CPU Limitations @ 1920x1200 - Results

Combat squirrel · 10 Mar 2008 at 11:22

g effort but as said abit pointless 3dmark isnt really an indication of real world stuff

Nickolai · 10 Mar 2008 at 15:04

Why is everyone critiscising it as pointless he spent good time doing this not to have everyone slate it just because 3dmark isnt real world stuff which agreed it isnt but it gives a general idea.
thanks steven

schumi84 · 10 Mar 2008 at 15:38

I thought that stevenG's results are perfectly valid, even if it is 3dmark.

Ok it doesnt show exactly real world stuff in how games would react to the CPU change but it shows in a sense that even when the CPU is clocked pretty high from stock, there is a much smaller increase than at the higher res.

Cheers for the info to back up what we were thinking, looking forward to COD4

VortexA1 · 10 Mar 2008 at 23:39

Nickolai said:
Why is everyone critiscising it as pointless he spent good time doing this not to have everyone slate it just because 3dmark isnt real world stuff which agreed it isnt but it gives a general idea.
thanks steven

Thanks also.

hernaldo · 11 Mar 2008 at 00:34

StevenG said:
Well i think people have taken my results (which i took my time to do, to help people out) in the wrong way.

i was simply pointing out that in 3D06 the CPU at higher RES doesnt make THAT much difference then it does at LOWER RES.

i will however, if people want me to run the crysis benchmark at the stock and overclocked speeds & to test COD4 would be un-even as it doesnt have an inbuilt benchmark. but i can run it for a few minutes on the same place in the game and record my results (if people are interested)

at the end of the day im going to lose free time and gaming time doing this and if people are going to critisize my results then i may as well not bother.

What i post in this thread is suppose to help people who want higher res monitors and are worrying about CPU limitations so im testing at the highest res i can and the *normal* res at stock and at an overclock of 1.29GHz to provide an example of how the CPU contributes to the game action you will see.

Thanks for Reading all those who found this useful

StevenG

Hi mate, I'd be interested in some benchmarks that show the LOW fps. Average is meaningless and becomes more meaningless the longer the benchmark is run. Whereas the LOW fps times during the benchmark are whats important and going by those low fps moments alone...the longer the benchmark the better.

Average FPS = total waste of time and demonstrates nothing important

hernaldo · 11 Mar 2008 at 00:37

schumi84 said:
I thought that stevenG's results are perfectly valid, even if it is 3dmark.

Ok it doesnt show exactly real world stuff in how games would react to the CPU change but it shows in a sense that even when the CPU is clocked pretty high from stock, there is a much smaller increase than at the higher res.

Cheers for the info to back up what we were thinking, looking forward to COD4

Yeah, but its just showing an average.

If it showed the lowest number of frames per second it would show a lot more than an overall average would have you think

You lot all familiar with GCSE maths....mean\median\range?

Mean = pointless

StevenG · 11 Mar 2008 at 01:12

hernaldo said:
Hi mate, I'd be interested in some benchmarks that show the LOW fps. Average is meaningless and becomes more meaningless the longer the benchmark is run. Whereas the LOW fps times during the benchmark are whats important and going by those low fps moments alone...the longer the benchmark the better.

Average FPS = total waste of time and demonstrates nothing important

i can tell you now, COD4 will hit 16FPS with smoke grenades.. but what use is that? its badly rendered smoke in the game.

StevenG

i'll try get some data up asap but im a bit busy with projects atm.

Reality|Bites · 11 Mar 2008 at 03:13

Could you run the 1920x1200 test again with 0AA and 0AF to make it a fair comparison.

sosrandom · 11 Mar 2008 at 05:27

Minimum fps is even more pointless than average, since it may only go anywhere near that low for less than a fraction of a second, so whats your point? that 3dmark should use standard devaition? Theres also the reason that people run 2/3 loops on the crysis benchmark, to give a more realistic result to how it will actually play.

Richdog · 11 Mar 2008 at 08:55

sosrandom said:
Minimum fps is even more pointless than average, since it may only go anywhere near that low for less than a fraction of a second, so whats your point? that 3dmark should use standard devaition? Theres also the reason that people run 2/3 loops on the crysis benchmark, to give a more realistic result to how it will actually play.

While playing a game you will never notice an average frame-rate of 50fps, but you WILL notice the minimum frame-rate of 20fps...

MR.B said:
I dont mean to sound mean... but this is very well known stuff. It's been like this since GPU's existed. And SO many sites have done tests like this over the years.

This stuff really should be common sense even, but from reading these forums it isn't to quite a few people. So i hope your results atleast educates some of them.

Please remove cranium from rectum... it may be obvious to you, me, and anyone else who knows their stuff... but in your elitist know-it-all snobbery it may surprise you to know that not not everyone knows this sort of thing, and i'm sure you were once as clueless as any noob.

StevenG · 11 Mar 2008 at 08:56

should i run the DX9 or DX10 mode in the Crysis benchmark?

StevenG

Richdog · 11 Mar 2008 at 08:59

Do both for good measure, will only take an extra 10 mins.

Do it without AA/AF too.

StevenG · 11 Mar 2008 at 10:54

Richdog said:
Do both for good measure, will only take an extra 10 mins.

Do it without AA/AF too.

did it in dx9 mode. cba with doing both now ive changed clocks. lol

i'm updating my post now so should be up soon.

StevenG

StevenG · 11 Mar 2008 at 11:12

So... Everyone who plays games at High Res... Downclock your CPU and save some electricity and lower your temps!

StevenG

Richdog · 11 Mar 2008 at 11:28

lol no need to downclock your CPU... it's still useful for other things.

Reality|Bites · 11 Mar 2008 at 11:31

So the max bandwidth the 8800GTX can handle from a Core 2 would be whatever it is at 3.6Ghz?

That can't be right?

The faster the card the more bandwidth it can handle, So you need a faster CPU to keep feeding it the instructions?

StevenG · 11 Mar 2008 at 11:34

Reality|Bites said:
So the max bandwidth the 8800GTX can handle from a Core 2 would be whatever it is at 3.6Ghz?

That can't be right?

The faster the card the more bandwidth it can handle, So you need a faster CPU to keep feeding it the instructions?

im running a 3870X2 mate. my cpu in cod4 barly gets to 60-70 in most parts, its just not using all of my cpu, getting the game on the screen is maily down to the graphics at high res. but at lower res, less GPU is needed and more CPU.

StevenG

J.D · 11 Mar 2008 at 11:55

Richdog said:
While playing a game you will never notice an average frame-rate of 50fps, but you WILL notice the minimum frame-rate of 20fps...

Please remove cranium from rectum... it may be obvious to you, me, and anyone else who knows their stuff... but in your elitist know-it-all snobbery it may surprise you to know that not not everyone knows this sort of thing, and i'm sure you were once as clueless as any noob.

I know about CPU and GPU boundaries already but I wanted to give Steven some credit for taking time out to do this for people. I can't believe some of the comments from a few idiots who did not realise this.

Also well said Richdog. I was going to go to town on these ignoramuses with no manners but your comment is perfect

.

Reality|Bites · 11 Mar 2008 at 12:06

So why is the CPU used more at lower resolutions rather than higher ones?

or is it just that the GPU is used less so the ratio between CPU and GPU moves in favor of the CPU?

Bonjour · 11 Mar 2008 at 12:11

My lowly Opteron 180 never gets above 65-70% usage in games.

I just put it down to poor multithreading of games.