e2160 bottlenecking? upgrade worth it?

[steeb0z]

I currently have

e2160@3ghz
8800gts 320mb
abit ip35-e
corsair 520w
2gb ddr2 6400

I cant help but feel this is a stupid question but maybe my performance expectations are unrealistic...

My performance in some games is not what I'd like, mostly TF2. I game in 1440x900 and I guess this is a 'lower' resolution. I notice in TF2 and almost every source game that the lower settings don't lead to higher performance, but if I crank the settings (playing native res) and enable some AA or AF then performance improves. At low resolutions and settings my fps crawls. I am wondering if I am either bottle necked by my CPU at this resolution, or if my video card is just not that great, or if my CPU is not enough for this video card.

I am considering an upgrade for the 2160 or the 8800gts...I would most likely be going to an e7200 as that's within my budget, or an HD4850. Before this however I'd like more ram. I am not sure if I can afford both a cpu and video card. Which of these would be most beneficial in terms of performance? Would it be worth it at all? I've read a few discussions on other forums with people claiming the same CPU as mine bottle necking their 8800gts or their new 4850s. Then there are other places claiming my setup is fine and there should be no problem.

 

[myocardia]

At the resolution you're running, you'll definitely be CPU-bound in any game, with your card (except Crysis), unless you use AA. And since the game you're asking about is a CPU-bound game to begin with, that just compounds the problem. As a matter of fact, all online multiplayer games are pretty much CPU-bound, as long as you have a fast connection with a low ping. It's your CPU that has to do all of the movement & physics computations for all of those players on your server. Your video card only has to display them.

 

[steeb0z]

So you're recommending that I get the e7200 then? Assuming I can yank my AC 7 Pro off this, would that be sufficient for it? If not hows the stock HSF?

 

[DSF]

The AC7 would be fine for a heatsink, but I guess I don't understand the problem.

If performance improves when you crank up the settings, why not just turn the eye candy on full blast and enjoy the experience? Or is it still slow?

Even though the Source engine is biased towards the CPU, I would expect an E2180 running at that speed to handle things just fine. My E4500 did just fine at stock, although I run it overclocked for other things. Heck, I didn't have a problem playing any Source games on my P4 2.6/9800 Pro. I may not have had 60FPS all the time, but it certainly didn't crawl.

 

[MarcVenice]

I'm completely lost? How can your fps improve when you play at a set resolution, like 1440*900, and you crank up the settings? Fps should go down, not up.

Myocardia's definition of cpu-bound is also pretty vague and lets say, unrealistic. And in fact I'd say he's plain wrong, because I bet you will see more gains from buying a new videocard, then from buying a new CPU, that ONLY has a little more cache ( which games do like ) but nonetheless, you're not going to see stellar improvements going from a e2180 @ 3.0ghz to a e7200 @ 3.0ghz.

What myocardia is saying is that, if for example when playing CoD4, you can crank everything up at 1440*900, and your 8800gts 320mb will have no problem handling it. Or in other words, if you turn down the settings, your FPS will not go up. Or, that your FPS will only improve if you get a faster CPU. I doubt this to be true.

 

[steeb0z]

I know what it sounds like, but that's the way it is. My fps is worse off with lower settings. I can turn things up but it only gets better to a point which I feel is still slow. I ordered a new CPU and ram already, and will order a new video card in a few weeks. I'll see how it turns out.

 

[nerp]

I'd really apprecaite an update to this thread once your new hardware rolls in. I have an E2180 @ 3.2ghz and really have no reason to replace it anytime soon but I'm searching for a justification to buy a 7200 or 7300 or even an 8400 or something. Voice in my head says buy a cheap 3870 to replace my x1950 pro but i can't resist.

 

[nerp]

hmm, re-reading the original post. You know, source games are really weird for this. I've seen this phenonomon many times; performance is good at native res, turn AA fully off and the performance is great, move it on a tad and performance plummets, but turn AF on and suddenly with AA on it's even better than without. Lower resolutions do nothing, higher resoltuions seem to not perform worse than with lower ones. It's really nutty and the only thing I've been able to deduct is that each system generally has a set of settings based on the hardware and drivers you're using and you'll eventually get a sweet spot.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: nerp
I'd really apprecaite an update to this thread once your new hardware rolls in. I have an E2180 @ 3.2ghz and really have no reason to replace it anytime soon but I'm searching for a justification to buy a 7200 or 7300 or even an 8400 or something. Voice in my head says buy a cheap 3870 to replace my x1950 pro but i can't resist.

hahahaha, I've been trying to justify an upgrade too lol, similar rig as you.

How are your temps with that 3.2Ghz under orthos load? Do you fold with it?

You could definitely push it further, the absolute max (I assume before processor damage) is 1.5v per Intel's spec sheets on the 65nm. I run at 1.5075 in BIOS, 1.48 in CPU-z. Probably right up to 3.4Ghz like me, possibly 3.5 as 3.2@ 1.36 is pretty nice. Hey, worst case it burns out (it won't at 1.5, mine hasn't, maybe if you're folding, it might I don't know), but then you have a reason to upgrade. Until then I say just push it 2dahmax.

At this point there's not a need to yet, none of my games are CPU-bottlenecked. I am going to, and would recommend, holding out until a q9550 or 9650 hits a price you're willing to pay in the future. With the performance we get out of this e2180, there's really no need to upgrade yet. I would love to upgrade, but I love being efficient with what I have even more. This $80 CPU is a beast.

 

[steeb0z]

Welp, I bought it already. If I can get more than 3.2 out of it I will keep it, especially if the performance is better. I'll sell the lesser of the two. Funny thing is I almost dropped for an 8400 but said screw it save money if I might be making a wrong decision. Oh well

 

[angry hampster]

You'll get a noticeable performance gain with a better vid card. The 320mb GTS is not enough for 14x9 with AA on in TF2.

 

[steeb0z]

Ha, I hear so many different replies and opinions and benchmarks all the time on that. The HardOCP TF2 analysis led me to feel differently but I don't know. I'll probably get a video card next month or by Nov anyway.

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: angry hampster
You'll get a noticeable performance gain with a better vid card. The 320mb GTS is not enough for 14x9 with AA on in TF2.

Bleh, I doubt that. My 8800GT does 1600x1200 with everything cranked as high as it will go perfectly smoothly. An 8800GTS is slower, but not by so much that it would have a problem with 1440x900 and AA.