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 Quake 4, Battlefield 2 & Half Life 2 Episode 1
Our gaming performance analysis starts out with Quake 4 running at 1600 x 1200 with High Quality visual settings. We used version 1.2 of Quake 4 and SMP was enabled:
The performance advantage in Quake 4 starts off high, but not astronomical for the Core 2 processors. The Core 2 Extreme X6800 is just over 11% faster than the Athlon 64 FX-62, mainly because we're looking at it in a more GPU bound light than we have in the past. Regardless, it is a performance advantage and far better than the older days of NetBurst chips where Intel's best could barely keep up with AMD.
Looking at Battlefield 2 performance, Intel begins to improve its gaming performance lead as we are becoming more CPU bound:
The Core 2 Extreme X6800 now attains a 19% performance lead over the FX-62, and the E6600 manages a 10.9% advantage itself.
Next up we've got the recently released Half Life 2: Episode 1, running at default quality settings (auto detected with a pair of X1900 XTs installed) with the exception of AA and aniso being disabled. As with all of our gaming tests in this article we tested at 1600 x 1200:
Half Life 2: Episode 1 provided us with numbers closer to what we saw with Quake 4, the performance advantage here is just over 12% for the X6800 over the FX-62. With a couple of speed bumps, AMD could equal Intel's gaming performance here. But the real issue for AMD is the fact that the E6600 priced at $316, is able to outperform the FX-62 at over twice the price. The E6300 continues to provide a great value but isn't nearly as impressive as the rest of the Core 2 line.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
202 Comments
View All Comments
bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
I agree. 20% is huge and noticeable.Chadder007 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
AMD's midrange holds up pretty well but when you go higher the Core2 crushes AMD this time.I would really like to see some X64bit benchmarks though to see how they will both fair with the future OSs.
Gary Key - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Coming shortly along with MCE2005......bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Don't confuse the Core Solo with the Core 2 Duo. The Solo is still Netburst whereas the Core 2 Duo is a new architecture.DrMrLordX - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Um what? Core Solo isn't Netburst. It's a single-core version of Yonah as I recall. Basically, it's similar to a Dothan.bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Which is still Netburst.mlittl3 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Uh, no. Banias, Dothan, Yonah are not at all based on netburst. They are all P6 derivatives that use the netburst quad-pumped FSB. The Core Solo is a Yonah single core that has more in common with the PIII than the P4. The Core 2 Solo coming next year will be based on Conroe which of course is not Netburst. The ONLY, I repeat, ONLY netburst CPUs (not including Xeons) are the Pentium 4, Pentium D, Celeron D. There were mobile Pentium 4's on the netburst architecture but these haven't been used in years.The Pentium M (Banias and Dothan) is NOT based on netburst but a redesigned architecture based on the research in Israel.
mlittl3 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
And in case you try to stupidly refute me, list the number of pipelines that are in Banias, Dothan and Yonah. If the answer is less than 20, then it is NOT netburst.Oh wait, here is the answer right here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_P6">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_P6
A direct quote:
"It[Banias] has very limited system bandwidth, as compared to NetBurst and AMD64..."
Since Banias is not netburst and Dothan is based off of Banias and Yonah is based on Dothan, then...wait for it...all three are not netburst. Have a nice day! :)
bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
I don't refute facts. :)mlittl3 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Man after my own heart. :)