-
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.
Do i need quad core for Battlefield bc2 ??
- Thread starter ashmanuk67
- Start date
This^^^
Until I see some proper benchmarks from some proper sites, then its impossible to tell for sure. I'd be up for finally getting a Quad if there's some real, definate improvement, but no offense, I'm not going to go by what all you guys say.
Of course a Quad would be better, but by how much and if it's worth upgrading, only proper benchmarks can you that.
Of course a Quad would be better, but by how much and if it's worth upgrading, only proper benchmarks can you that.
I found these figures
With GTX275:
E6400 @ 3.2GHz: 27.67
E8400 @ 3.00GHz (8x375MHz): 37.89
E8400 @ 4.23GHz (9x470MHz): 51.69
E8400 @ 4.40GHz (9x490MHz): 57.29
Q9400 @ 2.66GHz (8x333MHz): 45.04
Q9400 @ 3.76GHz (8x470MHz): 63.45
Q9550 @ 4.00GHz (8.5x470MHz): 70.18
With HD5870:
Q9550 @ 4.00GHz w/ HD5870: 95.63
As you can see, even a much slower clocked reduced cache 3.76Ghz quad gives 10%+ better framerates than a 4.4Ghz dual. A proper quad like the q9550 is 22% faster despiute being clocked 10% slower. Now that is a massive gain IMO
Plus this flawed article.
http://www.techspot.com/article/255-battlefield-bad-company2-performance/page7.html
And although I think they came up with the wrong conclusion that an overclocked dual core is more than sufficient when it can be clearly seen that even with an i7, the framerates keep climbing to 3.7Ghz with no signs of it stopping yet.
With GTX275:
E6400 @ 3.2GHz: 27.67
E8400 @ 3.00GHz (8x375MHz): 37.89
E8400 @ 4.23GHz (9x470MHz): 51.69
E8400 @ 4.40GHz (9x490MHz): 57.29
Q9400 @ 2.66GHz (8x333MHz): 45.04
Q9400 @ 3.76GHz (8x470MHz): 63.45
Q9550 @ 4.00GHz (8.5x470MHz): 70.18
With HD5870:
Q9550 @ 4.00GHz w/ HD5870: 95.63
As you can see, even a much slower clocked reduced cache 3.76Ghz quad gives 10%+ better framerates than a 4.4Ghz dual. A proper quad like the q9550 is 22% faster despiute being clocked 10% slower. Now that is a massive gain IMO
Plus this flawed article.
http://www.techspot.com/article/255-battlefield-bad-company2-performance/page7.html
And although I think they came up with the wrong conclusion that an overclocked dual core is more than sufficient when it can be clearly seen that even with an i7, the framerates keep climbing to 3.7Ghz with no signs of it stopping yet.
Last edited:
@Lanz i did a 10 min fraps benchmark with my [email protected] and it returned and average fps of 42 a min of 17 and max of 65, i then upgraded to a phenom2 x4 @3.6ghz on a am2+ board with ddr2 ram and repeated the benchmark ad it returned a average of 76 a min of 33 and a max of 119.
I ran both benchmarks on identical quality settings, on port valdez(forgot how to spell it), on the attacking team. i also used the same class and i did not use vehicles.
Also the fact that it is an am2+ board using the same ram as on the e7300 run will remove that as a likely factor for a performance increase.
I believe that this should be precise enough for most people to accept as proof of a performance increase.
I ran both benchmarks on identical quality settings, on port valdez(forgot how to spell it), on the attacking team. i also used the same class and i did not use vehicles.
Also the fact that it is an am2+ board using the same ram as on the e7300 run will remove that as a likely factor for a performance increase.
I believe that this should be precise enough for most people to accept as proof of a performance increase.
Yes ill have a go but it may be a few days before ill have time to do it though.
also it may seem a stupid question but how do i disable cores?
Last edited:
ok i dont suppose theres a general tag for this setting or am i going to have to fiddle around for a while?
- Joined
- 27 May 2007
- Posts
- 1,346
- Location
- Kent
Nice test buddy, i know there are so many varriables when carring out these test's but that has to prove somwhat Quad core is the way, though it's all about how much money it will cost for a 10-15% increase.
1920 x 1200 but it doesn't say what else was set.
The point is it clearly shows a direct framerate improvement from overclocking and from going from two cores to 4 cores.
The best thing somebody can do on here is do a run with an i7 or q9xxx with all cores and then run it again with all be two cores disabled.
Sliky smooth all high at 1920x1080, dx10, HBAO and VSYNC off, on my E8400 (at stock atm, had issues with with my OC after installing the retail game), 4GB DDR2 800 and an Asus EAH4890 mildly clocked.
Have had fraps running a few times and seems to hit 35/40 when a nade/ shell goes off. Otherwise 50+ which is fine for my eyes
Have had fraps running a few times and seems to hit 35/40 when a nade/ shell goes off. Otherwise 50+ which is fine for my eyes