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
CPU Bound Gaming Performance
While we always try to run our gaming benchmarks in CPU reviews as a balance between being CPU and GPU bound, there is some merit to using CPU bound gaming scenarios as a true measure of the gaming power of a CPU.
The previous pages of gaming benchmarks were run at 1600 x 1200, which struck a good balance between being CPU and GPU bound on our CrossFire setup but here we’re looking at exactly how good of a gaming CPU the Core 2 Duo is. By running these tests at 640 x 480 with the same CrossFire setup as before we’re ensuring that the performance bottlenecks in these titles shift as far as possible from the GPU and onto the CPU.
These tests aren’t designed to tell you how fast these CPUs are at running these games, but rather how quickly they can run through the physics and AI code when not waiting on the graphics card at all.
We chose to look at two CPUs: the Core 2 Extreme X6800 and the Athlon 64 FX-62, to get an idea of how strong each architecture was at pure physics/AI processing in games. We also omitted any games whose performance didn’t change by dropping the resolution from 1600 x 1200 to 640 x 480 (meaning that those games were already predominantly CPU limited in our previous tests).
| CPU | Quake 4 | HL2 Ep 1 | F.E.A.R. | BF2 |
| AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 | 156.7 | 170.0 | 164.0 | 108.7 |
| Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 | 192.5 | 263.5 | 236.0 | 142.3 |
| Advantage (Intel) | 22.8% | 55.0% | 43.9% | 30.9% |
In terms of sheer ability to process physics and AI as well as feed a hungry graphics subsystem, Intel's Core 2 Extreme X6800 is anywhere between 22 and 55% faster than AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62.
While this doesn't mean much for real world gaming, it does cement the fact that Intel's Core 2 processor is significantly faster at the type of code current 3D games will throw at it. The very same benchmarks that Intel used to complain about favoring AMD, now favor Intel just as much; oh how times have changed.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
202 Comments
View All Comments
finbarqs - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
just to show you how EASY it is to O/C the system! (and for the Futuremark junkies :-) )http://www.futuremark.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1...">http://www.futuremark.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1...
You would want one :)
if you want to know, 3DMark 2001SE posted a score of 45k, and 3DMark 2003 posted a 33k, FACTORY.
phaxmohdem - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
I was wondering if you could possibly do some "single core" performance testing in the CPU's by simply changing the HAL to "ACPI Uniprocessor PC" instead of "multiprocessor PC" This would tel windows to only use one of the Core2 Duo cores, and I think would give us a good indication of how it will perform when released. Especially on the 2MB cache models, since I'm guessing the single cores won't bust out the door with a full 4MB.Just some food for thought/consideration. I personally would love to see a few tests run this way and compared to some single/dual core A64's.
JarredWalton - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Conroe-L is so far off that it's really an afterthought. The only reason it's not shipping is that Intel has a ton of Netburst stuff to offload, IMO. At $145, the PD 945 is still interesting in terms of certain computational tasks. (I miss the QMD Folding@Home cores....)fishbits - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
I had hoped AMD could gain even more market-share before something like this happened, would rather see the two CPU makers on more even footing. Intel just hit this one out of the park however, if pricing holds and availability is decent. Was looking at upgrading my 3500 (939) to a $300 X2 4600 after the price drop, but now? It looks like I'll probably keep this system and build a new rig around a $300 Intel 6600, which wins over or smokes the 4600 depending on benchmark. I really don't know what AMD can do to keep me in the short term, because I don't know if they can make any money dropping prices as far as it looks like they'll need to go.SpaceRanger - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
One thing to consider though, if you decide to go with the C2D 6600, then you will also have to spend $$ on a new Mobo + Memory (since your DDR RAM won't work on the platforms for C2D. Keep that in mind when you're upgrading.fishbits - Saturday, July 15, 2006 - link
When I said that if I went with Intel I'd keep my current rig and build a new one around the Conroe, didn't it dawn on you that I'd already "considered" the need to get a new mobo, memory, etc?SpaceRanger - Sunday, July 16, 2006 - link
Holy arrogance.. EXCUSE ME for pointing something out..epsilonparadox - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Well the loads of money they made when they had the better performing architecture can hopefully keep them doing very well also the Opteron isn't really being challenged and thats really their moneymaker right now. They shouldn't have any problems lowering prices on their desktop chips while keeping the status quo on the Opterons.zsdersw - Saturday, July 15, 2006 - link
They can't really keep the status quo on the Opterons either. Woodcrest excels (or, at the very least, is equal to the Opteron) in the 1P and 2P server space.. which is a huge chunk of the overall server market.LoneWolf15 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
While I'm sad to see AMD lose the performance crown, I'm not so obtuse as to deny it's happening.I'm excited by Intel's newest chip, but I think the results for me will be that I'll buy a faster Athlon 64 X2 when the prices drop (assuming Socket 939 ones become cheaper as well, I don't plan a move to Socket AM2 for some time to come). So Intel's newest chip should benefit even those of us sticking with an AMD system. :)