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 would like to know about the AMD EE CPU's myself. I forgot about those.bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
LOL! I got modded down because some of you clowns don't like to be accused of being hypocrites. So I'll ask a question. What's the difference between launching a video card and not having product available and launching a CPU and not having product available? I hear NO bitching at all on this. Why is that?epsilonparadox - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
I don't get where you're seeing its not available. According to a poster above,How are we being hypocrites?
bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Beacuse this is a paper launch and no one's complaining but when ATI/Nvidia does the same thing everyone and their mom's are bitching and complaining. Hypocracy!Shintai - Saturday, July 15, 2006 - link
How can be it a paper launch when Intel first launches it July 27th?After July 27th you can start whine...
epsilonparadox - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
How could it be considered a paper launch if there are posters above you complaining the their OC results of the C2Ds that they bought and have in their possession aren't as good as AT's?bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
One poster gave a link to Newegg but there's nothing there. I searched the site and saw nothing. I also checked ZZF and Monarch. Nothing there. If this CPU is available, why can't I buy it?epsilonparadox - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
As you said yourself before, the supply is tight hence the ridiculous price. If they've been available then they were already bought. http://www.buy.com/prod/CORE_2_DUO_E6600_DC_LGA775...">Check buy.comIts temporarily sold out but the orders placed when it was in stock were shipping july 5th.
bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
That's a little high but not out of line. I paid $400 for my 3500 and this is MUCH faster. I am surprised that no one here has one of these since they were released earlier.Questar - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Because people were able to buy these four days ago?Because the official launch is still two weeks away?