VOGONS


First post, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

This is in my WinXP GOG.com gaming PC. Specs:
Intel D946GZIS
Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86Ghz
Xeon 3070 (identical to Core 2 Duo E6700) 2.67Ghz
2x2GB DDR2800
GeForce 8800GTX PCI-e
Turtle Beach Santa Cruz PCI
Windows XP 32-bit
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/126/Intel_Co … _Xeon_3070.html

Xonotic 0.81 is the most demanding game I have with an in-game benchmark
note: framerates in the format min/avg/max
note: detail levels tested were low, normal, high, and ultra
640x480
E6300 low: 122/175/374
X3070 low: 183/289/741
E6300 normal: 96/155/344
X3070 normal: 141/253/654
E6300 high: 91/145/306
X3070 high: 136/236/579
E6300 ultra: 63/119/251
X3070 ultra: 83/181/366
1024x768
E6300 low: 122/173/363
X3070 low: 157/286/673
E6300 normal: 95/154/324
X3070 normal: 140/250/637
E6300 high: 90/142/295
X3070 high: 131/230/567
E6300 ultra: 55/111/196
X3070 ultra: 63/151/313
1280x1024 (highest res my monitor supports)
E6300 low: 120/171/350
X3070 low: 155/282/662
E6300 normal: 95/152/316
X3070 normal: 138/246/618
E6300 high: 87/138/285
X3070 high: 121/220/459
E6300 ultra: 42/99/182
X3070 ultra: 46/116/227

7-Zip
Total Rating (MIPS)
E6300: 3557
X3070: 5057
Compressing (KB/s)
E6300: 2866
X3070: 4080
Decompressing (KB/s)
E6300: 40929
X3070: 58109

3DMark03
3DMarks
E6300: 33947
X3070: 38228
CPU Score
E6300: 1381
X3070: 2015

3DMark05
3DMarks
E6300: 11725
X3070: 15949
CPU Score
E6300: 7998
X3070: 11341

3DMark06
3DMarks
E6300: 8402
X3070: 11212
CPU Score
E6300: 1648
X3070: 2344

PCMark2002 CPU
E6300: 7523
X3070: 10519
PCMark2002 Memory
E6300: 17557
X3070: 35169

PCMark05 PCMark
E6300: 6114
X3070: 7628
PCMark05 CPU
E6300: 4789
X3070: 6808
PCMark05 Memory
E6300: 2922
X3070: 3734
PCMark05 Graphics
E6300: 12349
X3070: 13445

Interesting that all of the synthetic CPU benchmarks put the X3070 at about 42% faster. But in all of the non-GPU-bound resolutions in Xonotic, the X3070 is between 62-65% faster.

Overall I'm very happy with the system improvement just changing the CPU made. I did not think with using the same graphics card that there would be such a dramatic performance increase in framerates. I'm happy...😀

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 1 of 4, by PhilsComputerLab

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Nice!

Good to see someone else using Intel boards. I have a few Intel boards now that are C2D compatible and I really like them. Excellent documentation on the Intel website.

YouTube, Facebook, Website

Reply 2 of 4, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

They are stable and well-built. About the only complaint that can be made is they usually have no overclocking features. But I usually don't care about that. The only time I do care is if I have a cpu that is known to overclock well. Like my C2D E2180 that goes straight from 2Ghz to 2.67Ghz by changing FSB from 800 to 1066. Or in the old days, a Celeron 300a.

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 4 of 4, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I believe so, but it won't do any good if an Intel motherboard auto-detects the cpu has gives no option to change multipliers or FSB. 😉

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks