Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance

[coldpower27]

heh i remember $300 and cheaper chips pwning EE edition 1000$ intels so dont get to big.

But Intel does have a E6600 316US chip that could hang in there with that FX-62.

 

[pxc]

They used a 965 chipset. It couldn't do real SLI.

OK, but the point was [H] could have used a 6600GT with a new set of "playable settings" and got the same relative results. The CPUs were not really being benchmarked when the limiting factor was the video card.

 

[Gun_Strife]

Yes, in most all the reviews for Conroe i have seen the E6600 is on par with the FX-62. Usually the E6600 is a little faster, especially in things outside of gaming. And its only clocked at 2.4GHz. The FX-62 is at 2.8GHz and isn't going to overclock far beyond that. The E6600 however has been hitting 3.5GHz+ on aircooling.

true that and cant stress enough that its on par/1 under par at its stock speed of 2.4ghz
and i believe it will crush the 62 once oc'd

 

[D!Z]

Thanks for the review Kyle

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

The 7900 GTX OC was not a bottleneck in the evaluation. As you can see there is room to spare in some games. Plus, it is certainly not a bottleneck in the Apples-to-Apples tests at a lower resolution with no AA and no AF. This evaluation concentrated on the real-world gaming performance experienced between the CPUs, basically what the gameplay differences are.

would you mind running a quick test at like 800x600 of quake4 or something for us?

 

[LstBrunnenG]

lol even Eclipse wants it

 

[Donnie27]

You also showed a $550 as being the best deal on the market.

you neglected the fact that i would need to spend another 300 on memory and 200 and change on a mobo......I just might snatch up an old 4800x2 on the cheap and take a wait and see for awhile till the dust settles

No, I didn't! FX-62 cost more than a $550 processor, $189 2 GB of GSkill and the est $169 965 used for this review. It would still be cheaper if they used a $246 Asus i975. I still Might add a 4400+ when they hit bargain basement. Right now its a $346 E6600, $35 Ninja, $189 GSkill DDR2 800, and still mobo shopping. If I already owned a 4800+ I'd not be so quick to want to upgrade.

 

[FrgMstr]

would you mind running a quick test at like 800x600 of quake4 or something for us?

Actually I have some numbers here....Hang on. I pulled them for the review on the mobo.

 

[Eastcoasthandle]

Wow, just wow isn't odd that all the gaming benchmarks are within 1-2 FPS? In all the reviews I have come across online this is a first with 3 different CPUs, from 2 different companies.

I see a serious problem here
-video card bottleneck only using the highest resolutions. Which by the way are not common resolutions used by gamers. Wide screen monitor are the up and coming thing so everyone doesn't have one. Therefore, 1280x1024 should have also been included:
1) everyone can relate to this resolution regardless if they have that monitor or not
2) its a common resolution used often
3) 1600x1200 is an extreme resolution and only taxes the video card creating a bottle neck.

-If you are going to use 1600x1200 resolution it should have been tested using SLI and Crossfire to eliminate the bottleneck

-some if not all the gaming benchmarks do not correspond to the other benchmarks, IMO. If I didn't know better I thought I was looking at another netburst vs AMD again...where practical applications Intel was good but poor in gaming.

-Why are all FPS the same between X6800, E6700 and AM2? Something is very wrong with this picture. And,I seriously doubt I will find such similar FPS results when other sites post their results.

-It would be nice to acutally see what a P5W DH Deluxe can do...they are more abundant now a days then PB5...

that is all for now

 

[Banko]

Price maybe?

In terms of price the E6700 is half the price of the FX-62, also even if AMD cuts prices in half, it would make the pricing be exactly the same. So then I would still go for Intel. Second from what we have seen people have hit 4ghz with the E6700 on xtremesystems, and 3.8 with the e6600.

 

[shungokusatsu]

Ok I'm being told on other forums that [H] reviews are bogus, majority agree that the bench didnt contain enough info. Then someone posts a link where games are getting twice the fps on intel then an AMD. Can anyone confirm if this is BS or not? Thank you.

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=185555

Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: Min 15 | Avg 83.993 | Max 689

Conroe @ 3GHz: Min 29 | Avg 132.776 | Max 1546

Just sounds HIGHLY unrealistic.

 

[FrgMstr]

these are numbers I took this morning. Asus P5B Vs. Abit KN9 SLI using a single 7800GT on both with 2GB of ram at fully stock speeds.

