- Oct 4, 2004
- 10,515
- 6
- 81
From the Anandtech Review which uses X1900XT Crossfire running at 1600x1200 (currently accepted as an optimal resolution for the mid-high-end market, lying comfortably between the mainstream 1280x1024 & ultra-high-end 1920x1200/2560x1600)
Considering the $1000 CPUs
(X6800's advantage over the FX-62)
Battlefield 2 - 19%
HL-2: Ep.1 - 12%
F.E.A.R - 17%
Oblivion (Bruma) - 26%
Oblivion (Dungeon) - 18%
Rise of Legends - 53%
Quake 4 - 11%
On Average, 22% better performance.
The AMD Athlon64 X2 is currently selling for $568, but is rumored to hit $301 after the price cut, putting it squarely against the E6600 at $316.
Considering the ~$300 CPUs
(E6600's advantage over the X2 4600+)
Battlefield 2 - 31%
HL-2: Ep.1 - 22%
F.E.A.R - 17%
Oblivion (Bruma) - 22%
Oblivion (Dungeon) - 18%
Rise of Legends - 52%
Quake 4 - 16%
On Average, 25% better performance.
For the people screaming "X1900XT Crossfire is not what a typical gamer has", I think: Driving 1600x1200 with no AA for two X1900s is hardly a GPU-limited scenario for most games (except maybe Oblivion, which nonetheless does show great benefits).
The trouble is,
1) Run low-res, low-detail benchmarks that show C2D on top: the AMD-fanboys don't care - because no one games at such IQ.
2) Run 7900GTX SLI/X1900XT CF benchmarks that still show the C2D on top: the AMD-fanboys still don't care because realistically, dual-GPU has no widespread market.
3) Run real-world 1600x1200 4XAA 16XAF tests with a single 7900GTX/X1900XTX, the Intel-fanboys scream unfair comparision because the games are GPU-limited and the single-GPUs doen't give the Core 2 Duo enough room to show its true mettle. The G80/R600 will reveal the true superiority of the C2D, they say.
While both camps have a somewhat valid point, I think Anand adopted the best strategy: Almost any game at HQ, 1600x1200 (without AA/AF) is more or less, a piece-of-cake for an X1900XT CF setup. It represents HQ & High-Res performance, without letting the GPU seriously hamper a CPU's ability.
Intel's Core 2 Duo comes out on top, any way you put it. Whether it's 25% faster as some setups reveal, or 5-10% faster as other game-suites/GPU-limited setups reveal: the bottomline is, it is faster and offers better performance per dollar even after the AMD price cuts...and it might prove to be even faster with your next GPU upgrade. CPUs do stick around longer than GPUs for most people. Anyone looking to purchase a Motherboard+CPU+RAM today, really can't go wrong with Core 2 Duo.
If some people still think Intel is bribing 95% of the tech-media (with the obscene revenues their monopolistic & unethical business practices afford them
) to twist facts and destroy AMD, feel free to click on the smiley. 
Considering the $1000 CPUs
(X6800's advantage over the FX-62)
Battlefield 2 - 19%
HL-2: Ep.1 - 12%
F.E.A.R - 17%
Oblivion (Bruma) - 26%
Oblivion (Dungeon) - 18%
Rise of Legends - 53%
Quake 4 - 11%
On Average, 22% better performance.
The AMD Athlon64 X2 is currently selling for $568, but is rumored to hit $301 after the price cut, putting it squarely against the E6600 at $316.
Considering the ~$300 CPUs
(E6600's advantage over the X2 4600+)
Battlefield 2 - 31%
HL-2: Ep.1 - 22%
F.E.A.R - 17%
Oblivion (Bruma) - 22%
Oblivion (Dungeon) - 18%
Rise of Legends - 52%
Quake 4 - 16%
On Average, 25% better performance.
For the people screaming "X1900XT Crossfire is not what a typical gamer has", I think: Driving 1600x1200 with no AA for two X1900s is hardly a GPU-limited scenario for most games (except maybe Oblivion, which nonetheless does show great benefits).
The trouble is,
1) Run low-res, low-detail benchmarks that show C2D on top: the AMD-fanboys don't care - because no one games at such IQ.
2) Run 7900GTX SLI/X1900XT CF benchmarks that still show the C2D on top: the AMD-fanboys still don't care because realistically, dual-GPU has no widespread market.
3) Run real-world 1600x1200 4XAA 16XAF tests with a single 7900GTX/X1900XTX, the Intel-fanboys scream unfair comparision because the games are GPU-limited and the single-GPUs doen't give the Core 2 Duo enough room to show its true mettle. The G80/R600 will reveal the true superiority of the C2D, they say.
While both camps have a somewhat valid point, I think Anand adopted the best strategy: Almost any game at HQ, 1600x1200 (without AA/AF) is more or less, a piece-of-cake for an X1900XT CF setup. It represents HQ & High-Res performance, without letting the GPU seriously hamper a CPU's ability.
Intel's Core 2 Duo comes out on top, any way you put it. Whether it's 25% faster as some setups reveal, or 5-10% faster as other game-suites/GPU-limited setups reveal: the bottomline is, it is faster and offers better performance per dollar even after the AMD price cuts...and it might prove to be even faster with your next GPU upgrade. CPUs do stick around longer than GPUs for most people. Anyone looking to purchase a Motherboard+CPU+RAM today, really can't go wrong with Core 2 Duo.
If some people still think Intel is bribing 95% of the tech-media (with the obscene revenues their monopolistic & unethical business practices afford them