|
-
Mako Shark
Video Card + CPU ... do you really need a 3ghz+ CPU???
So I finally came back to the computer hardware/overclocking hobby, after being gone for 2 ½ years, and I really needed to upgrade my computer to play todays games… I recently picked up Left 4 dead, gears of war, Crysis warhead, COD4 and COD world at war… and ive noticed that my system wasn’t cutting it anymore, even at really low res, some of the games Ive been playing have been really slow… so I decided its time to do a upgrade;
Option 1:
Video card: Radeon HD 4850 512MB (hopfully i can get up to 4870 speeds)
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 (hopfully i can get up to 4-4.2ghz)
total cost: 440ish (candian dollors)
Option2:
Video card: eVGA e-GeForce GTX 260 SuperClocked 896MB
Power supply: PC Power and Cooling Silencer 750 Quad Power Supply
total cost: 420ish (candian dollors)
Now the majority of you guys leaned towards option two, because their logic was after 3ghz the cpu is no longer a bottleneck, and games now are relying heavily on GPU (altho I figured the overclocked E8400 @ 4ghz would help more then a better video card) So I wanted to put this to the test;
The test consists of me running CS: stress test (MAXED everything settings at 1605x1080) x3 and getting the average of the 3 run's
Hardware setup: P5B deluxe / intel E6300 / 7800gt and 8800gts / 2x 1gig PC8500 patriot ram
7800GT config
E6300 @ 1.86ghz = FPS 88
E6300 @ 3.0ghz = FPS 88.1
E6300 @ 3.29ghz = FPS 88.3
E6300 @ 3.5ghz = FPS 88.4
(looks like in this instance, the CPU has already maxed out GPU)
8800GTS config
E6300 @ 1.86ghz = FPS 182
E6300 @ 3.0ghz = FPS 213
E6300 @ 3.29ghz = FPS 214
E6300 @ 3.5ghz = FPS 215
8800GTS config
Q6600 @ 2.4ghz = FPS 182
Q6600 @ 3.0ghz = FPS 213
Q6600 @ 3.2ghz = FPS 214
(looks like in this instance, there was a 31FPS jump from 1.86ghz to 3.0ghz, BUT there less then 2FPS from 3ghz to 3.5ghz)
As you can see, at around 3ghz, you start to near the MAX of your cpu….. in my case, those gamers who are trying to decide on CPU/Video card combo’s for a system, this info might be able to help you out…. After this benchmark, ive decided I don’t need to upgrade my CPU to an E8400…. hopfully this helped some of you guys out there...
I’ll be getting a GeForce 260GTX in a week, and I’ll be doing the same test to see if it follows the same pattern.
Last edited by sharkypinoy; 01-03-2009 at 11:14 PM.
System 1:
Asus P5B Deluxe | Intel Core2Duo E6300 | (2x1gig) Patriot Extreme Performance PC2-8500 | MSI GeForce 260GTX | Samsung SyncMaster 225bw | Western Digital 640GB Caviar SE16 | LG DVD 16x | LG CDRW 52x24x52x | Windows XP Professional | Creative Labs Inspire T5400 5.1 Speaker System | Powered by PC Power & Cooling 750w | Coolermaster Stacker 830 SE | Cool by Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme Aluminum Heatsink
-
when it comes to a gaming machine, the CPU is about 30% as important as a power supply or GPU, or display. these items directly relate to the depth of your experience. the CPU, not so much.
Last edited by iamsostupid; 01-03-2009 at 09:17 AM.
-
Old School OCer
I think you'll find that both of the vidcards under test bottlenecked the cpu at about 3.0GHz. Once you get the 260 you'll discover that point moving much higher, and might even be bottlenecked by your cpu. I look forward to your testing.
The Money Trap = Intel i7 930 | Corsair H70 | ASUS P6X58D-E | 3 x 2GB G.Skill DDR3 2000 6-9-6-24 | EVGA GTX 580 DS SC | OCZ Vertex 2 90GB SSD | WD VelociRaptor | Klipsch ProMedia | Cooler Master HAF 932 | Antec TPQ-1200W | Dell U2711 2560 x 1440 27" | Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit | APC RS1500
-
Mako Shark
I absolutely agree with you that super high CPU speeds get diminishing returns, and are just silly. We all know today that a getting a powerful GPU impacts 3d gaming more than CPU. And from a CPU perspective, I think that recently released games (like Left 4 Dead), and games coming out in the future, will actually benefit more from multithreading than from high CPU clock speeds.
