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
Kougar - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
I wasn't sure of the B2 Stepping 6 info because it has been impossible to find CPU-Z shots of this chip, let alone anyone reviewing them!!Mostly I just want to ensure Intel doesn't pull any surprises or OC limiting with them, at this point if the B2 Stepping 6 with that last round of bugfixing performs even the same as a Stepping 5 I'd be extremely happy!
redpriest_ - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Thanks Wesley - my Core 2 Duo Extreme X6800 is definitely a Stepping 6, Revision B2 Conroe. It has a packaging date of July 5, 2006. I have all the multipliers unlocked, and I am stuck at around 3.466 ghz using multipliers only for stability. I am running on the Intel 975X BadAxe rev 304 with the latest BIOS.I haven't tried upping the bus from there, yet - I am using 1.4 volts; default voltage isn't dual prime 95 stable at 3.466 ghz, but is at 3.2 ghz.
I haven't tried any intermediate voltages between there to test, so it's possible my Conroe is stable at 3.466 ghz at less voltage. I'll give that a try.
Kougar - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
What motherboard is this? Have you double-checked your RAM settings and memory ratio? I'd imagine setting a 1:1 ratio, using the most relaxed timings, and slowly ramping up the FSB would get you further. And do try less voltages... ;)That's my plan anyway, DDR2-800 memory speeds on a 1:1 ratio thanks to a 400FSB, 10x multiplier... :)
Kougar - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Anandtech used Engineering Sample CPUs, so they would be B0 Stepping 4 or B1 Stepping 5 only. Only retail models will be B2 stepping 6...Did you change your cpu voltage any? Sounds like you didn't ;)
redpriest_ - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
I had to - 1.4 (1.35 real) to get to 3.466, and 1.5 to 3.733.Wesley Fink - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Did you OC by adjusting multipliers first? We could run the X6800 at 3.46 at 13 multiplier using stock voltage, but using 315 bus times the stock 11 multiplier required a small voltage increase. The easiest OCs used higher multipliers and modest FSB increases. The E Conroes are locked, however, and can only be overclocked by increasing the FSB.redpriest_ - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Yes, I tried using multipliers only, I haven't fiddled with bus speed yet.Kougar - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
First, the X6800 is selling at NewEgg, and they are price gouging it for all it's worth. Still listed in stock after having been up for 3+ hours...What a great way to start the day... Thank you Anandtech for this great article! Supurb! Now I have to agree with the poster above me, some info on the E6300 overclocking would about round out my curiosity!
I have a question though, do y'all or anyone else have some CPUZ shots of a retail shipping Conroe? I believe this are supposed to be revision B2 stepping 6??
As for the expected skeptics, my saying the numbers appear to jive won't mean anything... so I'll just say there are over 25 reviews out now of the Core 2 Duo released today. :)
mAdMaLuDaWg - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
I'm curious on if you tried OCing the E6300. What was the highest stable speed you were able to get.xsilver - Monday, July 17, 2006 - link
for those who dont want to read the xbit labs articlethe overclocking of the e6300 is limited by the motherboard - eg. cant get the board to boot at any higher than 420mhz fsb
we may have to wait for nvidia's core2 solution to see higher fsb's