• 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.

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

I was under the impression it was the other way round? That running low res allows you to see how bottlenecked you are by your cpu, seeing as your gpu now has far less rendering work to do? In fact, that might be worth trying.

Ye i always see using low resolutions if they are benchmarking a cpu with a game so as not to make the gpu a bottleneck
 
What resolution are you playing BC2 to get that high a CPU usage? My Q9550 at 3.57GHz doesn't top 50-75% for 2 cores when playing at 1920x1200. Turning HBAO off makes no major visual difference but increases the framerate by 15-20fps instantly.

BC2 is GPU limited not CPU limited at >1680x1050. My GTX260 often maxes core usage during gameplay especially with HBAO turned on. It's not a VRAM issue because it doesn't even use half my VRAM during gameplay.

Turn HBAO off.
 
75% of a Q9550 @3.5GHz is more than 100% of my e8400, so that's how :p I play at 1920x1080, and it just about pushes my cpu to the limit, but not horrendously so.

EDIT: what's interesting actually, is that when I raised my gfx settings, cpu usage dropped quite a bit compared to the first run with no AA/AF/HBAO. Odd
 
Done some quick benchmarks with FRAPS, This is interesting.

I got my i5 to a quick 3.6GHz O/C (No Turbo) so the benchmark is unbalanced straight away in favour of the dual core.

Here are a few screenshots of the i5 @ 3.6GHz - HD5850 @1000/1200

All settings = Medium in game (Settings below) the same as what i ran some tests with the dual core.

157109h.jpg


12372vq.jpg


orqt0k.jpg


Some average FPS results with the E8400 @4.1GHz - HD5850 @ 1000/1200

All settings = Medium.

117h6e0.jpg



Ingame settings:

=================================

[WindowSettings]
Width=1920
Height=1080
Fullscreen=true
RefreshRate=60
VSync=false
[Sound]
Quality=medium
VoipEnable=false
SpeakerCount=2
[Graphics]
Effects=medium
Soldiers=medium
Vehicles=medium
Overgrowth=medium
Undergrowth=medium
StaticObjects=medium
Terrain=medium
Shadows=medium
Bloom=false
HSAO=false
MSAA=1
Water=medium
MainQuality=Custom
Texture=medium
DxVersion=10
Aniso=1
Detail=medium
RenderAheadLimit=0
Fov=75

=================================


Notice with the quad core, The GPU is flat out, Even at just 3.6GHz.

The GPU ran around 60% with the dual core @ 4.1GHz.

I will do some more tests when i get her stable around 4 GHz.

Going by this, I have seen around 40 FPS increase with a quad at 500MHz lower clock speed.

Feel free to point out any mistakes here, I am no expert at this :D

EDIT:

i5 @ 4.2GHz GPU @ 1000/1200 Ingame settings = Medium.

28mg1oo.jpg


2cqk22h.jpg


Nice boost again :)
 
Last edited:
Some more FRAPS results

107jqfn.jpg


GPU @ 1000/1200 flat out and CPU running @ 4 GHz

xolb1z.jpg


Not far off double the frame rates from my dual core at a similar clock speed.
 
Thanks for sharing your results Cesar67! :) . . . I'm pretty sure there is no doubt in anyones mind your personal gaming system has improved a lot! :D . . . It also shows how tough going some of the latest titles can be on a DualCore . . . having said that I have my doubts still about the previous testbed but in the future I will look more closely at the difference in FPS between a good dual-core and a triple/quad-core to see how many titles follow a similar pattern . . . I could only find the following chart which gives a semi meaningful clock for clock comparison between Wolfdale and Lynnfield . . . FarCry 2 is one of those games that loses FPS on a DualCore (like Battlefield Bad Company 2) . . .

 
The Core i5 750 does have much greater single threaded performance than a E8000 series clock for clock AFAIK. Hence it is not entirely a fair comparison.

Here is a comparison of an E8400 and a Q9650:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=2&c=1

Both are clocked at 3GHZ, share the same architecture and have 3MB of L2 cache per core.

The Q9650 is essentially a pair of E8400 cores.
 
What doubts you got mate ? I was willing my E8400 on as much as i could, It was all configured the same way i configured this setup too, Both relatively new windows installs.

I really didn't expect that much of a boost, Maybe 20 FPS and, The game to 'feel' much smoother, Which it certainly does.

I am more miffed about the GPU topping out at medium settings, Might play around with that a little more.

Looks like the CPU is giving the GPU much more work now from four cores compared to before when the 5850 was running around 60%.

Those results from anand are stock results right ?

Very high gains can be seen from between 3 GHz and 4 GHz according to This article , Maybe one of them would perform better than the other at high clock speeds ?
 
The Core i5 750 does have much greater single threaded performance than a E8000 series clock for clock AFAIK. Hence it is not entirely a fair comparison.

Here is a comparison of an E8400 and a Q9650:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=2&c=1

Both are clocked at 3GHZ, share the same architecture and have 3MB of L2 cache per core.

The Q9650 is essentially a pair of E8400 cores.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=56&p2=49&c=1

Very up and down, No clear winner overall.

I would agree it's not entirely fair.
 
FarCry2 went from 45.3 FPS to 61.9 FPS in the Anandtech comparison. That is more than a 35% increase by adding two identical cores. This would mean that minimum framerates would probably improve as well.
 
Last edited:
Cesar67, I'm glad to see your results and it certainly looks like Battlefield Bad Company 2 loves the extra cores! :D . . . I would have liked to see a set of results from a few different peeps who owned a DualCore/HD5850 combo (inc Stock systems) but the difference in your before and after screenies do look impressive . .

Any point to upgrading from 4Ghz Core 2 for games?
Jimbo, it seems there are at least five games out now that show quite good gains once you lob an extra core or two at them . . . I've read that the gaming industry is leading the way in consumer software that supports MultiCore so it would seem likey this trend is set to continue? . . . I sold up my E8400 @ 4.0GHz last october while the prices were high and bought a £58 AM2+ board and a £40 OEM AM3 TripleCore and haven't looked back!

I'm wondering what the main reason DualCore owners don't want to upgrade? . . . doesn't have to be a cost thing if buying wisely and selling off the older kit? . . . so I guess the main reasons would be

  • Effort of swapping out systems
  • Enough compelling evidence showing Triple/Quads producing better FPS
I'm gonna nose around for more info on which games favour extra cores, in the meantime I look forward to any more results people can post up showing before/after comparisons . . . TripleCore For The Win! :cool:
 
Last edited:
If anyones interested, BFBC2 uses a maximum of 16% CPU load on my 4.35GHZ 980X.

Never tested it on my 4.15GHz i7 920, but with the games i did test (normally have CPU monitor up on second display while gaming) no games used more than 30% load. Most new games still under 20%.
So i would have thought a 4GHz dualcore would just about cut it for any game still, but obviously not, atleast for Core2 and likely Phenom II. Although i suspect a 4GHz dualcore i5 will still cut it for a short while longer.
 
Last edited:
77879703.png


[WindowSettings]
Width=1920
Height=1200
Fullscreen=true
RefreshRate=60
VSync=false
[Sound]
Quality=medium
VoipEnable=true
SpeakerCount=6
[Graphics]
Effects=high
Soldiers=high
Vehicles=high
Overgrowth=high
Undergrowth=high
StaticObjects=high
Terrain=high
Shadows=high
Bloom=true
HSAO=true
MSAA=3
Water=high
MainQuality=custom
Texture=high
DxVersion=auto
Aniso=4
Detail=high
RenderAheadLimit=2
Fov=55
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom