E5200 @ 3.7GHz vs Q6600 @ 3.0GHz

[rogue1979]

Questions about which cpu is better for gaming with a GTX260 216 @ 725/1525/2500.

I have already seen that there is a large boost in frame rates in GTA4 and Arma2 with the Q6600 @ 3.0GHz and an HD4780 1GB compared to an E6300 @ 3.2GHz on my son's rig.

Will other games that don't get a boost from a quad lose any performance with the Q6600 which is 700MHz behind the E5200?

 

[RussianSensation]

What resolution are you gaming at? What games are you playing? GTA4, Arma2 will definitely benefit from a quad core.

I think your greatest bottleneck will eventually be your 2GBs of ram on that G31 board, if it isn't already in some games.
Sell your current ram for $15 and get 4GB Corsair DDR2-800 for $47. This $30 upgrade is the first thing you should consider.

CPU wise, check out some numbers in this article on CPU scaling with GTX295 to give you an idea of what CPU limitations are there with a card much faster than yours
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=807&p=3

From that article you can see that more or less your videocard is a good match for the processor. Latest games are often more GPU limited than CPU limited (especially since you have a 3.0ghz quad). I doubt you will see tangible performance difference between Q6600 @ 3.0ghz and E5200 @ 3.7ghz (unless it is multi threaded in favor of the quad). Of course as per my Resident Evil 5 example below, a faster processor will net you more frames, but if I wouldn't consider that improved playability. Also, you once you increase AA in games like STALKER: Clear Sky and Crysis you will be more GPU limited.

Yesterday I ran Resident Evil 5 benchmark on a 4890:

Fixed benchmark
Q6600 @ 3.4ghz 1680x1050 0AA = 57.8 fps
Core i7 @ 3.9ghz 1680x1050 0AA = 106.0 fps (83% faster)

Q6600 @ 3.4ghz 1920x1080 0AA = 54.6 fps
Core i7 @ 3.9ghz 1920x1080 0AA = 94.7 fps (73% faster)

Q6600 @ 3.4ghz 1920x1080 4AA = 55.1 fps
Core i7 @ 3.9ghz 1920x1080 4AA = 80.0 fps (45% faster)

Core i7 @ 3.9ghz
75.8 FPS Fixed Benchmark 1920x1090 8AA
77.2 FPS Variable Benchmark 1920x1080 8AA

But you can see even getting 55 frames average is pretty good for smooth gaming in a 3rd person game. There really isn't a need in all games to have 60 frames smooth. I guess some people want that as a minimum.

Also Q6600 has 8mb of cache vs just 2mb for E5200. So in the end I think the 700 mhz advantage is really like 300.

Are you motherboard, cpu or cooling limited on that Q6600 overclock? Usually they can do 3.2-3.4ghz up to 1.40V (G0).

 

[rogue1979]

I'm gaming at 1280 x 1024 4X AA and 16X AF, usually all details on high (frame rates permitting). At those resolutions I have checked the task manager and the max memory usage I have seen so far is 1.5GHz.

This is using WinXP, I play some older games that will not work on Vista. I have Vista on another machine and I absolutely hate it. I could easily upgrade to 4GB and use the 3GB that show up, but from what Windows task manager is telling me that's not going to make any difference.

The Q6600 is motherboard limited, it has no voltage control and I couldn't find any vid mods for a Q6600, while there are many available for C2D including the E5200. It's a B3 stepping and with extra voltage on a different board it won't go past 3.1GHz anyway.

That's a sizable increase with the i7 over the Q6600, is that architecture or extra speed producing more frames?

 

[alyarb]

older games will favor the higher-freq dual.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

And older games will already perform extremely fast on the 3.0 GHz Quad.

 

[alyarb]

especially at 1280

 

[LCD123]

Why buy a slower quad core cpu unless you run lots of multithreaded apps? Most games only make use of 1 cpu, a few newer games can use 2 cpus.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: LCD123
Most games only make use of 1 cpu, a few newer games can use 2 cpus.

You are wrong. All games use 2 cores now and some of them are using 3 or 4 already. What you've said was true in 2006 not now.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: alyarb
especially at 1280

So consequently at basically any resolution.

 

[rogue1979]

Even at 1280 both Arma2 and GTA4 showed frame rates almost double with an HD 4870 1GB. Most other games we tried show no difference.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: LCD123
Most games only make use of 1 cpu, a few newer games can use 2 cpus.

You are wrong. All games use 2 cores now and some of them are using 3 or 4 already. What you've said was true in 2006 not now.

1 Core, HT off, 1 Core HT on, 2 Cores HT Off
Most games now take advantage of at least 2 cores. Although some only show a marginal benefit.