ABS Ultimate X9: Core 2 Extreme Hits a Speed Bump
by Jarred Walton on August 18, 2006 1:35 PM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Gaming Resolution Scaling
As the previous gaming benchmarks appear to be GPU limited in most cases, we wanted to take a look at performance at a couple other resolutions. 1280x1024 is a common resolution for LCD users while 1920x1200 is becoming very popular at the high-end. Given that we are already GPU limited at 1600x1200, 1920x1200 will be even more GPU limited. However, "GPU limited" does not equate to "slow" as performance in most of the tested titles is still more than acceptable at this resolution. We included additional games in these comparisons, and since we are performing all of the tests solely on the ABS system the difference between CPU clock speeds is more meaningful, and the margin of error is much lower (less than 1% between runs).
We will also include results from running the games with sound enabled using an X-Fi card, where applicable, to show the performance impact of enabling audio. We would like to take a moment to state that the onboard audio on the Intel motherboard is a far inferior solution compared to other offerings, and we would definitely recommend the purchase of a Creative Labs X-Fi soundcard for anyone looking to buy/build a high-end gaming system using this board -- really we would recommend an X-Fi for just about any serious gamer, and audio professionals would want to look at other add-in cards as the onboard audio is at best adequate in most cases. The Sigmatel audio does not support EAX at all, nor does it support OpenAL. Games which use OpenAL will be limited to stereo audio, and the sound quality was clearly inferior in all games even with $50 Logitech 5.1 speakers. We won't report gaming performance using the onboard audio, as it was not doing the same amount of work as the X-Fi card.
The drop in performance when going from 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 and from 1600x1200 to 1920x1200 is a clear indication that we are almost completely GPU limited in all of the games at the tested settings. At the lower resolutions, there is a slight separation between the three benchmarked clock speeds, but nowhere near the 32% difference in CPU speed. Unfortunately, we do not have an equivalent NVIDIA configuration for comparison included, but we expect results from 7900 GTX SLI to be similar overall: slightly higher in some cases and perhaps lower in others, but still mostly GPU limited. That said, the good news is that performance is more than acceptable in all of the tested games at the tested resolutions.
Note that the results provided here for Serious Sam 2 and Quake 4 are from a different versions of the game/demos and are not directly comparable with the results on the previous page. The HOC benchmark utility was used to run Quake 4 tests for comparison with the motherboard reviews, whereas the Quake 4 benchmarks here were run manually, and we also included a standard single player Q4 timedemo. (The HOC utility does not properly support widescreen resolutions, and it does create a slight overhead when benchmarking, so in order to be internally consistent all of the tests here were run manually.) The results from both the TimeDemo and the PlayNetTimeDemo are nearly identical, other than the fact that the NetDemo scores about 15% lower. The previous page used version 2.070 of Serious Sam 2, and the Branchester demo provided is very different from the version provided with 2.066. Results are internally consistent however, and this simply highlights the fact that no single benchmark can demonstrate what performance you will experience in every situation.
Call of Duty 2 showed some significant variations between benchmark runs with audio enabled, and it also experienced periodic display corruption. This once again leads us to the conclusion that the GPUs can get overly hot and cause problems due to lack of waterflow. We were eventually able to get consistent scores, but the margin of error -- at least with audio -- was much larger than in other tests.
F.E.A.R. also returned some odd results, as it performed better at 1600x1200 than at 1280x960 in nearly every test. We are apparently becoming CPU limited, but it also seems that the drivers and/or game are not fully optimized for certain resolutions. 1280x1024 scored about 10% lower on minimum frame rates than at 1280x960, and came in at 82 FPS average frame rates. The minimum frame rates on all tested configurations were significantly higher at 1600x1200 than at either lower resolution (roughly 45 FPS at 16x12 vs. 30 FPS at 1280x960).
