Gaming Performance

Doom 3

Our Doom 3 CPU Battlegrounds article already made it quite clear that Intel did not have what it takes to be the highest performer in Doom 3. The 3.46EE doesn't manage to help Intel as much as they need.

Doom 3

Counterstrike: Source

The next big game after Doom 3 is, of course, Half Life 2. And while the game is still not out, Valve's Visual Stress Test that comes with Counterstrike: Source gives us a good glimpse into future performance under Half Life 2.

Half Life 2/Counterstrike: Source VST

Halo

Halo 1.05

Starwars Battlefront

Starwars Battlefront

Battlefield Vietnam

Battlefield Vietnam is similar to Starwars Battlefront not only in its game play but also in its performance; there's no real difference between any of the top performers here. Almost all of these CPUs end up being GPU limited at 1024x768.

Battlefield Vietnam

Unreal Tournament 2004

Unreal Tournament 2004

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory

An oldie but a goodie, Enemy Territory is still played quite a bit and makes for a great CPU test as today's GPUs can easily handle the rendering load of the Quake 3 based game.

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory

The Sims 2

While a clear departure from our usual game tests, The Sims 2 is more popular than any of the other games we've featured here in certain crowds - it is effectively the Doom 3 of those who don't play prefer life-simulation to first person shooters. And interestingly enough, it makes for a very impressive CPU benchmark.

The Sims 2

Far Cry

Far Cry 1.2

Warcraft III

Warcraft III The Frozen Throne

Audio/Video Encoding 3D Rendering
Comments Locked

63 Comments

View All Comments

  • IntelUser2000 - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    Intel is not doing bad. They are doing terrible. So terrible that you might as well call them dead. Probably will last till 2009 before they fill bankruptcy.

    To those people who say people in forums don't know anything and that there are other people stupid enough to buy Intel chips(I mean all Intel chips): Uhh, yeah, get your head straight, since AMD is closing with Intel very rapidly in marketshare, in server, desktop, and laptop, and that means that gamers actually do make a difference(albeit slowly) making other people buy computers. You think other people will buy P4's because of high clock speed? That's BS, since people who is stupid enough to buy Intel chips don't even know what clock speeds does. There are only a very few that knows computers JUST enough to say clock speed is good.
  • Tides - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    believe me, everyone wants the best they can get for the least cash.
  • FinalFantasy - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    Intel is not doing good right now. I know a lot of people rested their hopes for Intel to strike back with the release of this chip. But alas, we are still seeing the same problems with this chip as we've seen with it's predecessors.

    1. Way overpriced
    2. Still getting whooped by AMD's 64-bit chips

    The choice is clear here, buy an average AMD chip for a fraction of the price and still be able to outperform your friend's Intel EE based machine that he spent $2,500-3,000 on to build, while you spent about $1,500 (factor in price a person pays for an Intel EE chip and a couple of sticks of DDR2).
  • Pandaren - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    What the community here forgets is that the common person doesn't care for 10 extra FPS in a game or 3 seconds faster on that photoshop filter. They want a reliable, dependable computer with good support at a reasonable price.

    Dell provides that with Intel chips. People honestly don't care if the Intel chip is not faster.

    Those of us who do care about performance and price/performance will build our own. I replaced my Dell with a homebuilt AMD box for that reason, but I don't expect everyone to do the same.
  • SLIM - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    "SLIM

    You're forgetting DDR2 price which this needs in your so called Intel is "cheaper" comparison. If you want the same price setup you can get a FX-55 and really bring the wood."

    ZEBO
    Perhaps you didn't read my post correctly or didn't read the review, but the first paragraph in post #14 is a direct quote from the review (that's why there are QUOTATION MARKS around it). The two comments below the QUOTE were my views on Anand's conclusion of the 560 v 3800 comparison at the end of the review. Your comment actually agrees with what I said.
  • Tides - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    they would if they had it
  • swatX - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    why doesnt intel just release a dual core platform or a 64bit chip already..gezz its like they are acting like ATI "we will release 64-vit chips only when apps start to use it" ...
  • NotMrT - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    Last time i remember AMD domminating this much was in the time of the thunderbirds
  • Chapbass - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link

    #43:

    One thing that i can vouch for, being a college student: Almost every college student not "in the know" with building systems buys a dell....because theyre sold through the college. At least my college they are. DEFINITELY the most common systems around here (and it makes me sick) : P.

    It seems like households are more into HP/compaq, where schools, both k-12 and college, are totally dell.

    Just something ive noticed around where im from. YMMV.

    -Chap
  • justly - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link

    I find it interesting that the page compareing an A64 3800+ to the P4 560 shows the P4 winning the multitasking content creation. Well that isn't the interesting part, but the fact that Intel only won this because it took all three SYSmark tests is (the SYSmark tests wher the only thing Intel won in this catagory). I guess what really amuses me is remembering a comment in a article a while back (I think it was Anand himself who made the comment) implying that the SYSmark scores did not reflect the rest of their testing and that it seemed to favor Intel.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now