Is a 2.13GHz Core2 enough for 4870?

[Byte]

I'm thinking of getting a 4870 but only have a 2.13ghz e6420. It's kinda a dog o/cer and won't go past 2.66GHz, I'm not even sure it will be 100% stable at that. I play a range of games like fps but mostly looking forward to starcraft and diablo. Do you think its enough for the 4870?

 

[fakester01]

Overclock the CPU, at 2.13GHz it will be a pretty heavy bottleneck and you'd be better off getting the cheaper HD4850. Even at 2.6GHz it will bottleneck it in a lot of cases but you'll see huge improvements in performance.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Byte
I'm thinking of getting a 4870 but only have a 2.13ghz e6420. It's kinda a dog o/cer and won't go past 2.66GHz, I'm not even sure it will be 100% stable at that. I play a range of games like fps but mostly looking forward to starcraft and diablo. Do you think its enough for the 4870?

for 4870 if you OC it to 2.66 it should be fine; 2.13 does hold it back

4870x2 needs at least 3.33Ghz from my testing

Starcraft and Diablo?
- at 800x600 resolution


you can run them with your 4870 in 2D with a single core Pentium 4

 

[nyker96]

I agree with faskster, the 2.13 will bottlenetck 48xx series. That GPU has a reputation of requiring a lot of CPU power probably because it has lots muscle to chew through graphics load and a better CPU will make sure it's always loaded with things to do.

 

[TidusZ]

He's definitely referring to starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 (Excellent choices there btw). Honestly even at 2.13 I doubt your going to have problems running either, but ya, go for the overclock.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: TidusZ
He's definitely referring to starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 (Excellent choices there btw). Honestly even at 2.13 I doubt your going to have problems running either, but ya, go for the overclock.

that is what i guessed
- but no one knows their HW requirements yet

a single 4870 will be OK for 16x12 with most new games with everything maxed. If your CPU is too slow, you will be struggling with FPS - but the details will be awesome.

OC e6420 as far as it will stably go without overvolting .. that should be a decent match for a 4870

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Why buy a lower end vid card when upgrading. When you buy a new cpu then the Vid card will be bottlenecked by the cpu.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
Why buy a lower end vid card when upgrading. When you buy a new cpu then the Vid card will be bottlenecked by the cpu.

4870 is not low end

Here are the GPU denizens of the Top of the GPU food chain

1) 4870x2
2) GTX280
3&4) GT260 and HD4870

what CPU will be bottlenecked by a HD4870?
:roll:

maybe next year

 

[bryanW1995]

he was probably talking about the 4850 as more of a "low-end" solution. the problem is that at any resolution below 19x12 the 4850 should be more than adequate and you save ~ $100 vs the 4870 or gtx 260 with it.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
Why buy a lower end vid card when upgrading. When you buy a new cpu then the Vid card will be bottlenecked by the cpu.

The guy was talking about buying a 4850

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
he was probably talking about the 4850 as more of a "low-end" solution. the problem is that at any resolution below 19x12 the 4850 should be more than adequate and you save ~ $100 vs the 4870 or gtx 260 with it.

the OP specifically mentioned 4870

it is barely adequate for 19x12; very good for 16x10, imo

at any rate, if the OP gets even a fair CPU OC, it will make a positive difference in the FPS he gets in his games with 4870

 

[harpoon84]

At 2.66GHz you should be fine. At 2.13GHz you would be better off getting a HD4850 instead IMO.

 

[Byte]

Thanks for the input guys. Looks like 2.66GHz is what the Warhead PC will have, so it should do decently, at least with the next Crysis. I've seen 4870s drop to the $200s, which is a bloody good deal compared to the $300-$400 when nvidia was dominating. I guess those stupid lawsuits might be helping. But going a bit off topic, how can you sue someone for overpricing something that's basically a luxury. I mean intel has been giving away IGPs forever and most computers still come with IGPs that are perfectly fine unless you're playing games. Seriously whats wrong with these people.

 

[taltamir]

the question of "is this CPU enough for this GPU" is a flawed one... because what you should be asking is... is this CPU enough for the GAMES I want to play.

A game can either be limited by the CPU, GPU, a combination of both, ram, or the monitor...
The thing is, you can VASTLY decrease a game's GPU requirements by lowering graphics settings. You can somewhat decrease ram requirements by doing the same (well, different settings net different decreases). The decrease in CPU requirement when lowering graphics is insignificant... SOME very VERY rare games (typically turn based strategy games) allow you to lower the AI level to decrease CPU usage... (but that detracts from the gameplay experience, so I just leave it on max and wait however long it takes for the turn to process)... I have never heard of a real time game that will let you do the same. Although some games with physX engine (like city of heroes), lets you lower the physics level to also decrease CPU usage.

I have tested and proved that if a game, like mass effect, lags... I could lower the resolution to 720x480 and set all the graphics settings to nothing and it still falls down to the same min FPS (max FPS is much higher though)...
This is because you simply cannot reduce the CPU load in such games.

So as for your question, is that CPU enough? For older or lighter modern games, it will be more then enough, for some newer games or even older but CPU heavy games, it will not. And no matter what GPU you get or how low you crank the graphics, you will still experience some stutter and lack of smoothness.

 

[Tempered81]

This was done using a gtx280 instead of a hd4870, but it gives an idea of what a faster cpu does to the gaming experience:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...ticle_id=647744&page=1

 

[coolpurplefan]

Has anybody tested with an Athlon X2 5400+ 2.8GHz? With 2GB of RAM in XP, would I be able to use a 4850 or 4870 or would I be better off just being satisfied with a 3870? (Max resolution I use is 1600x1200.)

The least demanding games I use is UT2004 and BF2. But, I'd like to be able to play UT3.

(If you have the answer. I'm not sure how you test for that.)

EDIT: Whoa! I just found some fantastic CPU scaling. But, this is with a high end GPU.
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=11

Another EDIT: This one is even better...
http://www.techspot.com/review...radeon-4850/page8.html

 

[minmaster]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
This was done using a gtx280 instead of a hd4870, but it gives an idea of what a faster cpu does to the gaming experience:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...ticle_id=647744&page=1

well UT3 is a very CPU bound game so not representative of gaming in general.

 

[taltamir]

UE3 is the most used engine in the world.
Also, a bunch of other titles are even MORE cpu hungry then it.

But yes, many are not very cpu hungry.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: coolpurplefan
Has anybody tested with an Athlon X2 5400+ 2.8GHz? With 2GB of RAM in XP, would I be able to use a 4850 or 4870 or would I be better off just being satisfied with a 3870? (Max resolution I use is 1600x1200.)

The least demanding games I use is UT2004 and BF2. But, I'd like to be able to play UT3.

(If you have the answer. I'm not sure how you test for that.)

You will likely be CPU bottlenecked in many games with the 4870, so a 4850 would be a better option, especially since you don't game at very high resolutions. You'll be able to play UT3 just fine, perhaps not quite as fast as Core 2 systems, but definitely at a reasonable framerate.

 

[faxon]

with that system i wouldnt worry about performance on an athlon x2 5400+ with even a 3870. i have an athlon64 4000+ and an HD2900PRO 1GB and it plays UE3 Engine games (UT3, Bioshock, Gears of War) quite well at 1600x1200.

 

[angry hampster]

What kind of board do you have? I've got no problem getting my 6420 to 3.2GHz stable and cool.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: angry hampster
What kind of board do you have? I've got no problem getting my 6420 to 3.2GHz stable and cool.

The angry rodent is on the right path here, I think. I doubt your e6420 is a dog ocer, I'll bet it's your motherboard instead holding you back.

From my personal experience:
e6400 @ 2.66GHz on P965-DS3 @ 1.38V
e6400 @ 3.0GHz on IP35-E @ 1.32V (stock)

Same chip, same cooling, same memory, etc, etc, etc. The chip ran cooler at higher speed on the new motherboard with no voltage boost required. On the old mobo when I tried to go above 2.66GHz it started needing lots of extra volts for small gains in speed so I just set to 2.66 and thought it was fine. Then I got the IP35-E and discovered that the chip was much better than I thought.