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 F.E.A.R. & Rise of Legends
Our F.E.A.R. test should be fairly familiar by now, as it is the built in performance test included with the game. Computer settings were left at "Maximum" while the graphics settings were set to "High" with the resolution cranked up to 1600 x 1200. F.E.A.R. ends up still being more GPU than CPU bound at these settings, even with a pair of X1900 XTs at its disposal, but we do see some separation among the processors:
The top three spots still go to the top three Core 2 CPUs, with the E6300 falling around the level of the X2 4600+. A trend that we've been seeing all throughout this review is that the performance of these CPUs effectively falls into three groups: Core 2 processors at the top, Athlon 64 X2s in the middle and Pentium D at the very bottom of the charts. In a sense that's the easiest way to classify these three groups of processors: if you want the fastest it's Core 2, mid-range goes to the Athlon 64 X2 and if you don't like good performance there's always the Pentium D.
Rise of Legends is a newcomer to our game benchmark suite and what an excellent addition it is. This Real Time Strategy game looks very good and plays well too; it serves as good filler until the next Command & Conquer title eventually arrives for those looking for a RTS fix. We ran with the resolution set to 1600 x 1200 and the graphics settings set to the medium defaults. We recorded a custom playback of a 3 vs. 2 multiplayer battle and played it back at 4x speed, recording the average frame rate for 10 minutes of the battle. The 10 minutes we focused on contained a good mix of light skirmishes between opponents, base/resource management with very few characters on the screen and of course some very large scale battles.
As with most RTSes, Rise of Legends is extremely CPU bound. The performance variability between runs was fairly high in this test, mainly because of how disk intensive the playback can get. Differences in performance of up to 5% should be ignored, but the standings are correct - the Core 2 line of processors absolutely demolish the competition: you're looking at true next-generation CPU performance here. The E6300 isn't nearly as impressive when compared to its more expensive siblings, but when you compare it to AMD's lineup it looks very good, especially considering its proposed cost.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
202 Comments
View All Comments
Kougar - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
I wasn't sure of the B2 Stepping 6 info because it has been impossible to find CPU-Z shots of this chip, let alone anyone reviewing them!!Mostly I just want to ensure Intel doesn't pull any surprises or OC limiting with them, at this point if the B2 Stepping 6 with that last round of bugfixing performs even the same as a Stepping 5 I'd be extremely happy!
redpriest_ - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Thanks Wesley - my Core 2 Duo Extreme X6800 is definitely a Stepping 6, Revision B2 Conroe. It has a packaging date of July 5, 2006. I have all the multipliers unlocked, and I am stuck at around 3.466 ghz using multipliers only for stability. I am running on the Intel 975X BadAxe rev 304 with the latest BIOS.I haven't tried upping the bus from there, yet - I am using 1.4 volts; default voltage isn't dual prime 95 stable at 3.466 ghz, but is at 3.2 ghz.
I haven't tried any intermediate voltages between there to test, so it's possible my Conroe is stable at 3.466 ghz at less voltage. I'll give that a try.
Kougar - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
What motherboard is this? Have you double-checked your RAM settings and memory ratio? I'd imagine setting a 1:1 ratio, using the most relaxed timings, and slowly ramping up the FSB would get you further. And do try less voltages... ;)That's my plan anyway, DDR2-800 memory speeds on a 1:1 ratio thanks to a 400FSB, 10x multiplier... :)
Kougar - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Anandtech used Engineering Sample CPUs, so they would be B0 Stepping 4 or B1 Stepping 5 only. Only retail models will be B2 stepping 6...Did you change your cpu voltage any? Sounds like you didn't ;)
redpriest_ - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
I had to - 1.4 (1.35 real) to get to 3.466, and 1.5 to 3.733.Wesley Fink - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Did you OC by adjusting multipliers first? We could run the X6800 at 3.46 at 13 multiplier using stock voltage, but using 315 bus times the stock 11 multiplier required a small voltage increase. The easiest OCs used higher multipliers and modest FSB increases. The E Conroes are locked, however, and can only be overclocked by increasing the FSB.redpriest_ - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Yes, I tried using multipliers only, I haven't fiddled with bus speed yet.Kougar - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
First, the X6800 is selling at NewEgg, and they are price gouging it for all it's worth. Still listed in stock after having been up for 3+ hours...What a great way to start the day... Thank you Anandtech for this great article! Supurb! Now I have to agree with the poster above me, some info on the E6300 overclocking would about round out my curiosity!
I have a question though, do y'all or anyone else have some CPUZ shots of a retail shipping Conroe? I believe this are supposed to be revision B2 stepping 6??
As for the expected skeptics, my saying the numbers appear to jive won't mean anything... so I'll just say there are over 25 reviews out now of the Core 2 Duo released today. :)
mAdMaLuDaWg - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
I'm curious on if you tried OCing the E6300. What was the highest stable speed you were able to get.xsilver - Monday, July 17, 2006 - link
for those who dont want to read the xbit labs articlethe overclocking of the e6300 is limited by the motherboard - eg. cant get the board to boot at any higher than 420mhz fsb
we may have to wait for nvidia's core2 solution to see higher fsb's