Gaming Performance using Battlefield 2, Call of Duty 2 and Quake 4

The new Extreme Edition chip is more competitive in gaming than any of Intel's previous CPUs, but AMD still holds onto the performance lead here - even if only by a thread in some cases.

In both Quake 4 and Call of Duty 2, SMP was enabled, of which all three CPUs compared here could take advantage.

Battlefield 2

Call of Duty 2

Quake 4

Media Encoding Performance using DVD Shrink, WME9, Quicktime and iTunes Gaming Performance using F.E.A.R.
POST A COMMENT

41 Comments

View All Comments

  • AnandThenMan - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link

    "Would you have preferred we not have this review at all?"

    What are you suggesting? That the review can't be published unless Conroe benches are in there as well? Let's be very clear here. Anandtech is publishing Intel sanctioned benches as the gospel truth. Anandtech is publishing benchmarks on an un-released product, running on unknown hardware, unknown settings, under restricted testing conditions, and passing them off without question at all.

    If this is the way Anandtech plans to do all articles from now on, then I want to see benches that include future products from ATI, NVIDIA, and others as much as possible. And it won't matter if ATI or NVIDIA supplies the hardware, doesn't allow anyone to see it, and puts restrictions on what benches can be run and for how long. Anandtech will STILL publish these benches and assure us all they are 100% accurate.

    It is very, very dissapointed to see Anandtech pull this crap. Conroe could very well live up the the hype and more. That is not the point. Integrity of testings means you control the testing environment, you control the hardware, and you control the software. And if you DON'T, then you SPECULATE and make it very clear that the results are speculation. You don't announce, "Intel takes back the performance crown" based on tests Intel let you perform. Very poor job.
    Reply
  • AnnonymousCoward - Friday, March 24, 2006 - link

    You're overreacting. Any reader knows that the original Conroe tests couldn't be 100% verified, since Anand made that very clear. So then you read this review, and you keep that in mind. Big whoop.

    Thanks, Anand, for showing the Conroe numbers. It's information that any sane builder would want to see, even though the numbers haven't been independently confirmed.
    Reply
  • PrinceGaz - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link

    "If this is the way Anandtech plans to do all articles from now on, then I want to see benches that include future products from ATI, NVIDIA, and others as much as possible. And it won't matter if ATI or NVIDIA supplies the hardware, doesn't allow anyone to see it, and puts restrictions on what benches can be run and for how long. Anandtech will STILL publish these benches and assure us all they are 100% accurate."

    It would be a bit pointless for the companies to supply the hardware, but not allow anyone to see it and put restrictions on the benchmarks run. It would be far more sensible if the companies simply ran the benchmarks on future products themselves, and provided Anand with the figures to publish :)
    Reply
  • Zebo - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link

    Anand is doing intel's dirty work. It's called osborne effect - leak an upcoming products when you have nothing to undercut competitors sales. Brillaint move by intel - and Anand is being played like fiddle. Reply
  • Zebo - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link

    How do you know there was'nt a 3.6 Ghz conroe in there? Reply
  • cornfedone - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link

    SOS, DD.

    They ain't got a clue.
    Reply
  • ksherman - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link

    not sure if it is real or not, but it goes down in my bookas one sweet word: "obsolescence" (found in the closing paragraph) Reply
  • Chadder007 - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link

    Who in their right mind would purchase this processor??? ....on yeah, the one that buys the new $10,000 Dell. :kekekeke: Reply
  • jojo4u - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link

    EIST was introduced in the 6xx series and not in the 5xxJ as the article suggests. Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link

    You are correct, I've made the appropriate change to the article :)

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now