the average e6700 overclocks, as it may sway me enough to make an upgrade worth it.Quote:
But you are comparing a VERY overclocked Opteron/X2 to a stock Conroe. Do you really think ANYONE at XS is going to sit back and run any of these chips at stock?
Trying to game on a P4 rig was pointless. If one wanted to play games at good frame rates on any resolution an A64 rig was the ONLY way to go and thus HAD to upgrade. A p4 rig always trailed behind an A64 in gaming benchmarks regardless of the resolution or graphics settings. Just look at the old 955 EE CPU trailing behind the A64 and Conroe in every resolution bench. I'm not seeing this with A64 and Conroe.Quote:
No one "has to" upgrade. No one "had to" upgrade when A64 came out either. Frankly, with the logic in this thread, everyone who purchased an A64 set up was fool. A much cheaper low end P4 solution would have been the better fit since everything is GPU limited anyway.
Lets just face the facts here. In real world gaming a Conroe is no better than an A64 provided the core speeds of the chips are the same, it's really as simple as that.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6153900/p-2.html
Gamespot is showing the same thing. 3DMark 06 is only showing a 200 point spread between an FX 60 and a E6800.
well said Mdzcpa.
I own both, overclocked A64 & conroe and I must admit the intel is FASTER (even if I have/had ton of A64 chips and loved them. Performance over loyalty)
Actually, at the time they came out (a mirror of today) it didn't matter afaik.Quote:
Originally Posted by rodman
Nicely said Mdzcpa.
Ok this is ridiculous. It boils down to using what works and if conroe works so be it.... I've used AMD for quite some time, i have also dabbled with pentium, I seem to remember the 2.4C chips prior to prescott i also remeber playing with durons when p3 was a flop, then going back to pentium then back to amd with bartons or dltc3 1700 tbreds, bottom line the hardware market shifts and you may like a brand better than another but there can only be one and atm it seems like the guys in blue have the upper hand.
Nice one! If you have good S939 platform then upgrading the GPU to 7900GTX SLi or X1900XTX Crossfire will increase the gaming raw power. No point spending money on new platform just few fps in most GPU/shader/vertex limited game. :woot:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ic3man
Yes. 64bit AMD is faster than 32bit AMD. However, 64bit intel is on par with 32bit intel, if not slower!
Quote:
Originally Posted by fhpchris
Conroe is faster than AMD, that is clear. However, it is just too expensive for me. The difference in performance at the resolution I run just isn't worth the extra £'s
(haven't read whole thread because my tummy hurts too much of laughing :D , I just want to react on this statement)
1) correct, but that's temporary. AMD will be overpowered soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by fhpchris
2) correct. Intel changed the launch date and mobo manufacturers aren't ready yet, in september this should be totally different. (september was the original launch date, manufacturers anticipated on that)
3) correct. VGA is a bottleneck for C2D, that's why you need to test on low resolution to see what C2D has to offer.
4) Intel doesn't want C2D to be sold before launch. Only shops who give the abillity to preorder, but not ask for payment yet, are allowed to do so.
I believe this is why so many AMD loyalists ignore C2D:
Most of those loyalists are still working with a s939. This is still a really fast platform, it's not because AM2 and C2D appeared that this has become slow.
But if they want the best of the best and want to upgrade to C2D, DDR2 is needed, which easely costs $300. Also the mobos aren't cheap because of the accelerated launch date.
Another reason is that the ones working with s939 or AM2 are seeing the price cuts coming near, I have to admit I would also wait if I had an AMD config because AMD is still fast, but you won't be breaking any records with that.
For gamers with an X2 4200+ or above is upgrading to C2D useless, graphic cards aren't fast enough to make it useful. For the ones who like benching it's a necessairy need to convert.
But the one thin I can't understand is why AMD loyalists are still ignoring C2D's power and are still praising AMD?
C2D is clock for clock better, and another plus is that it clocks (on air) above 4GHz! I still have to see 4GHz with an AMD dual core.
Ones ATI launches it's chipset AMD won't stand a chance. The current C2D problems is sucky mobos and FSB limitations.
Correct me if I'm wrong ;)
And don't start fanboyistic flaming.
That is the very reason why you don't need to upgrade the CPU/platform to make real game run a faster. You basically have concluded all the points in this thread. :woot:
Conreo is fast BTW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMa
Exactly as I'm thinking. I'm in the position of wanting to upgrade to a dual core cpu but my budget is limited. I still think S939 is a very capable socket and I'm looking to upgrade to an Opteron 165 that does 2.8GHz+. I don't want to ditch my UTT and lovely SLI-DR board yet and buy budget DDR2 and crappy Intel board which would be required if I would choose that option. Need money for a new DX10 gfx card update soon too.Quote:
Originally Posted by SMa
IMO upgrading to a Conroe/Intel setup is reasonable for:
1. Intel users with a non-C2D cpu.
2. AMD users with S939 Winchester or older (includes all Socket754, Socket A etc. owners).
3. Rich bastards that can upgrade whenever they like. :D
Users that doesn't have to upgrade:
1. AMD X2 or dual core Opteron owners.
2. AMD single core ~3GHz and above (Opteron/San Diego and alike).
3. Those who are loving their UTT/BH5 DDR1 sticks still. :D
4. Those who just can't afford it.
All of those reasons are correct imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
But for the 3th one of "doesn't have to upgrade", there is a DDR2 alternative for BH5. D9DQT & D9GMH! Which are voltage hungry IC's.
How is this even a debate?
Conroe is faster, clock for clock, and it also has a higher ceiling.
Most of us have AMD 939 setups from when they were top of the hill. Why not stick with them? They're not slow.
If you have the cash, buy Conroe, if you just want to game, why waste $500?
Ryan
oh do tell :DQuote:
Originally Posted by fhpchris
also VT is important addition in my case for example :)
Unwasted $250 or $300:
http://www.asrock.com/product/775Twins-HDTV%20R2.0.htm
http://www.komplett.co.uk/k/ki.asp?sku=321920 ($70 USD).
+ an e6300 or e6400.
and overclock like this:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...duo-e6300.html
or higher.
You can't be serious about that AsRock...
As serious as can be. Re-use my old DDR1(2x512MB Winbond BH-5, in case you're curious).
5. Those who has Single core CPU, but with good S939 MB & sweet 2GB of UCCC. Upgrading into X2 3800+ will give you a nice setup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD