Why overpay for a Conroe system when performance is the same

itguy

Distinguished
Dec 2, 2004
84
0
18,640
1
This thread will start the brawls going but this is a serious and good question.

Conroe is out now in limited release and is going for $1,359 for only the 2MB version (not even the 4mb version that was in all the benchmarks) and it will probably be selling for far over list prices for months to come. While it is a faster chip than AMD's current lineup, when you read HARDOCP's article on testing "REALWORLD" gaming situations it had basically zero lead on AMD's top end systems.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
So what that means is that for 99.9% of the world, a Conroe system will perform identical to an AMD system, even for gaming.

So the argument I make is this. If you already have some DDR RAM or an existing 939 system, you should use the price cuts and continue to build on 939 and still have a roughly identically performing system to conroe for dirt cheap and then upgrade only when both DDR3 and quads come out, and skip this little pitstop at DDR2 altogether. The video cards are just not there yet, even if you spend $1,200 bucks on the cards. Besides, DDR3 will be the real memory upgrade to get, not DDR2.

If you just have to have DDR2 ram, then you use the price cuts as an opportunity to get AM2 X2's for dirt cheap on your next build, because as predicted, it's looking like all versions of Conroes will be selling at over list prices for a long time due to the huge hype and limited release schedule.

According to their roadmap, P4's with netburst will continue to make up the bulk of Intel's desktop shipments through the remainder of 2006 and well iinto 2007 too.
 

waylander

Distinguished
Nov 23, 2004
1,649
0
19,790
1
OH BOY are you going to get flamed....

We all know that in most gaming, especially high resolution gaming, the bottleneck is the GPU so in a way that article makes sense.

BUT, for those who are looking at buying a brand new computer right now, Conroe does make sense. Don't get old technology.

I have no interest nor need to pay another $500 to upgrade to the newest tech when my current system handles my needs but for those looking for an upgrade from 754 or 478 then I'd still suggest conroe w/ 775.
 

VIO

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2005
14
0
18,510
0
hmm correct me if i'm wrong but according to the tests the E6700 basicly performed the same as the AMD chip, but The 64 FX-62 costs $1100.00 while the retail price of the E6700 is around $550. Same performance at half the price sounds good to me....
 

Heyyou27

Splendid
Jan 4, 2006
5,164
0
25,780
0
HardOCP does not know how to benchmark a CPU; you don't test at the maximum in game resolution with all of the graphics effects on the max, all that does is create a GPU bottleneck.
 

lbax

Distinguished
May 15, 2006
112
0
18,680
0
HardOCP does not know how to benchmark a CPU; you don't test at the maximum in game resolution with all of the graphics effects on the max, all that does is create a GPU bottleneck.
I strongly suspect that HardOCP does know how to benchmark,.....& designed a benchmark to support it's pre-established editorial position.
 

IdiotNewb

Distinguished
May 25, 2006
58
0
18,630
0
Essentially he is right under certain circumstances.

1. if you allready have an AMD FX62 is the real life performance gain going to be enough to buy a whole new system?

2. and you are currently running games at max settings that are gpu limited?

On the otherhand I have old socket 478 CPU and board I have had for 3 years and ready to upgrade. I would be crazy to get anything else then a Core2 at this time. The only way I would be overpaying would be if I was upgrading an allready existing AMD FX62 system.

On the otherhand if the new DX10 cards come out and have any significant performance increase then you may see a lot greater difference.
 

Noggin

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2006
8
0
18,510
0
Conroe is out now in limited release and is going for $1,359 for only the 2MB version (not even the 4mb version that was in all the benchmarks) and it will probably be selling for far over list prices for months to come.
Where? you would have to be stupid to pay $1359 for a chip worth about $200. Surely no one would pay that. Surely no one would even attempt to sell it at that? because there is no reason at all to pay it.

If you put an order in now for a conroe chip from a decent retailer I'm sure you'll get your chip soon enough. The Amd price drop isn't for another 10 days or so anyway, so even if you want amd you should wait till then.
 

HonestIago

Distinguished
Jul 11, 2006
21
0
18,510
0
Well, the link does not provide new insights - if you have a system that is just running fine, stay with it. If you plan to upgrade at this time, go for a Conroe, no matter what: It's cheap and it's performing well.

Still, the test does really show one thing: The testers have no idea what they are doing.
 

PCcashCow

Distinguished
Jun 19, 2002
1,091
0
19,280
0
This is really a debate about who was 'First to Market', the flip side will appear when AMD rolls out on it's 4x4 program.

But to be current, you no fanboy like myself can deny the numbers on the dollar.
 

sex_monkey

Distinguished
May 6, 2006
123
0
18,680
0
sorry just had to pick out a sentence that made me chuckly
"So what that means is that for 99.9% of the world, a Conroe system will perform identical to an AMD system, even for gaming"
so your saying that your cpu performance varies with location on the planet?
also your price quote mate.....wtf even in the uk we got the cheapest one for £125-$230
http://www.komplett.co.uk/k/ki.asp?sku=322631
 

HYST3R

Distinguished
Feb 27, 2006
463
0
18,780
0
why do people consistantly cry about conroe's hype?

its the "ONLY NEW TECHNOLOGY" out there, AM2 is not. if your buying a system right now its best to go with core 2, y waste your money on the same amd chips over and over?

graphics tests to stress cpu's? get a life and run a real cpu benchmark.

and the truth is not all people base their cpu buying strategy on gaming. people actually use computers for other things where high end calculations are needed. and tests show core 2 beats amd chips. why? cus it is new and it was designed too.
 

PCcashCow

Distinguished
Jun 19, 2002
1,091
0
19,280
0
and the truth is not all people base their cpu buying strategy on gaming. people actually use computers for other things where high end calculations are needed. and tests show core 2 beats amd chips. why? cus it is new and it was designed too.
I agree, but look around at this forum. Everyone here is looking for gaming performance, the fastest thing out there, or just something that's going to get us by for a few months on budget. Your barking at the wrong market segments.
 

HYST3R

Distinguished
Feb 27, 2006
463
0
18,780
0
no cpu will add 30fps to any game. as stated above by someone else, gaming benchmarks are GPU bottle necked.

i think your confusing GPU's and CPU's bro.

for you that means the video card.
 

clue69less

Splendid
Mar 2, 2006
3,622
0
22,780
0
Everyone here is looking for gaming performance, the fastest thing out there
I think that is a gross oversimplification. Plenty of gamers here, no doubt. But there are many people here with a much broader interest than just games. My gaming time is maybe a percent of what I do on computers - and that little fraction is partly to better understand what my kids are into and how to help improve their rigs. I'm also trying to learn more about 3-D programming, which is related but has some different demands of its own.
 

HYST3R

Distinguished
Feb 27, 2006
463
0
18,780
0
i think you nailed it with that post.

if you want a so called real world comparisson, have both those machines encode a DVD. and you'll have enough time to post your resulats on the core2 machine while your waiting for your FX62 to finish.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/05/first_benchmarks_conroe_vs_fx-62/
 

PCcashCow

Distinguished
Jun 19, 2002
1,091
0
19,280
0
The part of the quote you left out generalized all other types of users beyond Cads. It's a majority statement, prove me wrong somehow, or I'll just let the post in this community speak for themselves.
 

waylander

Distinguished
Nov 23, 2004
1,649
0
19,790
1
i think you nailed it with that post.

if you want a so called real world comparisson, have both those machines encode a DVD. and you'll have enough time to post your resulats on the core2 machine while your waiting for your FX62 to finish.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/05/first_benchmarks_conroe_vs_fx-62/
I'm not into one processor or another, I actually have two intels and one amd in my house and will probably upgrade to another intel next year and turn one of my older computers into an HDTV but...

I want to point out that the name of the article is ....

Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance

Regardless of whether the Core2duo will out perform the AMD on other applications, which I agree it will as gaming is really the only thing that is GPU limited, that particular article had to do with real life gaming. This means GPU limited and I dare anyone to say that modern games aren't GPU limited.

@ beerandcandy. If you had read the article you will note they tried to do the test with a 7950GX2 but had driver issues, it also said the following at the end.

When it comes to playing games, the only persons that need to be even a little concerned with upgrading their CPU to a Core 2 processor might be those with high-end SLI, CrossFire, or GeForce GX2 video cards and we have yet to prove that due to the testing limitations we ran into. Then, and only then, you might see an Intel Core 2 processor deliver a performance advantage.
The article also said that there IS a performance increase using the intel chips but not enough of one to upgrade a computer that is currently running well, as the next quote shows.

If I had an older system and had to put my foot down and choose a system with the future in mind, I would probably lean toward the Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 platform for “future proofing” if Oblivion were any indication of future games. If you have a higher-end AMD Athlon 64 system platform right now though, there really isn’t any need to go scrambling to Intel Core 2 at this particular time for gaming. I’d wait it out and see what the future brings.
Come on guys, don't make knee jerk reactions to stuff like this, if I was upgrading right now then YES I would go with a core2duo, the point of the article was that if you had a decent processor right now then in GAMING (at decent resolutions) there would not be a big increase, some but not big.

Some of you should also go back and READ the entire fucking article before you post against it.
 

Pompeii

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2005
173
0
18,680
0
Let's simplify things for some people:

The entire point of this review was to see the impact that a Core 2 Duo processor has on gaming. The reality of things is that it has no impact, unless you are running an crossfire/sli rig or a 7950GX2 card.

I personally expected that to happen. Recent games have always been gpu limited, and we can expect future games to be more so.

Look at games like Crysis, I am scared to think of the hardware required to run that game at the highest settings. But I am willing to bet money that the game is more dependent on the video card then on the cpu.

I don't see what is so hard to understand about this review.
 

Heyyou27

Splendid
Jan 4, 2006
5,164
0
25,780
0
come one hey you, you know better than that. seriously, that was the point of the article. it was showing real world game tests. it was not to see how the CPU peroformed on its own it was to show how it performed as part of a normal system and obviously for the most part it showed what we all knew and that is at GPU limited settings the CP matter squat.

to me as a gamer conroe is not worth upgrading nor worth building a new computer around if the one you have only needs a new gfx card to play the newest games.
I know that in real world gaming at high resolutions, it doesn't matter what CPU you have. I don't like the way HardOCP tries to make it as if all of the CPUs are equal thanks to the GPU bottleneck. Will I buy a new Conroe system? Hell no, but that doesn't mean I should tell other people that a Core 2 Duo is no better than the FX62.
 

thefatguy1978

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2006
20
0
18,510
0
First point. Overpriced??????????????

$316 - E6600

The E6600 beat or was % points behind the $1100 FX-62.

Second Point.

For the same $999, FX-62 compared to X6800(unlocked multipliers), the X6800 was overclockable to 3.46GHz with the stock cooler. So 4Ghz is very possible with these chips.... FX-62 overclocks to what? 3GHz? Clock for clock, the Core2 is faster than an FX-62... So why wouldn't you want a FX-62 equivalent overclocked to 4GHz??

Third Point.
For the same reason that you could not convince Intel fanboys and Intel's Execs that the K8 was superior to the P7(Netburst Pentiums). You will never convince AMD fanboys that Core2 ( P8 ) is superior in every way to K8. What more proof do you need than having a 2.4GHz Core2 outperforming a 2.8GHz FX in 70% of the benchmarks? Then again AMD fanboys believed that K7 was faster than P6 too... Again not true. Wishful thinking and spin are not reality.

Final point.
Y'all should have seen this coming. Pentium M, Yonah was close to Athlon 64 clock for clock. Core Duo was real close. Core 2, well, 3rd time's the charm!

AMD needs to move on K9...... Ruff.
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY