CPU bound on mass effect, E8400 @ 3.6ghz

[SSChevy2001]

It looks like a 2x 4870 with 3.0ghz E8400 is very close to being cpu bound with this game.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...ossfirex-performance/4

EDIT

You should try disabling the framerate smoothing, which will lower your fps.

Here's a link that shows how framerate smoothing effects FPS in Unreal 3.
Framerate Smoothing

 

[taltamir]

mmm, it made it go from 17 / 19 ms per frame to 15 / 17 ms per frame... aka 59 / 66 fps. A definite improvement... also, my fps staring down the fountain is now in the high forties instead of low thirties...
I am certain it will work even better if i played on full screen mode (aka, if i had vsync), but this game is too "iffy" when it comes to alt tabbing, it causes crashes too often, or at least a very VERY long delay.

plus, with the tools not working on the 4850, I have no way to measure the performance in full screen (since CCC utilization gouge does not record utilization over time, only shows current rate.)

 

[AzN]

Except that's not done at 1024x768, its done at 1920 with last gen parts:

Yup. Where it's not gpu bound in such low resolution. Last gen parts as in 8800ultra that performs very similar to 4850?

I could link about a dozen reviews done at 3GHz on today's high-end parts and CF/SLI solutions even at 1920 that show CPU bottlenecking but frankly, they're quite abundant. Its going to take some time to get used to, but a 3GHz C2D isn't enough to guarantee you're not CPU bottlenecked anymore with the current high-end and multi-GPU solutions out there now.

But we are not talking about highend part but a mainstream 4850 card. Don't even bother linking me to 2 year old games on a 280gtx @ 1920x1200 because we are talking about 4850 level of performance where it becomes more limited than 280gtx at that resolution.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: chizow
I could link about a dozen reviews done at 3GHz on today's high-end parts and CF/SLI solutions even at 1920 that show CPU bottlenecking but frankly, they're quite abundant. Its going to take some time to get used to, but a 3GHz C2D isn't enough to guarantee you're not CPU bottlenecked anymore with the current high-end and multi-GPU solutions out there now.

I would actually like to see those reviews, in particular with a single high end card and high resolutions. Most reviews only test low resolutions for cpu scaling in games, and are utterly useless to me. With the release of new high end video cards I'm now seriously wondering how much of a bottleneck my AMD cpu would be at 1920x1200 for these cards.

They don't test 1920x1200 resolution because it makes minimal difference when it's GPU limited. Don't tell me you haven't seen a article showing this?

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: Leon
A demonstration:

No AA

AA

Also note the performance hit, a lot of it from adaptive AA. Catalyst AI must be enabled.

Leon

looks like Deus Ex 2, which was itself unplayable console port for years

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: chizow
I could link about a dozen reviews done at 3GHz on today's high-end parts and CF/SLI solutions even at 1920 that show CPU bottlenecking but frankly, they're quite abundant. Its going to take some time to get used to, but a 3GHz C2D isn't enough to guarantee you're not CPU bottlenecked anymore with the current high-end and multi-GPU solutions out there now.

I would actually like to see those reviews, in particular with a single high end card and high resolutions. Most reviews only test low resolutions for cpu scaling in games, and are utterly useless to me. With the release of new high end video cards I'm now seriously wondering how much of a bottleneck my AMD cpu would be at 1920x1200 for these cards.

They don't test 1920x1200 resolution because it makes minimal difference when it's GPU limited. Don't tell me you haven't seen a article showing this?

that explains why most articles i saw started skipping the 1920x1200 res... showing 1650x1080 and 2560x1600 only.

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: Leon
A demonstration:

No AA

AA

Also note the performance hit, a lot of it from adaptive AA. Catalyst AI must be enabled.

Leon

looks like Deus Ex 2, which was itself unplayable console port for years

Forcing AA in drivers for a game that specifically does not allow AA has disastrous FPS repercussions...
Although, before the 4850, I played mass effect on a 8800GTS 512 with 2x AA forced.

