I'm asking this question again, would a dual core E7500 bottleneck a 5870?

[toyota]

I wouldn't say a faster GPU wouldn't make a 0 fps difference. The game is very much GPU limited and loves quad cores. Even 5870 has a hard time maxing out everything with AA.

However BC2 does love quad cores.

well if you look the slower cpus cant provide any more frame rate so a 5850 and 5870 would likely have zero difference in playable framerates in BC2 at 1600 with his cpu. if the op would oc the E7500 he would eliminate most of the bottleneck he would have with a 5850 or 5870 though.

 

[cbn]

However BC2 does love quad cores.

Yep, I just saw that legion hardware review the other day.

P.S. Do you guys remember when the maker of metro 2033 said the game would scale to 16 cores?

Take a look at this--->http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/metro_2033_performance_guide,6.html

 

[AzN]

well if you look the slower cpus cant provide any more frame rate so a 5850 and 5870 would likely have zero difference in playable framerates in BC2 at 1600 with his cpu. if the op would oc the E7500 he would eliminate most of the bottleneck he would have with a 5850 or 5870 though.

Going from a 4870 to 5870 jumped 20 fps or so at the same resolution with a dual core. So yeah there is going to be a difference from 5850 and 5870.

 

[toyota]

Yep, I just saw that legion hardware review the other day.

P.S. Do you guys remember when the maker of metro 2033 said the game would scale to 16 cores?

Take a look at this--->[link coming]

yeah all you need is a fast dual core in Metro2033 to provide adequate framerate at least with any single gpu card. as that game is insanely gpu limited in DX11 with all features turned on.

 

[toyota]

Going from a 4870 to 5870 jumped 20 fps or so at the same resolution with a dual core. So yeah there is going to be a difference from 5850 and 5870.

was that jump done done with the dual core? you would be a lot more gpu limited with a 4870 to begin with so theres no way you can deduce that a 5870 would do anything more over the 5850. its very clear that at 1680 a cpu like his would be very limited in that game.

 

[cbn]

yeah all you need is a fast dual core in Metro2033 to provide adequate framerate at least with any single gpu card. as that game is insanely gpu limited in DX11 with all features turned on.

I was hoping Metro 2033 could actually make use of AMD Thuban.

Those hexcores look like they might be pretty cheap and have higher CPU-NB frequencies.

However, If you look at the graph I provided back in post #77 you can see they only used hd4870. With faster GPU(s) could we have seen some separation between the dual and quad core?

 

[toyota]

I was hoping Metro 2033 could actually make use of AMD Thuban.

Those hexcores look like they might be pretty cheap and have higher CPU-NB frequencies.

it probably will if you were running gtx480 tri sli or better. lol

 

[RussianSensation]

Not really. An overclocked i3 can easily match an i7 at least in games.

We never said anything about i3 @ 4.3ghz which is not comparable to a stock E7500 (which is what this thread is about).

Look at E7600 in the Dirt2 bench you linked. 48 frames minimum vs. Core i7 870 at 74! For crying out loud, why is it so hard to understand that in a racing game, you'd want high minimums, not just high averages. No, I would not want to crank 8AA at this point to get MORE gpu limited. You are already toast when you are at 48 frame min at just 1024x768. This means by the time you are at 1920x1080, that E7500 is screaming in the 30s.

BC2 seems plenty fast even with a stock dual core. Averaging 60+fps long as you have enough GPU. My overclocked CPU would easily match an i7 920 in BC2. So not really.

Ok but a processor with a 60 frames average is not going to have the same minimum frames as one that is doing 110+ frames average. I don't understand this fixation on averages alone. Try playing an online game on a BF:BC2 server and see how that E7500 dual core holds up in mins compared to a Core i7 @ 4.0ghz. Again, no one is comparing a Core i3 @ 4.3ghz against a Core i7. This thread is about Core 2 Duo <3.0ghz though, which is significantly inferior to a Core i3 @ 4.3ghz.

I think that just looking at avg FPS may fail to reveal a deficiency in CPU speeds. While minimum FPS vary considerably with different CPUs (which is not noticeable from the BF:BC2 graphs you linked from Legion Hardware), &#37; of the time the game runs at low fps is tiny compared to the time an average benchmark run takes. However, whats the point of having fluid avg FPS if every time you blow something up or get into a fire fight with 16 other players, the scene stutters terribly for a few seconds? You won't see that on avg FPS measurements at all. That's where real world comes in and where cranking filtering to 8AA from 0AA is meaningless because it will only reveal GPU limitations, and mask situations of single digit mins.

 

[AzN]

was that jump done done with the dual core? you would be a lot more gpu limited with a 4870 to begin with so theres no way you can deduce that a 5870 would do anything more over the 5850. its very clear that at 1680 a cpu like his would be very limited in that game.

Look at the graphs posted earlier. Yes it's on a dual core @ 1680x1050.

Far as I'm concerned 5870 is faster than 5850. If a 4870 is getting 50% less frame rates than 5870 in BC2 with a dual core. It is only logical that 5850 would be slower than the 5870 at the same settings.

 

[AzN]

We never said anything about i3 @ 4.3ghz which is not comparable to a stock E7500 (which is what this thread is about).

Look at E7600 in the Dirt2 bench you linked. 48 frames minimum vs. Core i7 870 at 74! For crying out loud, why is it so hard to understand that in a racing game, you'd want high minimums, not just high averages. No, I would not want to crank 8AA at this point to get MORE gpu limited. You are already toast when you are at 48 frame min at just 1024x768. This means by the time you are at 1920x1080, that E7500 is screaming in the 30s.



Ok but a processor with a 60 frames average is not going to have the same minimum frames as one that is doing 110+ frames average. I don't understand this fixation on averages alone. Try playing an online game on a BF:BC2 server and see how that E7500 dual core holds up in mins compared to a Core i7 @ 4.0ghz. Again, no one is comparing a Core i3 @ 4.3ghz against a Core i7. This thread is about Core 2 Duo though, which is significantly inferior to a Core i3 @ 4.3ghz.

So now you need 100 fps average? I suppose you have different needs.

I know this thread wasn't about i3 or i7 but core 2 duo. I was putting my 2 cents after upgrading from a core 2 duo or shall we say pentium CPU as that's what Intel calls E5200.

 

[AzN]

However, If you look at the graph I provided back in post #77 you can see they only used hd4870. With faster GPU(s) could we have seen some separation between the dual and quad core?

Probably not.

 

[apoppin]

Try playing an online game on a BF:BC2 server and see how that E7500 dual core holds up in mins compared to a Core i7 @ 4.0ghz. Again, no one is comparing a Core i3 @ 4.3ghz against a Core i7. This thread is about Core 2 Duo though, which is significantly inferior to a Core i3 @ 4.3ghz.

if you are playing on a server then you cannot just look at minimums caused by CPU; there are other issues at work with online games

Since this thread is about C2D, i'd like to point out that it is *not inferior* to Core i7 in real world gaming at similar high clocks except where the game is optimized for more than 2 cores. C2D is not inferior to i3 at the same clocks for the same reason.

 

[toyota]

Look at the graphs posted earlier. Yes it's on a dual core @ 1680x1050.

Far as I'm concerned 5870 is faster than 5850. If a 4870 is getting 50&#37; less frame rates than 5870 in BC2 with a dual core. It is only logical that 5850 would be slower than the 5870 at the same settings.

well when you see that faster cpus are getting 70 80 and 90% more framerate than a cpu close to the ops it doesnt sound logical to me. the difference between a 5870 and 5850 is much smaller than the gap he would already have from the faster cpus. if anything it looks pretty clear that an i7 and 5850 would provide a better experience than a 5870 and cpu like the ops at 1680 in BC 2.

 

[apoppin]

I use the i7 example for comparisons because it is the fastest solution. if the i5/i7 offered nothing then I am sure tech site would just just stick with a 2.0 Core 2 duo since you and your buddy thinks it makes no difference. and here is a bench I post almost every time he brings up that 2.0 Core comment.

Far Cry 2 Settings: Demo(Ranch Long), 1920x1080 (60Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(2x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Very High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Very High), Terrain(Very High), Geometry(Very High), Post FX(High), Texture(Very High), Shadow(Very High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)

E8500 @ 2.0
Total Frames: 11808, Total Time: 284.02s
Average Framerate: 41.57
Max. Framerate: 84.90 (Frame:1851, 26.47s)
Min. Framerate: 23.28 (Frame:5683, 125.34s)

E8500 @ 3.8
Total Frames: 16568, Total Time: 284.01s
Average Framerate: 58.34
Max. Framerate: 114.58 (Frame:4, 0.04s)
Min. Framerate: 36.90 (Frame:7835, 125.13s)

thats a 40&#37; increase in average and 58% increase in minimum framerates by running my E8500 at 3.8 instead of 2.0 even at a gpu limited 1920x1080 very high settings and 2x AA. dont forget that an even faster quad would still knock out a couple more fps on top of that. with a much faster gpu the difference would have been even greater too as my gtx260 is far from high end now.

gee do you really want more of my benchmarks because then you cant complain about the 4 I linked to to earlier that weren't even mine.

i'll be glad to send you a PM with dozens of examples that show you to be wrong. How many times did you run the FC 2 benches?

i have i7 just because it is expected of me and my benching. i clock it to 3.8 GHz (3.97/turbo on) just so no one stumbles at my HW reviews which now include HD 5870 CrossFire and GTX 480.

But i am going to *again* compare Phenom II 550 X2 vs Ph II 945 X4 and Core i7 using HD 5870 CF and GTX 480 - with TWENTY GAMES and *again prove* that the i7 is completely overrated for PC gaming from 16x10 to 25x16; from its stock 2.66 GHz to over 4 GHz, it does not show consistent superiority over the Phenom II quads - or even Ph II X2 in 99% of games.

 

[AzN]

well when you see that faster cpus are getting 70 80 and 90% more framerate than a cpu close to the ops it doesnt sound logical to me. the difference between a 5870 and 5850 is much smaller than the gap he would already have from the faster cpus. if anything it looks pretty clear that an i7 and 5850 would provide a better experience than a 5870 and cpu like the ops at 1680 in BC 2.

There's definitely a separation between the dual core and quad core in BC2 but with all settings at max with 4xAA that gap shrinks in to 50% better frame rates or so. Same could be said about GPU. From 4870 to 5870 on a dual core it jumped 50% in frame rates.

You concluded a 5850 would give you 0 fps difference over 5870 with BC2. Well the tests are showing other wise.

 

[toyota]

i'll be glad to send you a PM with dozens of examples that show you to be wrong.

i have i7 just because it is expected of me and my benching. i clock it to 3.8 GHz (3.97/turbo on) just so no one stumbles at my reviews which now include HD 5870 CrossFire.

But i am going to compare *again* Phenom II 550 X2 vs Ph II 945 X4 and Core i7 with HD 5870 CF - with TWENTY GAMES and *again prove* that the i7 is completely overrated for PC gaming from 16x10 to 25x16; From its stock 2.66 GHz to over 4 GHz.

yeah I must have this special pc that just rockets my framerates up when overclocking. funny how I have tested this on numerous comps, configurations and Vista 32, Vista 64, and 7 64. in fact Far Cry 2 was one of the reasons I built a new pc and even with my wimpy 4670 playability was much improved with the E8500 over the 5000 X2.

an i5/i7 or even a Phenom 2 X4 is most certainly not absolutely needed for really any games but that level of cpu does provide the best experience when running high end gpus especially multi gpus.

 

[mhouck]

So now you need 100 fps average? I suppose you have different needs.

I know this thread wasn't about i3 or i7 but core 2 duo. I was putting my 2 cents after upgrading from a core 2 duo or shall we say pentium CPU as that's what Intel calls E5200.

The point of the quote obviously has nothing to do w/ needing an average of 100 fps, but concedeing that there is validity to averages indicating a level of playability as opposed to being irrelevant as some might take the first half of his post.

 

[RussianSensation]

So now you need 100 fps average? I suppose you have different needs.

Not at all AzN. I need 30 frames average in Crysis or Starcraft 1, 60 frames min in Unreal Tournament 3, and 50 frames min in Dirt2. Every game is different because 45 frames may be smooth in one game but going from 60 to 38 frames in a racing game pisses me off because I can feel jerkiness! :awe:

 

[RussianSensation]

Since this thread is about C2D, i'd like to point out that it is *not inferior* to Core i7 in real world gaming at similar high clocks except where the game is optimized for more than 2 cores. C2D is not inferior to i3 at the same clocks for the same reason.

Ok but OP has an E7500, which is what everything is about not comparing same clocks here. Even then, Core i7 architecture is 20&#37; faster than C2Q. Don't believe me?

Alright, I guess my Core i7 @ 3.9ghz benchmarks in Resident Evil 5 with 8AA at 1920x1080 = 75.8 frames compared to Q6600 @ 3.4ghz with 0AA at 1680x1050 = 57.8fps with the same videocard are fake.

It's also interesting that a Q6600 2.4ghz is getting 69.7 fps with medium setting DX9 compared to E6400 2.4ghz with a rather sad 38.5 fps with the same videocard at Tom's:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/resident-evil-5,2409-11.html

 

[RussianSensation]

But i am going to *again* compare Phenom II 550 X2 vs Ph II 945 X4 and Core i7 using HD 5870 CF and GTX 480 - with TWENTY GAMES and *again prove* that the i7 is completely overrated for PC gaming from 16x10 to 25x16; from its stock 2.66 GHz to over 4 GHz, it does not show consistent superiority over the Phenom II quads - or even Ph II X2 in 99&#37; of games.

Sounds like a plan!

You should include minimums as well as average frames:

Resident Evil 5 (cpu limited)
World in Conflict (both GPU and cpu limited)
GTA4 (cpu limited)
ArMA2 (cpu limited and gpu limited)
Warhammer 40000: Dawn of War 2 (cpu limited)
BF:BC2 (gpu limited)
Dirt2 (gpu limited)
Metro 2033 (gpu limited)
STALKER: Call of Pripyat (gpu limited)
Crysis (more gpu limited)

I am going to expect 48-50 frames minimum in Dirt 2 then on that X2 550 because I am not interested in 70 frames average on that DX11 5870 CF system with 8AA edge-detect if it dives to 30 frames minimum. That's not playable.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5830_11.html#sect1

Now you see why I am forced to run only 2AA on my 4890 in that racing game?

Look at Wings of Prey in the same link @ 1920x1200 8AA
4890 = 77 avg
5770 = 64 avg
^^ both appear playable, until you see 51 vs. 38 mins ()

 

[jtisgeek]

Same dead horse lol :whiste:

My overclocked old school core 2's are still doing fine. There's no since to jump to the i7 for what you get out of it.

Now am not saying I wouldn't see a difference with a 3.8 or so i7 but not that big of a jump in most games.

 

[toyota]

Same dead horse lol :whiste:

My overclocked old school core 2's are still doing fine. There's no since to jump to the i7 for what you get out of it.

Now am not saying I wouldn't see a difference with a 3.8 or so i7 but not that big of a jump in most games.

so did you think that just because there could be a bottleneck that the cpus would stop working or not provide a decent framerate?

 

[apoppin]

an i5/i7 or even a Phenom 2 X4 is most certainly not absolutely needed for really any games but that level of cpu does provide the best experience when running high end gpus especially multi gpus.

