C2D Vrs 4400+ A must read!

[-CsA-TAZ]

Well after running a few bench marks with my 4400 AMD and C2D both @ stock and both OC'ed as far as i could manage to date! Graphic card not OC'ed, stock 625/750

 

Total 3DMark06 projects: 5

Project slots available: 0

You must delete one or more projects before you can submit new ones.

 

Score: 6177

Date: 2006-10-02

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 2604 MHz

GPU: ATI RADEON X1900 XTX

N/A / N/A

OS: Microsoft Windows XP

Res: 1280x1024

 

Score: 6131

Date: 2006-11-05

CPU: Intel Core 2 3147 MHz

GPU: ATI RADEON X1900 XTX

N/A / N/A

OS: Microsoft Windows XP

Res: 1280x1024

 

Score: 5791

Date: 2006-11-03

CPU: Intel Core 2 2402 MHz

GPU: ATI RADEON X1900 XTX

N/A / N/A

OS: Microsoft Windows XP

Res: 1280x1024

 

Score: 5498

Date: 2006-10-13

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 2402 MHz

GPU: ATI RADEON X1900 XTX

N/A / N/A

OS: Microsoft Windows Server 2003

Res: 1280x1024

 

Score: 5335

Date: 2006-08-30

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 2212 MHz

GPU: ATI RADEON X1900 XTX

N/A / N/A

OS: Microsoft Windows XP

Res: 1280x1024

 

 

Other System was;

 

AMD 64 X2 4400+ 2MB SOCKET 939 TOLEDO @2.6

AC Freezer 64 Pro + AS5

DFI LanParty Ultra -d

HIS ATI Radeon X1900 XT ICEQ 3 SILENT Heatpipe 512MB GDDR3

G.Skill 2GB DDR HZ PC4000 (2x1GB) 3.4.4.8 1T

Samsung SpinPoint P SP2504C 250GB SATA-II

Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi Fatal1ty FPS

Saitek PZ08AU Gamers Keyboard

Logitech MX 1000 laser Mouse

Logitech Z-2300 2.1 Speakers 200w RMS

Enermax EG701-AX 600W

Antec P180 case

[Angry_Games]

?

 

why is this a "must read"?

[WintersFury]

I'd guess cause at the top it shows an AMD chip at 2.6 beating a C2D chip at 3.1.

 

Would be nice if you posted the SM2 / SM3 / CPU scores of each system for each test. And important driver versions and whatnot, you don't even say if your using the same driver versions...

 

And is XP x64 runing on both systems?

[ghettotech]

need to show some aquamark3 scores to make the fan boys cry

 

3dmark 06 doesnt reflect how much better the C2d really us. My old P805d scored 6100 in pcmark 06.

[CharmedLover84]

If the Core2Duo ain't better in 3DMark06, it ain't really all that better now is it?

 

I have to say I'm disappointed (again) in them.

 

Old Guy's is runnin' at 3.8GHz and he's of course feedin' me dust, BUT the fact that he's 800MHz faster than I am alone would make up for most of that.

 

I am tempted to ask'em to run it at 2.96GHz and see how much he beats me by then, that would be a true comparison

 

And in order for this test you listed here to be truly compatible and comparable, you need to run it with EVERYTHING the same except the processors, or as close as it can be to the same. That I think would give the Core2Duo the edge... question is how much of an edge.

[red930]

If the Core2Duo ain't better in 3DMark06, it ain't really all that better now is it?

 

I have to say I'm disappointed (again) in them.

 

It has been shown repeatedly that they aren't a magical thing that'll gain you 20 fps in games automatically, most games aren't cpu bound anyways and an overclocked dual core AMD isn't anything to scoff at.

 

Just keep that in mind.

 

They really are excellent for processing large amounts of data very fast, and thats where they shine. Expecting increased gaming ability is a no no. They'll help with physics of course, but if you want higher framerates keep what you've got and get an 8800.

[CharmedLover84]

I'm actually debating selling my GTXs online to buy a 8800GTX when they come out... dunno, probably won't do it until I've seen reviews and determined whether or not they're worth it...

 

which with 768MB of onboard ram, 384-Bit Memory Interface and all that, I'm sure they will be.

[red930]

I'm actually debating selling my GTXs online to buy a 8800GTX when they come out... dunno, probably won't do it until I've seen reviews and determined whether or not they're worth it...

 

which with 768MB of onboard ram, 384-Bit Memory Interface and all that, I'm sure they will be.

 

I think its a better buy for gamers rather than grabbing a processor, board, and memory.

 

But I'll wait a month or so before deciding.

