How much CPU bottleneck is there with a Phenom II X4 955?

Martini1991 · 15 Jan 2014 at 22:22

That GPU usage is horrendously bad, it's a massive bottleneck.

Davedree · 15 Jan 2014 at 23:24

You should see my multiplayer bf3. B55 3.2- 4.2. And 7950 1050 1600, fps is good between 50- 80 with ocassional drops to 40fps, but gpu usage is 65-85%. Never realised the the x4 struggled so much in that game. For comparison tomb raider keeps the gpu at 100% even at 3.2 ghz.

regulus · 18 Jan 2014 at 13:27

If it helps, my 965BE couldn't run BG4 at high settings for more than 6-7min before shutting down the PC due to it overheating. And I only ran a small OC on it (clocks like crap).

Kei · 23 Jan 2014 at 00:11

Now I've moved up to an i7 4820K (which at present is running at 4.5GHz) I can show you the difference. I thought there would be an improvement but didn't quite expect what i got. This is the same part of "welcome to the jungle" as i played using the phenom.

troops · 23 Jan 2014 at 12:28

Massive difference then

regulus · 23 Jan 2014 at 21:36

My 965BE lasted me very well until it ran into BF4. Take into account that I played Crysis 3 on pretty much the highest settings available (msaa obviously not maxed) and it handled it fine.

BF4 murdered it. I couldn't play for more than 15min before my PC restarting and getting a 'CPU overheating' message. BF4 is what made me upgrade my system.

Now the 8320 I picked up for pennies handles anything perfectly well at the highest settings.

Uriel · 23 Jan 2014 at 21:46

regulus said:
BF4 murdered it. I couldn't play for more than 15min before my PC restarting and getting a 'CPU overheating' message. BF4 is what made me upgrade my system.

How did it perform before in the few minutes before it was overheating?

Edit: I ask because I was under the impression that the Phenom II x4 architecture did fine: http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

regulus · 24 Jan 2014 at 06:20

Uriel said:
How did it perform before in the few minutes before it was overheating?

Edit: I ask because I was under the impression that the Phenom II x4 architecture did fine: http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

It was fine really, but this was lower settings that 'highest'. This was around medium. It just gradually heats it up for around the 60-75c mark which is too much for this chip before shutting down. I had an Arctic Pro Rev 2 cooler. Not the greatest.

almighty15 · 24 Jan 2014 at 06:47

teddy3578 said:
Derp indeed! I think I will have a gander in the MM for any good deals. If not, its not the end of the world. The rig is mostly okay apart from Crysis 3.

You can get a good bundle deal off eBay for parts... Generally around £100-£1500 depending on the auction for an Intel socket 1336 i7 with a good mobo + RAM.

Got my mate one who was on a budget and it's been flawless!

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 24 Jan 2014 at 13:57

Uriel said:
How did it perform before in the few minutes before it was overheating?

Edit: I ask because I was under the impression that the Phenom II x4 architecture did fine: http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

That benchmark asks more questions than it answers.

Uriel · 24 Jan 2014 at 14:49

=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
That benchmark asks more questions than it answers.

It depends what you want to know. Frametimes (they gave them for GPU tests but not CPU) and minimum framerates would be nice.

If you mean how the CPU scaling would work at lower resolutions and settings to remove the GPU bottleneck - frankly I'm not interested. It only concerns me whether or not the game is playable on particular hardware.

satanicguardian · 24 Jan 2014 at 17:13

I've got a 1055T @ 4Ghz atm and a radeon 69702gb, as far as I know they are a perfect balance, very similar to your setup

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 24 Jan 2014 at 20:31

Uriel said:
It depends what you want to know. Frametimes (they gave them for GPU tests but not CPU) and minimum framerates would be nice.

If you mean how the CPU scaling would work at lower resolutions and settings to remove the GPU bottleneck - frankly I'm not interested. It only concerns me whether or not the game is playable on particular hardware.

I can't even see where it says what its running - was it single player/multi player 24 players 64 players etc.

It states 'as long as your processor has four cores/threads, it shouldn't have a problem in EA's latest shooter.' which isn't right as my old q9550 struggles and I rarely even bother with 64 player servers.

Uriel · 24 Jan 2014 at 22:08

=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
I can't even see where it says what its running - was it single player/multi player 24 players 64 players etc.

It states 'as long as your processor has four cores/threads, it shouldn't have a problem in EA's latest shooter.' which isn't right as my old q9550 struggles and I rarely even bother with 64 player servers.

From first page:

We tested the single player portion of the game to ensure consistent results -- something we simply can't do with others. We'd need a bunch players to participate in simulating a multiplayer environment for the benchmark and they'd all have to perform the same exact actions hundreds of times. We could have tested a multiplayer map by ourselves, but that would have likely been less demanding than single player.

We settled on the start of the fourth mission (titled "Singapore") which begins on the US vessel Valkyrie as the team walks to an inflatable rib where they have a brief discussion and then jump in before being lowered down. Although the test takes place in the Valkyrie's launch bay, the scene seems to use a lot of GPU and CPU power. There is heavy use of DoF (Depth of Field) here so perhaps that is what taxes the GPU.

GefGz · 25 Jan 2014 at 22:42

I've got a 965BE in one of my systems and I do sometimes find it's lacking slightly in single threaded applications, should overclock it more really.

TALON1973 · 27 Jan 2014 at 16:19

damn upgrade it has hit finally myself . Waiting for my msi 270 4gb card to turn up to replace my aging 1gb 6850. need cpu know. cabt decide on a 8320 / 8350 or try intel route. My mobo should support a 8320 ( going from 965be @ 4Ghz ).

need to decide before I change my mind... IF I do a mobo / cpu change it does mean my nephew gets a complete 2nd hand pc for nothing

Davedree · 27 Jan 2014 at 19:58

TALON1973 said:
damn upgrade it has hit finally myself . Waiting for my msi 270 4gb card to turn up to replace my aging 1gb 6850. need cpu know. cabt decide on a 8320 / 8350 or try intel route. My mobo should support a 8320 ( going from 965be @ 4Ghz ).

need to decide before I change my mind... IF I do a mobo / cpu change it does mean my nephew gets a complete 2nd hand pc for nothing

If you are primarily gaming then I'd say Intel,
For the Amd fx8 route it depends on the games you play. You need good vrm cooling on the mboard, which you don't have unless you fit a heatsink, and you need a good cpu cooler. The fx8320 must clock to 4.7ghz or higher to provide better performance than the 4ghz x4 965.

Davedree · 27 Jan 2014 at 20:00

for handbrakes and real workloads, look at my still work in progress review.
I will be covering cpu and gpu utilization in further updates. But trust me the fx8 is poop for gaming unless you clock it beyond 4.8ghz.

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=741906&page=2

DELETED_83755 · 30 Jan 2014 at 19:22

Just got myself an i7 2700k recently. Will post up and let everyone know if I notice any difference in Crysis 3 with a single AMD 6950.

Martini1991 · 30 Jan 2014 at 19:23

I'd imagine not much.