GPU intensive games that don't use much CPU

[Bill Brasky]

Valve games.

tf2
l4d2

 

[RussianSensation]

Put them on equal grounds, and the story changes.

Core i5 750 (2.66GHz) vs Core i7 920 (2.66GHz): no performance increase.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/109?vs=47

Of course there wouldn't be any difference at the same clocks. i5 and i7 have identical IPC. The point is even between 2 very fast processors, there already was a difference. So imagine comparing an X2 4800+ to a Core i5 750.

In general it's just ill advised to pair an X2 4800+ with anything faster than an 9800GT/HD4850 imo. Realistically who would be using a $200-300 GPU with a 4800+? We have to assume that such a processor will be paired with a slow GPU too, which means the bottleneck will shift way more to the CPU. He'll basically be both GPU and CPU limited, which limits his gaming experience to using Low or Medium settings at 1280x1024/1680x1050 with 4AA.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I do not get why that game looks so cpu intensive in some benchmarks. I actually got it to run just fine(30-40 fps) on the godawful slow E-350 using low settings. and on my E8500 is was basically pegged at 60 fps for the hour that I played the demo.

They use scripted scenarios and ungodly amounts of units like motherships and whatnot. Not a representative scenario of what you would see in most games and certainly not in single player or lower than 3vs3.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

In general it's just ill advised to pair an X2 4800+ with anything faster than an 9800GT/HD4850 imo. Realistically who would be using a $200-300 GPU with a 4800+? We have to assume that such a processor will be paired with a slow GPU too, which means the bottleneck will shift way more to the CPU. He'll basically be both GPU and CPU limited, which limits his gaming experience to using Low or Medium settings at 1280x1024/1680x1050 with 4AA.

The only things we know about the OP is that he wants to play games and he has a 4800+. He has made no mention of wanting to buy a $200 graphics card. He could already own a graphics card and just wants a list of games his 4800+ can handle. If he's getting a new card he hasn't asked for advice, but if he did he should spend no more than $100 on the video card.

 

[RussianSensation]

The only things we know about the OP is that he wants to play games and he has a 4800+. He has made no mention of wanting to buy a $200 graphics card. He could already own a graphics card and just wants a list of games his 4800+ can handle. If he's getting a new card he hasn't asked for advice, but if he did he should spend no more than $100 on the video card.

How do you propose we answer something ambiguous like that? Which games can he play? The answer is ALL GAMES. There isn't a single game he won't be able to play at 800x600 0AA Low settings at 25-30 fps. But almost all games will be bottlenecked by his CPU and/or GPU regardless of what games he "can actually play".

If the OP has a $200+ graphics card, he'll be CPU limited in most modern games since even an E6400 bottlenecks a GTX460. Can you play games on an E6400? Sure you can, technically. To some people 30 fps is playable, while others want 40-60 fps, and yet others want 60+. If he doesn't have a modern GPU, then he'll be bottlenecked by both CPU and GPU which will basically mean he'll have to play games at Low and Medium settings at lower resolutions to begin with. But those games will be still be considered playable.

So how do you answer a question as "List games that an X2 4800+ can handle"? What is the definition of handle exactly? Is 30 fps in Resident Evil 5 sufficient? To me that reads: "List games which won't be bottlenecked by the X2 4800+". The answer is almost no such games exist.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Of course there wouldn't be any difference at the same clocks. i5 and i7 have identical IPC. The point is even between 2 very fast processors, there already was a difference. So imagine comparing an X2 4800+ to a Core i5 750.

In general it's just ill advised to pair an X2 4800+ with anything faster than an 9800GT/HD4850 imo. Realistically who would be using a $200-300 GPU with a 4800+? We have to assume that such a processor will be paired with a slow GPU too, which means the bottleneck will shift way more to the CPU. He'll basically be both GPU and CPU limited, which limits his gaming experience to using Low or Medium settings at 1280x1024/1680x1050 with 4AA.

I think the biggest thing to note here, IMO, is IPC and core count differences. But now I get your point about clock speed differences, which is true. Getting an Athlon X2 to over 3GHz is a PITA for the most part, while any of the newer CPU architectures will have cores that can easily run at 4GHz+.

I think my previous comparison of the Phenom II X4 955 and the Athlon X2 4800+ paints the picture. Even being a mainstream CPU it's around 90% faster in gaming than the 4800+. If you compare to the i3 2100 then that's 100% in gaming.

As for the other things, I agree. The 9800GT competed with the HD 4830, but your main point is right. With this CPU I wouldn't recommend something over a Radeon HD 6670. A 6770 will be severely bottlenecked.

He's on socket 939, which means a complete platform overhaul. If he wants something decent for very little money, time for a min of an Athlon II X3 and preferably a Phenom II X4 or Core i3.

EDIT:

I'm not saying he won't be able to play new games, just that even with a Radeon HD 6770 he'll be limited to Medium or Low settings at 1280x720 on most.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

How do you propose we answer something ambiguous like that?

You're making too much out of it.

There isn't a single game he won't be able to play at 800x600 0AA Low settings at 25-30 fps.

Why are you just making up a context again? As long as the video card is not total crap, he could play at a decent resolution. It's pretty obvious the OP does not want to play at low resolution. The 4800+ will perform the same at 800x600 as it will 1080p.

So how do you answer a question as "List games that an X2 4800+ can handle"? What is the definition of handle exactly?

You qualify and quantify on a per game basis. It's not rocket science:

GTA4 - 30-35 fps on lowest settings in the city, game is playable. Framerate will drop as you increase draw/detail distance. Framerate drops below 20 when shadows are turned on, and isn't really playable. Assuming there's enough GPU horsepower, textures can be turned to high and makes a noticeable difference in IQ as signs and etc become less blurry without taking a hit in framerate. Not a good game to turn up graphical settings and stay playable.

Portal 2 - Smooth gameplay when graphics are turned up. A few instances the framerate will drop, usually instances involving lots of particles and physics. One example is the test chamber that has the companion cube in a glass box. You have to break the glass, and that causes the framerate to temporarily drop really low as the particles fly around. Framerate returns to normal shortly afterwards.

To me that reads: "List games which won't be bottlenecked by the X2 4800+". The answer is almost no such games exist.

That is not what the OP is looking for, and you know it. The 4800+ can bottleneck a card and a game and still provide a playable experience, a smooth experience, a rough experience, a non-playable experience, and etc.

If the OP has a $200+ graphics card, he'll be CPU limited in most modern games since even an E6400 bottlenecks a GTX460. Can you play games on an E6400? Sure you can, technically. To some people 30 fps is playable, while others want 40-60 fps, and yet others want 60+. If he doesn't have a modern GPU, then he'll be bottlenecked by both CPU and GPU which will basically mean he'll have to play games at Low and Medium settings at lower resolutions to begin with. But those games will be still be considered playable.

You really can't look at benchmark figures to determine the level of playability. You have to play the game yourself with the hardware yourself. Numbers are meaningless without the context. Also the OP gave us a hint to his standard: Bad Company 2 and Black OPs are on his no-go list. And he's right; the 4800+ is going to struggle to stay at a smooth (30 fps) framerate during heavy firefights and all the detail options will need to be at their lowest settings if he's willing to swallow the jerky framerate. He's interested in games where he can turn up the details and his 4800+ can still cope (ie insignificant loss in frames). Games like this would be Just Cause 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Crysis, Far Cry 2. Graphics settings can be turned up and the load on the GPU goes up while there is no or minimal increase in load on the CPU.

 

[Mopetar]

. . . I think we both know the answer to this: all new games will be CPU bottlenecked, even if paired with a mainstream GPU like the Radeon HD 6770.

Will that still be true when we start seeing 6 and 8 core chips from BD and IB?

Most developers are still programming for a set number of cores. Even though some games don't benefit from more than a set number, it would still be nice if they programmed so that games could scale with the number of cores, even though doing so might be more complicated.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Will that still be true when we start seeing 6 and 8 core chips from BD and IB?

Most developers are still programming for a set number of cores. Even though some games don't benefit from more than a set number, it would still be nice if they programmed so that games could scale with the number of cores, even though doing so might be more complicated.

Most modern games take advantage of three or four cores, but not more than that. The big difference in something like going from a 4800+ to a 955 is those extra cores, higher clock speed, higher CPU-Northbridge (uncore) speed, 6MB L3 cache, and somewhat higher IPC . Something mainstream like a Phenom II X4 955 starts to bottleneck noticeably something like a Radeon HD 6970, or a Radeon HD 6870 CrossFire.

Given that the 4800+ is around 90% slower in games, the bottleneck becomes very high and it can only take up to a Radeon HD 6670 or so before you get very small increases in performance from adding a faster GPU and when CPU usage is almost maxed out while GPU usage is at 50-60%.

Sandy Bridge Core i5 and i7 don't have any bottlenecking problems, so Ivy Bridge won't. I don't expect Bulldozer to have any serious bottlenecking issues, though I doubt gaming performance will be higher than Sandy Bridge.

OT:

Ivy Bridge will not come in 6 and 8-core variants; only 4-core.

 

[Davste]

Have you tried Metro 2033 on your 4800+?






I also would like a list. Please add my name to the list of people wanting a list.

Yes. It works very well, may I add. In fact, I have yet to run a game that is unplayable on max settings, with less than 35 fps. Didn't try crysis 1 yet though.

The 4800+ is also overclocked at 3Ghz stable. All the games are playable! The GPU runs at 75-80% load on crysis 2 @ max. I get some lag when there are explosions, for a few seconds, but honestly, I get 40 fps+. For me that's more than playable. OF COURSE my cpu will bottleneck my graphics card! I'm never expecting to get 100% out of that card till I have an i5!

Nevertheless, I thought it was an interesting question. I've noticed that with a great graphics card and an old CPU, there are alot of great games out there that I can play. Portal 2 is a fine example, but it's not GPU intensive. I'm looking for GPU intensive, and not so CPU intensive. I think crysis would fall into that cathegory.

Why are you just making up a context again? As long as the video card is not total crap, he could play at a decent resolution. It's pretty obvious the OP does not want to play at low resolution. The 4800+ will perform the same at 800x600 as it will 1080p.

That is not what the OP is looking for, and you know it. The 4800+ can bottleneck a card and a game and still provide a playable experience, a smooth experience, a rough experience, a non-playable experience, and etc.

Spot on, thank you sir.

Instead of discussing how badly my CPU will bottleneck my graphics card, it would be more interesting to discuss what games will be playable: now I have a perfect system to test this. GPU intensive games that are not so CPU intensive. Just give me the names

 

[Davste]

In general it's just ill advised to pair an X2 4800+ with anything faster than an 9800GT/HD4850 imo. Realistically who would be using a $200-300 GPU with a 4800+?

Me. It's either that or no GPU. Can't upgrade the CPU right now, and, quite frankly, I'm happy. I have around another 2-6 months with that CPU until I get an i5. It doesn't make sense to get a 9800 in this day and age when I intend to upgrade. One part at a time, bro. Still have to save up for new motherboard/cpu/ram.


Also, I already bought the card. Look at this thread for more info:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=31965280#post31965280

I have a 6850 PCS+ with a 4800. Funney eh?

 

[RussianSensation]

Also, I already bought the card. Look at this thread for more info:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=31965280#post31965280

I have a 6850 PCS+ with a 4800. Funney eh?

It's not my $, as long as you are happy.

In that thread you said you are running Crysis 2 @ 1920x1080 Extreme at 30-50 fps. This is obviously impossible since a 6850 PCS+ is only as fast as an HD5850 and that card only gets 31 fps average; that's in DX9, not DX11.

But besides that Athlon II X2 265 3.3ghz only achieves 19 fps with a GTX590. Funny how your HD6850 with a 2.0ghz Athlon X2 can do 30-50 fps in the same game?

 

[Davste]

It's not my $, as long as you are happy.

In that thread you said you are running Crysis 2 @ 1920x1080 Extreme at 30-50 fps. This is obviously impossible since a 6850 PCS+ is only as fast as an HD5850 and that card only gets 31 fps average; that's in DX9, not DX11.

But besides that Athlon II X2 265 3.3ghz only achieves 19 fps with a GTX590. Funny how your HD6850 with a 2.0ghz Athlon X2 can do 30-50 fps in the same game?

Not extreeme, sorry, very high and dx9, no patches 1920x1080. Also that's just the average indoors, it sometimes drops to 20 when you look at an open area (ie: the first time you go outdoors it drops to 20 when you look at the scene, when you get back on the ground it goes back to 30-40). I also used xfire to get the framerate, so I dunno, might be off. If you want a vid I can take one. Also, I don't know how they measured those benchmarks. And my Athlon x2 is 3Ghz. Not 2.

Anyway, at the end of the day, I don't really care what framerate I'm getting. It's smooth, doesn't lag, it looks great and I enjoy playing it. That is all.

One more thing, my friend has a 5000+, and a 5770. When I went over to his house, I saw him playing Crysis 2 and it was buttery smooth. Seriously, I think it's the techspot benchmarks that are off, not me.

 

[RussianSensation]

I also used xfire to get the framerate, so I dunno, might be off. .

As long as you are happy with your purchase, that's all that matters.

 

[toyota]

the techspot article makes it look as if no dual core cpu can run the game at all. all I can think of is that the gtx590 is somehow causing those dual core cpus to take a crap because believe me a decent dual core can run the game.

at the same time though, Davste was absolutely exaggerating his performance. now a little more reality comes out as he says he drops in 20s outside for Crysis 2. that cpu is going to have him capped in the 30s at best for most demanding games. in the very cpu demanding games he will be lucky to even average 25-30 fps with higher settings.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Davste you might try Stalker games.

But besides that Athlon II X2 265 3.3ghz only achieves 19 fps with a GTX590. Funny how your HD6850 with a 2.0ghz Athlon X2 can do 30-50 fps in the same game?

The GTX 590 requires more CPU overhead than the 6850. So it is quite possible he would get higher framerates than their testing. And we also don't know what scenes Techspot is testing either; that can make a big difference like the Frost scenes in Crysis 1 make a big difference. It's not unheard of for this to happen in some games:

Look at the slowest CPU results.

 

[RussianSensation]

at the same time though, Davste was absolutely exaggerating his performance. now a little more reality comes out as he says he drops in 20s outside for Crysis 2. that cpu is going to have him capped in the 30s at best for most demanding games. in the very cpu demanding games he will be lucky to even average 25-30 fps with higher settings.

Exactly. How many times have someone claimed that they "maxed out" a game at "playable" settings only to find out later there is more to it than meets the eye. It's all good, as long as there isn't a wave of X2 4400+ to X2 6000+ owners buying HD6970/GTX580 cards and claiming no CPU bottleneck exists because they find 25-35 fps playable in a FPS.

Look at the slowest CPU results.

I realize that NV GPUs are more demanding for CPU power. But 19 fps? It's not like that would suddenly go from 19 to 30 fps by swapping a 590 for a 6850.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I realize that NV GPUs are more demanding for CPU power. But 19 fps? It's not like that would suddenly go from 19 to 30 fps by swapping a 590 for a 6850.

Dual video cards can also require more CPU overhead, as the Xfire results show above.

Techspot was testing on extreme settings. The OP already admitted he wasn't using extreme settings.

Also, that kind of jump is not unheard of:

5870 -> 580

33 -> 23 fps w/ Phenom II X2

59 -> 73 fps w/ Core i7

 

[Oyeve]

if anything it would be the exact opposite.

This. I recently got saints row 2 via DL for the PC in my sig and it runs god-awful. On the same sig below Metro2033 runs pretty damn good. SR2, ug, runs like ass even on medium settings.

 

[Davste]

the techspot article makes it look as if no dual core cpu can run the game at all. all I can think of is that the gtx590 is somehow causing those dual core cpus to take a crap because believe me a decent dual core can run the game.

at the same time though, Davste was absolutely exaggerating his performance. now a little more reality comes out as he says he drops in 20s outside for Crysis 2. that cpu is going to have him capped in the 30s at best for most demanding games. in the very cpu demanding games he will be lucky to even average 25-30 fps with higher settings.

