Printable View
Probably because it's too fast. Actually, we don't even need to see the game benches based on the specs and what Conroe can do. We know the gaming will be superior to any others.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
besides.. I don't think Fugger plays Oblivion..:)
cinebench would be a better test IMO
Speaking of Oblivion benches... afaik, there are no scripted events you can reliably repeat. Its more a matter of playing the same sections of the game with FRAPS enabled for a long enough time that the randomness of the game smooths out and you can get some decent comparisons. ala Anand and his graphics card comparison http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2746 (oh and a new CPU comparison I haven't even looked at yet http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2747)
As Anand says: "Remember that, just like in our first Oblivion article, we're manually walking through portions of the game and using FRAPS to generate our results, and thus the margin for error in our tests is much higher than normal; differences in performance of 5% or less aren't significant and shouldn't be treated as such."
i am still not convinced its that goodQuote:
Originally Posted by IamAnoobieCheez
its a good superpi cpu but besides that i havent seen much of it except for 3D mark which isnt a good indicator either
That's why there is a list of 3Dmarks you can run:Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
- 3Dmark 2001SE
- 3Dmark 2003
- 3Dmark 2005
- 3Dmark 2006.
The 3Dmark 2001 is one of the best benchmarks to test out the entire performance of the system, not just stupid video card. You don't want to let video cards run into bottlenecks when benching the power of processors. Select each version of 3Dmarks to find your needs.
This is "how it works", you get higher benchmark in 3Dmark, you will get higher results in actual 3D gaming. 3Dmark is not synthetic bench. YOu want to run synthetic crap, go run Sisoft Sandra. Now THAT's synethetic crap. Sisoft Sandra is also known as "SissySoft Sandra".
aight bro... :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Willis
Anyhing that is not a usable application is synthetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamAnoobieCheez
In fact, it produces very wrong performance estimates (as most synthethic benchmarks).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
3dmark is a game that doesnt need a human player. It has every component a game has exept an input.hpp file. So instead of you pressing the left arrow, something in the game loop says "hey the right arrow was just pressed"
There is nothing synthetic about it. It only looks synthetic to you because you know what youll see next, the cpu doesnt.
Why does everyone have a hard time accepting Conroe's power?
You know, ive come to stop caring. Why should i care what the person next to me buys? If they believe that an x2 solution is better for them then hurrah for that, its not stopping me from buying anything i wish to buy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
It is not only that 3DMark has no user input, it is much much more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailleur
Physics, collision detection, dynamic scene loading, object interaction, AI, etc.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...4000/page8.asp
------- SYNTHETIC BENCHMARK -------
3DMark05
Pentium4 550: 5204 -> +6,6%
A64 4000+: 4882
3DMark05 CPU
Pentium4 550: 5168 -> +13,9%
A64 4000+: 4537
PCMark 2004
Pentium4 550: 5168 -> +13,9%
A64 4000+: 4537
------- REALITY -------
Unreal Tournament 2004
Pentium4 550: 101,3 -> -38,5%
A64 4000+: 140,3
Doom3
Pentium4 550: 86,7 -> -27,1%
A64 4000+: 110,2
Farcry
Pentium4 550: 87,1 -> -15,4%
A64 4000+: 100,5
CS-Source
Pentium4 550: 57,5 -> -25,7%
A64 4000+: 72,3
As you can see, 3DMark and PCMark produce absolutely wrong performance estimates.
Try 3Dmark 2001.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
It is one of the most famous and dependable bench. Try this, I think you will find shocking.
i havent seen any power yet :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
only pi-scores and 3D mark :)
if i have seen power, i will accept it when i see reviews or better benchmarks
i dont say its a bad cpu, i hope it will be a good one altough i am pro-amd
i admit that
hat off charlie
not only for posting these precious results of a new and interesting new cpu architecture
but more for bearing those zero content posts .
And therein lies the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
You shouldn't be pro-AMD, or pro-Intel... just be pro-choice :D pro-the-best-CPU-currently-available.
QFT!!! :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Durzel
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2747
Having read this article, and noticed in particularSo i personally look forward to seeing the benches on conroe with this game, they should be very good indeed. Since it has large cache and decent clock speeds, AND is dual core.Quote:
Oblivion also clearly benefits from larger CPU caches. The abysmal performance of the Celeron D 351 exemplifies this statement, but you can also look at higher performing parts. The difference between the Athlon 64 3700+ and the 3500+ is around 5-7%, which is more than many other titles show.
He is correct, you have not seen the real power of the Conroe yet.
We are still low on clock speed and it is gonna get real ugly with 400+ FSB on a 9x or 10x chip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
3D mark is there to show what can be done, not what is usually done in games :). And for the opposite end of P4 game performance, you can check Quake4 with latest 1.2 patch.. :toast:
*sigh*Quote:
Originally Posted by Durzel
i just deslike the way intel acts as a company
i buy what is the best
i am pro the best cpu currently available, which is still AMD A64 :cool:
Fugger you are right also
but can you please post a decent benchmark, instead of superpi or 3D mark
2 suites i bench also, but what do they represent? absolutely nothing
he does not own any other games besides oblivion. if somone would like to provide him with some games to play with it would be appectiative.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
You know, It isn't such a great idea to contradict yourself in the same post. But I agree SPI is nice and all but I would like to see more real world benches.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
Give me 01, Source, Fear and oblivion and I will be extremely happy.
I'm not much of a gamer myself so the 3D Mark scores are fine by me. If you can compare the different scores for different games... IE an ORB link for the 3D Mark 2001 SE (still my favorite benchmark even though my system does poorly in it) you can view how each part does differently. And then you can view how yours responds to that and go from there.. Thanks for the good work Fugger and FCG :D
Keep up the good work pioneers!
Man, we are merely feeling tremors now. Intel is in the process of raining a sh*t storm down on AMD like they have never seen! We have more quarters and steppings to go. .....Kentsfield my god!
well it'd even be interesting just to see some sandra results, agreed?