Any point to upgrading from 4Ghz Core 2 for games?

Orcvader · 22 Mar 2010 at 23:33

Does show that more games are taking advantage of more cores. Upgrading would be a nice idea from a dual

Geckovich · 22 Mar 2010 at 23:37

Big.Wayne said:
Nice one Geckovich . . . . is there any chance you could do a "proper" test!

Shoot dem up good . . . would be nice to see a full chart!

[edit] lob a few CPU-z screenies in there as well showing CPU/Mem tabs please!

Ha, I'll have a longer run through tomorrow morning complete with CPUz and GPUz screens - far too tired for all that right now :cool:

Paracelsus · 23 Mar 2010 at 00:55

I wouldn't bother, much better spending the money on a new GPU

Big.Wayne · 23 Mar 2010 at 01:16

Well the question that is being raised now is if the CPU isn't powerful enough to feed the GPU (keep it at 100% load) then there is no point in upgrading to a more powerful GPU? . . . I fully expected a 4GHz Wolfdale to have enough *grunt* to feed a GPU? . . . . looking at Cesar67 screenshot above that doesn't appear to be the case :confused:

I've done plenty of gaming with a fast dual core and HD4870/4890 but the GPU was always running at full pelt . . . the only time I've seen a GPU running at less than 100% load before was when doing some Folding@Home using both CPU cores and the GPU . . . . if I didn't leave a CPU core free to feed the Radeon it would hobble along at about 50% . . .

Look forward to any more results people can share! :cool:

Devrij · 23 Mar 2010 at 01:31

I know that both my cpu ([email protected])and gpu (5770 @945/1300) are maxed out in BC2, so I wonder if upgrading my gpu would show any gain if my cpu is already fully loaded. If I had a better gfx card to test it I'd see what sort of fps I got with both, but I suspect I'm mainly cpu limited here.

Warbie · 23 Mar 2010 at 09:56

My e8500 at 4 gig seems to max out in BC2. I get the same frame rate at 1*aa as 8*msaa. Metro 2033 is a whole different story.

gareth170 · 23 Mar 2010 at 10:40

even on a quad it goes to 95-98% in some games. it doesn't mean its cpu limited.

Big.Wayne · 23 Mar 2010 at 13:31

Hey Jimbo Mahoney,

what do you think of the show so far?

I'm still none the wiser! . . . . We have a screenie from Cesar67 that is showing a limping HD5850 GPU while playing BF Bad Company with an unverified overclocked e8400 @ 4.2GHz . . . a few quad core owners are like "look see I was justified spending ££ XYZ" and the dual core owners are left pondering the upgrade . . . .

I'm impartial as I own a triple core but I'm very interested to see if Cesar67's results can be replicated on another dual core machine? . . . I'm not sure what this MSI Afterburner app is and whether it can work on any GPU?

So here’s the testing requirements:

BF Bad Company Game
Dual Core Processor (optional tri/quad results)
Radeon/Geforce GPU
Fixed/agreed Resolution (1680x1050 or 1920x1200?)
MSI Afterburner
Task Manager
CPU-z CPU/Mem tabs

The scenario would be to open task manager/afterburner, make sure no AV software is scanning, then just play 15 mins or game without cut scenes etc, then exit game and grab a screenie showing:

Are any of the CPU cores maxed or near maxed
Is the GPU loaded at 100% throughout the test game play session
CPU-z CPU/Memtabs

I'm interested to see if any dual-core users can verify if the GPU is "limping" as shown in Cesar67's screenies:

Cesar67 said:

It may be the case indeed that BF Bad Company is so CPU intensive that it's "starving" the GPU of the power it needs to run at (near) 100% rendering capacity . . . . or it may be the case that Cesar67's system is badly configured/optimised etc!

There is no point in arguing about these things, instead a few tests need to be performed *without* any subjective bias and everyone can draw their conclusion! :cool:

SirCanealot · 23 Mar 2010 at 14:46

I usually run Rivatuner to monitor CPU and GPU usage, and I rarely see my E7500 @ 3.6ghz maxed.
Anno 1404 pushes it a little, running the GPU usually at 99% and the cores at around 75-95% (usually around 85%). Far Cry 2 also pushed the cores a little. Dragon Age is the only game that seemed CPU bound on my system, and I think that may even have been dodgy code!

All this is with a 4870. Had the processor at 4050mhz the other day, but saw no gains in games what so ever, so dropped it back down...

~>Dg<~ · 23 Mar 2010 at 14:52

short answer the quad is better for the " newer games " like bfbc2. yes you could clock your dualcore to the sky but a quad runs it better fact. the games makers say get a quad its on the box they should know

whether its worth spending money to upgrade thats up to you.