Notably missing from our benchmark results is Oblivion. Attempts to run Oblivion on the ABS system with CrossFire enabled initially resulted in a black screen. The audio still played, and we could exit the game by using the appropriate keyboard shortcuts, but the only way to get the display output to work was to disable CrossFire. We haven't been able to figure out the exact cause, but Oblivion has now started to work properly. It could be the addition of an X-Fi card (the system was initially shipped without one), or it could just be one of the various CrossFire bugs that people encounter. It could also be a peculiarity of the Intel BIOS/motherboard used. We are still investigating the matter and will report on the matter in upcoming system reviews, along with providing Oblivion scores for the ABS X9.
Out of all the games tested, only two currently show a moderate difference in performance with increased CPU speeds. Battlefield 2 is one title that really sresses the CPU, and the added CPU speed improves performance by about 5% over a stock X6800 at 1600x1200. Far Cry also shows a significant performance increase, though this is in part due to the level being benchmarked (River). This particular level is extremely taxing on the CPU, and the results are actually CPU limited with everything but the 3.52 GHz configuration. The majority of levels in Far Cry do not appear to be as demanding of the CPU.
All of the latest games score almost identically at 1600x1200 and 1920x1200, even with X1900 CrossFire driving the graphics. Optimizations in the ATI drivers may improve performance some, but we don't expect X1900 XT to be CPU limited at high detail settings and high resolutions with any of the faster Core 2 processors. X1950 may change that assessment when it becomes available, but for now the fastest GPUs are not able to keep up with Core 2. That's really not all that different from the previous champion, AMD's Athlon X2, and performance results from a top AMD system at these settings would also be very close.
As the previous gaming benchmarks appear to be GPU limited in most cases, we wanted to take a look at performance at a couple other resolutions. 1280x1024 is a common resolution for LCD users while 1920x1200 is becoming very popular at the high-end. Given that we are already GPU limited at 1600x1200, 1920x1200 will be even more GPU limited. However, "GPU limited" does not equate to "slow" as performance in most of the tested titles is still more than acceptable at this resolution. We included additional games in these comparisons, and since we are performing all of the tests solely on the ABS system the difference between CPU clock speeds is more meaningful, and the margin of error is much lower (less than 1% between runs).
We will also include results from running the games with sound enabled using an X-Fi card, where applicable, to show the performance impact of enabling audio. We would like to take a moment to state that the onboard audio on the Intel motherboard is a far inferior solution compared to other offerings, and we would definitely recommend the purchase of a Creative Labs X-Fi soundcard for anyone looking to buy/build a high-end gaming system using this board -- really we would recommend an X-Fi for just about any serious gamer, and audio professionals would want to look at other add-in cards as the onboard audio is at best adequate in most cases. The Sigmatel audio does not support EAX at all, nor does it support OpenAL. Games which use OpenAL will be limited to stereo audio, and the sound quality was clearly inferior in all games even with $50 Logitech 5.1 speakers. We won't report gaming performance using the onboard audio, as it was not doing the same amount of work as the X-Fi card.
Note that the results provided here for Serious Sam 2 and Quake 4 are from a different versions of the game/demos and are not directly comparable with the results on the previous page. The HOC benchmark utility was used to run Quake 4 tests for comparison with the motherboard reviews, whereas the Quake 4 benchmarks here were run manually, and we also included a standard single player Q4 timedemo. (The HOC utility does not properly support widescreen resolutions, and it does create a slight overhead when benchmarking, so in order to be internally consistent all of the tests here were run manually.) The results from both the TimeDemo and the PlayNetTimeDemo are nearly identical, other than the fact that the NetDemo scores about 15% lower. The previous page used version 2.070 of Serious Sam 2, and the Branchester demo provided is very different from the version provided with 2.066. Results are internally consistent however, and this simply highlights the fact that no single benchmark can demonstrate what performance you will experience in every situation.
