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
poohbear - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
so from a gamers perspective, and im guessing gamers are the only ones that care for the bleeding edge, does this cpu do anything for performance in games @ 1280x1024+ resolutions?Gary Key - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
Yes, our tests were run at a lower resolution to keep the GPU from being a "bottleneck" to a certain degree. The performance differences in a couple games at 1600x1200 were slightly better for Conroe than at the 1024x768 setting. We did not have enough time with the 965 board to complete our test suite, but that will be coming in the near future. :-)
vailr - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
Any rumors of when Apple's Conroe based Intel Mac will be released?That is: the full-fledged, 64 bit, desktop Mac (replacement for the dual-CPU G5 machine).
saratoga - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
Though "full-fledged, 64 bit" will have to wait a little while until Apple launches a new MacOS version that has 64 bit support. Not that it really matters right now anyway, since 4GB is still enough for most users, and they should be ready in time for these people.saratoga - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
Probably about the same time as Conroe launches. Apple is unlikely to sit around while Dell tempts their customers with fast, lower power CPUs. I imagine Apple will probably treat CPUs like they do GPUs. That is, when something substantially better comes out, they'll time it to launch a new tower/laptop/whatever so they don't get caught selling older hardware.flurazepam - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
Server lost my last post! Hope it doesn't come up twice! Reiterating what I previously wrote. I'm currently in Taipei and have had the chance to test both the X6800 and the FX-62. Neither "feel" faster than either in normal use, but both "feel" significantly faster than the Pentium DEE. Using low resolution gaming, Conroe runs about 20% faster than the AMD, give or take a few percent. The chap at Intel also said that the Intel chip is not faster in every game or app. There a few apps that AMD can take over Intel. What needs to be done is testing using multithreaded apps run in a multiapp environment. In any case, Intel has a winner here.JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link
Quake 4 has SMP support, and it was enabled. SysMark2004 also does some multitasking. Getting a proper multitasking test configured and run takes quite a bit more time, unfortunately, so when given the choice of testing 6-8 applications vs. one multitasking setup, we have to currently settle for the former. In a few more months, we'll of course do our best to provide comprehensive testing. "One night in Bangkok..." er... Taiwan is not the best for getting every ounce of information we would like. :)flurazepam - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
Apologies if this post comes up twicethestain - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
LOL.. Just want to see more test.. Anand and the gang.. I wish I was there!! Please no offense on my posts.. just trying to stir the humor pot a little..But.. is there some real world application that would put Conroe's FSB memory limit to the test and where AM2 would then perform better, because if not.. it is going to be a cold, dark summer and fall for AMD.
bob661 - Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - link
AM2 was NEVER meant to be a performance boost so to expect anything more is idiotic! Of course, Conroe would outperform AM2 as it is a new design with new improvements. AM2 is just DDR2 on the present tech. Considering that Conroe is all new tech, I expected even GREATER performance from the new platform. Either way, we now have a fair amount of choices when it comes to CPU's. I can now recommend Intel processors to my cusatomers (well I can recommend them next year when prices go down and there are more mid and low end Conroe's available).