Even though its playable with 2x aa forced, and with very high textures, and the game SHOWS 50+ FPS... it just feels unsmooth, and jittery.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Azn

Except that's not done at 1024x768, its done at 1920 with last gen parts:

Yup. Where it's not gpu bound in such low resolution. Last gen parts as in 8800ultra that performs very similar to 4850?

I could link about a dozen reviews done at 3GHz on today's high-end parts and CF/SLI solutions even at 1920 that show CPU bottlenecking but frankly, they're quite abundant. Its going to take some time to get used to, but a 3GHz C2D isn't enough to guarantee you're not CPU bottlenecked anymore with the current high-end and multi-GPU solutions out there now.

But we are not talking about highend part but a mainstream 4850 card. Don't even bother linking me to 2 year old games on a 280gtx @ 1920x1200 because we are talking about 4850 level of performance where it becomes more limited than 280gtx at that resolution.

The current fastest GPUs in the world:
1. GTX280 (-5 to 10% faster or slower then 4870)
2. 4870
3. GTX260
4. 4850

The 4850 might not be priced as a high end, but it is definitely pretty close to it.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: chizow
I could link about a dozen reviews done at 3GHz on today's high-end parts and CF/SLI solutions even at 1920 that show CPU bottlenecking but frankly, they're quite abundant. Its going to take some time to get used to, but a 3GHz C2D isn't enough to guarantee you're not CPU bottlenecked anymore with the current high-end and multi-GPU solutions out there now.

I would actually like to see those reviews, in particular with a single high end card and high resolutions. Most reviews only test low resolutions for cpu scaling in games, and are utterly useless to me. With the release of new high end video cards I'm now seriously wondering how much of a bottleneck my AMD cpu would be at 1920x1200 for these cards.

They don't test 1920x1200 resolution because it makes minimal difference when it's GPU limited. Don't tell me you haven't seen a article showing this?

that explains why most articles i saw started skipping the 1920x1200 res... showing 1650x1080 and 2560x1600 only.

That's not what munky or I was talking about.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: Azn

Except that's not done at 1024x768, its done at 1920 with last gen parts:

Yup. Where it's not gpu bound in such low resolution. Last gen parts as in 8800ultra that performs very similar to 4850?

I could link about a dozen reviews done at 3GHz on today's high-end parts and CF/SLI solutions even at 1920 that show CPU bottlenecking but frankly, they're quite abundant. Its going to take some time to get used to, but a 3GHz C2D isn't enough to guarantee you're not CPU bottlenecked anymore with the current high-end and multi-GPU solutions out there now.

But we are not talking about highend part but a mainstream 4850 card. Don't even bother linking me to 2 year old games on a 280gtx @ 1920x1200 because we are talking about 4850 level of performance where it becomes more limited than 280gtx at that resolution.

The current fastest GPUs in the world:
1. GTX280 (-5 to 10% faster or slower then 4870)
2. 4870
3. GTX260
4. 4850

The 4850 might not be priced as a high end, but it is definitely pretty close to it.

4850 did raise the bar far as mainstream parts go but 4850 is a mainstream card, manufacturing process with a mainstream price. Sorry GTX280 flopped but it still doesn't make 4850 a high end part.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: chizow
I could link about a dozen reviews done at 3GHz on today's high-end parts and CF/SLI solutions even at 1920 that show CPU bottlenecking but frankly, they're quite abundant. Its going to take some time to get used to, but a 3GHz C2D isn't enough to guarantee you're not CPU bottlenecked anymore with the current high-end and multi-GPU solutions out there now.

I would actually like to see those reviews, in particular with a single high end card and high resolutions. Most reviews only test low resolutions for cpu scaling in games, and are utterly useless to me. With the release of new high end video cards I'm now seriously wondering how much of a bottleneck my AMD cpu would be at 1920x1200 for these cards.

They don't test 1920x1200 resolution because it makes minimal difference when it's GPU limited. Don't tell me you haven't seen a article showing this?

