• 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.

Quick comparison Q6600/HD7850 Vs i7-3770

gregster said:
Good link and again if you read my post properly I state

Also how is his score not a bottleneck? I score P8648 and he scores P5458. Please explain. The problem is the amount of variables involved with different games, you would never be able to define a particular bottleneck. Play BF3 on a Q chip with a 7950 and then play FSX with the same setup.
Click to expand...

Because it's not the CPU slowing down the GPU. It's the CPU being tested and just being slower - there's a massive difference.

So for example you try a Pentium 4 CPU and your GPU score comes down from 9500 to 7000, that would be a bottleneck.

As said above by andybird, it's not that hard to tell where the bottleneck lies. It's basically whichever is working it's nuts off. If your CPUs at 100% and your GPU is at 50% = CPU bottleneck and vice versa.
 
Last edited:
How does one see the percentage speed of what the percentage speed the GPU is running at in standard AMD Catalyst control center? Does it display it?

I run a q9450 @ 3.2ghz (could go up to 3.8ghz) and a 5770, and I have been looking at getting one last upgrade out of socket 775 by updating the GPU. The reason is that if I got a new setup, I would still need a new GPU anyway, so I may as well try it on 775 to see. I read that AMD cards are more kind to older core2 setups...

"In general, Nvidia’s GeForce solutions are less forgiving than AMD’s offerings in terms of processor requirements, having seemingly greater thread dependency."

That was from a tomshardware review looking at exactly this topic in December 2010. Admittedly before BF3 and newer games were out.
 
jaybee said:
How does one see the percentage speed of what the percentage speed the GPU is running at in standard AMD Catalyst control center? Does it display it?
Click to expand...
You can download and use MSI Afterburner. It can display various graphic card info including GPU and memory usage, temp, fanspeed on screen (at one of the corner you choose) when you are gaming.
 
MSI Afterburner for onscreen GPU usage or it can log to file.

As for Nvidia being less forgiving, I do not know. Toms is pretty reliable though so.....
 
Been reading around this subject a lot lately and the general consensus from forums/articles/benchmarks/discussions is that core2quads still pack enough punch even for the latest games. There are plenty of people still running them and playing BF3 for example. It has been noted that the 64 man servers can be too taxing on the CPU, but otherwise gaming at high settings is still possible.
The bottleneck should be measured not with benchmarking software I guess, but actual real world FPS and gameplay/smoothness.
 
jaybee said:
Been reading around this subject a lot lately and the general consensus from forums/articles/benchmarks/discussions is that core2quads still pack enough punch even for the latest games. There are plenty of people still running them and playing BF3 for example. It has been noted that the 64 man servers can be too taxing on the CPU, but otherwise gaming at high settings is still possible.
The bottleneck should be measured not with benchmarking software I guess, but actual real world FPS and gameplay/smoothness.
Click to expand...

Should be fine mate. I'm on a i5 750 @ 3.3ghz which is not miles better than yours (OC'd I assume?) and I've never had an issue with Battlefield 3, it runs smooth as butter. Only issue I had was with loading times, but a new CPU won't help you there anyway, bought a SSD now and everything flys and I only really play on 64 man servers.

Just for reference I'm on a 7970 and I've never seen my CPU bottleneck my GPU.
 
Last edited:
Robes said:
Because it's not the CPU slowing down the GPU. It's the CPU being tested and just being slower - there's a massive difference.

So for example you try a Pentium 4 CPU and your GPU score comes down from 9500 to 7000, that would be a bottleneck.

As said above by andybird, it's not that hard to tell where the bottleneck lies. It's basically whichever is working it's nuts off. If your CPUs at 100% and your GPU is at 50% = CPU bottleneck and vice versa.
Click to expand...

Again I say I am not disagreeing and yet you fail to see my point. Play BF3 (which is heavily GPU dependant) and you will see less of a bottleneck but play FSX and you will see your bottleneck quite clearly.

This is why it is impossible to tell over the internet without a full and thorough investigation into each and every game. I am one of the old school who still encourage people to upgrade the GPU and see how they get on before spending more cash on CPU's.

All I have played recently is BF3 and I could have coped quite nicely with my Q8400 at 3.2ghz and a 680. The problem arises though when I want to play other games and I start to see my Q chip strangling my GPU.

Oh and just for the record, on my Q chip after map changes, I would still be loading while others have started. I upgraded my CPU, mobo and ram. No SSD and loading times had increased and I was no longer playing 'catch up'
 
So who can recommend me a card for £100 to £200 max (brand new price) that will run BF3 on HIGH @ 1920 x 1200 and will run the most cool, quiet and power efficient. Nvidia vs AMD no preference. Prefer to spend as little as possible, and this is to pair with my q9450 which I will overclock as much as possible.
Prepared to go second hand if required.
 
gregster said:
Again I say I am not disagreeing and yet you fail to see my point. Play BF3 (which is heavily GPU dependant) and you will see less of a bottleneck but play FSX and you will see your bottleneck quite clearly.

This is why it is impossible to tell over the internet without a full and thorough investigation into each and every game. I am one of the old school who still encourage people to upgrade the GPU and see how they get on before spending more cash on CPU's.

All I have played recently is BF3 and I could have coped quite nicely with my Q8400 at 3.2ghz and a 680. The problem arises though when I want to play other games and I start to see my Q chip strangling my GPU.

Oh and just for the record, on my Q chip after map changes, I would still be loading while others have started. I upgraded my CPU, mobo and ram. No SSD and loading times had increased and I was no longer playing 'catch up'
Click to expand...

Hang on. You asked me a question about bottlenecking, I answered it, I'm not saying you were disagreeing with me, so why act like I am?

In regard to FSX, yes if you want to play one particular 6 year old game then yes CPU will be your bottleneck. Although, the same could be said for anything with poor/old graphics for example if you put BF3 down to the lowest settings in 800x600 then a faster CPU will show a larger difference in FPS. Yes it'll be the difference between 150fps and 250fps which obviously means nothing, but it'll be there.

However.... generalising and from my own experience and some CPU scaling articles I have read, any half-decent multi-core CPU will keep up with any of the single slot graphics cards currently available.
 
Robes said:
Hang on. You asked me a question about bottlenecking, I answered it, I'm not saying you were disagreeing with me, so why act like I am?

In regard to FSX, yes if you want to play one particular 6 year old game then yes CPU will be your bottleneck. Although, the same could be said for anything with poor/old graphics for example if you put BF3 down to the lowest settings in 800x600 then a faster CPU will show a larger difference in FPS. Yes it'll be the difference between 150fps and 250fps which obviously means nothing, but it'll be there.

However.... generalising and from my own experience and some CPU scaling articles I have read, any half-decent multi-core CPU will keep up with any of the single slot graphics cards currently available.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if you are just out to argue for the sake of it or if you are actually not reading my posts and just seeing what you want. Please go to the very first post of this thread and start reading but take your time.
 
andybird123 said:
it pains me to say 7850 is probably the best <£200 card at the moment

or a 560ti if you can find one much closer to the bottom end of your price range
Click to expand...

It pains you to say it why? :)
Are you more of an nvidia guy? I know some of oyu guys have had issues with AMD drivers of late? But surely nvidia have had their issues in the past as well?
Sorry to go off topic. Anyway thanks for recommendations.
Long live socket 775 ;)
 
jaybee said:
It pains you to say it why? :)
Are you more of an nvidia guy? I know some of oyu guys have had issues with AMD drivers of late? But surely nvidia have had their issues in the past as well?
Sorry to go off topic. Anyway thanks for recommendations.
Long live socket 775 ;)
Click to expand...

The price of NVIDIA cards is just ridiculous for an extra 3-10 FPS, obviously depending on what 2 cards your comparing to the AMD cards.
Most of the problems with the drivers on the AMD cards can 99% of the time easily be solved by just rolling back to an earlier version.
 
gregster said:
I am not sure if you are just out to argue for the sake of it or if you are actually not reading my posts and just seeing what you want. Please go to the very first post of this thread and start reading but take your time.
Click to expand...

Okay just had a re-read and of the same opinion.

My first post I disagreed with what you had said to wit you replied remarking "if you had read my post properly" which to me seems like a bit of a narky reply off the bat considering i was just being helpful. But none the less I percivered trying to get through to you where you were going wrong, but it seems it's beyond you so at this point I give up.

So for your benefit; Gregster is always right, even when he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Happy now? ;)
 
jaybee said:
It pains you to say it why? :)
Are you more of an nvidia guy? I know some of oyu guys have had issues with AMD drivers of late? But surely nvidia have had their issues in the past as well?
Sorry to go off topic. Anyway thanks for recommendations.
Long live socket 775 ;)
Click to expand...

I tend to prefer nvidia and at the moment in the £300~ bracket the 670 stomps all over the 7970 price/performance wise (unless you get really lucky on a stonking price for an OC 7970)
but it's looking like the 660ti, which should be the competing product for the 7850 is going to be priced too high to be a proper mid range card

If AMD did a card that was faster but also cheaper than nvidia then I'd consider switching sides, but when the price advantage favours nvidia then that's my default position

this is currently the situation in the £180-200 bracket as the 7850 overclocks very well and is much faster than anything nvidia currently have in the price range
 
Sure thing. I've had probably about 70:30 ratio in favour of AMD cards in my time I guess. 7850 looks good. £185 should bag one right now. I might get one second hand for £150.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom