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

[NoQuarter]

I totally forgot about this article on tomshardware.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-balanced-platform,2469-8.html

Does that settle anything?

 

[toyota]

I never said you did, so stop trying to deflect the issue.


Yeah, at 1680x1050 with no AA and no AF. Do you expect someone that drops $1K onto an i7 980X is going to be gaming at such a setting?


Since I’m not convinced you’re even looking at the pictures, I’ll inline the image for you:

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/255/bench/CPU_03.png

See? No performance difference between 2.22 GHz and 3.70 GHz.

And again, that’s on a 5870 Crossfire with just 2xAA; your single GTX260 @ 4xAA is going to hit that bottleneck far quicker, probably at just 1680x1050.

Are you actually looking at the benchmarks and understanding them?


I’m saying his setting is as low as yours. That’s my point.


But this was:

http://www.techspot.com/article/255-battlefield-bad-company2-performance/page7.html

53 FPS vs 49 FPS only shows a ~7.5% performance loss between i7 980X and the Athlon II X2 240e. Clearly such a small performance hit means the GPU is the bottleneck by almost 100%, with the same GTX260 you used in your tests.

This backs the findings of my test, and is in stark contrast to you running around and claiming you were 100% CPU limited and your GPU clocks made no difference to FC2.

sorry but that cpu is not nearly as slow as your Core 2 at 2.0 here is a test that backs it up pretty damn well. Far Cry 2 very high settings and 4x AA and 1680x1050. remember I used 1920x1080 but only 2x AA. you already know that a 5000 X2 would be about even with your E6750 at 2.0. at least thats what everybody told me when I tried to say it was slower than my E8500 at 2.0. well I will be damned if a stock E8400 isnt getting over 50% more average than a 5000 X2. http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,663817/Far-Cry-2-GPU-and-CPU-benchmarks/Reviews/?page=2


now imagine the much bigger gap if a gtx285 was used because thats with a 4870 thats similar to my gtx260 in that game so how is your 4.77% claim for Far Cry 2 holding and water? sure they could bump it up to 1920 and lower the AA down to 2x like I did but it would still likely be in the 30-40% range. the benchmark I ran was the long ranch one and the cpu makes a bigger difference in it for some reason compared to the short one.

and yes whether you believe it or not I was basically 100% cpu limited in GTA 4, RF Guerrilla, Ghostbusters and Far Cry 2 with my cpu at 2.0 even at 1920. overclocking my gpu did nothing until I raised the cpu back up a little. although those were probably exceptions compared to many games I know this would be the case in a few other games too.

 

[toyota]

I totally forgot about this article on tomshardware.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-balanced-platform,2469-8.html

Does that settle anything?

it backs up either argument depending on how you skew it. it shows that an 2.8 E6300 which is barely slower than a not E7500 is not adequate enough for a high end card like the gtx295 which by the way a 5870 performs very close too. it also shows that many games need as much gpu power as you can throw at them. but again whats the point in spending more money on the gpu when your cpu is holding it back?


"Often this cheapest acceptable solution was still way out of balance and clearly would benefit from adding more CPU to the mix. The most accurate picture of the level of hardware necessary to truly be balanced can not be portrayed by generalization or summaries, but only by looking at the individual charts for each game and resolution. Also consider that these test systems were clean and only running the essentials. Additional background applications and multi-tasking would give us all the more reason to step up to a higher-end CPU with more muscle. "


"The dual-core Pentium E6300 managed to deliver playable performance in each game except for Crysis and Grand Theft Auto IV. However, this 2.8 GHz CPU was rarely in balance with the graphics cards, even at playable settings."


bottom line is that his E7500 cpu is NOT going to provide all that a 5870 can do at 1600x1200. again what times the 5870 does provide a better experience over the 5850 with his setup, he could easily just oc the 5850 to get basically the same results.

 

[3DVagabond]

I say buy 2x5770. They'll give you the same performance as the 5870 and cost the same as a 5850. Win-Win.

 

[RussianSensation]

These ones?

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/battlefield_bad_company_2_tuning_guide,7.html

1680x1050 with no AA or AF? LMAO. Do you think someone with an i7 system is going to be gaming at such settings?

BFG, but you gotta consider that the slowest dual core in that test didn't even crack 60 frames avg. while the top system is doing 105 (that's with setting on High not Low). This means I can increase filtering to 4AA and push rez to 1920x1080 on a 5870 and still be WAY above 60 fps avg, with probably 2x the minimum framerates. The X2 550 system by this point will be slugging along in mins.

