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

  • Josh7289 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    When I go to college next year, I know what I'll be buying. :) Reply
  • Pirks - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    quote:

    When I go to college next year, I know what I'll be buying. :)
    When I see AMD price cuts next month, I know what your face'll look like. :)
    Reply
  • theoryzero - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    This review (and the many others from other review sites) is interesting in that it confirms Intel's bold claims made back in March.

    However, with that out of the way, what I really want to know is which chipset/MoBo to go with? Is springing for high-end memory worth it on Core2? Any plans for a motherboard review in the very near future? Given the Abit AB9 preview and recent articles on DDR2-1000 memory I kind of expected this stuff to show up after the NDA was lifted too.
    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    Conroe starts shipping July 27th - the original launch date. Intel moved the launch date back two weeks because OEMs like Dell and HP were hot to start advertising and shipping Conroe systems. I suspect Intel was also trying to salvage their NDA. Good news is hard to contain and two more weeks of NDA would have likely resulted in more info leaks that Intel did not want to turn into a flood.

    You will be able to find answers at AnandTech to your basic Conroe motherboard and memory questions early next week.
    Reply
  • theoryzero - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    Sounds good, thanks! Reply
  • bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    quote:

    You will be able to find answers at AnandTech to your basic Conroe motherboard and memory questions early next week.
    Thanks.
    Reply
  • Howard - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    I would have loved to see minimum FPS as well as average FPS. The review was great otherwise. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    While we could report those scores, we didn't feel we should at least on Oblivion. The reason for that is because the Oblivion runs were manually tested with FRAPS, and the results aren't perfectly comparable between runs. Anyway, here are some of the numbers, but recognize that the margin of error is going to be larger than what you would see with automated timedemos:

    Oblivion Bruma:
    Core E6300: 32-53.7-77
    Core X6800: 47-78.6-117
    AMD 3800+: 27-47.0-72
    AMD FX-62: 38-62.5-94

    Oblivion Dungeon:
    Core E6300: 39-81.3-211
    Core X6800: 57-106.5-214
    AMD 3800+: 35-72.0-189
    AMD FX-62: 46-89.9-211

    F.E.A.R.:
    Core E6300: 34-92-224
    Core X6800: 41-118-310
    AMD 3800+: 28-83-212
    AMD FX-62: 38-101-247

    Rise of Legends:
    Core E6300: 8-68.2-137
    Core X6800: 45-120.5-216
    AMD 3800+: 5-52.1-115
    AMD FX-62: 25-78.4-144

    Minimum frame rates in the Rise of Legends benchmark are zero on most of the Pentium D systems, so again we take those with something of a grain of salt. Regardless of how you look at it, though, the Core 2 Duo processors consistently outperform their AMD equivalents in gaming results. We will be looking at additional games next week in our motherboard reviews.
    Reply
  • nowuadmit - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    First off, when u guys reviewed a 486/33 for the first time... it was also "the fastest piece of silicon the world has ever seen"... then later, when u saw the P2-550... THAT was the "fastest piece of silicon... blah blah".

    Well its nice that intel has made a really expensive and barely available new chip, so they can finally match (or even exceed by a few points) AMD's reasonably priced previous generation. So now u can say they have the fastest, and if u want to spend thousands on a CPU that is only slightly faster than something that costs hundreds of dollars, HEY BE MY GUEST! there have been worse wastes of money! (in theory anyways, since the avg american wont be able to actually find any of these in the local stores for quite some time, if intel follows their previous habits).

    Anyhow the point of my comment... i think this is a good thing. i mean, anything that actually causes an intel fanboi to admit finally that intel has been reaming your butts for 5 years..

    while the people who simply buy whatever CPU makes the most sense have been enjoying getting great quality nookie from AMD! SO i present to you, this Technical Quote of the Year, spoken on behalf of all intel fanbois with half a brain!

    Technical Quote of the Year:

    "...power hungry, poor performing, non-competitive garbage (sorry guys, it's the truth) that Intel has been shoving down our throats for the greater part of the past 5 years."

    Congradulations on your honesty, finally.
    Reply
  • MrKaz - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link

    Yes that’s truth.

    80% of Intel crap, only 20% is good. The Pentium M.

    So they say 5 years ago until now Intel was “all” crap. I think Northwood was/is very good.

    My maximum price is 100$ (or 120$ with cooler) for a CPU. Only AMD as an honest performing CPU for those prices.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now