Intel's Core 2 Extreme & Core 2 Duo: The Empire Strikes Back
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 14, 2006 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Gaming Performance using F.E.A.R. & Rise of Legends
Our F.E.A.R. test should be fairly familiar by now, as it is the built in performance test included with the game. Computer settings were left at "Maximum" while the graphics settings were set to "High" with the resolution cranked up to 1600 x 1200. F.E.A.R. ends up still being more GPU than CPU bound at these settings, even with a pair of X1900 XTs at its disposal, but we do see some separation among the processors:
The top three spots still go to the top three Core 2 CPUs, with the E6300 falling around the level of the X2 4600+. A trend that we've been seeing all throughout this review is that the performance of these CPUs effectively falls into three groups: Core 2 processors at the top, Athlon 64 X2s in the middle and Pentium D at the very bottom of the charts. In a sense that's the easiest way to classify these three groups of processors: if you want the fastest it's Core 2, mid-range goes to the Athlon 64 X2 and if you don't like good performance there's always the Pentium D.
Rise of Legends is a newcomer to our game benchmark suite and what an excellent addition it is. This Real Time Strategy game looks very good and plays well too; it serves as good filler until the next Command & Conquer title eventually arrives for those looking for a RTS fix. We ran with the resolution set to 1600 x 1200 and the graphics settings set to the medium defaults. We recorded a custom playback of a 3 vs. 2 multiplayer battle and played it back at 4x speed, recording the average frame rate for 10 minutes of the battle. The 10 minutes we focused on contained a good mix of light skirmishes between opponents, base/resource management with very few characters on the screen and of course some very large scale battles.
As with most RTSes, Rise of Legends is extremely CPU bound. The performance variability between runs was fairly high in this test, mainly because of how disk intensive the playback can get. Differences in performance of up to 5% should be ignored, but the standings are correct - the Core 2 line of processors absolutely demolish the competition: you're looking at true next-generation CPU performance here. The E6300 isn't nearly as impressive when compared to its more expensive siblings, but when you compare it to AMD's lineup it looks very good, especially considering its proposed cost.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
202 Comments
View All Comments
Gary Key - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
The first nF4 Intel Edition boards will be available the week of 7/20. The nForce 500 boards for Intel will not be available until early August. We are now under NDA for the nForce 500 until NVIDIA makes their release announcement. However, there are a couple of nForce 500 boards that look very promising at this time. Do not expect high FSB overclocking results until NVIDIA's next chipset but overall performance is very good at this time.mobutu - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Thank you very much for the info you shared.Still, one more question: what do you mean "nVidia next chipset"? Like nF6 or smtg? Because if so it means probably Q4 2006 or Q1 2007 ...
Gary Key - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
The one that will come out this winter that we cannot discuss except for the fact that it will be a single chip and dual x16 capable. :) Of course, no real mention of it so far but ATI has a really nice Intel chipset due in late August to early September followed up by a refresh in the winter also.mobutu - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Oh, I got it. Thank you very much, much appreciated.Looking forward to see Anandtech review of Conroe motherboards.
Visual - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
you really need to include scores for 4ghz conroes, and maybe some 3.2ghz x2s(though this isnt really needed) and your review will be the most perfectest one evar!JarredWalton - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
We generally reserve overclocking scores for articles specifically looking at that aspect. It's unfair to include OC'ed Core 2 without OC'ed X2, FX, etc. I hope to get a Core 2 in the near future to run some specific OC benchmarks comparing a lower end (E6300 and/or E6600) Core 2 with X2 3800+ (hopefully EE, but we'll see).junior1 - Saturday, July 15, 2006 - link
Jarred that would be great to see. The E6300 and X2 3800+ seem close, but the final AMD pricing and the overclocking potential of each could really make either the clear winner for performance per dollar in the midrange segment.
Is the die size smaller on E6300 and E6400, or is it a full die with half the cache disabled? Any chance the smaller cache means better OC potential?
It would be great to see results with several chipsets.
Warder45 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
awww. At least give us a taste, maybe 2 or 3 of the most CPU intensive tests run at 4ghz.Gary Key - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Just wait a few days.... :)mendocinosummit - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Ya, that is what I was hoping for. I want to see a dual core (that has some balls, unlike the preslers) run at 4ghz and do some benchmarks