No one is going to play 1680x1050 without AA on 5870 in this game, but you have 2x the framerates to fall from just AA, which ISN'T happening since we know a 4AA hit is ~ 20%-25% on Radeon series. So a person with a 1680x1050 monitor and 4AA is still going to be getting > 60 frames per second avg with better minimums and smoother gameplay. I would bet even at 1920x1080 this theme will prevail. I guess as has been said in this thread, not everyone wants 50-60 frames (some are ok with 30-35). For these gamers, then you can crank 8AA and get 35 frames average and surely show 5870 fall on its knees, no doubt.

I guess the key criteria then is the amount of minimum frame rates that each gamer requires for a particular game. Without this, we can't talk playability on the same playing field. I can easily see one person being ok with 40 fps avg in BF:BC2 and 20 fps mins and another wanting 60 fps avg and 40 mins. In that case, the X2 550 has no way in hell to pull this off even at 1680x1050. For example, I need 48-50 frames min in Dirt 2 and this means no high AA on any graphics card, which then allows a faster cpu to come into play. Of course in a game like Metro 2033, I would not care for 48 mins.

 

[apoppin]

sorry but that cpu is not nearly as slow as your Core 2 at 2.0 here is a test that backs it up pretty damn well. Far Cry 2 very high settings and 4x AA and 1680x1050. remember I used 1920x1080 but only 2x AA. you already know that a 5000 X2 would be about even with your E6750 at 2.0. at least thats what everybody told me when I tried to say it was slower than my E8500 at 2.0. well I will be damned if a stock E8400 isnt getting over 50% more average than a 5000 X2. http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,663817/Far-Cry-2-GPU-and-CPU-benchmarks/Reviews/?page=2


now imagine the much bigger gap

Yes, that IS what you are doing. Get real. Post some real benches to back up your claims instead of substituting your imagination and speculation for what you *think* might be happening. You have no hard fact at all.

 

[happy medium]

Yes, that IS what you are doing. Get real. Post some real benches to back up your claims instead of substituting your imagination and speculation for what you *think* might be happening. You have no hard fact at all.

I think it just depends on the game guys.
Some games like gpu and some cpu. It supports both arguments.

Just like my far cry 2 benches were cpu bound , I could use Crysis and get totally gpu bound at the same resolution.

 

[apoppin]

I think it just depends on the game guys.
Some games like gpu and some cpu. It supports both arguments.

Just like my far cry 2 benches were cpu bound , I could use Crysis and get totally gpu bound at the same resolution.

Finally we are getting somewhere. Agreed.

Crysis IS GPU bound. Some others are more CPU bound

However, the *vast majority* of games are far more GPU bound than CPU bound; it almost always makes the biggest performance difference to upgrade the video card.

Also,, Phenom II and C2D are not generally inferior to Core i7 in gaming.

 

[happy medium]

Finally we are getting somewhere. Agreed.

Crysis IS GPU bound. Some others are more CPU bound

However, the *vast majority* of games are far more GPU bound than CPU bound; it almost always makes the biggest performance difference to upgrade the video card.

Also,, Phenom II and C2D are not generally inferior to Core i7 in gaming.

True, but if we keep getting these fargen console ports.............
Ahhhhhhhh thats another thread.

 

[tweakboy]

No!

 

[RussianSensation]

Finally we are getting somewhere. Agreed.

Crysis IS GPU bound. Some others are more CPU bound.

However, the *vast majority* of games are far more GPU bound than CPU bound

Agreed, seconded. I still like my 4 cores with HT because I don't just game. Considering Core i3s sell in the $120s, a $200 Core i7 860 is a no brainer for just $80 more to me. $80 over 2 year lifespan is $40 per year. Plus significantly higher resale value when you compare a 4.0ghz overclocked Core i7 vs. an i3 down the line

 

[apoppin]

Agreed, seconded. I still like my 4 cores with HT because I don't just game. Considering Core i3s sell in the $120s, a $200 Core i7 860 is a no brainer for just $80 more to me. $80 over 2 year lifespan is $40 per year. Plus significantly higher resale value when you compare a 4.0ghz overclocked Core i7 vs. an i3 down the line

Well, i like to joke that, "i purchased i7 just to demonstrate that you don't need to"


If you are a *Value* GAMER; you can get superb results with a Phenom II or C2D/Q

 

[AzN]

I think it just depends on the game guys.
Some games like gpu and some cpu. It supports both arguments.

