CPU or GPU

Associate
Joined
23 Dec 2008
Posts
642
I am not saying it is a problem specific to COD5, it's just a good example to illustrate my point here.

What makes me difficult to understand is that both COD4 and COD5 are using the same graphics engine, but the frame rates I am getting from both games are different, given the same graphics settings. What I have noticed is that in COD4, I can manage to obtain around 60 fps running my Q6600 @ stock speed which is 2.4GHz without overclocking it. But then fps bleeds bitterly when running COD5 which givesme somewhere around 30 ~32.

I am actually amazed at how my HD 3850 performs having said all that. After migration from my prvious system which was only a Pentium D945 with ATi X1950Pro (AGP version) to my current rig which is a C2Q Q6600 with a PCI-Express HD 3850, the following games run pretty good with frame rates capped at 100 fps (no AA, no AF):

Battlefield 2
Battlefield 2142

Even talking about AA and AF applied, I can still manage to get 77~80 fps for both games with BF 2142 slightly lower.

My question being, is the Quad CPU at stock speed already suffices the need for good performance, or the HD 3850 GPU is contributing to the high fps so obtained?

Are leafs hurting the fps, COD5 is more outdoors with lots of jungle scene, whereas COD4 is pretty much like indoors with less leafs to deal with thus making HD 3850 stands out?
 
3850 is definetly holding the rest of your rig back

cod 4 while looking impressive is basicly cod2 tarted up a bit which used the ancient quake 3 engine

battlefield games are old as well

the very least i would add another 3850 to give your rig some balance
 
Ok seems i may be wrong about that but my point is cod2 is a old game and cod4 is very similar more modern games require more gpu power

I was under the impression CoD4 used a brand new engine and all that, and CoD5 is basically just a tarted up version.
 
they all seem like quake engine games to me the way they behave i think they probably are but they dont want to admit it

anyway the point is it is a basic engine with scripted eye candy on top

not a good measure of a systems gfx power
 
The 4850 is a bargain if you want to invest in some new gfx. The 4870 is where it's at for current bang for buck but is possibly more than you want to spend.

The 4850 will give you a good improvement though. You could also consider a second 3850, but i'm personally still not convinced of the benefits of SLi/Crossfire over 1 superior card.
 
The 4850 is a bargain if you want to invest in some new gfx. The 4870 is where it's at for current bang for buck but is possibly more than you want to spend.

The 4850 will give you a good improvement though. You could also consider a second 3850, but i'm personally still not convinced of the benefits of SLi/Crossfire over 1 superior card.

Definitely. Why run the risk? Might as well get a 4850 and sell the 3850.

4850's run from about £100 to £150. On OCUK, 3650s are about £50ish, so presumably the 3850 is worth a bit more than that.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely get a 4850, or deny yourself a game or two and stretch to a 4870, which combined with your cpu will pretty much max out most modern games.
 
In the last couple of days, I have observed using HWMonitor Pro, that the 3850 was doing 71 degrees at max when I was playing COD5. Is it over the threshold of "safe temperature"?
I can afford getting a 4850 and 4870, but I standby the idea of Cross Fire another 3850 because I doubt the effectiveness of CF or SLI still.
I thought about 4870*2 but it was far too expensive. Yesterday, I read about another thread somewhere, the chap made a very good point. Today's PC games are poorly coded that even using an expensive card like the 4870*2 doesn't guarantee the expected image quality and frame rates. My opinion is the same, in additions, getting such a high end card just for 1 or 2 new games like Crysis and GTA IV is not worht the money.

What you reckon?
 
If games are too poorly coded to truly utilise the power of one card, i can assure you that getting another 3850 will be a complete waste of money, because CF/SLi support is minimal at best.

Get a 4870 if you can afford one. It's the best move you can make. If, however you are like most people who ask for advice here, you've already decided you want to get crossfire and nothing can convince you otherwise, i reserve the right to say "I told you so".

:)
 
run 3d mark 06 you will see a breakdown of scores at the end notice how it is your gfx score letting you down this is what is bottlenecking your performance

a clocked q6600 is ample for most games
 
Ah, just a thread I was looking for. I'm not entirely sure my cod4 performance is what it should be (although I may be wrong). I run it on the system in sig at 1280x1024 with no AA or AF (although increasing these doesnt seem to bring about much of a drop in performance) and online with ~20 players I get an average of maybe 30-35 fps. Could this be my CPU holding me back or is this normal?
 
hmmm, it's still playable, i would just prefer a few extra fps to smoothen things out :). I'm upgrading cpu soon. I'll find out then.
 
Back
Top Bottom