-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Intel i5 750 Performance Test by BFG10k
- Thread starter bryanW1995
- Start date
bunnyfubbles
Lifer
Well this isn't surprising considering he doesn't play any processor intensive games, mostly just shooters (actually pretty sure they're all shooters he reviewed, gl with any modern simulators, RTS, or RPG games and a dualcore). Combine that with the fact that he plays with incredibly high IQ settings and its no surprise the bottleneck is squarely on the GPU.
Last edited:
brybir
Senior member
I think you are probably right, as his conclusion can only be extrapolated based on the games that he tested which are FPS type games. But, these are all very popular games and the information he presented is useful for the masses that play many FPS titles. Also, most RPS and RPG are not graphically demanding compared to a FPS, so it makes sense to test FPS when one is looking at graphics bottlenecks.
In any event, I play plenty of RPG and RTS games on my Athlon II 240 and it runs most of them with no issues. On Supreme Commander II I rarely get any slowdown except when I get on maps with 600 unit engagements, and even then my friend gets the same slowdown on his Q6600 at or around the same level.
I think quad core is good idea if the games you play are optimized for quad core and can benefit from the core count scaling, but that is not as many games as you would think.
Well, shooters are where framerates actually matter most usually. Other games tend to not be as demanding. These are generalizations of course. It seems that with current generation of games Clock per core is more important than number of cores. That said, you can get the 750, 920, and even older 9550 chips to pretty darn high clock per core.
blanketyblank
Golden Member
Well for now his conclusion seems to be fine though his starting settings for Crysis are a bit iffy. I'd consider 40 fps average to be decent, but there he starts with 33 which seems too low for my tastes. I imagine that game will dip below 30 fps a good deal (maybe a little less than half ) of the time during actual gameplay so it wouldn't feel smooth. Personally I'd give up some graphics detail to get a bit more fps in that game, and I have a feeling that setting may have been chosen to support his conclusion since it is so far off from the standards he has chosen for other games (at least 40 fps in Left 4 Dead when cranked to 4xAA on a 30" monitor).
Last edited:
BFG10K
Lifer
Regarding Crysis, the benchmark covers a snowing/icy area with lots of explosions. This is a very worst-case scenario because the rest of the game generally runs much faster.
Also Crysis looks ugly at low resolutions without TrAA, so I push 1920x1200 with 2xTrAA because it makes a huge difference over 1680x1050 and regular 2xAA.
So thats the reason why it appears to be an outlier. But rest assured, Ive played both Crysis and Crysis Warhead from start to finish at those settings.
None of the settings have been tampered with or altered just to prove an agenda. In fact, the settings were chosen long before I decided put up either of those CPU articles.
Also Crysis looks ugly at low resolutions without TrAA, so I push 1920x1200 with 2xTrAA because it makes a huge difference over 1680x1050 and regular 2xAA.
So thats the reason why it appears to be an outlier. But rest assured, Ive played both Crysis and Crysis Warhead from start to finish at those settings.
None of the settings have been tampered with or altered just to prove an agenda. In fact, the settings were chosen long before I decided put up either of those CPU articles.
happy medium
Lifer
I would love to see how the gtx 480 scales as well, with your 6850.
I wonder how much the 6850 would be the bottleneck, if at all.
I wonder how much the 6850 would be the bottleneck, if at all.
dug777
Lifer
On your first point, we all would 😉
On your second, it all depends on the settings you run. If, like BFG, you shoot for the best possible IQ that is 'playable', it seems unlikely to bottleneck it in any meaningful or practically noticeable fashion.
If you are running a lower resolution or IQ settings you can easily make the CPU the 'bottleneck' (there's a certain poster on the forum who must have every such example listed in his browser 'favourites' list 😉). How relevant that is in the real world is a different matter (as BFG has nicely demonstrated in these reviews)...
Last edited:
bryanW1995
Lifer
dug, you are way more tactful than I am. 😉
happy medium
Lifer
happy medium
Lifer
I was really just guessing.
Toyota's cool he loves the bottleneck question. Thats why I guessed him.()🙂
Nice article BFG
toyota
Lifer
I do agree with a lot of what you are saying. its the claim that your Core 2 Duo at 2.0 is not a bottleneck for for a high end card like a gtx285 or even 5870 that I mainly have a problem with. I have found that to be absolutely not true and in some games my Core 2 Duo at 2.0 is nearly 100% the bottleneck even at 1920 with my mild gtx260. there are at least 5 games I have personally tested that do not budge whether running my gpu at under 500 or up to 700 at 1920 with my cpu at 2.0. other games still lose a lot of framerates too but they are not limited as bad and in most cases gameplay remains fine. to claim your Core 2 Duo at 2.0 is not a bottleneck for an even faster gpu is false. you also choose to call all these games poor ports or act like they dont matter. GTA 4, Prototype, RF Guerrilla, Ghostbusters, ARMA 2, Bad Company 2 and many others are all pretty decent games that MANY people play.
and like I mentioned in the other thread there are literally more games where my cpu at 2.0 would negatively effect gameplay than my gtx260 would. in other words only Cryostasis, Crysis/Warhead and Clear Sky can not be maxed on my gtx260 but at least 5-7 games would be too sluggish at times with my cpu at just 2.0. and its easy to turn down a few graphics settings to make those games run nice and still look okay where as the more cpu intensive games would still be too sluggish at times with my cpu at 2.0 even with many settings turned down.
Last edited:
evolucion8
Platinum Member
Call of Prypiat isn't CPU limited, I monitored the game with Rivatuner and I played it at my CPU limited resolution and it was only able to tax one of my cores close to 100%, the other remaining did nothing, I was quite surprised by the fact that the thread didn't span across the cores like single threaded games usually do, specially under Windows 7.
Crysis Warhead and Crysis is only Dual Core optimized, and will not get enough performance boost going Quad. Cryostasis runs slow on anything, that's one of a hell crappy game, specially when PhysX are enabled. Bad Company 2 only puts an average load of 27% across all four cores, lowest in 9% and highest around 37%. I don't know if that game can be called multi threaded.
Crysis Warhead and Crysis is only Dual Core optimized, and will not get enough performance boost going Quad. Cryostasis runs slow on anything, that's one of a hell crappy game, specially when PhysX are enabled. Bad Company 2 only puts an average load of 27% across all four cores, lowest in 9% and highest around 37%. I don't know if that game can be called multi threaded.