Cpu that wont bolleneck a 5850

bcham · 26 Jun 2011 at 10:06

IT'S UNCLE BOB said:
+1

+1

C64 · 27 Jun 2011 at 15:48

Of course people will say their new hardware is worth it it's just the way it goes to justify the outlay.

A q6600 will be fine remember there's not much point having a 2500k if you haven't got a top end gpu to go with it.Not like there's dozens of games that even need a sandybridge yet all I can think of is battlefield 3 and witcher 2 yea great but what happens when you tire of those games ? so is it worth spending shed loads of money for one or two games is what you must ask yourself and remember that 90% of pc games are going to be console ports still for quite some time yet.

Lots of misinformation in this thread a Q6600 @3.2-3.6ghz will absolutely not bottleneck a 5850 and represents at £50-£60 still the best bang for buck gaming setup because the motherboards are £30-£40 and ram cheap too.

You should 100% completely skip this generation and go for a second hand Q6600/Q9550 or core i5 750 or equivilent second hand as the games are lagging behind the hardware imo, personally I could never justify the cost of a sandybridge for one or two games getting better performance.
I can certainly see an overclocked Q6600 Q9550 i5 750 running battlefield 3 perfectly adequately only way I can see it being a massive problem is if you are running super high res or a 120hz monitor and want 120 fps or again a high end gpu.

If I were building now I would get a second hand i5 750 setup (£70-£80) http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/109?vs=288 look at the difference and this is stock speeds it's barely 10 fps faster in some games.

Having said all that if buying new then it's obvious to get sandybridge.

I have a question though to people, WHERE'S ALL THE PC GAMES ? witcher 2 and battlefield 3 later this year okay then what ? oblivion is not going to require a sandybridge to max out.I know this is troll like but the best games this year aren't even on pc imho and the ones that will be will not require much above dual core let alone quad.
So many people are still on Q6600/9550 core i5 750 etc and haven't upgraded to sandybridge and the reason is that the amazing pc games are just not coming anymore.

I'd grab a 360 or ps3 and get a medium gaming rig.

Witcher1979 · 28 Jun 2011 at 00:52

The Q6600 is 100% fine for all games on the market today, do not believe every post you see here. Big increase on the above chips.. not really true for the extra cash you would spend. At this point in time you need no more then a Q6600 running at least 3.0ghz to play anything. As long as you have a decent GPU. These expensive upgrades with above chips are very slim indeed and not worth the money until the new generation of CPU's emerge.

Hell you wont even find a video encoder that max's the Q6600 apart from handbrake.

I built my Q6600 with mobo/ram/5830 for just over £200 (parts from here). I can play everything out today. I do need a GPU upgrade though for BF3.

In fact the only game that comes close to pushing the Q6600 is GTA 4, reason for that is very poor coding on Rockstars part. Game runs fine on the CPU. But no game yet maxs the Q6600, not even fear 3.

johny dolan · 28 Jun 2011 at 01:05

Going to a sandybridge from a q6600 will gain you between 20 and 50 fps depending on game gpu and settings ect so what you really need to ask yourself is do i need the extra frame rate and is it woth the outlay to get it or can you get same or better with a gpu upgrade instead.

I upgraded from a q6800 @ 3.8 to a i7 930 @ 3.8 to a 2600k @ 4.8 and got gains with each upgrade.

Did i need the extra speed no but i upgraded just cos i could and i wanted to play with new tech.

Theres always something newer and faster coming just around the corner so it is tricky to decide when to upgrade so if moneys tight upgrade when your rig struggles with the games you want to play and a new sandy will give a good boost over a old q6600

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20

Id think a q6600 @ 3.6 or so wouldnt bottleneck a 5850 at all and its only when you get into multi gpu would you see gains from the cpu.

Witcher1979 · 28 Jun 2011 at 09:12

johny dolan said:
Going to a sandybridge from a q6600 will gain you between 20 and 50 fps depending on game gpu and settings ect so what you really need to ask yourself is do i need the extra frame rate and is it woth the outlay to get it or can you get same or better with a gpu upgrade instead.

I upgraded from a q6800 @ 3.8 to a i7 930 @ 3.8 to a 2600k @ 4.8 and got gains with each upgrade.

Did i need the extra speed no but i upgraded just cos i could and i wanted to play with new tech.