Just like my far cry 2 benches were cpu bound , I could use Crysis and get totally gpu bound at the same resolution.

Not quite. You could play that game on dual core just fine. GPU makes the most difference in 99% of the games out there. These bottleneck CPU guys are holding on to 1 or 2 games and making a 10 page argument out of them.

 

[AzN]

Agreed, seconded. I still like my 4 cores with HT because I don't just game. Considering Core i3s sell in the $120s, a $200 Core i7 860 is a no brainer for just $80 more to me. $80 over 2 year lifespan is $40 per year. Plus significantly higher resale value when you compare a 4.0ghz overclocked Core i7 vs. an i3 down the line

Hehe. I bought my i3 530 for $85 shipped.

I'm going to upgrade to i7 860 down the road. For 2x the price that doesn't give me 2x the performance im most things I do. It's no brainer. I picked up the i3 for now.

 

[RussianSensation]

I'm going to upgrade to i7 860 down the road. For 2x the price that doesn't give me 2x the performance im most things I do. It's no brainer. I picked up the i3 for now.

Ya, that's a sick deal for $85! But considering Core i7 860 still sells for ~ $317 before taxes in Canada (so $358 CDN after taxes; http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=025303&cid=CPU.840), and I picked mine up for $230 USD, it's going to be a while before I start losing $$$. This means we both got a deal.

 

[evolucion8]

We’ve been over this at least four times now; if you think the log files are wrong, post up evidence that demonstrates the games’ reporting mechanism is faulty. Otherwise retract your claim.

Yeah, is tiresome, you have a huge truckload of patience with toyota...

BFG, but you gotta consider that the slowest dual core in that test didn't even crack 60 frames avg. while the top system is doing 105 (that's with setting on High not Low). This means I can increase filtering to 4AA and push rez to 1920x1080 on a 5870 and still be WAY above 60 fps avg, with probably 2x the minimum framerates. The X2 550 system by this point will be slugging along in mins. .

If you are so much CPU bound like in that example, turning anti aliasing on will not lower your FPS at all because you are severely CPU bound. Anti Aliasing taxes the GPU and not the CPU.

This thread is too funny. At the end of the day, I presume everything is subjective:

1) One of my buddies thinks an N450 atom netbook is fast enough for his work (but he doesn't watch YouTube HD)
2) My other friend uses an E6400 @ 2.66ghz and says when he uses Virtualization, his CPU is pegged at 100% and he needs a quad...poor sap.
3) And then there is Aigo who feels that nothing less than a Core i7 980X @ 4.4ghz will do

Odd that Microshaft VM barely uses more than 10% of my CPU in the worst case scenario, the same goes with Windows XP Mode, could be Penryn optimizations? Could be the low amount of cache with the E6400?

 

[RussianSensation]

If you are so much CPU bound like in that example, turning anti aliasing on will not lower your FPS at all because you are severely CPU bound. Anti Aliasing taxes the GPU and not the CPU.

Ya i was saying there Core i7 920 system is getting 105 fps with 5870 while an X2 550 system is getting 55 fps avg. Now I am going to turn on AA on that Core i7 920 system and my frames will fall a lot but still way above 55 fps avg (let's say to 75-80fps). This means even with AA, I have 50 fps to fall just to match X2 550s performance. I guess I didn't explain myself properly.

Odd that Microshaft VM barely uses more than 10% of my CPU in the worst case scenario, the same goes with Windows XP Mode, could be Penryn optimizations? Could be the low amount of cache with the E6400?

Ya I am not sure what the reason is but I recall Penryn bringing performance improvement in VM.

 

[BFG10K]

sorry but that cpu is not nearly as slow as your Core 2 at 2.0 here is a test that backs it up pretty damn well.

Uh, I never claimed an E6850 @ 2 GHz wouldn’t bottleneck BC2, I simply said in the 17 games I tested (including Far Cry 2) it had little to no effect from stock.

I linked to those BC2 benchmarks to show you how massively GPU limited the game is, unlike your claims to the contrary. Even dropping to 2.22 GHz from 3.7 GHz wasn’t enough to affect a 5870 CF system, which is a very powerful GPU system.

remember I used 1920x1080 but only 2x AA.

