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:

Gaming Performance - F.E.A.R. v1.03

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.

Gaming Performance - Rise of Legends v1.0

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.

Gaming Performance using Quake 4, Battlefield 2 & Half Life 2 Episode 1 Gaming Performance using Oblivion
POST A COMMENT

200 Comments

View All Comments

  • bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Dude, 20% is a HUGE margin when you are talking competitive benchmarks.
    I agree. 20% is huge and noticeable.
    Reply
  • Chadder007 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    AMD's midrange holds up pretty well but when you go higher the Core2 crushes AMD this time.
    I would really like to see some X64bit benchmarks though to see how they will both fair with the future OSs.
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    quote:

    I would really like to see some X64bit benchmarks though to see how they will both fair with the future OSs.
    Coming shortly along with MCE2005......
    Reply
  • bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    quote:

    f I were to upgrade to the cheapest solo I would probably have to pay 500 dollars or more (new cpu, mb and memory) and I will probably get ~ performance in games. I stopped overclokcing a long time ago
    Don't confuse the Core Solo with the Core 2 Duo. The Solo is still Netburst whereas the Core 2 Duo is a new architecture.
    Reply
  • DrMrLordX - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    Um what? Core Solo isn't Netburst. It's a single-core version of Yonah as I recall. Basically, it's similar to a Dothan. Reply
  • bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Um what? Core Solo isn't Netburst. It's a single-core version of Yonah as I recall. Basically, it's similar to a Dothan.
    Which is still Netburst.
    Reply
  • mlittl3 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    Uh, no. Banias, Dothan, Yonah are not at all based on netburst. They are all P6 derivatives that use the netburst quad-pumped FSB. The Core Solo is a Yonah single core that has more in common with the PIII than the P4. The Core 2 Solo coming next year will be based on Conroe which of course is not Netburst. The ONLY, I repeat, ONLY netburst CPUs (not including Xeons) are the Pentium 4, Pentium D, Celeron D. There were mobile Pentium 4's on the netburst architecture but these haven't been used in years.

    The Pentium M (Banias and Dothan) is NOT based on netburst but a redesigned architecture based on the research in Israel.
    Reply
  • mlittl3 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    And in case you try to stupidly refute me, list the number of pipelines that are in Banias, Dothan and Yonah. If the answer is less than 20, then it is NOT netburst.

    Oh wait, here is the answer right here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_P6">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_P6

    A direct quote:
    "It[Banias] has very limited system bandwidth, as compared to NetBurst and AMD64..."

    Since Banias is not netburst and Dothan is based off of Banias and Yonah is based on Dothan, then...wait for it...all three are not netburst. Have a nice day! :)
    Reply
  • bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    I don't refute facts. :) Reply
  • mlittl3 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    Man after my own heart. :) Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now