I'm telling you, it's really smooth indoors, and most of the time. The only time I notice any lag is when there are explosions, and when you are at a high place looking at loads of buildings at once. I have seen more than 40 fps indoors many times, but then again, it's not the average. It's very fast in some scenes, and slows down in some others. It depends.

Also. addding Modern Warfare 2 to the list. I only played it for a little while, but I maxed it out (with the exception of 2x AA) at 50-60 fps. Hehe I know I should be getting twice that, but it's playable.

 

[Davste]

Exactly. How many times have someone claimed that they "maxed out" a game at "playable" settings only to find out later there is more to it than meets the eye. It's all good, as long as there isn't a wave of X2 4400+ to X2 6000+ owners buying HD6970/GTX580 cards and claiming no CPU bottleneck exists because they find 25-35 fps playable in a FPS.

I never claimed there was no bottleneck. I agree with you -.-' You are right. Also, I have a 2.8Ghz dual core overclocked at 3Ghz, not a 2.2 Ghz one, I swapped it with the garage PC after the motherboard fried. Can you get to the original question? If you think my bottleneck is too large to be able to play any games decently, please don't reply to this thread again. Not everyone can afford an i7, and I simply didn't have the money to get another CPU, motherboard and RAM. So enough already, I'm stuck with this CPU for the time being. That's it.

I know there is a bottleneck, but what I'm trying to say is that performance isn't half as bad as I expected, and I want to know what good and recent games I can play until I upgrade my CPU.

Now with that out of the way, contributing to the list:

> Shogun 2: Total war looks very very nice on highest, with an average of 25 fps. It's not that smooth and playable. The average is low because it goes slow when there is a lot of smoke. I get THE SAME fps on lowest and highest graphics.

> Dead space 2 runs great at 50 fps on highest.

> Assassin's creed 2 and brotherhood look AMAZING, and they are also very smooth, despite so many people complaining about CPU bottlenecks due to the bad port (especially in AC2). I think AC3 runs smoother than the 2.

Going to try Mafia 2 soon.

@cusideabelincoln I'll see about stalker games, thanks.

 

[Davste]

Mafia 2 works okay. 33 fps average on the benchmark on highest, 35 average on lowest @ 800x600.
I saw somebody on youtube doing the same benchmark with the same settings and the same graphics card, got twice the fps I did
Can't wait to upgrade. Well, at least it's an improvement over what I had before, because I used to get 10 fps with my 7800 at lowest lol.

 

[toyota]

Mafia 2 works okay. 33 fps average on the benchmark on highest, 35 average on lowest @ 800x600.
I saw somebody on youtube doing the same benchmark with the same settings and the same graphics card, got twice the fps I did
Can't wait to upgrade. Well, at least it's an improvement over what I had before, because I used to get 10 fps with my 7800 at lowest lol.

you only got 10fps with a 7800 on all low? lol, I just ran it on all low and got 47.5 fps with my wimpy 8600gt. and yeah your cpu is killing you in this game if you can only average 35 fps on lowest settings with a 6850 that should be 7 to 8 times faster than an 8600gt.

 

[Davste]

you only got 10fps with a 7800 on all low? lol, I just ran it on all low and got 47.5 fps with my wimpy 8600gt. and yeah your cpu is killing you in this game if you can only average 35 fps on lowest settings with a 6850 that should be 7 to 8 times faster than an 8600gt.

Why bother running it on lowest if I get the same fps on highest? lol. I think I ran the benchmark with physx on when I had that 7800. Still, it definitely wasn't playable. It's playable now but not that great. Maybe I should just save these good games for after the upgrade. Also I think you have a good cpu paired up with that 8600 eh?

 

[toyota]

Why bother running it on lowest if I get the same fps on highest? lol. I think I ran the benchmark with physx on when I had that 7800. Still, it definitely wasn't playable. It's playable now but not that great. Maybe I should just save these good games for after the upgrade. Also I think you have a good cpu paired up with that 8600 eh?

oh of course you might as well run it on high. if you are only averaging 33 fps on high then you will be dipping in the 20s very often and likely even the teens at times though.

yeah I have a great cpu for gaming but until I get a real card its not accomplishing much. in the meantime its given me a good reason to play some of those older and/or less demanding games that have been just sitting there in backlog though.