Theres always something newer and faster coming just around the corner so it is tricky to decide when to upgrade so if moneys tight upgrade when your rig struggles with the games you want to play and a new sandy will give a good boost over a old q6600

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20

Id think a q6600 @ 3.6 or so wouldnt bottleneck a 5850 at all and its only when you get into multi gpu would you see gains from the cpu.

This is a great post of true infomation. Well said

Donkeyfumbler · 30 Jun 2011 at 13:03

Well, I just changed an 8800gtx for a 560ti OC on my Q6600 system and it has made very little difference to frame rates, so I think I can quite comfortably say that the CPU is bottlenecking it. I am getting approx 30 FPS avg in BFBC2, GTA4 still runs like a dog and is unplayable unless I turn the shadows off, and Just Cause 2 is around 30-40fps. This is at 1680x1050.

One thing I can do though is turn all the quality settings up to max on most games and the FPS hardly changes. Minimum frame rates seem better too.

Always thought there would be some kind of performance hit from the Q6600 and DDR2, but not that it would be this bad. I5 2500K here I come (when I can afford it)

Purgatory · 30 Jun 2011 at 17:24

Your overclock of 2.7ghz is killing your performance. Try 3-3.2ghz and you will notice an increase and if its a G0 chip it could go upto 3.6ghz without a fuss. Also you say you have rubbish mixed ram. Sure that is not your problem too?

Donkeyfumbler · 1 Jul 2011 at 10:58

I appreciate that my overclock is fairly small - I'd love to increase it, but my mobo is a total sod when overclocking quad core chips, even though the Q6600 should be fairly easy to do.

However, while a bit of a bigger overclock, and potentially having better ram might improve things slightly FPS-wise, it's not going to be nearly enough to remove the CPU bottleneck all together.

bcham · 2 Jul 2011 at 10:56

woffle99 said:
Well, I just changed an 8800gtx for a 560ti OC on my Q6600 system and it has made very little difference to frame rates, so I think I can quite comfortably say that the CPU is bottlenecking it. I am getting approx 30 FPS avg in BFBC2, GTA4 still runs like a dog and is unplayable unless I turn the shadows off, and Just Cause 2 is around 30-40fps. This is at 1680x1050.

One thing I can do though is turn all the quality settings up to max on most games and the FPS hardly changes. Minimum frame rates seem better too.

Always thought there would be some kind of performance hit from the Q6600 and DDR2, but not that it would be this bad. I5 2500K here I come (when I can afford it)

i did the same thing ,but went from a q6600 and gtx260 ,to a gtx560ti,and the fps in games were the same,my q6600 was overclocked 3,4ghz
now i have a i5 2500keven at stock my fps have nearly doubled,so my q6600 was defo the bottleneck.

MumboJumbo · 2 Jul 2011 at 12:32

woffle99 said:
I appreciate that my overclock is fairly small - I'd love to increase it, but my mobo is a total sod when overclocking quad core chips, even though the Q6600 should be fairly easy to do.

However, while a bit of a bigger overclock, and potentially having better ram might improve things slightly FPS-wise, it's not going to be nearly enough to remove the CPU bottleneck all together.

Probably need to up the north bridge voltage. Though I would support a 2500k upgrade anyway. I came from a q6600 and it was worth it, though I can't comment on specific performance upgrade because I also went from a 285GTX to sli 480GTX so it's probably more gpu performance i've noticed in game but windows is definitely more snappy (and yes I am comparing clean install vs clean install).

feeddagoat · 2 Jul 2011 at 13:00

If your playing at a high enough resolution and settings then the GPU will become the bottleneck. As long as the game is playable on the CPU ie. min doesn't dip below 30 when theres lots going on the CPU is good enough. By increasing resolution, adding AA and detail settings the bottleneck shifts towards the GPU so if your CPU limited @40fps keep increasing your settings until frames start to drop. That way you'll be getting the most out of your GPU which the Q6600 is more than capable of. Your more likely to notice CPU bottlenecks at low res, and settings where the GPU can't max out. A Q6600 will bottleneck an HD5850 sooner than the 2500k would but on a 19" both settups will be getting 100+ fps.

Some articles on CPU bottlenecks
http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...ossfire_cpu_scaling_performance_part_1,1.html

http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...ossfire_cpu_scaling_performance_part_2,1.html

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/cpu_scaling_with_the_radeon_hd_5970,1.html

Toms had some as well I think but those ones explained it the best IMO.

sexyhyde · 2 Jul 2011 at 13:13

the answer to the question posed is one worded and i think it was answered in the first reply.

