Approximate % increase in performance...

[looper]

For this 'FPS' gaming computer in the house, what kind of increase in speed/performance are we talking about, going from the below sig/rig, to an Asus P8P67 with an OC'd 2600k(4.0 to 4.5ghz) and DDR3 memory. Will use the same Sapphire 5870 vid card.

We're currently getting about @ 52 fps in BBC2 at 1920x1200 w/ details on 'medium' w/4x AA and 1x Anistro...

 

[HW2050Plus]

Hm approximatly 0% I guess. But maybe you get 1-2 % better performance.

 

[MrK6]

Are you describing single player or multiplayer? Multiplayer is actually pretty CPU intensive, and I've seen a few reports of Sandy Bridge CPU's noticeably increasing FPS in multiplayer. By how much in a %, I can't say.

 

[Majic 7]

I get 90 to 200 at 4.4 at that resolution with everything basically on high. Overgrowth, undergrowth and water medium. DX11. Single Player. AA-1 and 16 Anistro..
Actually I was getting 55 to 180 with a Q 9550 overclocked to 3.6. The game likes quads.

 

[dma0991]

To do an expensive overhaul to a SB platform just for a few extra FPS is not worth the money. As of now you're getting 52FPS at settings that you specified and assuming you are using a common 60Hz monitor that means that you're only 8FPS away from your theoretical maximum as a 60Hz monitor is only capable of displaying 60FPS maximum. Anything more than 60FPS on a 60Hz monitor is a waste.

Unless you're looking at 30FPS average and dipping to below 30FPS during intense scenes I don't think it is worth getting a whole new rig.

 

[looper]

To do an expensive overhaul to a SB platform just for a few extra FPS is not worth the money. As of now you're getting 52FPS at settings that you specified and assuming you are using a common 60Hz monitor that means that you're only 8FPS away from your theoretical maximum as a 60Hz monitor is only capable of displaying 60FPS maximum. Anything more than 60FPS on a 60Hz monitor is a waste.
Unless you're looking at 30FPS average and dipping to below 30FPS during intense scenes I don't think it is worth getting a whole new rig.

That @ 50 fps was over a 5-8 minute time period... yes, it did drop way below that when helo's and smoke/sand blowing were present...(which is often)...if you notice I have a socket 775 MB/E8400... OLD components for an old game-addicted guy... guess I'm jones'ing for a new rig and trying to rationalize it...what else is new. I stopped playing golf twice a week(bad rotator cuff) for my computer gaming addiction.

 

[infoiltrator]

Going from two to four core, with the advantages (disadvantages?) of latest internal effects, I would expect benefits. How much and how useful> I don't know.
Sounds like you need to, justify it by the power saving features.
Another stay in, but I'm building cheap boxes (so I thought ) so far. A good folly is worth what you pay for it. RAH said that. I think

 

[dma0991]

I don't think it is that old but still very usable. But if you have the money to change and upgrade who is to argue about it. Not to mention that you are currently using a LGA775 and changing to a LGA1155 is reasonable because I think it would be good to skip at least one generation(LGA1156) before upgrading.

I think it is reasonable for you to upgrade now to Sandy Bridge as I don't think you have the patience to wait for Ivy Bridge next year. :hmm:

 

[looper]

MrK6....Framerate was for multi-player...our clan server is in Dallas. At one time I had the E8400 OC'd to 3.6ghz, but a few things got funky...back to 3.0 and fine.

For a gaming-rig, Ivy Bridge will or will not make much difference compared to SB/ Asus P8P67/i7 2600k?

Infoiltrator... I worked for IBM in New Haven/Hamden back in the day, and live in RI now...

 

[Athadeus]

It would probably be at least +15% average. IB is just going to be die shrunk SB, clock 200mhz higher maybe, use less power.

 

[dma0991]

SB is good enough for current games and definitely will be of significant improvement in processing power compared to your current E8400. IB may bring about some improvement over SB but 20% as claimed might be just marketing fluff.

Like Athadeus said IB will be a die shrink and will lower its TDP but Intel will sell it at a higher clock speed to fill that TDP so it would be similar to SB but higher performance. Real performance gain would be from Haswell instead which would be in 2013.

