e8400 greatly improves game performance over an e21XX?

[bitt3n]

will a e8400 greatly improve game performance over an e21XX (taking overclocking both chips into account)? or is the GPU the overwhelming difference? for example, are we talking like 5 FPS in TF2/HL2 etc, or is it likely to be more significant

 

[zfooz]

Well E8400 is 3ghz and 21xx is 2ghz so yes it's going to make a difference.
1MB cache vs 6MB cache..

If you overclock the E2 to 3ghz then the difference will be significantly smaller, enough that I wouldn't bother buying the E8400, unless of course you can overclock it to 4ghz, but that's a bit tough. Mine will do 3.8ghz alright but requires wayyy too much voltage to go any higher.

Really, I would spend more money on the video card, but buy a motherboard that supports 45nm chips, and just go with cheaper CPU and overclock for now and then buy a 45nm later on when they are cheaper.. I regret spending over $200 on E8400. Could have got a 8800GTS . Oh well

 

[TemjinGold]

The GPU.

 

[superstition]

45nm budget chips are coming.

 

[Drsignguy]

Originally posted by: superstition
45nm budget chips are coming.

I want 1!

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: bitt3n
will a e8400 greatly improve game performance over an e21XX (taking overclocking both chips into account)? or is the GPU the overwhelming difference? for example, are we talking like 5 FPS in TF2/HL2 etc, or is it likely to be more significant

In TF2 the difference will be WAY more than 5fps, more like 10 - 20fps, so yes, an E8400 would significantly improve over an E21x0, even when both are overclocked (it'll be a 3GHz E21x0 vs a 4GHz E8400 anyway).

 

[runawayprisoner]

Depends on the kind of game you are playing. But in general, you won't see more FPS. Instead, you'll notice smooth performance all around.

 

[GundamF91]

Better spend the $ on the GPU instead, unless you already have a good card. The E8400 will be better than E2100 not due to speed, but due to the L2 cache amount. Otherwise the several hundred Mhz wont' make much difference compared to what GPU performance gain will be.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: bitt3n
will a e8400 greatly improve game performance over an e21XX (taking overclocking both chips into account)? or is the GPU the overwhelming difference? for example, are we talking like 5 FPS in TF2/HL2 etc, or is it likely to be more significant

In TF2 the difference will be WAY more than 5fps, more like 10 - 20fps, so yes, an E8400 would significantly improve over an E21x0, even when both are overclocked (it'll be a 3GHz E21x0 vs a 4GHz E8400 anyway).

the difference might look significant, however the difference of 100fps to 120fps is going to be a non factor unless you're running a CRT

The money is better spent on a better GPU, hands down

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
[he difference might look significant, however the difference of 100fps to 120fps is going to be a non factor unless you're running a CRT

The money is better spent on a better GPU, hands down

*sigh* Whose pulling numbers out of their ass? Does anyone here actually PLAY TF2?! Guess not.

Anybody who has played TF2 knows (like many Source games) it is very CPU bound. My E4400 @ 3.33GHz can sometimes drop down into the 30fps range during firefights (I run a 8800GTS 320) and no, I'm not GPU bound either.

I've asked around in forums and it appears many people are having the same issues with low framerates, particularly those with slower CPUs. Even those with overclocked E8400s can sometimes drop down into the 40fps range, thats how CPU intensive the game is.

 

[v8envy]

Lately I've been running a 2.66 ghz E2180 and I play a lot of HL2. Factory OCd 8800GT 512, 4 G of ram and a CRT. 1600x1200@120hz, all settings max and 4xfsaa.

I have *NEVER* bogged to 30 fps. Ever. And I'm in pyro rushes as either the pyro or the medic quite often. Lots of people on fire, lots of particle effects. I have yet to see non-smooth gameplay.

Either there's something strange about the video settings those people use, they run at > 1600x1200 res, vsync is on using an LCD, audio drivers are having heartburn or *something* -- there is some other cause of their low performance. A 3.33 ghz E4400 should not be 25% slower than an E8400 unless they've cranked it to well over 4 ghz and the game is completely and utterly CPU bound! Which means no current retail CPU made is capable of handling that game, never mind CPUs made in the past 2-3 years. I just have a hard time seeing it. This isn't Crysis we're talking about here. Slower CPUs are often times paired with value motherboards, cooling solutions, PSUs, sound, etc etc. I'm not surprised the lower you go costwise the slower life gets.

Tf2 'ideal' recommended system is a 3.4 ghz P4 with a 6800 graphics card. You've got four times the ideal hardware (2x cpus, 2x IPC, equivalent clock) firepower and over eight times the minimum. There's some other factor here slowing you down.

And the quoted numbers probably come out of the hl2 lost coast demo benchmark. 140 fps is what higher end setups seem to get average, with mid 200s during the last part of the demo.

You know what, I've got a couple of friends at Valve. If I remember I'll see if they can dig around for an idea of why a system like yours would bog down to such low FPS in a firefight. Clearly just throwing obscene amounts of hardware at the problem isn't working for many people.

Edit: OP, if you're *not* overclocking an E8400 will be a night and day difference. If your E2xxx is OCd to 3 ghz or higher the difference will be much smaller.

 

[harpoon84]

For me, TF2 performs way worse than HL2, performance is totally different. My rig runs HL2 like a champ, I have no complaints whatsover. My belief it that TF2 is just poorly coded/optimized. It is single threaded by default as well, though you can turn on multithreading in the console, but apparently it doesn't work really well, the framerates are higher but then you get stutters. Hopefully something that will get looked at in a future patch. From my reading it does appear some people (like yourself) have no problems running the game at smooth framerates while others struggle to eek out playable framerates on seemingly high end hardware.

 

[v8envy]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
For me, TF2 performs way worse than HL2, performance is totally different. My rig runs HL2 like a champ, I have no complaints whatsover. My belief it that TF2 is just poorly coded/optimized. It is single threaded by default as well, though you can turn on multithreading in the console, but apparently it doesn't work really well, the framerates are higher but then you get stutters. Hopefully something that will get looked at in a future patch. From my reading it does appear some people (like yourself) have no problems running the game at smooth framerates while others struggle to eek out playable framerates on seemingly high end hardware.

You're right re: TF2 being a more demanding beast than HL2, that cartoony look takes a lot of GPU oomph. But there isn't much for the CPU to chew on, really.

I'm going to guess part of the blame may be LCD + vsync, other possible culprits being sound and CPU scheduling.

I don't suppose you'd care to dig out a CRT, yank the creative labs card (if any) and try this bad boy under Linux or with CPU affinity turned on?

 

[vj9usa]

Harpoon, I'm thinking you're somehow GPU limited in TF2. I play at 1680x1050 (no AA, 8xAF) with a 512MB X1900XT and E2160 @3GHz, and pretty much always stay at 50+ FPS. It's never gotten close to 30. Before the E2160, I used an Athlon64 3700+ @2.7, and it still didn't dip lower than the 40s. Maybe you're playing at a resolution where the relative lack of VRAM is hurting? 320MB isn't enough for very high resolutions.
To the OP, I'd stick with an E2xxx for now (to push to 3+GHz), spend the saved money on a better video card, and then buy a quad core maybe 2 years down the line (once the next socket comes out, 775 chips should get cheap).

 

[john3850]

When i got my E3110@4100 i saw a difference in game speed over my
e6600@3600 with a sli set up.
My gtx8800 game speed seemed the same with the E3110@4100.
compered to a e6600@3600.
I guess sli can use the extra speed from the E3110.

 

[meatguy2006]

I have an 8800GTS 512, and I have seen a great improvement in games and apps upgrading from a e6600(OC'd to 3Ghz) to a stock E8400. Sometimes up to 8fps in 3dMark06, and I now have no problems in crysis @1440x900 and all high settings.

 

[v8envy]

Originally posted by: vj9usa
Harpoon, I'm thinking you're somehow GPU limited in TF2. I play at 1680x1050 (no AA, 8xAF) with a 512MB X1900XT and E2160 @3GHz, and pretty much always stay at 50+ FPS.

Now this gives me an idea. Try cranking your resolution down to 1024x768, details low, FSAA and AF off. Disable your sound driver. Get into a big firefight and watch your FPS. If they dip to 30, well, you win. No CPU sold today is capable of handling TF2 in a firefight.

If your FPS stays at 60+ then my theory of GPU or sound being the low performance culprit is probably correct.

In which case start with cranking resolution, then detail, then AF and finally FSAA to see what's causing your machine heartburn.

 

[schneiderguy]

Theres a 1000 post thread at the steam forum complaining a bug in TF2 that causes some people to be heavily CPU limited. On my system I get the same framerate at 640*480 with minimum details as I do at 1280*1024 with 8x AA and 16x AF

 

[hooflung]

A 1mb cache 3.0ghz C2D runs like a 2.66 C2D 2/4 mb cache C2D from what I understand. A 2mb cache runs neck and neck with a 4mb cache chip until you do stuff like media encoding where the cache plays a role. The bonus of the E2160 and E2180 is that you can OC them to 3ghz on stock HS/Fan and have a free 2.6ghz C2D 4mb performance for half the price.