C64 · 2 Jul 2011 at 14:08

woffle99 said:
I appreciate that my overclock is fairly small - I'd love to increase it, but my mobo is a total sod when overclocking quad core chips, even though the Q6600 should be fairly easy to do.

However, while a bit of a bigger overclock, and potentially having better ram might improve things slightly FPS-wise, it's not going to be nearly enough to remove the CPU bottleneck all together.

Only takes 5 mins of googling to see people are getting much more FPS with the same setup

SlugForAButt · 2 Jul 2011 at 23:52

as905 said:
feels like when i upgraded from core 2 duo to core 2 quad 3 years ago.

So...not really any difference then? Unless you play a game that utilises 4 cores which was very uncommon 3 years ago. :confused:

Witcher1979 · 4 Jul 2011 at 11:23

woffle99 said:
Well, I just changed an 8800gtx for a 560ti OC on my Q6600 system and it has made very little difference to frame rates, so I think I can quite comfortably say that the CPU is bottlenecking it. I am getting approx 30 FPS avg in BFBC2, GTA4 still runs like a dog and is unplayable unless I turn the shadows off, and Just Cause 2 is around 30-40fps. This is at 1680x1050.

I have the same Q6600 but mine is 3.0ghz, I also run the HD5830 not sure on the difference from your card. But I am running all those games with much higher framerates.

GTA 4 @ 40+fps with everything on high and is very smooth, can show a clip i made if needed, little tip with GTA4 goto setting and turn off the clip saving feature, you will see at least 10fps increase. Also the guy who mentioned Witcher 2, plays fine on the above setup. Just turn off the blur effect. I really would not bother with any upgrades until these new CPU's come out.

I just wonder if your mixed ram is causing you issues. I only have 4gb.

iamtheoneneo · 4 Jul 2011 at 13:20

i have a q6600 at 3ghz and a 5870 - im telling you now bc2 runs flawlessly 60fps no stutter, max settings - so no idea why you are getting low fps.... voor could be right it might be dodgy ram???

Witcher1979 · 4 Jul 2011 at 14:34

Both of you guys have better GPU's then me. But two screenies of BC2 on my rig which is less powerful GPU wise hitting 60+ with everything maxed out. It wont ever drop below 53

So I wonder if it really is the mixed ram making you have 30fps. I know your Q6600 is 2.7 and ours is 3.0. But 300mhz cant make that much of a difference gaming can it?

muriel · 5 Jul 2011 at 15:31

as905 said:
imho Q6600 is not brilliant for high res gaming anymore,mine was oc @ 3.6 & my games ran average at most but when compared to my i5 2500k i realized how ****e they ran on Q6600.

gaming with i5 2500k will leave a smile on your face.

OOOOMGG that is definatly true i Had the same impression when i upgraded from a q9505 with a 5870 to I7 2600k with the same GPU man i always though that a good quad core (event OC)is enough for gaming but i was wrong ,lol i almost got 50% fps gain in must Game

SB rule

muriel · 5 Jul 2011 at 15:33

iamtheoneneo said:
i have a q6600 at 3ghz and a 5870 - im telling you now bc2 runs flawlessly 60fps no stutter, max settings - so no idea why you are getting low fps.... voor could be right it might be dodgy ram???

I also had the fps with my q9505 with a 5870 but when i upgraded to a SB 2600k i getting Min 75 to 154 max FPS (avr = 99)

Donkeyfumbler · 9 Jul 2011 at 15:38

Just back from a week on holiday and reading through replies here.

I have a dual boot system - XP 32bit and Windows 7 64bit, and having tried BC2 on both, my frame rates are about 10fps better on XP, but then the XP install is stripped down for Games only whereas the Windows 7 runs everything.

I have read on various forums that NVidia have also admitted that the latest 275 drivers have dropped FPS on BC2 and GTA4, which is what I am running at the moment so I may try reverting back and seeing if that makes any difference.

I find it hard to believe that the memory would have a massive effect on peformance. When I say it is mixed and fairly rubbish, I mean it isn't peformance RAM - just 2 sticks of Crucial 2gb DDR2 667 and 2 sticks of A-Data 1GB DDR2 667 with identical timings (5-5-5-15-20). Everything I've read has RAM making a few FPS difference at best. I've also had task manager running while playing and all four cores appear to be fairly much maxed out.

Thanks for the tip about the clip saving on GTA - will have to try that again.