Gaming Performance

Gaming Performance


Gaming Performance


Gaming Performance


Gaming Performance


Gaming Performance


Gaming Performance


The overall gaming performance of an Intel platform for the first time in recent memory is equal to or better than the AMD based platform. These results are indicative of an optimized system as the Intel Core Duo responds very well to the i975X chipset with results from our 945GM platform performing equal to or worse than the AMD system. Considering the additional benefits of lower thermals and power consumption, a compelling case for Intel users can be made for purchasing this platform for gaming. It's worth noting that gaming code these days consists of a lot of integer instructions with much of the floating point work being offloaded to the GPU, and micro-ops fusion certainly appears to be playing a role in the stellar gaming performance of Core Duo.

CrossFire Performance

Gaming Performance - CrossFire


Gaming Performance - CrossFire


Gaming Performance - CrossFire


Gaming Performance - CrossFire


The performance pattern continues in our CrossFire benchmarks with the Intel platform slightly outperforming our AMD system in the stock settings and overclocked settings. We did note in our test results that CrossFire works extremely well on the Intel 975X platform and on our board once we figured out how to enable it. The instructions for enabling CrossFire on this particular board can be found in our final words sections. Needless to say, it was difficult to figure out, but once set up correctly we were rewarded with excellent scores.

File Compression Performance Disk Controller Performance
Comments Locked

81 Comments

View All Comments

  • SexyK - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link

    There are many, many differences between the Yonah and Conroe designs that should lead to a significantly higher IPC for Conroe. Macro-ops fusion, memory disambiguation, 4-issue core, etc, etc... Here's a good overview of some of the changes as compared to the X2s and older Intel chips: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
  • SexyK - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link

    I think these tests are the nail in the coffin for those out there still saying the Conroe benchmarks were 'fixed' by Intel. Clock for clock, Yonah is already beating X2 on a regular basis, sometimes by large margins. Based on those results, plus all the m-arch improvements made in Conroe/Woodcrest/Merom, I'd say there's little doubt that we're in store for a 20-40% performance lead from Intel in the near future, depending on the final outcome of the AM2 lauch...
  • LEKO - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link

    I'm really impressed by the Core Duo performance... But this CPU lacks 64bit support. I know that if you upgrade on a yearly basis, it'S not an issue. But when you want something that will be capable for years, I think that the 64bit capable Athlon X2 and Dual-Core Opteron becomes better alternatives.

    I think that AMD will get a kick in the butt when Intel will launch their Next-Gen 64bit Desktop CPU! I hope AMD have very good hidden cards.
  • Gary Key - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link

    quote:

    I'm really impressed by the Core Duo performance... But this CPU lacks 64bit support.


    This issue will be addressed with Conroe/Merom. However, given the almost dearth amount of 64-bit applications on the desktop in the WinTel world at this time we still feel like it is a safe purchase for the next couple of years, or wait for Intel's new products this summer. Of course, AMD's products are still top notch with the X2 series offering a truly long term solution (at least in CPU years) if you are buying today.
  • IntelUser2000 - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link

    quote:

    In our limited testing with the Asus N4L-VM featuring the 945GM mobile chipset our stock Intel Core Duo numbers were slightly better than the AMD platform in the Cinebench 9.5 benchmark and only about 6% greater in the POV-RAY benchmark indicating AOpen's choice of the i975x chipset certainly makes a difference in the performance ability of the Core Duo.


    I don't know. You are comparing DDR2-667 at 3-3-3-8 timings with 975X compared to DDR2-533 on 4-4-4-12 on this Core Duo review using 945GM: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

    Not only being at DDR2-667 being synchronous with FSB give advantage, the lower latency will make enough difference in both. There are other possibility like updated BIOS and mature motherboards.

    This is the best comparison benchmark I have seen for Core Duo vs. other CPUs(whether Opteron, X2 or Pentium D's), but 975X beating 945GM because its a newer chipset makes no sense.


    There is also a possibility that 945GM chipset used in laptops is performance wise lowered compared to the 945GT(which is 945G just Core Duo support), to save power, and if Asus N4L-VM is using 945GM, it MIGHT be the reason it performs lower.


  • Viditor - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link

    quote:

    This issue will be addressed with Conroe/Merom

    Agreed...though I should say that while Merom is inspired by Yonah, they really are quite different. Will this mobo also work for Merom?
  • Gary Key - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Agreed...though I should say that while Merom is inspired by Yonah, they really are quite different. Will this mobo also work for Merom?


    Agreed, was not trying to address the core architecture differences, just stating 64-bit support is on the way for Yonah's successors. :) We hear rumors the board can work with Merom, no official statements from AOpen or Intel yet. We will update the article once we have a statement or if Crestline will be the official requirement for Merom. At one time Merom was going to drop into the 945GM but who knows about i975X support as the directions seem to change every Tuesday. We are still waiting on our i965 samples to ship in order to showcase "eornoc". ;-)
  • Viditor - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link

    Thanks Gary! I will be very interested in the update once you get confirmation. I'm still a bit murky on the platforms for Merom...

    Cheers!
  • stmok - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link

    From what I hear (Engineers in AOpen R&D as well as enthusiasts who have gotten samples), they have tested this mobo with Merom. You need a BIOS update. Otherwise, it will NOT boot to the operating system!

    I'm still wondering if it supports Virtualization Technology. This is what I'm really interested in. :)
  • Questar - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link

    You plan on running apps that require greater than 4GB of ram in the next couple years?

    Didn't think so.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now