Call of Duty 2 showed some significant variations between benchmark runs with audio enabled, and it also experienced periodic display corruption. This once again leads us to the conclusion that the GPUs can get overly hot and cause problems due to lack of waterflow. We were eventually able to get consistent scores, but the margin of error -- at least with audio -- was much larger than in other tests.
F.E.A.R. also returned some odd results, as it performed better at 1600x1200 than at 1280x960 in nearly every test. We are apparently becoming CPU limited, but it also seems that the drivers and/or game are not fully optimized for certain resolutions. 1280x1024 scored about 10% lower on minimum frame rates than at 1280x960, and came in at 82 FPS average frame rates. The minimum frame rates on all tested configurations were significantly higher at 1600x1200 than at either lower resolution (roughly 45 FPS at 16x12 vs. 30 FPS at 1280x960).
Notably missing from our benchmark results is Oblivion. Attempts to run Oblivion on the ABS system with CrossFire enabled initially resulted in a black screen. The audio still played, and we could exit the game by using the appropriate keyboard shortcuts, but the only way to get the display output to work was to disable CrossFire. We haven't been able to figure out the exact cause, but Oblivion has now started to work properly. It could be the addition of an X-Fi card (the system was initially shipped without one), or it could just be one of the various CrossFire bugs that people encounter. It could also be a peculiarity of the Intel BIOS/motherboard used. We are still investigating the matter and will report on the matter in upcoming system reviews, along with providing Oblivion scores for the ABS X9.
Out of all the games tested, only two currently show a moderate difference in performance with increased CPU speeds. Battlefield 2 is one title that really sresses the CPU, and the added CPU speed improves performance by about 5% over a stock X6800 at 1600x1200. Far Cry also shows a significant performance increase, though this is in part due to the level being benchmarked (River). This particular level is extremely taxing on the CPU, and the results are actually CPU limited with everything but the 3.52 GHz configuration. The majority of levels in Far Cry do not appear to be as demanding of the CPU.
All of the latest games score almost identically at 1600x1200 and 1920x1200, even with X1900 CrossFire driving the graphics. Optimizations in the ATI drivers may improve performance some, but we don't expect X1900 XT to be CPU limited at high detail settings and high resolutions with any of the faster Core 2 processors. X1950 may change that assessment when it becomes available, but for now the fastest GPUs are not able to keep up with Core 2. That's really not all that different from the previous champion, AMD's Athlon X2, and performance results from a top AMD system at these settings would also be very close.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
48 Comments
View All Comments
yyrkoon - Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - link
Ah, I was wondering why you were mentioning .NET in technologies you were unhappy with. .NET is really a boon for programmers, and even more so for hobbyist programmers such as myself (it makes things much easier, and faster to code very usefull applications ).JarredWalton - Monday, August 21, 2006 - link
Of course, after looking at some of the results on the AM2 RD580, maybe SLI *is* faster in most situations. We need to test additional games to say for sure, which I think Derek will be doing on his next GPU article.yyrkoon - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
I think they were talking about the intel crossfire implementation is immature. Irregaurdless, comparred to nVidia technology, Crossfire technology IS Immature.giantpandaman2 - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
Here's my suggestion to have better system reviews:1) A ratings system where you break down things like value, game performance, work performance, ease of use/documentation, customer service and the like. Similar to CNET and HardOCP.
2) A greater focus on the complete end user experience. How easy was it to order the system? How long did it take to get it after ordering. Was the packaging good? How was customer service when you had a part fail (made up or real)?
3) A handy list of comparable systems from other vendors w/reviews of those systems if you have them. Or if there are other respectable sites that have reviews of them. (Now this is a pie in the sky type of request, but it'd be an extremely nice little function.)
4) A small separate box for the "reviewers tilt." In other words, whether the reviewer would buy the system or get something else. For example, for the added cost would you buy a mac? Would you prefer a different type of memory? What concerns do you have with the system? IE-Case cooling would be poor if you added a second video card. Etc. This would be totally subjective, hence why it'd have to be offset from the normal review.
5) A chance for the vendor to respond to any questions or criticisms you had with the system and/or customer experience.
Now, honestly, given your focus on less consumer oriented computer stuff I don't know how far you'd want to go with any of these. As much as I understand why people dislike HardOCP a couple of things they've put in that are nice is a focus on customer experience in system reviews and they're slight separation of consumer oriented reviews as compared to enthusiast reviews.
Personally I'd love it if Anandtech created more focused regular content based around Business IT/Consumer/Enthusiast rather than your current back end classification of stuff. (Motherboard/CPU/Video/etc.) Why? Well, I think you'd be able to up your number of reviews. Quicker less technical reviews for a lot of the consumer stuff. IE-You could quickly do reviews of a lot of cheap digital cameras and OS iterations. And far more technical and in depth reviews of expensive cameras or OS iterations when used in business/network settings.
Heck, you could almost do both types of reviews at once, get out the consumer one early, then the more in depth one later. That way low end consumers don't have to wade through a lot of stuff they don't understand or may not be interested in, and gurus can get the fix they need. Anyhow, just a few ideas out of many, but this post is getting too long. :)
yyrkoon - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
I'd have to agree somewhat. Breaking down how a system performs into categories I think is a good idea. Something along the lines of how TH does it but perhaps with your own little twist. Doing two seperate reviews on a product however, I would think is a bit overboard. People like me, who are very interrested in the technical aspect of hardware, will pick and choose thier articles, which may give you less readers for those type of articles, but I think the over all experience for everyone would be fine. My suggestion for this type of thing, would be maybe to make a dumbed down review, if you think readers of said article may not be interrested in the technical aspect, and just leave it at that. *shrug*I still think you guys do a bang up job, and it isnt fanboyism when I repeat the words "I'll read your articles over tomshardware.com's reviews any day". It just seems to me, that you guys at AT are less worried about how the manufactuers feels about your reviews, and call it how you see it.
Now, for a couple of gripes:
1) PLEASE work on your forums, its ugly, not very organized, and the over all experience just doesnt "leave a good taste in my mouth".
2) I've sent you guys an email concerning this issue, Animated ads within the text area of your articles are very annoying, and make it sometimes very hard to read / concentrate on the article on hand. Since this, I've disabled all images within my browser from your site, but what IF I want to veiw a photo relating to the article ?!
Take these gripes for what they are worth, and not personally please, it is my hope that these gripes will help you improve your reader overall experience whilst on your site, and forums.
chunkychun - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
I am a non techie and I am glad you review the OEM systems, high end or low end. Although I don't have the time or patience to learn how to build a computer, I enjoy reading which components are perfered by more experienced builders. Keep up the good work.SunLord - Saturday, August 19, 2006 - link
Now we jsut need Anandtech to get a ABS Ultimate M6 Sniper AM2 speced out with as much incommon as possible and see what the performance difference is on a real world systems...JarredWalton - Saturday, August 19, 2006 - link
It depends on what you're doing. If you're playing games at high resolutions, the difference in performance is negligible. If you're doing video encoding or 3D rendering or certain other tasks, Core 2 Duo is still quite a bit faster -- and even more so when overclocked to 3.52 GHz. If you want to buy a $4000 computer, I really see no reason to purchase an AMD system right now. However, I don't think most people should spend that much money on the computer system regardless of processor type. You can build a system that is almost as fast (in games) for about $2000 -- using either Intel or AMD processors.pottervillian - Saturday, August 19, 2006 - link
One Error:Page 2: Features and Price
Component Price List
"Power Suply: Enermax Liberty 620W Modular PSU 155"
Other than that, this is a great article. Too bad I don't have a rich uncle.
eastvillager - Saturday, August 19, 2006 - link
If you had a rich uncle, you'd be better off getting cash and building it yourself, or paying a friend to do it. These prices are crazy.