Benchmark Results

Quake 4 (1024 x 768)

We first tested at 1024x768 to reduce the effect of the graphics card (NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GX2) on the results. Certainly, at 1024x768, the graphics card would be CPU-limited.

Oddly enough, the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 was only 2% faster than the Core 2 Duo E6600. Even the increased clock speed wasn't enough to boost its frame rates.

Quake 4 is evidently not optimized for quad-core CPUs like the Core 2 Extreme QX6700. It was actually 3.2% slower than the dual-core E6600 at the same clock speed.

Quake 4 (1600 x 1200)

We retested at the higher resolution of 1600x1200 with basically the same results.

F.E.A.R. (1024 x 768)

We first tested at 1024x768 to reduce the effect of the graphics card (NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GX2) on the results. Certainly, at 1024x768, the graphics card would be CPU-limited.

This time, we saw a slightly larger boost in performance, compared to the Quake 4 results. The Core 2 Extreme QX6700 was 4.5% faster than the Core 2 Duo E6600.

We then had the QX6700 running at the same clock speed as the E6600. This time, it was 2.2% faster than the E6600.

F.E.A.R. (1600 x 1200)

We retested at the higher resolution of 1600 x 1200. As the graphics card became more of a factor, the frame rates of all three processors were much closer. In fact, they were practically indistinguishable.

If you play at this resolution or even higher, then the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 won't benefit your gameplay much. As the resolution goes up, the graphics card becomes more and more important.