Big.Wayne · 23 Mar 2010 at 15:04

thanks SirCanealot . . . I think what needs to be uncovered here is whether or not peoples GPU's are maxed . . . . I absolutely expect most peoples graphics cards to be running at 100% while gaming . . . . admittedly I'm not familiar with the very latest titles but I'd be suprised if they made such demands of a CPU that the GPU was left running at 50%load :confused:

I'm also *not* a game creator/coder so I'm not sure what is eating so many processor cycles in the newer titles . . . . afaik the processor draws the wireframes and the GPU renders them i.e . . .

I expect the systems with faster processors to produce more frame-rate but I don't expect to see a GPU on the slower system running at approx 50% load? . . . . hopefully with the assistance of a few "willing" volunteers who have the right hardware and this game then we can get to the bottom of this! :cool:

Geckovich · 23 Mar 2010 at 15:09

Geckovich said:
Ha, I'll have a longer run through tomorrow morning complete with CPUz and GPUz screens - far too tired for all that right now

Sadly this will have to wait. I decided to get out of the house for a few days so I'm now on a train heading north.

If this discussion is still alive when I get back then I'll contribute

Edit: don't fall into the trap of thinking that all the cpu does when gaming is feed the gpu. It has work of it's own to be doing too, background tasks, sound, AI, physics etc.

nalla · 23 Mar 2010 at 15:37

k well im just getting the game will post my results tomorrow hopefully, people also need to post the resolution on this if were to get anywhere, if ur running at 1024 x 768 then your gpu wont max out but cpu might , whereas if your running 2560 x 1600 then gpu will come into it more, just my thought

Big.Wayne · 23 Mar 2010 at 15:49

Good point nalla!

. . . I updated the requirements above! . . . hopefully lots of gamers have a 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 monitor now? :cool:

Paracelsus · 23 Mar 2010 at 16:30

I'll have a bash at this later

Cesar67 · 23 Mar 2010 at 18:20

Big.Wayne said:
Cesar67, what is it in your screenie that leads you to conclude the system is "CPU limited" . . . sorry if thats a silly question but the task manager/performance tab doesn't appear to be maxed?

First up, My settings in BFBC2 were at 'medium' trying to find a nice balance (The game feels laggy to me). The CPU was running at 4.2 but, The GPU at 950/1200 (Making sure these regular CTD's were not O/C related)

I'm no expert but, IMO the usage shows the CPU is as close to maxed out as possible, Does it not need to keep resources for other tasks outwith the game ?

Anyway, According to the 'recommended settings' i will go full pelt - GPU and CPU, See what the screenies show. Back in ten....

EDIT: So, here is a screenshot after ten minutes playing BFBC2 All maxed out @ 1920X1080 (Which ended because of CTD!!).

[/IMG]

Conclusions ?

Big.Wayne - If there is any optimizations you could suggest to make sure my system is not badly configured i am all ears.

Devrij · 23 Mar 2010 at 20:41

This is using a 5770, so understandably at full load. 1920x1080, multiplayer, all settings at high, 1xaa/af. The fun starts where the gpu loads up (everything before that is me loading up the game). Fraps was showing frames between 60-90 in game with dips in heavy effects. Pic is a bit small, but cpu is an [email protected], gpu at 945/1300, 4Gb RAM at 1000MHz

Cesar67 · 23 Mar 2010 at 20:51

Devrij said:
Snipped

How does the game 'feel' to play mate ?

Do you believe a quad in your system would run the game better/smoother/faster ?

Taking into account your GPU is also pushed to its limits.

nalla · 23 Mar 2010 at 23:13

cesar67, your cpu is practically maxxed and your gpu isnt self explanitory really, and its obvious you have dual as there are only 2 graphs, oh and memory is minimal too. so the limiting factor there is your cpu id say.

Big.Wayne · 23 Mar 2010 at 23:32

Cesar67 said:

Hi Cesar67, thanks for posting that up, strange to see a GPU working at approx 60% during such a demanding game?

Can you confirm what the graphic settings were at for that run please?, you mentioned above the game was at "'medium" but also mention "All maxed out" . . . for the purposes of this test I'm thinking the graphic details need to be set pretty high? . . . we are trying to get your GPU load up to almost 100% so it may need some tinkering? . . . . what's the deal with the drivers? are those Cats beta? have you tested a few sets or are the 10.3's optimized for the game?

What DDR2 ram do you have atm? and what speeds can it run? . . . . also would you be prepared to reset your system back to stock settings and do another run? . . . . in your future screenies can you double-click on the CPU graph itself and it will expand to fill the frame and help accentuate the CPU cycle graphs . . . I'll wait to hear what you say but the mission is to get your GPU working to the best of its capacity alongside your super fast "unstable" Wolfdale!