Right, so I used a higher resolution, TrMS, and we don’t even know if you used AF (I used 16xHQ). What’s your point?

you already know that a 5000 X2 would be about even with your E6750 at 2.0. at least thats what everybody told me when I tried to say it was slower than my E8500 at 2.0. well I will be damned if a stock E8400 isnt getting over 50% more average than a 5000 X2. http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...eviews/?page=2

What an absolutely nonsensical inference.

My CPU is on that list (E6850 @ stock), so why are you using an E8400 as a starting point? Furthermore, the E6420 on that chart runs at 2.13 GHz, which would be about my E6850 @ 2 GHz because the former’s extra 133 MHz would be offset by its slower FSB compared to the latter.

So, 40.1 FPS vs 35.9 FPS is a ~10% performance drop. Considering they were running a lower resolution and weren’t using TrAA, that makes my score quite credible.

Hell, your own graph shows a quad-core QX9770 @ 4 GHz is only ~ 3 FPS faster than the E6850, clearly demonstrating the game is primarily GPU bound at 1680x1050 with 4xAA. Again, I’d question whether you even read the benchmarks you try to discuss.

Also to repeat, we have the Athlon II X2 240e being just 4 FPS slower than the six-core i7 980X that I linked to earlier. That’s six cores @ 3.33GHz with HT, max turbo 3.60GHz, and a 12MB L3 cache. Using the same GTX260 you used too, I might add. You simply can’t explain that result away because it completely contradicts your theories.

and yes whether you believe it or not I was basically 100% cpu limited in GTA 4, RF Guerrilla, Ghostbusters and Far Cry 2 with my cpu at 2.0 even at 1920. overclocking my gpu did nothing until I raised the cpu back up a little.

You seem to be confused as to what is being argued. I’m not contending 2 GHz wouldn’t impact any of those games (except for Far Cry 2 obviously). You’re the one that keeps running around claiming the results from my 17 games are wrong (which includes Far Cry 2), so obviously I disagree there.

As for the rest of the games, I contend that a fast dual-core is enough to saturate the graphics system as good as the fastest quad-core, providing you always use the highest playable graphics settings in them.

I’ll concede GTA4, RE5 and Arma2 are exceptions to this and still show large benefits from quad-core even at high detail levels. That's three games, but for the rest of them, you’ll need to show 3rd party benchmarks to back your claims.

 

[BFG10K]

BFG, but you gotta consider that the slowest dual core in that test didn't even crack 60 frames avg. while the top system is doing 105 (that's with setting on High not Low).

We aren’t talking about the slowest CPU. Here’s my graph again:

The 5870 Crossfire system is the bottleneck at 2560x1600 with just 2xAA, hitting a wall of ~74 FPS.

Now look at the other chart again:

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/battlefield_bad_company_2_tuning_guide,7.html

An i3 540 basically hits that target by getting 72 FPS. And again, with a single 5870 using 4xAA, we’d hit that wall at a much lower resolution.

I’m not saying the CPU makes no difference, or that the slowest CPU possible is fine. That’s clearly nonsense.

What I’m saying is that with any decent processor, the graphics system is the biggest bottleneck by far, providing you always use the highest playable settings. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a 74 FPS average on that 5870 CF system.

I guess the key criteria then is the amount of minimum frame rates that each gamer requires for a particular game.

Again, a single minimum is absolutely useless. It’s unreliable and you absolutely cannot infer anything from it unless there’s a plot putting it into context, demonstrating it occurs for a significant time period.

In a thirty second benchmark run consisting of 1000 points, card A could have a minimum of 40 FPS for a single point, while card B has a minimum of 20 FPS. But for the other 999 points card B is higher than card A.

Which card would you pick? Going off the minimum, you’d think card B is half the speed of card A, which of course is totally wrong. In the absence of a benchmark plot, the only reasonable single number you can show is an average (or similar).

 

[mdamanuddin]

why wouldn't you OC an e7500??? those cpus were artificially limited by intel b/c they absolutely zero competition from amd. using stock cooling and with no effort you should be able run around 3.5. I mean, you literally should be able to click one or two buttons in the bios and you'll be gtg.

i have a e7500 i myself have overclocked to 3.73 ghz usin ddr2 800Mhz mobo-asus p5kplamps