How do you know? Do you run multi-GPU?
- i do and have been running that way since i got 2900XT CrossFire

i7 is overkill for gaming atm, plain and simple. A Phenom II X4 at the same clock will keep up with i7 in overall gaming with HD 5870/GTX 480 class of video card.

Now i am on to test HD 5870 (925/1300) CrossFire with these same CPUs and i am sure nothing has changed since i did the testing a few months ago with HD 4870-X3 TriFire.

 

[toyota]

How do you know? Do you run multi-GPU?
- i do and have been running that way since i got 2900XT CrossFire

i7 is overkill for gaming atm, plain and simple. A Phenom II X4 at the same clock will keep up with i7 in overall gaming with HD 5870/GTX 480 class of video card.

Now i am on to test HD 5870 (925/1300) CrossFire with these same CPUs and i am sure nothing has changed since i did the testing a few months ago with HD 4870-X3 TriFire.

no but the rest of testers do and it most certainly helps to have a high cpu with a multi gpu setup. btw I was grouping the Phenom X4, i5/i7 all together because there is very little difference in those solutions and now you have separated it.


then dont use the i7 or any other high end cpu at all. I mean the rest of the world is just lying and all you need is a 2.0 core 2 duo for gaming anyway. all my benchmarks are just broken anyway and FRAPS has been lying to me for years I guess. and I guess that feeling in games where it is slowing down was all in my my mind too...

 

[happy medium]

Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1600x1200 (75Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No),
Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(2x),
VSync(No), Overall Quality(Very High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Very High),
Terrain(Very High), Geometry(Very High), Post FX(High), Texture(Very High),
Shadow(Very High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes),
Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)

cpu @ 3.6 with 4 cores

Loop 1
Total Frames: 3283, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 64.36
Max. Framerate: 99.36 (Frame:0, 0.01s)
Min. Framerate: 47.29 (Frame:2172, 33.88s)

Loop 2
Total Frames: 3295, Total Time: 51.00s
Average Framerate: 64.60
Max. Framerate: 94.61 (Frame:10, 0.12s)
Min. Framerate: 50.28 (Frame:2196, 34.13s)

Loop 3
Total Frames: 3291, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 64.51
Max. Framerate: 93.24 (Frame:0, 0.01s)
Min. Framerate: 49.89 (Frame:2191, 34.26s)

Average Results
Average Framerate: 64.49
Max. Framerate: 93.12
Min. Framerate: 49.32

With cpu @ 2.0 and 4 cores

Loop 1
Total Frames: 3140, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 61.56
Max. Framerate: 80.74 (Frame:198, 2.92s)
Min. Framerate: 48.54 (Frame:2452, 41.23s)

Loop 2
Total Frames: 3155, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 61.85
Max. Framerate: 81.81 (Frame:453, 6.30s)
Min. Framerate: 47.42 (Frame:2073, 33.91s)

Loop 3
Total Frames: 3126, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 61.28
Max. Framerate: 81.20 (Frame:449, 6.24s)
Min. Framerate: 47.07 (Frame:2069, 34.05s)


Average Results
Average Framerate: 61.57
Max. Framerate: 80.55
Min. Framerate: 47.83

cpu with 2 cores disabled @ 2.0
Loop 1
Total Frames: 1949, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 38.21
Max. Framerate: 62.20 (Frame:274, 5.90s)
Min. Framerate: 22.98 (Frame:1314, 34.02s)

Loop 2
Total Frames: 2175, Total Time: 51.02s
Average Framerate: 42.63
Max. Framerate: 66.11 (Frame:365, 6.81s)
Min. Framerate: 28.94 (Frame:1760, 41.27s)

Loop 3
Total Frames: 2240, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 43.91
Max. Framerate: 64.06 (Frame:343, 6.50s)
Min. Framerate: 31.79 (Frame:1542, 34.59s)

Average Results
Average Framerate: 41.59
Max. Framerate: 62.41
Min. Framerate: 29.51


Does far cry 2 like the quad?