Synthetic Testing

Sandra Memory Bandwidth (2007)

X6800 - INT- 5581
E6700 - INT- 5524
FX-62 - INT- 8705

Sandra CPU Drystone ALU (2007)

X6800 Score: 27059
E6700 Score: 24748
FX-62 Score: 20423


Super Pi Mod v 1.5 – 1M Unit Size

X6800 Score: 17.375
E6700 Score: 19.172
FX-62 Score: 30.547

Applications:

Video Testing: DivX Converter 6.2 (minutes)

X6800 Time: 77
E6700 Time: 84
FX-62 Time: 99


Video Testing: Adobe Premiere Elem v1.0 (minutes : seconds)

X6800 Time: 8:24
E6700 Time: 9:04
FX-62 Time: 11:01

Video Testing: Windows Movie Maker v2.1 (seconds)

X6800 Time: 1:15
E6700 Time: 1:21
FX-62 Time: 1:44

Audio Testing: iTunes 6 ( seconds)

X6800 Time: 19
E6700 Time: 21
FX-62 Time: 20

Photoshop Testing: Photoshop 8 Combined Filters (seconds)

X6800 Time: 172.3
E6700 Time: 186.8
FX-62 Time: 187.9



Games:

UT2003 V2225

X6800 FPS: 201
E6700 FPS: 185
FX-62 FPS: 159

HL2 Source 7 BLDG 2707

X6800 FPS: 157
E6700 FPS: 146
FX-62 FPS: 121

Quake 4 v1.2

X6800 FPS: 182
E6700 FPS: 164
FX-62 FPS: 144

Dual Core / Q4 with Adobe Premiere

X6800 FPS: 128
E6700 FPS: 113
FX-62 FPS: 105

 

[Eastcoasthandle]

Ok I'm being told on other forums that [H] reviews are bogus, majority agree that the bench didnt contain enough info. Then someone posts a link where games are getting twice the fps on intel then an AMD. Can anyone confirm if this is BS or not? Thank you.

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=185555

Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: Min 15 | Avg 83.993 | Max 689

Conroe @ 3GHz: Min 29 | Avg 132.776 | Max 1546

Just sounds HIGHLY unrealistic.

Man people are questioning this on forums you haven't even heard of yet. That's why I asked my questions a few posts above.

 

[Brent_Justice]

For those complaining about the gameplay evaluation tell me, will you be buying these high-end CPUs with low-end video cards and playing at low resolutions for gaming?

This evaluation tells you exactly what you need to know when comparing gaming performance between the platforms. It tells you exactly what the differences are when playing the games as me, you and everyone else playing games on such a system.

 

[gwai lo]

I can see where you guys are coming from..but it's just...blah. If the 6700 and 6800 are pulling the same score, then...

Okay, so at this point in time, we won't see a difference. What about when the SLI/Xfire boards are out..etc..

 

[Chris_B]

For those complaining about the gameplay evaluation tell me, will you be buying these high-end CPUs with low-end video cards and playing at low resolutions for gaming?

Don't doubt anything quake players will do, seen some of them using sli setups with high end cpu's and running the game with everything dumbed down and the game looking like ass.

 

[bingo13]

Interesting.

 

[FrgMstr]

Wow, just wow isn't odd that all the gaming benchmarks are within 1-2 FPS? In all the reviews I have come across online this is a first with 3 different CPUs, from 2 different companies.

I see a serious problem here
-video card bottleneck only using the highest resolutions. Which by the way are not common resolutions used by gamers. Wide screen monitor are the up and coming thing so everyone doesn't have one. Therefore, 1280x1024 should have also been included:
1) everyone can relate to this resolution regardless if they have that monitor or not
2) its a common resolution used often
3) 1600x1200 is an extreme resolution and only taxes the video card creating a bottle neck.

-some if not all the gaming benchmarks do not correspond to the other benchmarks, IMO. If I didn't know better I thought I was looking at another netburst vs AMD again...where practical applications Intel was good but poor in gaming.

-Why are all FPS the same between X6800, E6700 and AM2? Something is very wrong with this picture. And,I seriously doubt I will find such similar FPS results when other sites post their results.

-It would be nice to acutally see what a P5W DH Deluxe can do...they are more abundant now a days then PB5...

that is all for now

I doubt anyone will show you real world gaming as other sites should you how the CPU scales when no other factors are involed.

