Originally posted by: jaredpace
This is the only benchmark i can find that compares all three processors overclocked to their maximums....
GRID 1024 x 768 (So as not to be GPU limited)
All cpus in the same X48 / 4GB / Vista SP1 setup
E8400 @ 4.3g = 107 FPS ---100%
Q6600 @ 3.7g = 95 FPS ----89%
E2180 @ 3.2g = 65 FPS ----61%
E8400 @ 3.1g = 80 FPS ----75%
Q6600 @ 2.4g = 71 FPS ----66%
E2180 @ 2.0g = 43 FPS ----40%
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...rs_overclocked/?page=3
Advantages in gaming over an E2160 you're seeing are:
IPC improvements with 45nm penryn vs. 65nm conroe
Performance relative to L2 Cache size differences
Overclocking headroom
Number of cores
Originally posted by: geoffry
I know they do reviews with the resolutions way down to make the CPU difference bigger but no one plays at that resolution...my guess would place the difference at the resolution he would play on his 22" at maybe 10% max.
The biggest improvement is probably the much larger cache as games love cache size from what I've seen.
Originally posted by: jaredpace
Originally posted by: geoffry
I know they do reviews with the resolutions way down to make the CPU difference bigger but no one plays at that resolution...my guess would place the difference at the resolution he would play on his 22" at maybe 10% max.
The biggest improvement is probably the much larger cache as games love cache size from what I've seen.
Yes the games do love cache, and eat up higher overclocks too:
[24''-27"] 1920 x 1200 4xAA 16xAF max in-game settings
clock-for-clock
Average FPS:
E8400 = 100%
E2180 = 79%
Minimum FPS:
E8400 = 100%
E2180 = 80%
http://www.pcgameshardware.com..._CPUs_reviewed/?page=4
It really depends on how gpu-limited the situation is. 1920 x 1200 Crysis "Very High" would probably average the same FPS from a stock Athlon x2 5200+ as it would from a 4.5ghz QX9650 if the gpu power was a single 9800gtx or equivalent. Only difference would be the minimum framerates on the x2 5200 would dip about 5 times lower. My 2cents.
Originally posted by: geoffry
Originally posted by: jaredpace
Originally posted by: geoffry
I know they do reviews with the resolutions way down to make the CPU difference bigger but no one plays at that resolution...my guess would place the difference at the resolution he would play on his 22" at maybe 10% max.
The biggest improvement is probably the much larger cache as games love cache size from what I've seen.
Yes the games do love cache, and eat up higher overclocks too:
[24''-27"] 1920 x 1200 4xAA 16xAF max in-game settings
clock-for-clock
Average FPS:
E8400 = 100%
E2180 = 79%
Minimum FPS:
E8400 = 100%
E2180 = 80%
http://www.pcgameshardware.com..._CPUs_reviewed/?page=4
It really depends on how gpu-limited the situation is. 1920 x 1200 Crysis "Very High" would probably average the same FPS from a stock Athlon x2 5200+ as it would from a 4.5ghz QX9650 if the gpu power was a single 9800gtx or equivalent. Only difference would be the minimum framerates on the x2 5200 would dip about 5 times lower. My 2cents.
Yes, it definitely depends on the game.
I checked out that GTA 4 benchy...sick. And I think Flight Sim X is really CPU limited too.
But on that Cod 4 cache comparison, the e2180 is respectable at stock settings, kick it up to 3 ghz and its probably atleast at 60 fps, if not more...and in that case any extra FPS means nothing.
And to yh125d, what were your FPS using your e7200 at 3.5? I've never played WoW and have not looked into it at all so I don't know how CPU dependent it is.
Originally posted by: nyker96
I think E8xxx@ about 4ghz will be noticeably faster on most office apps and much faster than 2xxx in games.