Intel the King? That's not what it says here.

Re: Intel the King? That's not what it says here.

You don't know what answers I have noob.

Anyone with half a brain

Go cry yourself to sleep now.

Insults seem to be your only defense.

I have quotes and benchmarks while you just post a bunch of insults and jibberish that no one even said. You're right I don't know what answers you have because you bring nothing to the table. You have nothing refuting my claims about Conroe's dual core weakness.


It would probably be better for your rep if you didn't even reply in this thread anymore. I won't be the one crying myself to sleep.

Re: Intel the King? That's not what it says here.

You don't know what answers I have noob. :)

You DID NOT say overall 3DMark scores. You said "in applications that use both cores such as 3DMark06." Anyone with half a brain would look at the CPU scores when comparing CPU scores, not my fault that you're the kind of idiot who would look at the whole score.

My 30% was in direct response to your 1%-2%. Clearly, when you compare entire systems, the Conroe leads by that much.

You're the only one who cares about Dual threads. Go cry yourself to sleep now.

The Conroe has few weaknesses. :)

Every weakness that you've "exposed" still has the Conroe owning the Athlon 64s.

Re: Intel the King? That's not what it says here.

That 15% is more than the 1%-2% you were spouting. :)

The 30% is in the gaming benchmarks. Who gives a **** if it's single-threaded, the Conroe has the advantage there. All else stays equal in the game, and the processor is changed to a Conroe.

You still don't think they exist? How do you explain the Woodcrest processors, based on the same core, that just came out? Stupid to think that Intel wouldn't release the Conroe after releasing the Woodcrest.

In applications that use both cores such as 3Dmark 06 the Conroe only leads a comparible A64 by 1-2%. This is with the X6800 compared to the FX62.

Hah, show me some benchmarks. Its more like 30%.

I said 1-2% in the overall 3Dmark 06 scores which is true. You said Conroe wins by 30% in 3Dmark which clearly isn't true even with the CPU tets. You're the one who brought up the CPU tests which show 15%.

Maybe you need some reading comprehension classes.

I care if it's single threaded. We've all seen the single threaded hyped benchmarks. I want to see dual core benchmarks which I posted with 3Dmark 06. Where is the dual Super PI?

I'm not refuting Conroe's strengths, I'm exposing it's weakness. You have no answers for that.

Re: Intel the King? That's not what it says here.

That 15% is more than the 1%-2% you were spouting. :)

The 30% is in the gaming benchmarks. Who gives a **** if it's single-threaded, the Conroe has the advantage there. All else stays equal in the game, and the processor is changed to a Conroe.

You still don't think they exist? How do you explain the Woodcrest processors, based on the same core, that just came out? Stupid to think that Intel wouldn't release the Conroe after releasing the Woodcrest.

Re: Intel the King? That's not what it says here.

Lets talk about processors then. Even the CPU benchmarks only show about a 15% benefit with Conroe over the same speed A64.

Where is this mythical 30% you speak of? Maybe the unicorn has it.

There you go pulling single threaded benchmarks out when I'm clearly talking about stressing the processor as it was designed. Go ahead and try to change the subject to take attention away from Conroe's weakness. Where are the 3Dmark 06 benches from anandtech? Thas right they aren't there.

Re: Intel the King? That's not what it says here.

Freak test. Compare the score of the E6700 in that test to the scores in the other 3 benchmarks. Something went wrong. Its the same processor in the same test, and the scores for the other CPUs in the other benchmarks are fairly close. They messed up something on that test.

Why not compare overall scores? It's the whole system that needs scoring not just the processor. Im not soley using an AMD processor all alone am I? It has other components that work together in a complete system. With those 3Dmark 06 benches you can clearly see a Conroe system is barely better than an X2 system.

In the overal score comparison the Conroes even have the benefit of DDR2 and still barely best a similar AMD system using DDR1.

The X6800 share the same exact components as the FX62 systems except the motherboard and processor in those benchmarks. You can bet you should compare overall 3Dmark scores with those.

*Think's about it for a second.*

*Throws the idea in the trash.*

We don't compare the overall score because we're talking about the processors. And 3DMark06 is 90% videocard, 10% processor. A faster processor makes a fraction of the difference in the overall score than it actually should. Why NOT look at the CPU only scores? They're the ones actually evaluating the CPUs.

If you want to compare overall scores, go look at gaming benchmarks. This is what the complete systems look like;

Re: Intel the King? That's not what it says here.

Why not compare overall scores? It's the whole system that needs scoring not just the processor. Im not soley using an AMD processor all alone am I? It has other components that work together in a complete system. With those 3Dmark 06 benches you can clearly see a Conroe system is barely better than an X2 system.

In the overal score comparison the Conroes even have the benefit of DDR2 and still barely best a similar AMD system using DDR1.

The X6800 share the same exact components as the FX62 systems except the motherboard and processor in those benchmarks. You can bet you should compare overall 3Dmark scores with those.

[Sir. MatDef]

Re: Intel the King? That's not what it says here.

Re: Intel the King? That's not what it says here.

Owned? Hardly. You're comparing the overall scores buddy, you don't do that with 3DMark, not even '06.

Look at the CPU only tests. And keep in mind, the E6700 is a 2.66Ghz processor while the FX-62 is a 2.8Ghz processor. And the E6700 still beats it.







Owned by your own benchmarks.

Re: Intel the King? That's not what it says here.

Hah, show me some benchmarks. Its more like 30%.

Most of the new reviews don't show 3Dmark 06... There is a reason for this.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/348/8

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=272&type=expert&pid=13

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2/index.x?pg=7

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_performance/page7.asp

They only bother running an X2 3800+ in the link below because an FX would show how feeble conroe really is. Don't give me that GPU bottleneck crap since this site actually runs the test at 1024x768:

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/92...k06/index.html

All of those benches are consistent with each other. Hardly a fluke.

Do I even need to keep going? Owned.

Re: Intel the King? That's not what it says here.

Hah, show me some benchmarks. Its more like 30%.

Re: Intel the King? That's not what it says here.

What's wrong with a Dual Core CPU using all of the unused 4MB of cache in single-threaded applications? That's of the advantages of a Conroe. Conroe, in single-threaded applications, IS a single core processor with 4MB of L2 cache.

And all SuperPi records are set on one thread. Unless you want to start a Dual Core SuperPi competition, Conroe will continute to dominate in SuperPi.

Whats wrong with it is that those results don't corespond to multithreaded app performance which are the future of computing. It's a bunch of hype.

In applications that use both cores such as 3Dmark 06 the Conroe only leads a comparible A64 by 1-2%. This is with the X6800 compared to the FX62.

Re: Intel the King? That's not what it says here.

How about my rig in my Sig :) ANd im also pissed becuse i got this comp befor i even knew about the new INtel CPUS ****ing im PISSEDbecuse i always liked Intel but AMD was better for gameing so i went with them

Definite bottleneck by the videocard there.

If you go with any modern processor (2Ghz+ A64, 3Ghz+ P4, any Conroe) then it is unlikely that there will not be a bottleneck. For reference, my processor (3200+) can handle a 7900GT (not saying I have one) while at it's stock speeds.

Thats why I say that the videocard is the most important part of a gaming computer. You can get the best videocard (single) and get a relatively weak processor and still get the same gameplay as if you got a FX-62 or a X6800. Which is why you should spend a nice amount on your videocard in a gaming computer.

You're missing my point. Conroe (unicorn) supposedly has a shared L2 cache. Super PI is a very L2 cache intensive program. You are getting scewed results by only running a single PI because that one instance of PI is able to use all of the L2 cache. If you ran dual then the cache would split it resources to both cores effectively decreasing your PI runs by 4-5 seconds on the 1M test.

How do you know both would score the same if an intance was run on each core? Would the core split it's L2 evenly? How will this affect multi-threaded applications. I'm tired of seeing benchmarks of a dual core CPU exploiting it's shared L2 in single benches. I want to see some real world dual benches.

Conroe isn't a single core processor with a 4Mb cache so I expect to see some benches that show what the processor is meant for.

What's wrong with a Dual Core CPU using all of the unused 4MB of cache in single-threaded applications? That's of the advantages of a Conroe. Conroe, in single-threaded applications, IS a single core processor with 4MB of L2 cache.

And all SuperPi records are set on one thread. Unless you want to start a Dual Core SuperPi competition, Conroe will continute to dominate in SuperPi.

Thats what my tech savvy friend thought, and what I thought from his input as well.

For some reason the comp just doesnt seem to perform as well as it should.... many people run medium/ high or even all high with that card and similar processors, yet mine has trouble on medium multiplayer.

Yet in singleplayer, it handles all high pretty good..... for some reason, going from 512 to 1024 mb ram didnt seem to do much. I still have to test to see if 1024 to 1500 did more.

I know what you mean since I have the same videocard. I think it depends a lot on the amount of people on the server. I know that sometimes I'm getting maxed out FPS on the same settings, while on a more populated server I'll be hanging around 30-50FPS on Med settings on 1280x1024.

Re: Intel the King? That's not what it says here.

I still have to test to see if 1024 to 1500 did more.

More ram helps this game tremendously. Having 1.5Gb + is the sweet spot for BF2.

Re: Intel the King? That's not what it says here.

Hmm, that's a tough one. I'd say they're just about perfect for eachother actually. Which is bad for you since you don't gain any performance from upgrading either one. But look on the bright side - You aren't losing any performance to bottlenecks! Lol.

But if you had to upgrade something, I'd say go with a videocard first.

Thats what my tech savvy friend thought, and what I thought from his input as well.

For some reason the comp just doesnt seem to perform as well as it should.... many people run medium/ high or even all high with that card and similar processors, yet mine has trouble on medium multiplayer.

Yet in singleplayer, it handles all high pretty good..... for some reason, going from 512 to 1024 mb ram didnt seem to do much. I still have to test to see if 1024 to 1500 did more.