The fact is that if you put these processors into "identical" machines, you get identical top end gaming results. All the CPUs are so powerful that the GPU becomes the bottleneck in real world gaming. That is exactly what I said in the conclusion. The fact of the matter here is that you are pointing out just how right we are, currently it MAKES NO DIFFERNCE WHAT CPU you have out of the ones we compared.

 

[shungokusatsu]

Yes but are those benchmarks in that site BS or not? I mean come on, AMD getting 80fps and intel getting 130 fps on identical speeds and configs?

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

For those complaining about the gameplay evaluation tell me, will you be buying these high-end CPUs with low-end video cards and playing at low resolutions for gaming?

This evaluation tells you exactly what you need to know when comparing gaming performance between the platforms. It tells you exactly what the differences are when playing the games as me, you and everyone else playing games on such a system.

indeed it does, but we just like to know how much difference there is between the two, just in case you want to upgrade video cards down the line and keep the cpu.. see how much power is left in there


and Kyle, thanks for the numbers. much appreciated

 

[RangerXLT8]

Interesting that [H] uses the flagship NVIDIA 590 MCP vs the mid-level 965.

These benchmarks are unfair and the 975x chipset should be used. Run those benchmarks with a P5W DH 975x vs 590 MCP and the Conroe E6700 will win every time, that goes to say the XE 6800 will smoke the the FX-62.

I've always thought this site to be fair and balanced, but this article is noo way fair. Cmon MCP 590 vs 965!!!!!!!!!

 

[JetUsafMech]

Any reason F.E.A.R. was left out?

 

[shungokusatsu]

According to guru3d:

FEAR

1024x768, 4xAA 16xAF, all max:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: Min 60 | Avg 142 | Max 370

Conroe @ 3GHz: Min 78 | Avg 162 | Max 485

1600x1200, 4xAA 16xAF, all max:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: Min 25 | Avg 43 | Max 172

Conroe @ 3GHz: Min 53 | Avg 86 | Max 310

 

[FrgMstr]

Ok I'm being told on other forums that [H] reviews are bogus, majority agree that the bench didnt contain enough info. Then someone posts a link where games are getting twice the fps on intel then an AMD. Can anyone confirm if this is BS or not? Thank you.

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=185555

Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: Min 15 | Avg 83.993 | Max 689

Conroe @ 3GHz: Min 29 | Avg 132.776 | Max 1546

Just sounds HIGHLY unrealistic.

The fact is that other sites do not put the resources into this testing that we do. They pull out a couple of canned benchmarks after they get home from their job and proclaim to the world that X is better than Y. We spend a lot of time and money to give the real story, it is very expensive to do this and is why you see so few taking the same approach.

CPU power is just like horsepower, you have to be able to get the rubber to hook up before you can do anything with the horsepower. If you read here, you will see us praise the Conroe in these apps, because the fact is it can be utilized.

The reasoning behind the different articles on different applications is because we saw too much of a difference to run just one big generic catch-all article. It would not have been fair to Intel to do such.

 

[Brent_Justice]

indeed it does, but we just like to know how much difference there is between the two, just in case you want to upgrade video cards down the line and keep the cpu.. see how much power is left in there

and how is running at a low resolution going to show you that?

if anything you should be using a high resolution and the latest games, I think Oblivion was a great test, it showed the most difference between the CPUs and it just might be an indicator of the future

 

[LstBrunnenG]

Problem is that you're both right. X is better than Y, but you won't notice a difference if you already have Y.

 

[JetUsafMech]

C'mon buddy, do you really think mid-grade 965 Intel can even compare to 590MCP?

You know as well as I do that had 975X been used, those benchmarks would be much different.

I too am confused about the lack of 975 lovin'.

 

[xenogears]

The only issue I have is that the article seems to punish intel for the games being gpu limited. I get the point about it not making much of a difference today, but not much is made out of the fact that there could be a huge difference in the future when more powerful videocards come out.

 

[FrgMstr]

I completely agree with you, but I'm asking if those benches are realistic or not, I mean in some apps Conroe is hitting double what an AMD is in fps.

I don't personally comment on others benchmarks, but I know that we are sure of our own.

 

[FrgMstr]

The only issue I have is that the article seems to punish intel for the games being gpu limited. I get the point about it not making much a difference today, but not much is made out of the fact that there could be a huge difference in the future when more powerful videocards come out.

If being realistic with results is punishment, then so be it. We will show the results for other video cards when they are introduced.