[-CsA-TAZ]

?

 

why is this a "must read"?

 

I thought it was obvious! but in case its not the point was that when it come s to gaming C2D aint all that, and I Would have been better off getting a CF MoBo and a CF 1900XT-X for less than the £550 i paid to go C2D just to get less gaming performance than i had before the upgraded, yes it OC way better but does not equal performance that i was expecting, yes my 3D/05 inproved, and aqua3 hit 11700 which is good for an ATi card, as i was only getting 80,000 odd before with my previous set up, knowing what i know now I would have not bothered! Time to OC my card now I suppose!:drool:

[-CsA-TAZ]

It has been shown repeatedly that they aren't a magical thing that'll gain you 20 fps in games automatically, most games aren't cpu bound anyways and an overclocked dual core AMD isn't anything to scoff at.

 

Just keep that in mind.

 

They really are excellent for processing large amounts of data very fast, and thats where they shine. Expecting increased gaming ability is a no no. They'll help with physics of course, but if you want higher framerates keep what you've got and get an 8800.

 

Sound advice although a little late for me, but we live and learn, tbh @ stock i was not expecting it to be that much better than my AMD was, but having OC'ed it with no effort and all ready knowing it stood a good chance of going beyond 3GHz which my AMD would never reach I was hoping for a better 3d/06 score Maybe i am doing something wrong or overlooked something, will take another look soon!

[CharmedLover84]

Hey CsA, why don't you try clockin' that Duo around the same as the X2 (2.6ish) and see what the difference is... I'd love to see those results, very tempted to have a comparison with Old Guy even though I know I'll loose LOL

[Angry_Games]

well I got to say that Crossfire...ain't all everyone wishes it was.

 

I'm pretty sure these days I'd rather have some good SLI action since it actually works (and doesn't require .NET, doesn't require some bs CCC that eats up 150MB of RAM, doesn't require some stupid dongle and a master card, games actually run just fine in SLI for the most part and if not, you can choose multiple rendering modes to find a good one until NV releases drivers with a profile, etc)

 

After using Crossfire for about...7 months...I've about had it with it.

 

It rocks real nice in 3d benchmarks...but I'm beginning to honestly hate it in real games since...I play a good amount of games and in every game so far, I get better performance with a single card.

 

NWN2 is a prime example...runs like butt with Crossfire on (6.10 latest drivers) but disable Crossfire and a single card runs it like a champ (and then there's momma's rig with a lowly 7800GT and it seems to run better than my rig for some reason)

 

anyway

 

I've got a lot of testing that I've done and I've found the opposite (got to get around posting my benchmarks)...that the Core2 is still a better processor even in gaming.

 

ESPECIALLY in gaming at 1024x768 and 1280x1024.

 

The margings are thinner at 1600x1200 and higher, but at those two 'majority' resolutions, the Core2 is the winner.

 

When you start getting up into the big-time res like 1920x1200 etc, you'll see the socket AM2 board probably start to have the advantage since the onboard memory controller is able to move huge amounts of data in and out of the cpu without any 'bottleneck' of a separate memory controller hub (ie: Intel/AthlonXP).

 

Intel Core2 cpu's are super fast...but they have the same fault as all cpu's that rely on external memory controllers...once they fill up that channel, they start to choke on the bottleneck.

 

AMD64 cpu's do not exhibit this problem, which is why when you get to the big res like 1600x1200 and higher, the A64 is a lot closer in performance to C2D (the C2D is still the stronger, superior cpu, but the A64 doesn't choke on lack of memory bandwidth that those super resolutions require to move data back and forth).

 

 

 

here's another thing you must take into account:

 

test some real games

 

3dmark200x is fine and dandy for benchmarks, but as I've already said, they aren't what you will see the real power of a setup in. A core2 and A64 might show the same 3dmark scores at 1024x768, but real games will show the increase.

 

I mean, if Crossfire works like a champ and shows scores of 40k in '03 and 160k in Aquamark, but won't run my NWN any faster than my gf's 7800GT...what kind of results are those?

 

it really means we should completely move away from using these programs as performance benchmarks and use them mainly for stability testing, as well as comparing system to system (in a sense, performance, but we really need to move away from them as a 'realworld' performance indicator...because after you run 250+ benchmarks between those 3dmark benches and lots of real games like CoH, Serious Sam II, HL2, FEAR, etc, you start to see that those benches are worthless when comparing how a real game is going to perform)

 

anyway, that's my soapbox.

 

and if you are going to compare stuff, might want to show people some results, not just type them. If you want examples, look at the top stickies in the AMD - Overclocking section.