Like I said earlier, if you could afford a LGA1155 then get it. But I think the Core i5 2500K is a better choice over the Core i7 2600K if your budget is tight.

 

[Concillian]

We're currently getting about @ 52 fps in BBC2 at 1920x1200 w/ details on 'medium' w/4x AA and 1x Anistro...

Let me ask you this:

If you ignore what benchmarks tell you, and just play, do you notice any dips in framerate that affect your ability to play the game while you're playing?

If you cut your currect CPU speed by 10% and again ignore benchmarks and just play do you actually notice worse performance?

If, after trying these things, your answer is NO to both questions, then it's not worth it, because CPU isn't limiting you.

If your answer is YES to both questions, then you will see an increase. That increase will be the removal of those short term drops in performance that you notice.

Don't let numbers in a meaningless benchmark be your guide. Actually change your CPU speeds and familiarize yourself with CPU related performance dips. If 10% lower clock isn't low enough to see CPU related performance dips, then drop it 20%, 30%, 50% until you start seeing them. Most FPS games are not very CPU bound right now.

 

[looper]

I think the Core i5 2500K is a better choice over the Core i7 2600K if your budget is tight.

I'm seeing quite a few OC's of the i7-2600k to @ 4.4 to 4.6ghz. The 2500k will get there also?

Concillian wrote...
"do you notice any dips in framerate that affect your ability to play the game while you're playing?"

Yes, I do...This game, 'Battlefield:Bad Company 2' in particular, according to what I have read in many places, stresses the CPU very hard...

 

[cusideabelincoln]

You would get a very nice bump in BC2. It would make a huge difference in gameplay and should be smooth all the time. You would probably be able to turn up a few settings as well.

So if you're competitive then I think it's worth the investment. I can't give you a % increase, but Bad Company 2 loves processors and loves quad cores. Your dual core is simply holding you back, no doubt about it. I bet if you open up task manager while you play you'll see your processor is pegged at 100% the entire time.

 

[looper]

Yup, the old-guy E8400 can't keep up with that young hot babe, the Sapphire 5870...

 

[dma0991]

I'm seeing quite a few OC's of the i7-2600k to @ 4.4 to 4.6ghz. The 2500k will get there also?

I don't see why the Core i5 2500K can't reach 4.4-4.6Ghz. It is practically a lower binned Core i7 2600K without HT, lower cache size and 100Hz less than Core i7 2600K link

4.4-4.6Ghz is not much for SB. If you're lucky to have the 1% golden chip you could even reach the maximum 5.7-5.8Ghz with sufficient cooling.

 

[BD231]

Definitely worth the upgrade. The added cores will help support OS operations while gaming which will make for a nice boost in minimum frame rates. I went from a Phenom II x3 @ 3.4/3.7- to an x6 at 3.5/4.133ghz turbo and my minimum frame rates went up dramatically using only a GTX 460.

 

[infoiltrator]

hELLO from Waterbury, looper in Rhode Island, hey, having worked for IBM you obviously need to stay current, stay in the loop. [I heard that]
Planning on a Sandy Bridge Christmas for myself (the sooner the better) though I want to see the Z68 reviews before I commit. and maybe Bulldozer. indecisive yo!
When I started a year ago ...

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

For this 'FPS' gaming computer in the house, what kind of increase in speed/performance are we talking about, going from the below sig/rig, to an Asus P8P67 with an OC'd 2600k(4.0 to 4.5ghz) and DDR3 memory. Will use the same Sapphire 5870 vid card.

We're currently getting about @ 52 fps in BBC2 at 1920x1200 w/ details on 'medium' w/4x AA and 1x Anistro...

none. At higher resolutions the workload is on the gpu not cpu. You'll get higher benchmark scores though

 

[mokkat]

In some cases, your dual core will be sufficient, but overall the I7 will generally own it.

Specifically BC2 has a thing for quad cores, and the new tech ones.
Heres a Hardforum test where a guy gets twice the fps going from Q9650@4ghz to an i5-2500k@4.2gh

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1592732


You could probably go from 50ish fps medium to 200fps maxed with an upgrade