that prooves nothing as they are benchmarking the cpus and not the gpus...
they have he resolution turned way down so the gpu wont be the limiting factor in fps at 1080p it would be a different story entirely
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
What graphics card next?
- Thread starter WazMeister
- Start date
that prooves nothing as they are benchmarking the cpus and not the gpus...
they have he resolution turned way down so the gpu wont be the limiting factor in fps at 1080p it would be a different story entirely
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
reading and comprehension failure on your part I think
dig out a dictionary and lookup the words "and" and "or"
I've tested BFBC2 and BF3 personally yet you are making claims based on those games that they can't be played on a phenom or Q6600 with a decent GPU yet my own eyes tell me that isn't true, I've also played F1 2010 on maximum settings (and Civ5 on pretty high) on a Q6600 with GTX580, so again, show me all the charts you want but MSI afterburner disagrees with you
unless there is a very clear case of bottlenecking (e.g. well under 90% utilisation of the GPU and crap frame rates at actual gaming settings), I would always advocate buying a new GPU over buying a complete system rebuild - if it gets you the results you want then you've saved several hundred pounds, and if not you can always DSR the card and then start saving for a rebuild
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
double post, sorry
The wisest thing the OP can do (if he hasn't been scared off) is get a new GPU (7850 or any that he fancies) and if he feels he is getting a bottleneck or infact he knows he is getting a bottleneck, then he can if he so wishes, upgrade his CPU and mobo.
Just my thoughts. I feel there will be a bottleneck but very minimal and not detrimental.
Just my thoughts. I feel there will be a bottleneck but very minimal and not detrimental.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
Then I guess you and I see bottleneck differently. Even if a GTX580 dropped down to..say 92% GPU usage, that would already mean it is operation at slower speed than a GTX570/GTX480 or at around that level. If that is not a CPU bottleneck, I don't know what is.
After a bit more thinking, it might be not a bad idea to go from crossfire 4890 to a 7850, but not because of the reason GPU grunt of two 4890 in crossfire is lacking, but more about the poor crossfire performance and support, which could make the crossfire 4890 not performancing as the hardware are fully capable of.
And I'm not gonna bother to argue with you about CPU bottleneck anymore...as I said before, just because the games YOU play the CPU doesn't (seem to) bottleneck the graphic card, doesn't mean there are absolutely no games at all out that the Core2Quad/Phenom II X4 doesn't use the graphic card fully. You had your experience of Q6600 doing well with GTX580 in games YOU play, while I had mine of my Q6600 overclocked to 3.6GHz bottlenecking my 5850 (which is slower than the GTX580 by a big margin) down to 60% GPU usage and frame rate drop all the way down to low 20s (also reported by the beloved MSI Afterburner) in online games which I played, and in SC2 during intensive moments, GPU usage drop all the way down to 40% and frame rate down to sub-20fps.
While during standard gameplay for most games an overclocked Q6600 wouldn't do too bad and would hold 60fps with a high-end card during not intensive moments, but the biggest problem with it is it doesn't have what it got (may it be CPU grunt as well the architecture design itself with lower minimum frame rate- even if comparing to the E8000 CPUs) to hold the high GPU usage and frame rate during those suddenly moments which the scenes get very intensive, which result in sudden huge frame rate dip within short period of time, making drop in smoothness very noticable. If you say you have NEVER seen sudden huge dips like that with a GTX580 on a Q6600 in ANY game, then it makes me wonder if you are only arguing for winning argument's sake and not interested in the fact. And honestly...if you ask anyone about an overclocked Q6600 with a GTX580, most of them WILL tell you the overclocked Q6600 will be holding the GTX580 back, not like the overclocked Q6600 won't bottleneck the GTX580 at all that you claim.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
I've already said many times that my Q6600 ran a GTX580 at constant 99%, not 90% anyway.
We already know that you and I see CPU bottlenecking differently because you like to look at charts of very low resolution gaming on old/low end hardware where as I like to see results on modern games at normal gaming resolutions before I draw any conclusions.
you've listed up lots of games and claimed they specifically would be bottlenecked, I've tested most of these games and found that not to be true (99% utilisation and playable frame rates). I am not saying there are NO games that might be bottlenecked in certain situations, I am saying that you have not shown me any that are reasonably valid (e.g. you keep showing old games that we already know are not multi threaded or you show low resolution artificial benchmarks, or you make claims about games that I have played which are not true).
