Compared: Core2Quad vs. i7 hi-res gaming performance

EDIT: UPDATED WITH i7 OCed to 3GHZ RESULTS!

There has been a debate on whether Core i7 family processors offer any advantage in gaming or upgrading to core i7 system (for gaming)is just a waste of time. (Read it HERE, HERE and HERE)

Since I recently switched to core i7 setup from a Core2 Quad setup, I have decided to do some tests and share the results with you guys.

This is not an overclocking test or even a comparison between cpus. The main goal of this review to show how much gain one can get on hi-res-all-eye-candy gaming by going from socket 775 cpu to socket 1366 cpu with the rest of the system is identical.

I already did some tests on hi-res gaming between 2 different video cards (evga285 vs Sapphire 4890 which is factory overclocked to 901/1000). You can find it HERE.

Stock clocks on my hd4890s
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7056/aticlocks.jpg

So when I switched to i7 setup, I repeated those tests and here are the results.

First the contestants:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/8547/systems.jpg

Here’s the cpu info from intel:
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1911/w3520vs9203.jpg
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/2111/x3370vsq9650.jpg

I did a total of 5 tests. 3 games (Fallout, HL2, and Crysis Demo). All the eye candy were enabled in the games plus maximum AA, AAF. I also compared the performance on 3Dmark06 and 3DMark Vantage (Performance setting).
Fraps was used to benchmark the games. I predetermined a good spot in game and saved it. Then I decided what to do, where to go and rehearsed several times to minimize the variability. Finally, I benchmarked them with fraps for 5 minutes.

Game 1: HL2 (res 1920x1200, everything maxed)
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/3498/hl2.jpg

Game 2: Fallout3 (HD pack, real eyes mod, Hd pipboy mode, res 1920x1200, everything maxed out, res cap removed)
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2748/fallout3m.jpg

Game 3: Crysis Demo (Real Lifesis mod, res 1920x1200, 8xAA)
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/2029/crysisdemo.jpg

3DMark06:
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/9430/3dmark06u.jpg

Vantage (Performance setting)
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/2236/vantage.jpg

There you go. I think results speak for themselves. Please note that CPUs are all stock. So 3.0ghz Q5650 were compared to 2.66ghz i 920. Also I used the same OS in both settings (one of the advantages of having a separate raid card) so I don’t know if the results would differ much if I reinstalled the OS between the switch. I am going to install Win7 in couple of days anyway, so I’ll report if there is any significant difference in performance.

Thank you very much for your effort and your time mate for this test but is it possible to overclock your i7 a bit up to 3.0GHz so that we can have a head to head comparison between these 2 different Cpu generations ?

Popping in another 4890 or two and taking both cpus up to 3.6ghz+ would be interesting also. This article was done around the i7 launch period at hexus, showing gains in most games, from merely decent to pretty damn good:

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=16285

any reason in particular why you go with the xeons instead of the i7/c2q?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antiacid

any reason in particular why you go with the xeons instead of the i7/c2q?

---

Well I prefer server boards and xeons just go better with the choice of my boards (same price with ecc support so why not?). I always prefer stability to speed as I use my computer for many things from video editing/encoding to storing critical data and playing games so I am really not too particular about that 5 FPS I could gain with a mainstream board. Server boards come with better network adapters, better power management, more fan headers (it's a must with my MM-UFO) and overall they are more stable. But overclocking is a :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: with them. Which takes us to the questions below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mak1skav

Thank you very much for your effort and your time mate for this test but is it possible to overclock your i7 a bit up to 3.0GHz so that we can have a head to head comparison between these 2 different Cpu generations ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xello

Popping in another 4890 or two and taking both cpus up to 3.6ghz+ would be interesting also.

---

I'd love to but I really don't know how with the Supermicro board. The multi is locked upwards at 20 and there is no adjustment for baseclock so I think I'm pretty much stuck with the stock speeds I guess. The only think I can change is QPI and the voltages which is pretty useless imo without being able to increase clocks. Maybe I'm missing something but I really don't know.

It was an interesting afternoon as I tried to overclock my system. I was about to lost all hope then I found this little program called setFSB. After little bit of digging I was able to locate the PLL chip on x8sax and finally overclocked the thing to 3GHZ to give you the clock by clock results.

setFSB:
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3334/setfsb.jpg

CPUZ Screen:
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/2657/i7oc.jpg

HL2 and Fallout3
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/643...hl2fallout.jpg

Crysis Demo
[IMG]://img269.imageshack.us/img269/6497/i7occrysis.jpg[/IMG]

3DMark06 and Vantage
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/842/i70c3dmark.jpg

I am moving to Windows7 now. I'll do one last comparison between Vista and Win7 performance.

Thanks alot for the effort you put into this review. 3DMark2006 settings can´t be standard, right?

nice review, I don’t even expect really higher results from those two chips than a q6600@3.4!

Quote:

---

Here is the thing, with Intel's Tic/Tock 2 year cycle of die shrink followed by new architecture and the fact that Intel is actually able to deliver, more or less. on that schedule it is impossible to keep up on a budget or have a system that is not outdated (note I did not use the word obsolete) in a year or two.