 

[Rob94hawk]

As what I expected. Intel doesn't blow AMD away, they just finally catch up.

 

[coldpower27]

I completely agree with you, but I'm asking if those benches are realistic or not, I mean in some apps Conroe is hitting double what an AMD is in fps.

Those are possible if you alleviate the GPU bottleneck. If your run a 7900 GTX SLI or X1900 XT Crossfire system, and perhaps 10x7 resolution those difference are entirely possible.

 

[FrgMstr]

I too am confused about the lack of 975 lovin'.

Intel cut our testing period by two weeks and pretty much screwed up or coverage. We went with what we had time for that we could do well.

 

[|CR|Constantine]

Thanks for the review Kyle and I will be sticking with my current AMD setup.

As for all you Intel yahoo's congrats on finally catching up to AMD, I guess the only problem is ...AMD K8L response is still to come..oh so close yet so far.

 

[FrgMstr]

Look i really think this is a simple difference of opinion. Ok so you realistically tested how a cpu works in current games, and realistically, the GPU is the bottle neck...for now. the question is still open as to how much the processor is really capable of, and if the GPU is the bottle neck at 1280x1024, then we really aren't seeing the full capability of the processor. so why not just make it easier on the GPU for now and turn the res. down, and let the game run as fast as it can. sure it may still be GPU bottlenecked, but not as much as at a res of 1280x1024.

that post you made a couple of pages back about with the synthetic benches, and the app testing was much more useful to me because it maxed the processor out. I know how the processor may fare in the future. showing me that in games the video card is the limitation is pointless because we may not know which processor is actually faster for 12 months when a new generation of video cards comes out.

I am sorry our content does not satisfy your needs.

 

[Viper87227]

What I would really like to see is some overclocking. If that 2.66Ghz conroe is edging out a 2.8ghz FX62, what happens when there both OCed to their max ad its a 3.5Ghz conroe vs a 3Ghz FX62. For alot of people, that is a real world comparison. I know I am sitting here wondering if its worth selling off a 3Ghz opteron to move to conroe, and you can bet your ass that conroe would be OCed to the end of the world when I got it.

 

[trek554]

According to guru3d:

FEAR

1024x768, 4xAA 16xAF, all max:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: Min 60 | Avg 142 | Max 370

Conroe @ 3GHz: Min 78 | Avg 162 | Max 485

1600x1200, 4xAA 16xAF, all max:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: Min 25 | Avg 43 | Max 172

Conroe @ 3GHz: Min 53 | Avg 86 | Max 310

thats the benchmarks that i called total bs on a week ago. theres NO FUCKING WAY conroe can have 100% better performance at 1600x1200.

 

[Chris_B]

Thanks for the review Kyle and I will be sticking with my current AMD setup.

As for all you Intel yahoo's congrats on finally catching up to AMD, I guess the only problem is ...AMD K8L response is still to come..oh so close yet so far.

Near sure i read somewhere it got pushed back to 2008.

 

[shungokusatsu]

thats the benchmarks that i called total bs on a week ago. theres NO FUCKING WAY conroe can have 100% better performance at 1600x1200.

That's what I'm saying, but there's about 5 reviews showing the same thing, and what confuses me is how they drastically differ from the [H] review. Perhaps it's because [H] didn't use SLI or better mboard. But I'm seeing more and more 100%+ performance increases on these other benchmark reviews. If this turns out to be true, I'm sold on Conroe without doubt, kinda sucks, I should have waited before building this AMD rig.

 

[FrgMstr]

That's what I'm saying, but there's about 5 reviews showing the same thing, and what confuses me is how they drastically differ from the [H] review. Perhaps it's because [H] didn't use SLI or better mboard. But I'm seeing more and more 100%+ performance increases on these other benchmark reviews. If this turns out to be true, I'm sold on Conroe without doubt, kinda sucks, I should have waited before building this AMD rig.

Please supply me with links to all of these sites showing 100% performance increases at high res.

You dont see 100% at 640x480.....

Games:

UT2003 V2225

X6800 FPS: 201
E6700 FPS: 185
FX-62 FPS: 159

HL2 Source 7 BLDG 2707

X6800 FPS: 157
E6700 FPS: 146
FX-62 FPS: 121

Quake 4 v1.2

X6800 FPS: 182
E6700 FPS: 164
FX-62 FPS: 144

Dual Core / Q4 with Adobe Premiere

X6800 FPS: 128
E6700 FPS: 113
FX-62 FPS: 105