Apparently, I haven't seen enough articles showing this or heard too many people stating otherwise. Anyway, there are some games where even a single 8800gtx would be cpu-limited at 1920x1200, but those are mostly older games when the fps is high enough that it wouldn't matter.

 

[taltamir]

obviously if the FPS is over 60 then it is actually monitor refresh rate limited. Not CPU or GPU... Especially if you enable vsync for the power savings... (if I can get 60fps at 30% utilization of CPU and GPU... I am saving money and making less heat!)

I don't buy your logic of the 4850 being mid range... it is just way more powerful that parts that were high end last month. It is a very well priced mid-high range of a whole new generation... 3ghz C2D has now been through what... 3 video card generations? And my cpu is overclocked too.. If I bring it down to the stock 3ghz will I become CPU bound?

Also, the thing about mass effect being run without AA... the engine does not support AA, forcing it might be possible, but forcing AA on an engine that does not support it gives ATROCIOUS performance... I mean, I see reviews where a GTX280 and 4870 CF are tested and the game gets 60+ FPS... then they force AA in drivers and it either goes down to single digits or crashes the game... No review has showed mass effect having playable FPS on any configuration with forced AA... it is ALMOST playable, at 22 (compared to going from 80 fps to 4-6 FPS I have seen on other forced AA games). But it is still not a valid approach...

Speaking of which... when I used hacked physX capable drivers on my 8800GTS 512 mass effect performance was a lot smoother. And if I combined hacked physX drivers with forced 2x AA it was playable, with force 8x AA I got blue screen (yes, it blue screened windows), and with 16x it was a slide show (reminded me of crysis)...

 

[sticks435]

Ok, I figure I'll jump in on this one. I'm playing at 1680x1050, forced 2xAA with 8.7 beta (which has ME profile I believe), textures very high, motion blur and film grain off. When running around in front of the Citidel, I get from 20-40fps. GPU usage is usually a steady 90-100%, while CPU usage bounces from 75-100% on both cores. Does that indicate being CPU bound or GPU?

Going into the Wards, I can get around 35-50fps, with 85-95% GPU, with the same flux in CPU.

 

[taltamir]

it indicates you are balanced as well... when the CPU is 100% and the GPU at less, then the GPU is being held back by the CPU. when the GPU is 100% and the CPU is less, then the CPU is being held back by the GPU...
Upgrading either one will increase your FPS.

Although, not ever hitting 100% GPU in the wards indicates to me that you are purely CPU bound in that area. (maybe the wards take more CPU power).

I tested only in the citadel tower part of the wards... from what I hear from you, CPU is taxed less elsewhere, that is good to know... Where did you test it? first mission?

 

[sticks435]

Originally posted by: taltamir
it indicates you are balanced as well... when the CPU is 100% and the GPU at less, then the GPU is being held back by the CPU. when the GPU is 100% and the CPU is less, then the CPU is being held back by the GPU...
Upgrading either one will increase your FPS.

Although, not ever hitting 100% GPU in the wards indicates to me that you are purely CPU bound in that area. (maybe the wards take more CPU power).

I tested only in the citadel tower part of the wards... from what I hear from you, CPU is taxed less elsewhere, that is good to know... Where did you test it? first mission?

I went into Wards Access, then down the elevator, into that little access tunnel, Chlora's Den, then to lower market, up the stairs to Upper Market, and over to the Stairs down to the C-sec Academy.

I'll have to double check on the GPU usage in the Wards. I prob did hit 100%, but I may have missed it. It's hard to keep an eye on FRAPS counter, CCC, and the Sidebar all at once.

 

[Munky]

The 4850 is a midrange card. The fact that we've been fed the same re-hashed architectures for 18 months prior to that might make this news shocking, but cards like the 9800gtx never belonged in the high end category IMO. After 18 months since the g80 launch I expect midrange cards to offer similar performance.