This is a large reason why I chose to get a quad core CPU, keep it at stock speeds (2.4Ghz), undervolt it to keep heat generation low, and keep all of your fans down to low speeds for a quiet PC. To anybody who hasn't tried this, I highly recommend you give it a shot to see if the decrease in fan noise outweighs the very small drop in framerates. After all, if you can't get much performance benefit out of overclocking your CPU, why not try and get benefit from a silent PC?
-
One area in which cpu does matter is multi-gpu configurations like Crossfire and SLI. Scaling on such systems is an area where i7 does offer meaningful gain for gaming.
Mine: Core i7-920 + Xigmatek S1283 // Gigabyte UD4P // gigabyte windforce hd6870 // 3x2GB Corsair DDR3-1333 // Antec 900 V2 // Corsair TX750 // WD 640GB Cav. blue // Samsung TOC T240 24"
kids: PhII 550 BE (quad unlocked) + freezer pro 64 // Gigabyte UD2H // 2x2GB Corsair DDR3-1600 // CM Centurion 5 // gtx260-216 // Corsair HX620 // WD 640GB Cav. black // some 22" monitor
-
nuclear launch detected
i saw almost zero improvement in fps when i overclocked my core2duo from 2.8ghz to 3.5ghz
when it comes to gaming i see no point in spending more than $100 on the cpu if you are playing at any respectable resolution
bitfenix prodigy, i5 4670k, asrock z87e-itx, zotac gtx 970, crucial m500 msata, seasonic x650, dell st2220t
-
This thread is good food for thought.
Current Rig: Q6600 @2.8GHz | Zalman CNPS 9700 | 6 GB Corsair XM2 DDR2 RAM @ 736 MHz | 2 x 150 GB Raptors Raid 0 | Asus Dark Knight 4870 512 MB | Gigabyte EP45-U3DL Motherboard | ASUS VW266H Panel | Lian Li PC-V1200Bplus
XBL Gamertag: Recursivity
http://xclite.net
Now Playing: Left4Dead, Team Fortress 2, Killing Floor, Dawn of War 2
-
Mako Shark
i got my hand on a Q6600 and did some tests, and the results are very interesting
8800GTS config
E6300 @ 3.0ghz = FPS 213
E6300 @ 3.29ghz = FPS 214
E6300 @ 3.5ghz = FPS 215
8800GTS config
Q6600 @ 3.0ghz = FPS 213
Q6600 @ 3.2ghz = FPS 214
if you look here, Q6600 @3.0ghz and the E6300 @3.0ghz both get 213FPS
and Q6600 @3.2ghz and the E6300 @3.249hz both get 214FPS
im looking foward to my gtx 260 results!
Last edited by sharkypinoy; 01-03-2009 at 11:17 PM.
System 1:
Asus P5B Deluxe | Intel Core2Duo E6300 | (2x1gig) Patriot Extreme Performance PC2-8500 | MSI GeForce 260GTX | Samsung SyncMaster 225bw | Western Digital 640GB Caviar SE16 | LG DVD 16x | LG CDRW 52x24x52x | Windows XP Professional | Creative Labs Inspire T5400 5.1 Speaker System | Powered by PC Power & Cooling 750w | Coolermaster Stacker 830 SE | Cool by Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme Aluminum Heatsink
-
Hammerhead Shark
 Originally Posted by sharkypinoy
i got my hand on a Q6600 and did some tests, and the results are very interesting
8800GTS config
E6300 @ 3.0ghz = FPS 213
E6300 @ 3.29ghz = FPS 214
E6300 @ 3.5ghz = FPS 215
8800GTS config
Q6600 @ 3.0ghz = FPS 213
Q6600 @ 3.2ghz = FPS 214
if you look here, Q6600 @3.0ghz and the E6300 @3.0ghz both get 213FPS
and Q6600 @3.2ghz and the E6300 @3.249hz both get 214FPS
im looking foward to my gtx 260 results!
Not really that surprising, since it just means that the game you're running cannot take advantage of 2 of the cores in the Q6600.
AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE | 16GB Corsair Vengenance | Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 | ATI HD 4850 | Crucial C300 128GB | WD Caviar Black 2TB | Samsung F3 1.5TB | LG GH22LS30 DVD | Antec NeoPower 550W | Antec P180 | Windows 7 Ultimate (x64)
Apple Macbook Pro (13.3") | Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.26GHz | 2GB DDR3 1066 | nvidia 9400M | OSX "Snow Leopard"
Currently playing; EvE Online - Incarna (PC/Mac) | League of Legends (PC)
-
Mako Shark
 Originally Posted by qmul
Not really that surprising, since it just means that the game you're running cannot take advantage of 2 of the cores in the Q6600.
but also keep in mind that the Q6600 has 4mb cache, where the E6300 has only 2mb... so that might show the trend for those who have 6mb cache with the E8x00 processors...
System 1:
Asus P5B Deluxe | Intel Core2Duo E6300 | (2x1gig) Patriot Extreme Performance PC2-8500 | MSI GeForce 260GTX | Samsung SyncMaster 225bw | Western Digital 640GB Caviar SE16 | LG DVD 16x | LG CDRW 52x24x52x | Windows XP Professional | Creative Labs Inspire T5400 5.1 Speaker System | Powered by PC Power & Cooling 750w | Coolermaster Stacker 830 SE | Cool by Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme Aluminum Heatsink
-
Hammerhead Shark
 Originally Posted by sharkypinoy
but also keep in mind that the Q6600 has 4mb cache, where the E6300 has only 2mb... so that might show the trend for those who have 6mb cache with the E8x00 processors...
That won't work either. The 4MB cache in the Q6600 is split right down the middle with each "pair of cores" only seeing 2MB each. Only the Phenoms and now the i7 have a true unified cache that could be accessed by all its cores.
AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE | 16GB Corsair Vengenance | Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 | ATI HD 4850 | Crucial C300 128GB | WD Caviar Black 2TB | Samsung F3 1.5TB | LG GH22LS30 DVD | Antec NeoPower 550W | Antec P180 | Windows 7 Ultimate (x64)
Apple Macbook Pro (13.3") | Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.26GHz | 2GB DDR3 1066 | nvidia 9400M | OSX "Snow Leopard"
Currently playing; EvE Online - Incarna (PC/Mac) | League of Legends (PC)
-
shootier than yours
Good info. But what if the proc is a couple of years old? I have a 4870 on the way (if ups ever gets around to delivering it) and it will be paired up to my same 'ol X2 4400+.
CPU bottleneck, in this case?
-
Hammerhead Shark
 Originally Posted by r'aggro
Good info. But what if the proc is a couple of years old? I have a 4870 on the way (if ups ever gets around to delivering it) and it will be paired up to my same 'ol X2 4400+.
CPU bottleneck, in this case?
I was in a similar situation, but I have an opteron running at 2GHz. I upgraded to a 4850 from a 7800GT and saw a huge difference. With the 4870, I would expect the cpu to be the bottleneck.
Last edited by qmul; 01-04-2009 at 06:03 PM.
AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE | 16GB Corsair Vengenance | Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 | ATI HD 4850 | Crucial C300 128GB | WD Caviar Black 2TB | Samsung F3 1.5TB | LG GH22LS30 DVD | Antec NeoPower 550W | Antec P180 | Windows 7 Ultimate (x64)
Apple Macbook Pro (13.3") | Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.26GHz | 2GB DDR3 1066 | nvidia 9400M | OSX "Snow Leopard"
Currently playing; EvE Online - Incarna (PC/Mac) | League of Legends (PC)
-
nuclear launch detected
 Originally Posted by r'aggro
Good info. But what if the proc is a couple of years old? I have a 4870 on the way (if ups ever gets around to delivering it) and it will be paired up to my same 'ol X2 4400+.
CPU bottleneck, in this case?
a 4400 runs at what 2.2ghz? i think it would be sufficient if you could overclock it to around 2.6ghz
bitfenix prodigy, i5 4670k, asrock z87e-itx, zotac gtx 970, crucial m500 msata, seasonic x650, dell st2220t
-
Raaawwwrrrrr
I would be awsome if you ran the same benchies but with more up to date games. throw crysis in there, farcry2, CoD4, ut3, lets get some games that actually hurt your system, it would be good to see the results then. epsecially with crysis with dual vs quad would be interesting to see.
Steam- DerSchniffles
Gigabyte z77-UD3H
Intel Core i7 3770k @ 4.5
8 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR 3 1600
Sony AVR with 5.1/Asus Xonar DG
EVGA GTX760 @ 1241/7000
60 gig OS and 240 gig Game SSD's
55" Vizio Tv/32" Vizio
Logitech G700s Mouse and K520 Keyboard
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|