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

  • TheTrue - Sunday, April 02, 2006 - link

    You guys are really Amazing, jealous of others success, to all of the losers here is going to happene what happend to all the ATI Fan boy, now nvidia is back and there they with the mouth on they assess, if Intel make a faster and better chip then we are the one who should be happy because the price will come down for a better chip. Keep dreaming about AMD is better, that is why every server in mission critical task out there for professional business around the globe use AMD?. Let me see, why Intel Xeon not opteron?, I will get a new chip and that will be Intel I don’t give a damn what some no body think about a company just because they are jealous of the success of that company, just like the geek who use apple, now they are using Intel Chip. Before intel was the worse now they are going to use the very product that they said was so bad and slow, that is what is going to happen to all of you who talk so bad about Intel and the time come, you will do what all of the ATI Fan boy are doing, that is using what is better and that is nvidia. so stop talking like that about Intel, because if not because of Intel you losers will be right now in the toilet with your hand on something else and is not a keyboard.
    Reply
  • TheTrue - Sunday, April 02, 2006 - link

    You guys are really Amazing, jealous of others success, to all of the losers here is going to happened to all the ATI fun boy, now nvidia is back and there they with the mouth on they assess, if Intel make a faster better chip then we are the one who should be happy because the price will down for a better chip. Keep dreaming about AMD is better, that is why every server or mission critical task out there on professional business around the globe use AMD. Let me see, why Intel Xeon not opteron?, I will get a new chip and that will be Intel I don’t give a damn what some no body think about a company just because they are jealous of the success of a company, just like the geek who use apple, now they are using Intel Chip. Before intel was the worse now they are going to use the very product that they said was so bad and slow, that is what is going to happen to all of you who talk so bad about Intel. Reply
  • CobraT1 - Monday, March 27, 2006 - link

    To complain about a "look ahead" during the wrap-up is totally ridiculous. This is why we read these articles, to be informed. If one is gathering information on a current purchase and is not interested in waiting, then one can easily omit the "look ahead's" inclusion.

    Here is what was stated in this "highly controversial" look ahead,

    If you need more of a reminder of why it will only help to wait, here are a few of the Conroe tests that we were able to run at IDF, which we duplicated on our systems here (same test configuration, test files and hardware):
    Conroe is being compared in one test area (encoding), an area which is the P4 true strength. The point being made that the P4 will be a soon to be obsolete, not that it outperformed the FX-60. The P4 already demonstrated that. This comparison "HURTS" Intel. Why would Intel pay for that?

    While the 965 has become a lot more competitive with the FX-60, our overall nod still goes to AMD.
    For current buyers who must have high-end, AMD is the way to go. Why would Intel pay for a recommendation for an AMD part?

    With AMD's Socket-AM2 right around the corner, and Conroe not too far away, we honestly can't recommend anything but a low cost CPU today to avoid virtually immediate obsolescence. And we'll be telling you exactly what low cost CPU that would be sometime next week...
    AT is recommending a low cost CPU for current buyers and will be releasing a comparison with the specific recommendations next week. How would this comment be biased one way or the other? What CPU or CPU's do you think that they will recommend? Has someone's confidence been shaken?

    Intel would not pay for a review that essentially says that although the latest P4 is an improvement and brings it closer to what is currently offered by AMD, despite it's strengths in a few areas the overall recommendation after comparing these 2 high-end parts in the P4EE review is the FX-60. To assert that Intel paid for such a recommendation is stupid.

    The review was balanced and the inclusion of the "look ahead" was appropriate as it supported one of their final recommendations (as there was more than 1) regarding the part under review. They conclude after reviewing the P4EE,
    1- The FX-60 is the better overall CPU at this price point.
    2- The P4EE is only recommended if it's strengths are the primary requirement.
    3- For current buyers, purchase a low cost part and wait for their comparison next week for assistance.
    4- If a buyer can wait 3 to 6 months, the Conroe looks to easily outperform the current high-end from both companies at half the cost.

