Gaming Performance & Power Usage - Continued

Our final gaming test is Half Life 2: Episode One, which provides us with another example of slightly lower performance of the new 65nm chip. The difference is less than 5%, so it could just be an unusually high variation between chips. If it isn't an issue with the benchmark then it could be a CPU problem, expected behavior, a BIOS tweak, or an issue with our test platform itself. Rest assured that as soon as we know more we will report it.

Gaming Performance - Half Life 2: Episode One

Power consumption under Half Life 2: Episode One is actually very good for the X2 5000+, due in part to its lower performance compared to the other AMD/Intel CPUs. The Core 2 Duo E6600 actually consumes the most power here, as it is also feeding the GPU the fastest out of all of the contenders. The higher performance still keeps it in the lead in terms of performance per watt, however.

Gaming Power Usage - Half Life 2: Episode One

Gaming Performance per Watt - Half Life 2: Episode One

Gaming Performance & Power Usage Temperature, Overclocking and Final Words


View All Comments

  • IntelUser2000 - Thursday, December 21, 2006 - link

    Looking at PURELY gaming purposes. Faster CPU is ABSOLUTELY USELESS. Face it, majority of the gamers that are considered hardcore doesn't run 2560x1600 resolutions, and it looks like at the resolutions they are running at, 1280x1024 or 1600x1200, it seems getting a faster CPU is worth it.

    Nope. Why get a faster CPU when you already get 100+ frames per second?? What a video card enables is get higher quality graphics WITHOUT losing performance compared to the lower performing video cards. A CPU does what?? A absolutely useless 20 additional frames onto the already more than enough 100+.

    Now we still see reviewers benching systems with 4xAA and 16xAF at ever higher(and ridiculously unreal) resolutions. But we know latest video cards allows super high AA features too. 1600x1200 with 16xAA 64xAF(Ok I forgot what the highest AF was, cut me some slack ok?? Way too many features in new video cards, lost track around X800 time...) sounds pretty good.
  • esterhasz - Sunday, December 17, 2006 - link

    I would have loved to see how low the 65nm parts undervolt... Reply
  • Tujan - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    Would have been better comparing the 6400 Intel,to a 4600 x2 since these come in to even application performance.
    Then comparing the 5000 to them both.

    Performance per watt is meaningless here.Since the formula (fps/power)is also useless without the baseline.

    The 6600 outperforms the 6400 Intel Core Duo.The 5000 x2 outperforms the 4600 x2 AMD.So higher FPS of the higher performing processor is skewed to the formula as well.

    I see that your dealing with a range between 15 and 30$ though.

    Nobody knows just how well the AMD 5000 x2 does better than the 4600 x2 anyway.

    I see you have EEs there AMD (x2).So couldn't go wrong in that effect.Purchasing an AMD 65nm x2 5000(non-extreme).Seeing the 5000 x2 only has 512kbx2 cache.

    Long as AMD doesn't put everybody up to those thousand dollar processors.Im ok with them.
  • coldpower27 - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    So? That's AMD problem they can't afford to put 4MB of LV2 on their processors. The comparison is what it is processors at equal price points. They only had the 5000+ on hand, so it was compared to the closest processor in price.

    The 4600+ was only used as it is the highest 65W TDP processor on the 90nm node. It was probably used to see if the 65W TDP was justified on the 5000+ 65nm.

  • Genx87 - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    AMD needs a new core and that is the scientific truth! Reply
  • hubajube - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    I don't know about you'ins. But I give a shit less about Intel's or AMD's or Macy's marketing prowess. I do my own research from my own sources and make decisions based on that. What's an ad? What's a TV commercial? Only the clueless and the lazy need those to guide them in what products to buy or even if the product exists. I don't give a shit about marketing. Reply
  • duploxxx - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    Nice price comparison... maybe you should also add that for the same future set you get on the mobo there is a price difference of 1/3 in favor of AMD! So put a e6400 in line of this comparison then you have the same price tag!

    Well we all know oc'ing c2d is for noobs.... you don't need any knowledge...(see it as good or as bad whatever you want)

    but oc'ing AMD does require knowledge.
    Htt link is on 1125, what do you expect to reach of an oc? on 90nm parts most of the htt link knocked out around 1060-1080, so maybe try to make a decent oc...

    And where is a screenshot of the mem and devider when you are oc'ing?

  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    Sorry I should have addressed this in the review - HTT speed had no impact on my overclocking results with this particular chip; even with a HT multiplier of 4X the chip won't get into Windows at 2.99GHz. Memory wasn't a factor as it was set to the lowest speed possible in order to see how far we could push the CPU.

    I have a feeling that with better air cooling close to 3GHz may be possible, but I wanted to look at the worst case scenario overclocking potential of just using a stock heatsink/fan similar to what we did in our Core 2 overclocking article upon its release.

    I'm working on the Brisbane 4800+ now and will find out soon if it overclocks any better.

    Take care,
  • JarredWalton - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    OC'ing AMD is pretty simple as well. Just drop the HTT multiplier to 4X if you get above about 220 MHz - not that the total HTT speed generally matters. You can also drop memory dividers if you have less capable RAM. I still think 775 overclocking requires a bit more knowledge/effort - a bit, I said, not a lot! I can't see anyone but an elitist thinking easier OC'ing would be a bad thing, though. Reply
  • duploxxx - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    why is 775 oc harder, it has one factor less to keep in mind and then i won't speak about the memory options....

    I've used already a 6600 to play with on an asus board, just left everything to auto, put the fsb to 400 and hey it runned stable on 3600 (depending on your memory offcourse)? WTF you could say on stock vcore? nope the board increased the vcore automatically.... it was running on 1,56 auto :)

    Will you update this review due to the htt? or will you leave as lots of you're reviews (like the woodrcest testing) saying that some more test are comming but eventually nothing changes.... people actually read your reviews and believe them by accurate review is always welcome....

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now