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:

Gaming Performance - Quake 4 v1.2

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:

Gaming Performance - Battlefield 2 v1.22

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:

Gaming Performance - HL2: Episode One

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.

Gaming with Core 2 and CrossFire on 975X Gaming Performance using F.E.A.R. & Rise of Legends
Comments Locked

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 article
    the 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

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now