With AMD slashing processor prices we figured that now was a great time to take a look at gaming performance on a pair $185 desktop processors. With enthusiasts and gamers waiting to see realistic gaming performance numbers we tested six games at various resolutions of 1024x1768, 1600x1200 and 1920x1600 to show you what's up. This is a must read for those on a budget!
well done, I like how you added stalker in there. It shows that AMD is still in competition for the normal market of gamers. AKA the people who don't overclock just spend there money for stock performance. In this case it show amd as the choice to be in my opinion from what you are showing in the tests. However knowing the true capability of the processors I would have to say the intel steals the show. Im glad you mentioned that at the end. I actually expected the intel at 1.86 to be dead even or better than the 2.8 amd. Guess pure GHz does help at times.
dgood wrote:well done, I like how you added stalker in there. It shows that AMD is still in competition for the normal market of gamers. AKA the people who don't overclock just spend there money for stock performance. In this case it show amd as the choice to be in my opinion from what you are showing in the tests. However knowing the true capability of the processors I would have to say the intel steals the show. Im glad you mentioned that at the end. I actually expected the intel at 1.86 to be dead even or better than the 2.8 amd. Guess pure GHz does help at times.
Thanks for the great feedback... I'm neither an Intel or an AMD fan boy, so I try to keep things as straight forward as can be and I'm glad you noticed that I tried my best! Cheers to you!
I just bought S.T.A.L.K.E.R. last weekend to play personally and couldn't help but install it on these two platforms as the graphics engine is pretty unique.
Loved the article and the conclusion. I don't consider myself a "fanboy" of either companies. Love the competition, the consumer ends up winning in the end.
This is one of those "reviews" to find a place where AMD can win. It makes for good fodder.. In fact Inquirer.Net already changed the nsame of the is reivew to " AMD demolished Core".. Goes to show you how pathetic this all is.
Clearly, comparing Intel low end Core 2 offering with AMD's top end offering is not implied. Instead, it is masked by the "Battle of the $200 processors".
Useless. The target audience for this is not interested in budget processor wars.
DallasTexas wrote:This is one of those "reviews" to find a place where AMD can win. It makes for good fodder.. In fact Inquirer.Net already changed the nsame of the is reivew to " AMD demolished Core".. Goes to show you how pathetic this all is.
Clearly, comparing Intel low end Core 2 offering with AMD's top end offering is not implied. Instead, it is masked by the "Battle of the $200 processors".
Useless. The target audience for this is not interested in budget processor wars.
The target audience has a huge influence on what other people buy, their suggestions to friends and family that don't plan to overclock will be more informed by this article instead of a blanket statement that Intel dominates AMD at every price point.
IMHO, AMD forfeited the 'high-end' title to the 5600+ when they slashed it's prices. This is what AMD had to do to get consumers to start buying their products again... I think this will help AMD's bottom line because I think they were losing that much business to the Conroe... Time will tell though.
Great review to bring this price/performance to the attention of the regular consumers, while still mentioning that if you are an overclocker, the story hasn't really changed.
All the Intel prices are now as of today out of date.............. For less than $200 at a few e-tailers you can now pick-up the new C2D E6420 with 4 meg cache.............. That should really put a cramp in the AMD 5600+ panties...............