 

[taltamir]

call it what you want, this "mid range" card requires that you OC the fastest gaming CPU on the market to not be CPU bound at 1920x1200 (and even with the OC it is still not GPU bound)

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: taltamir
I don't buy your logic of the 4850 being mid range... it is just way more powerful that parts that were high end last month. It is a very well priced mid-high range of a whole new generation... 3ghz C2D has now been through what... 3 video card generations? And my cpu is overclocked too.. If I bring it down to the stock 3ghz will I become CPU bound?

That's because just last month 280gtx or 260gtx wasn't even released. You have to raise the bar some time. A good time is when high end cards get released. Last generation highend becomes mid-range. Midrange become mainstream and so on.

4850 is mid range part according to ATI. Their upper midrange is 4870. Their high end is R700 and low end is coming shortly 4650 and 4670. ATI stopped making high end single gpu card a while ago.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: taltamir
call it what you want, this "mid range" card requires that you OC the fastest gaming CPU on the market to not be CPU bound at 1920x1200 (and even with the OC it is still not GPU bound)

All cards benefit from faster CPU but 4850 cpu bound on the fastest gaming CPU? That's a bit excessive.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: taltamir
call it what you want, this "mid range" card requires that you OC the fastest gaming CPU on the market to not be CPU bound at 1920x1200 (and even with the OC it is still not GPU bound)

All cards benefit from faster CPU but 4850 cpu bound on the fastest gaming CPU? That's a bit excessive.

excessive, yes... but the numbers have spoken.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: taltamir
call it what you want, this "mid range" card requires that you OC the fastest gaming CPU on the market to not be CPU bound at 1920x1200 (and even with the OC it is still not GPU bound)

All cards benefit from faster CPU but 4850 cpu bound on the fastest gaming CPU? That's a bit excessive.

excessive, yes... but the numbers have spoken.

What numbers? I see in this article that even at 1280x1024 a 4870 provides on average a 22% improvement over a 4850, and that's on a 4GHz cpu. If it were truly cpu-bound you'd see no improvement from faster cards.

 

[taltamir]

obviously it varies by game... COD4 which you linked is not CPU limited on a 4ghz oc of... what are they using? a quad core extreme? I don't read german...

 

[Munky]

They're using an OC'd QX9770

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: taltamir
call it what you want, this "mid range" card requires that you OC the fastest gaming CPU on the market to not be CPU bound at 1920x1200 (and even with the OC it is still not GPU bound)

All cards benefit from faster CPU but 4850 cpu bound on the fastest gaming CPU? That's a bit excessive.

excessive, yes... but the numbers have spoken.

By that logic all GPU's are cpu bound.

Originally posted by: taltamir
obviously it varies by game... COD4 which you linked is not CPU limited on a 4ghz oc of... what are they using? a quad core extreme? I don't read german...

Like what testing 5 year old engines on it?

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: taltamir
call it what you want, this "mid range" card requires that you OC the fastest gaming CPU on the market to not be CPU bound at 1920x1200 (and even with the OC it is still not GPU bound)

All cards benefit from faster CPU but 4850 cpu bound on the fastest gaming CPU? That's a bit excessive.

excessive, yes... but the numbers have spoken.

What numbers? I see in this article that even at 1280x1024 a 4870 provides on average a 22% improvement over a 4850, and that's on a 4GHz cpu. If it were truly cpu-bound you'd see no improvement from faster cards.

You don't have to link him to 4ghz quad core.

Here's 3 ghz core 2 duo and 4870 is faster than 4850 in every resolution and many modern games which proves it isn't bound by CPU.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...800-games_4.html#sect1

 

[taltamir]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...on-hd4800-games_7.html

Same review.. different game...

Obviously in most games the video card is the main limitation (which, btw, does not mean the CPU isn't being taxed).
But in some games the CPU begins to limit the effect.

I already agreed that it is not really CPU bound, but rather a balanced case where both are limiting factors. as it alternatves between 100% CPU with lower GPU and 100% GPU with lower CPU...

But the "any dual core is plenty for any game) is long since not true.


also... anything over 60FPS is MONITOR bound in my book. So pointless to test further.