My point is that is it now almost impossible to "chase the hardware" with Intel CPU and motherboards unless you buy a new CPU/motherboard and maybe memory every 2 years or less. Anything with DDR2 will be a dead end shortly (well I guess it already is).

HOWEVER - the real question is, in x years will software (game) be out there that compels/requires the user to upgrade ? Current high performance systems (CPU/motherboard/memory) have a tremendous amount of power, Now that Microshaft has us by the short hairs with regards to DXxx graphics in the OS - upgrading the OS will likely have more impact for gamers than the CPU/motherboard. It has been shown with benchmarks around the net that in general the i7 is not a big win for gamers. The i5 is the desktop version and will have the typical advantages of a die shrink but no huge performance increase over the i7. And my real point is that a nice core 2 system, tuned properly can likely provide up to 5+ years of useful service as it has all the horsepower needed except in special circumstances. If it is critical/worth the money to the user to save 20% of the time to encode a video etc the i7/i5 would be worth it. But the i5 is unlikely to be a huge improvement over the i7 for games etc. It is probably more important to go with Vista 64bit for the DX10 and memory than it is for going with an i7/i5 over a C2.

Based on the above I am telling my gaming customers that are on a tight budget to go with a Q6600 in either the Asus or Gigabyte $130ish board with 2 x 2GB (room to add another 4GB later) and then depending on monitor resolution go for the highest performance video the rest of the budget allows. (ATI 4890 1GB card my current recommendation for 1650x1200 22in monitors) It is my opinion for a gamer that with video card updates such a machine will serve for a long time. (This assumes an OC to 3.2+ and proper bios tuning ) . If they can squeeze in one of the 45nm quads - all good. Of course if money is not an issue --- weeeeeeee !!!

So yes the core 2 is at the end of the hardware upgrade road - right on time per Intel's schedule. But that does not mean the CPU is any less powerful and it is my opinion, with video card upgrades that it can serve very well for some time in the future. I play the uber pig of a resource hog Warhammer on my 2 1/2 year old sig system very well and with a video card refresh have no worries about playing anything that comes out in the next couple of years. And the "next couple of years" is important because we just had the i7 release and in two years "the next big thing" will come out of Intel.


So I think the Core 2 will be around for quite a while, but the i7 is nowhere near (just based on posts here) the "gotta have" upgrade the Core 2 was and I expect the i5 to even be less popular unless they do something serious to the chip to make it perform better in games. Another thing is that for businesses a core 2 system of any type is huge overkill for the typical office drone several of the small businesses I deal with are still running P4 systems just fine and the economy is not helping them push to upgrade. And when they do upgrade a modest core 2 duo obtained a "last years technology" prices will look very attractive. Hell they might even spring for win7 too. I digress.

The other thing is his buying time frame. i5's are an unknown ATM but are just an i7 derivative. It is a sure bet the needed DDR3 will be more expensive than the dirt cheap DDR2 available now, CPU cost likely about a wash, motherboard ???? , motherboard compared to C2 motherboard more expensive.

---

thanks for the good read

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antiacid

any reason in particular why you go with the xeons instead of the i7/c2q?

---

Well, the xeons are from the center of waffle, they can run on lower volts, theoretically better oc, etc. IIRC

For a fairer comparison, disable HT and Turbo Mode (which pushes 1 higher multiplier on load), so we know a true clock-for-clock, core-for-core comparison.

This is why I'm waiting for sandybridge. You can't really compare an i7 920 overclocked to a q9650 stock. The q9650 has just as much if not more overclocking headroom than the 920 at about the same price point.

Good work with the reviews, btw. I can't wait for the Vista 7 comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Computerville

3DMark2006 settings can´t be standard, right?

---

Yes it is standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentGOD

For a fairer comparison, disable HT and Turbo Mode (which pushes 1 higher multiplier on load), so we know a true clock-for-clock, core-for-core comparison.

---

Turbo mode was disabled. Never thought of disabling the HT honestly.

C2Q not die. :D

Thanks you this is really good stuff, now if you could only add a c2d @ 3ghz for comparison ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xcel

Thanks you this is really good stuff, now if you could only add a c2d @ 3ghz for comparison ;)

---

Really? :ROTF:

Q9650 must run at...:up:

Try it with disabled HT.. and you'll see.. maybe. :) (cause HT actually make games runing slower sometimes)

I've switched from AMD X2 to i7.. no regrets.. btw. friend of mine has X48 DFi + Q6600 + HD 4870 .. well, even OCed, its not that good as i7.. but I guess it depends on what you want..

This is really interested in result, its made me keep my system for a whie more before moving to i7 then. Many thanks for take time test and post, wel done ;)

good test.------------------------- i7 is not all that for gaming....upgrade better video card or intels ssd is were the improvement is at.

Nice to see this after I decided to grab a now $229 9550 at NewEgg and forgo the i7 upgrade for a while.

Now the question is, can I wait for the ATI Radeon 5900 architecture for a video card upgrade?

thx for results and testing....it will be awesome to put fc2 ;)

Great stuff, love both chips..... keep it coming!

I'm Happy To Have Q9550 It's Realy Good CPU For Me

Great Resualt Tanx

Thanks, mate! Very interesting to read.

Thanks for your work with this review! Dosent look like I'm going to be getting a new CPU until there is something really good out. The Q6600 is just a great CPU ; )