Just upgraded q6600, bioshock= huge difference

Azrael1 · 14 Sep 2007 at 22:51

Hi all i was running bioshock before on a Core duo 6400 overclocked to 3.6 gig at 1920 x 1200 and it ran okish, sluggish i felt. I upgraded to a q6600 * also overclocked to 3.4 gigish in preparation for world in conflict and crysis and hl2 ep2.

All i can say is WOW, bioshock runs sooo fast now and totally smooth its like a difference beween a mini and a porshe.

I had no idea that Quad made such a difference, I look forward to to games that use multi cores.

gurusan · 14 Sep 2007 at 23:03

Which 3d card do you have?

Cairnsey · 14 Sep 2007 at 23:38

interesting, i'm guessing a pretty powerful gfx card

killer_uk · 14 Sep 2007 at 23:53

8800GTX

Azrael1 · 15 Sep 2007 at 00:15

Yes I have a 8800 GTX. Medal of honour airbourne is also a lot smoother with the Q and loads faster as well

Combat squirrel · 15 Sep 2007 at 01:07

-interesting- I hear the unreal engine is 3 core optimised anyways, due to the xbox 360, *ponders buying a quad

easyrider · 15 Sep 2007 at 13:38

I have a 3 monitor setup

I played Bioshock with taskmanger in a spare monitor.

It never went above 60 % although this was shared over all cores

Thats why games ar not a good judge of a PC's stabilty.

Gaming stable means nothing.

Darkwave · 15 Sep 2007 at 13:42

Easyrider, I know you're obsessed with what is stable and what is not, but I didn't see mention of stability anywhere in this thread. As for the actual topic at hand, Bioshock is not really CPU-limited at all and doesn't utilise quad-core at all really so I can't explain how you got such a dramatic improvement in framerate.

easyrider · 15 Sep 2007 at 13:45

Ulfhedjinn said:
Easyrider, I know you're obsessed with what is stable and what is not, but I didn't see mention of stability anywhere in this thread. As for the actual topic at hand, Bioshock is not really CPU-limited at all and doesn't utilise quad-core at all really so I can't explain how you got such a dramatic improvement in framerate.

Neither can I.

Was just pointing out that anyone who gets a quad over a same clocked C2D will not see a dramatic increase in FPS.

w3bbo · 15 Sep 2007 at 13:45

Unless he had lots going on in the background the change from Dual to quad shouldn't have made such a dramatic difference.

Devious · 15 Sep 2007 at 13:48

This nearly tipped me over to going out and buying one of these before i saw easy's reply

Azrael1 · 15 Sep 2007 at 13:50

Hmm, I've no idea but im happy with it.

http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?...s&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=279&page=3

shows that unreal 3 can use more then dual core.

easyrider · 15 Sep 2007 at 13:50

Devious said:
This nearly tipped me over to going out and buying one of these before i saw easy's reply

I doubt yuou would see a big boost over your superbly clocked 3.6ghz E2160

V|per · 15 Sep 2007 at 15:21

Ulfhedjinn said:
As for the actual topic at hand, Bioshock is not really CPU-limited at all and doesn't utilise quad-core at all really so I can't explain how you got such a dramatic improvement in framerate.

Bioshock uses the cpu more than any other fps i have ever seen.. most only use the cpu whilst loading levels, no more than 5-10% usage ingame, but bioshock almost constantly has 1 core maxed out, and core usage is always jumping all over the place, so it is most definately using a the different cores.. (reading core usage and ram usage from my logitec z-10's, which i believe takes it's readings straight from task manager...)

I too had a rather nice performance boost when upgrading from an e6400 at 3.8ghz (80-100% usage...) to a q6600, at stock, the q6600 was getting the same average/max/min fps as the e6400 at 3.8 was (this was using fraps to do a test, basically ran from exiting the bathosphere to getting electrobolt)

When the quad is clocked at 3.6ghz, fraps tests show that my avg/min/max fps have risen... definately an improvement by going quad, although as the average fps was ~70 it's not really noticeable in game (is more noticable now that i have actually upped AA and AF though

)

Darkwave · 15 Sep 2007 at 15:37

Bioshock used pretty much only one core when I ran the demo on my E6300, I don't see how quad helps.

easyrider · 15 Sep 2007 at 16:37

V|per said:
Bioshock uses the cpu more than any other fps i have ever seen.. most only use the cpu whilst loading levels, no more than 5-10% usage ingame, but bioshock almost constantly has 1 core maxed out, and core usage is always jumping all over the place, so it is most definately using a the different cores.. (reading core usage and ram usage from my logitec z-10's, which i believe takes it's readings straight from task manager...)

I too had a rather nice performance boost when upgrading from an e6400 at 3.8ghz (80-100% usage...) to a q6600, at stock, the q6600 was getting the same average/max/min fps as the e6400 at 3.8 was (this was using fraps to do a test, basically ran from exiting the bathosphere to getting electrobolt)

When the quad is clocked at 3.6ghz, fraps tests show that my avg/min/max fps have risen... definately an improvement by going quad, although as the average fps was ~70 it's not really noticeable in game (is more noticable now that i have actually upped AA and AF though )

I have task manager open on another monitor and its not reporting what you are saying.

V|per · 15 Sep 2007 at 16:39

/me runs off to check for spyware

weescott · 15 Sep 2007 at 16:43

easyrider said:
I have a 3 monitor setup

I played Bioshock with taskmanger in a spare monitor.

It never went above 60 % although this was shared over all cores

Thats why games ar not a good judge of a PC's stabilty.

Gaming stable means nothing.

In other news: Russia blasts Gerbils into space!

Try and be relevent m8. lol

I'm not convinced by Quad cores yet. I would like to see more tests to show thier worth.

Azrael1, in what way did you notice the huge difference in performance?

drunken_munki · 15 Sep 2007 at 21:04

Good Read

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/08/08/extreme_fsb_2/

Follow that link and read about a comparison of duel and quad cores.

Its an interesting read as they attempt to clock the cpu's as high as they can, pushing them to many different tests with full details of the comparisons.

Go to the next link for the conclusion.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/08/08/extreme_fsb_2/page12.html

Azrael1 · 15 Sep 2007 at 21:47

weescott said:
In other news: Russia blasts Gerbils into space!

Try and be relevent m8. lol

I'm not convinced by Quad cores yet. I would like to see more tests to show thier worth.

Azrael1, in what way did you notice the huge difference in performance?

an,

Hi Man, I use Vista 64 and play with an 8800 GTX on 1920 x 1200 on full graphics setting. Before on my core duo it was ok but seemed sluggish and not as fast but it was totally playable. since the quad core everything moves soo much quicker, i can aim better and no sluggishness at all. Huge difference for me....

From what I've read Unreal 3 engine will use more then 2 core and you can bet when Unreal 3 comes out that will have / or eventually have well coded support for quad core.

Im also using a Gigabyte DS3 motherboard.

Its like now ive seen what its like on Quad ( overclocked to 3.4 ) I couldnt go back to core duo. Tbh Quad 6600 overclocks so well to 3.4 gig plus anyway so im losing no performance compared to a core 2 duo