Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Preview from Taiwan
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Gary Key on June 6, 2006 7:35 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Gaming Performance
Next up was gaming performance, and of course using our own game demos. We tested everything at 1024 x 768 since we only had a single 7900 GTX per system at our disposal.
We already knew to expect solid Quake 4 performance out of Intel's Core architecture, and the Core 2 Extreme X6800 does not fail us - offering just under 24% better performance than the FX-62.
We've also already seen Conroe's performance under F.E.A.R., and with the latest 1.05 patch performance is in line with our expectations:
Core 2 Extreme boasts a 17.8% performance advantage over the FX-62 in average frame rate.
The minimum frame rate is significantly higher at 50.9%, and even after multiple runs the performance advantage was consistent:
Finally the Core 2 Extreme system was able to boast a 14.2% higher maximum frame rate under F.E.A.R.
Our final gaming benchmark during our short but sweet testing period with the Core 2 Extreme was Battlefield 2, and its performance was in line with what we've seen in the previous two titles:
Intel's holding on to a 20.3% performance advantage under Battlefield 2.
We're still wary of crowning Intel the new gaming performance champion, especially without having run other very important titles such as Oblivion and Half Life 2: Episode 1, but until we can things are definitely looking extremely promising for the Core architecture.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
134 Comments
View All Comments
munky - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
Good work on running some benches on a system not built by Intel. Conroe puts out impressive numbers, it may just live up to the hype when launched.xFlankerx - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
Perfectly in line with older performance figures. Conroe's looking like a surefire winner.PCSJEFF - Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - link
If you wanna test the CPU in games, why don't you use Grand Prix 4 and Everquest 2: those two games 3D engines use a lot more the CPU than the video card.Supa - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
In the original benchmark, if you still remember, the 20% performance advantage was achieved by E6700 (2.67) over 2.8 AMD.Now the new 20% advantage was achieved by X6800 (2.93) over 2.8 AMD.
Not quite the same 20%.
If anything, the tightening of memory latency (5-5-5-12 in this test) can only benefit AMD a bit more.
---
Gary Key - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
It benefits the Intel based system just as much. ;-)
IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
Original benchmark: Using Crossfire X1900XTX to alleviate bottlenecks
Now: Single Geforce 7900GTX
If you see FEAR benchmarks you'll see it'll be better in real world gaming as there is bigger advantage in minimum frame rates. At IDF system there is bigger difference in max frame rates.
Carfax - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
Wow, the Core 2 is obviously bottlenecked by the single 7900 GTX O_O!!!Who'd have thought this would happen a few months ago?
peternelson - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link
Good point, when hardware permits, redo the test with TWO gpus in there and see if the same lead is evident.
IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
The tightening of memory will benefit Core too.peternelson - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
And based on these performance figures,
a 4x4 board with TWO FX62 will vastly outperform a lonely Intel Conroe.
And for heavy I/O ie beating network and disk to death, Intel has not been shown to have the performance headroom. AMD I/O will scale nicely.
When Intel counter with quadcore, they will find their FSB even more limiting, at which point the wisdom of the Hypertransport approach will be evident.
Depends how quickly 4x4 comes to market (but said to be 2H2006)