Difference Between Xeon versus Desktop?

[RunawayPrisoner]

So much faster at the same clock speed? I'd run the game at the lowest resolution possible, too, if I want to test my CPU out.

Okay... found a professional review after some tedious searches:

http://www.benchmark.co.yu/modules.p...12432&oliver=0

From what I can see, E6600 @ 2.4GHz only outperforms X3220 @ 2.4GHz by a little tiny bit in gaming... almost invisible differences. E6600 was also faster in some cases, too... and I'm just guessing that Q6600 would yield the same result... somewhat. But I don't think it can be up to 25% in gaming. As far as I know, Crysis is the only game that might benefit just a little from quad-core processors.

[Metroid]

So much faster at the same clock speed? I'd run the game at the lowest resolution possible, too, if I want to test my CPU out.

Okay... found a professional review after some tedious searches:

http://www.benchmark.co.yu/modules.p...12432&oliver=0

From what I can see, E6600 @ 2.4GHz only outperforms X3220 @ 2.4GHz by a little tiny bit in gaming... almost invisible differences. E6600 was also faster in some cases, too... and I'm just guessing that Q6600 would yield the same result... somewhat. But I don't think it can be up to 25% in gaming. As far as I know, Crysis is the only game that might benefit just a little from quad-core processors.

I think that guy was drunk, should have had similar results maybe Xeon had something that could slice a bit of performance.

25% is just too much. So we could say both were drunk the guy who did that Doom 3 test and the guy said 25% for desktops counterparts.

We need more benchs. We will have soon. I know it.

Metroid.

[Nebulus]

So much faster at the same clock speed? I'd run the game at the lowest resolution possible, too, if I want to test my CPU out.

Okay... found a professional review after some tedious searches:

http://www.benchmark.co.yu/modules.p...12432&oliver=0

From what I can see, E6600 @ 2.4GHz only outperforms X3220 @ 2.4GHz by a little tiny bit in gaming... almost invisible differences. E6600 was also faster in some cases, too... and I'm just guessing that Q6600 would yield the same result... somewhat. But I don't think it can be up to 25% in gaming. As far as I know, Crysis is the only game that might benefit just a little from quad-core processors.

Well, thats good news; I would go as far as to say that the differences in the gaming benchmarks were well within the margins of error:
968.3 vs 969.7 fps for Quake III... basically the same here
206.6 vs 209.6 fps for Doom III... basically the same (slight edge toE6600)
158.18 vs 161.85 for Farcry... basically the same (slight edge toE6600)

I agree 25% seems a bit far fetched.

We need more benchs. We will have soon. I know it.

Hehe, I think so too. Hopefully when people see this thread tomorrow we will get some more up to date benching done.