- Jul 27, 2002
- 13,314
- 690
- 126
I've got preliminary results on Q6600 @3.20GHz, and it's faster than E6600 @3.60GHz. I am doing a few more runs to rule out the possible effect of memory amount. Will post the results soon.
Edit: I saw some patterns that I couldn't make sense out of in a traditional way, and the results are still confusing. I even think of a possibility that one (or more) thread(s) are bottlenecking other threads, if this game was actually designed to make use of extra CPU cores. Below are the results from Q6600 @3.20GHz under XP 32 and Vista 64.
http://img265.imageshack.us/my...image=q66003200yb4.png
http://img471.imageshack.us/my...=q66003200vistaff3.png
I am going to make a more comprehensive post comprising all the results as well as summary . In the meantime, you guys can provide your own analysis. For your analysis, I am providing the exact configuration of rigs that house E6600 and Q6600, respectively.
Dual-Core System
Quad-Core System
All tests were run at least 3 times at any given condition and the middle value was taken. All tests were run @1024x768 and most of the in-game settings were maxed except post processings (AA/AF/Vsync). NV Control Panel setting wasn't touched. Game version used is 2354 (I believe this is the latest patch).
And a bit of off-topic: Although I did enjoy the game to a certain extent (mostly single-player) I couldn't help but think this game is another Battlefield 2, in a sense that neither the gameplay/effects nor the visual could justify the hardware resourse this game requires. I do not know if it's because the game was rushed out or its ambition was too much, but the game just doesn't give me the 'polished' feeling. (you know, the kind of feeling that you get from most Blizzard's titles)
Edit: I saw some patterns that I couldn't make sense out of in a traditional way, and the results are still confusing. I even think of a possibility that one (or more) thread(s) are bottlenecking other threads, if this game was actually designed to make use of extra CPU cores. Below are the results from Q6600 @3.20GHz under XP 32 and Vista 64.
http://img265.imageshack.us/my...image=q66003200yb4.png
http://img471.imageshack.us/my...=q66003200vistaff3.png
I am going to make a more comprehensive post comprising all the results as well as summary . In the meantime, you guys can provide your own analysis. For your analysis, I am providing the exact configuration of rigs that house E6600 and Q6600, respectively.
Dual-Core System
E6600 @3.20GHz/3.60GHz
Bad Axe 2
2GB DDR2-800
8800 GTX @625/1000 (Core/Memory)
Quad-Raptor RAID 0 (4x74GB)
Quad-Core System
- Q6600 @3.20GHz
EVGA 680i
8GB DDR2-800
8800GTX @625/1000 (Core/Memory)
Single Raptor (148GB)
All tests were run at least 3 times at any given condition and the middle value was taken. All tests were run @1024x768 and most of the in-game settings were maxed except post processings (AA/AF/Vsync). NV Control Panel setting wasn't touched. Game version used is 2354 (I believe this is the latest patch).
And a bit of off-topic: Although I did enjoy the game to a certain extent (mostly single-player) I couldn't help but think this game is another Battlefield 2, in a sense that neither the gameplay/effects nor the visual could justify the hardware resourse this game requires. I do not know if it's because the game was rushed out or its ambition was too much, but the game just doesn't give me the 'polished' feeling. (you know, the kind of feeling that you get from most Blizzard's titles)
Facebook
Twitter