    AT has been forthright regarding the Conroe and has misrepresented nothing. It was clearly stated when it is to be released, there was no attempt to mislead. The information known about the Conroe should be included in every CPU review and\or comparison at it's performance level or expected price point. How many times have reviews (not just CPU's) ended with "xxxxx coming out in a few months is not expected to provide much benefit" or "xxxxx is due out in a few months, if you can wait you may be better off". This is a common practice and to NOT have this information for consideration would do all readers as well as prospective buyers a disservice.

    These silly accusations against AT as being "paid off" are pathetic and nothing more than a sign that there is fear in hearts of those who have tied themselves to of all things, a corporation. We can all be thankful that these people are not doing the reviews.

    Some people really need to grow up.
    Reply
  • rallyhard - Friday, March 31, 2006 - link

    To complain about a "look ahead" during the wrap-up is totally ridiculous.

    Some people really need to grow up.

    My thoughts exactly.
    Reply
  • Reynod - Sunday, March 26, 2006 - link

    Lets be clear about the comparisons here - AMD X2 and 64 cpu's currently exist and so do the Intel P4's. Conroe isn't a production part, so why are you making comparison's with it, the FX series and the new 965's when Conroe can't be bought??

    Why ... well it is clear ... this site has been bought out by Intel just like Toms was a few years back.

    Intel obviously payed you very well for the positive feedback, and the constant references in benchmarking since eh??

    Reply
  • Reynod - Thursday, March 30, 2006 - link

    Thanks for that.

    I have always preferred to check Anand's views on new technology in the past as I always considered his reviews balanced.

    I think this review fell into a serious hole because it essentially isn't of any value, and as a propaganda tool, I feel it has damaged AMD's reputation in the market.

    AMD and Intel both have prototype silicon capable of much higher level of function than we currently enjoy today, however, none of it is at mass production spec.

    The Conroe review is flawed because it was reviewed without ever being a production chip. This hypes the market up for Intel, and does unneccessary damage to the fragile market AMD has garnered over the past few years where they have enjoyed a small advantage, both in terms of raw cpu power and lower thermal envelope.

    AMD is a small company, Intel is huge.

    Reviewing an engineering sample like this in isolation therefore does more damage than good.

    I only made my previous point to make it clear that I was outraged - I apologise for the comment.

    I, like many others, have enjoyed the power that AMD has brought to the PC world with it's competition with Intel.

    If AMD were not around, we would still have P3's as Intel would have had no competition ... we would also be paying a lot more money for CPU's.

    Competition breeds innovation.

    Bias (intentional or otherwsie) places unfair advantage ..
    Reply
  • Pino - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link

    Can´t belive Anand is promoting a CPU that will not be launched in next 6 months.

    I´m not an AMD or Intel fan.

    I´m fan of my pocket!

    It´s good to see that in the future we´ll have options, because today we only have one choice, AMD.

    But until them, I wish Anand to stay against the paper launches, as ever.
    Reply
  • stephenbrooks - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link

    --[Can´t belive Anand is promoting a CPU that will not be launched in next 6 months.]--

    You'd rather he told you to buy the 965 EE? :)
    Reply
  • PrinceGaz - Friday, March 24, 2006 - link

    No, he would tell us to buy the FX-60 rather than the 965 EE, as the FX-60 is better.

    If Conroe were going to be available for purchase in the next month or even two months then including verified benchmark results for it would be fine, but it is still half a year away. If AT is going to routinely start including results for parts that we won't be able to buy for half a year, continuous improvements in price/performance means the recommendation on what to buy will always be to wait several more months. That's not much help for someone who wants to upgrade. You should only include products which are either available or will be available very soon.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Friday, March 24, 2006 - link

    Well it varies, some reports say Late June, while the most pessimistic reports say September. So anyware from 3 to 6 months away.

    It's good to know this as in potentially less then half a years time your going to be getting a CPU on the Intel side that will outperform this processor by a large margin 20% or greater, and which cost half the price.

    This is like getting an Athlon 64x2 2.2GHZ/2x1MB for 1000US now and in at most 6 months you can get something like Athlon 64x2 2.8GHZ/2x1MB for 500US, using current performance improvement timetables this typically hasn't occured, and such a grand scale of price cuts or performance enhancement in such a short interval of time for CPU's.

    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now