I can only go by what I've seen with my own eyes, if 10 people walked in to my office and told me the sky was green, but I could see it was blue, who would I believe?
What I do see is you come on to every "what graphics card should I buy" thread and tell people they need to spend hundreds of pounds on a whole new system, when my advice would be "get the mid range card, try it, dsr it if you don't like it".
If someone posts up and says "I spend 4 hours a day playing SC2, nothing else ever ever" then yeah fine use that as your 1 example. But if someone posts up and says "for general gaming" then I'm going to give them a general answer. I did play SC2, but not online much so if you are saying the online part is massively CPU bottle necked then I won't argue with you because I don't know.
I'll tell you what I did see - was GPU utilisation on a 560ti drop way off in BF3 when VRAM was maxed out - swap to a 580 and that went away, so there was a bottleneck with a 560ti 1GB and a Q6600 but it wasn't the Q6600 (which is what "most of them" tried to tell me at the time)
We already know that you and I see CPU bottlenecking differently because you like to look at charts of very low resolution gaming on old/low end hardware where as I like to see results on modern games at normal gaming resolutions before I draw any conclusions.
you've listed up lots of games and claimed they specifically would be bottlenecked, I've tested most of these games and found that not to be true (99% utilisation and playable frame rates). I am not saying there are NO games that might be bottlenecked in certain situations, I am saying that you have not shown me any that are reasonably valid (e.g. you keep showing old games that we already know are not multi threaded or you show low resolution artificial benchmarks, or you make claims about games that I have played which are not true).
I can only go by what I've seen with my own eyes, if 10 people walked in to my office and told me the sky was green, but I could see it was blue, who would I believe?
What I do see is you come on to every "what graphics card should I buy" thread and tell people they need to spend hundreds of pounds on a whole new system, when my advice would be "get the mid range card, try it, dsr it if you don't like it".
If someone posts up and says "I spend 4 hours a day playing SC2, nothing else ever ever" then yeah fine use that as your 1 example. But if someone posts up and says "for general gaming" then I'm going to give them a general answer. I did play SC2, but not online much so if you are saying the online part is massively CPU bottle necked then I won't argue with you because I don't know.
I'll tell you what I did see - was GPU utilisation on a 560ti drop way off in BF3 when VRAM was maxed out - swap to a 580 and that went away, so there was a bottleneck with a 560ti 1GB and a Q6600 but it wasn't the Q6600 (which is what "most of them" tried to tell me at the time)
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
yes, well done, you've "proven" that an AMD 955 will bottleneck a 7970 at settings that are barely (or not) playable on any of the processors tested... still banging on about starcraft 2 I see
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-8.html
that extra 1 fps minimum frame rate would really be worth spending £400 on
the OP was interested in a 7850 - he's clearly not going to be trying to run max settings in Skyrim either... does the OP (or anyone for that matter) still actually play starcraft?
looking at 7850 reviews - the AMD x4 (a lowly 955 in comparison with the OP's 980 equivalent) in the toms review gets higher FPS' with a 7970 than a 7850 OC gets at the same settings with an i7, so whilst it may bottleneck a 7970 (which is clearly does from your charts), I still say it won't bottleneck a 7850
can a mod move this thread (or chunks of it) in to the "private bickering" section please
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-8.html
that extra 1 fps minimum frame rate would really be worth spending £400 on
the OP was interested in a 7850 - he's clearly not going to be trying to run max settings in Skyrim either... does the OP (or anyone for that matter) still actually play starcraft?
looking at 7850 reviews - the AMD x4 (a lowly 955 in comparison with the OP's 980 equivalent) in the toms review gets higher FPS' with a 7970 than a 7850 OC gets at the same settings with an i7, so whilst it may bottleneck a 7970 (which is clearly does from your charts), I still say it won't bottleneck a 7850
can a mod move this thread (or chunks of it) in to the "private bickering" section please
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
If you can't interpret what the graph means I cannot help you. The Phenom II X4 980BE clearly indicate that doesn't matter what GPU is used, the frame rate cannot go beyond the lowly minimum frame rate of 14fps- only upgrading the CPU would be able to push up the minimum frame rate. I don't know why I even bother...especially for someone that don't understand/dismiss the purpose of why reviewers would use low res for comparing purely the CPUs' gaming capability. And when games are CPU bounded, lowering graphic settings won't help much on improving frame rate toward holding close to constant 50-60fps.yes, well done, you've "proven" that an AMD 955 will bottleneck a 7970 at settings that are barely (or not) playable on any of the processors tested... still banging on about starcraft 2 I see
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-8.html
that extra 1 fps minimum frame rate would really be worth spending £400 on
the OP was interested in a 7850 - he's clearly not going to be trying to run max settings in Skyrim either... does the OP (or anyone for that matter) still actually play starcraft?
can a mod move this thread (or chunks of it) in to the "private bickering" section please
And try googling "Guild War 2 CPU"...there are pages and pages of results on CPU holding back the frame rate.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 5,267
- Location
- London
Here's 6 reasons off the top of my head
1. When overclocked a single 7850 will be more powerful than CF 4890's
2. A single 7850 uses less power
3. 7850 is DX11
4. More driver compatability in games
5. Takes up less space in case
6. Less heat
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
I've already admitted that starcraft 2 is one case where the game can be CPU limited... showing me a chart that shows 14fps vs. 25fps is hardly ground breaking news... 25fps would still not be a smooth experience so your argument of a better / faster per core CPU is still not very compelling and even less so when you look at OTHER games that show the better FPS on a 955 with a 7970 as with an i7 with a 7850
there are more games than just SC2, so to keep using SC2 over and over again for the same point and saying "ipso facto all your AMD CPU are belong to us" is just making you look like a simpleton when even the charts you post up show some games (more games than not) where the 955 / 980 actually gets similar frame rates to a 2500k
Last edited:
Good info. What games have you tried if you don't mind me asking? This is a subject that comes up quite often and it would be good to get end user feedback.
Also if you don't mind, can you check your GPU utilization in those games please
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
Actually my discussion with andybird123 was more about the overclocked Q6600...he insisting overclocked Q6600 would't bottleneck the GTX580 and get constantly 99%, when I myself used a Q6600 overclocked to 3.6GHz bottlenecked my single 5850 GPU usage in various games with anything from 90% down to 40% and at times with frame rate dip to low 20s at times. I also posted link to other topic where someone have show much higher frame rate with on a single 5850 using a i5 3570K comparing to Q6600 both at 3.5GHz, plus other overclocked Q6600 users mention seeing the GPU usage is only around 80% at times on their 5850 as well. All I was saying he shouldn't generalise all games out there, just because he get constant 99% GPU usage in the games he plays. It is either him being right about overclocked Q6600 wouldn't bottleneck GTX580 with constant 99% GPU usage, or me and other users of overclocked Q6600 being delusional on seeing GPU usage along with frame rate drop in various games even on the much slower 5850. If a Q6600 can bottleneck a 5850, then it is only logical to assume that a Phenom II X4 at only 3.7GHz would bottleneck the 7850 as well, considering it is around 35-40% faster than 5850 when both are overclocked.
And regarding this topic, to be honest from performance standpoint on paper going from CF4890 to 7850 isn't much of an upgrade, and doesn't seem to worth it considering the cost involve...however, if the OP was to believe the crossfire performance is questionable or not very reliable or the having 1GB VRAM is gonna be a problem for the games that HE plays, then the 7850 might be good as a reasonable minor upgrade.
Last edited:
Good info. What games have you tried if you don't mind me asking? This is a subject that comes up quite often and it would be good to get end user feedback.
Also if you don't mind, can you check your GPU utilization in those games please
i tried the usual games that are known for good graphics and various benchmarks.
the only time i didnt see 97% utilisation was when i had vysnc on......
i cant check skyrim as i use ENB and it conflicts with afterburner but i'd imagine it wasnt cpu bound either.
people are far to overspec when it comes to certain things , i remember when everyone thought you needed a 2kw psu for sli/crossfire
i only upgraded from my 460gtx because it died a few days ago not because i felt like i really needed to although its age was just starting to show.
i suppose its nice to be upgraded to a 7850 before watch dogs comes out