Stock i7-920 vs. e8400 OC'd to 3.5Ghz?

[bconngemini]

I have a Radeon HD5850 and am considering upgrading my CPU. Do you think it would be worth it to go from a 3.5Ghz e8400 to a i7?

 

[Arkaign]

Sure, particularly for the growing host of games that do better on quads.

Why wouldn't you OC the i7 though? Getting an Intel branded board in a promotional combo or something? You could always sell that board and get an Asus/Gbyte/etc.

 

[bconngemini]

Sure, particularly for the growing host of games that do better on quads.

Why wouldn't you OC the i7 though? Getting an Intel branded board in a promotional combo or something? You could always sell that board and get an Asus/Gbyte/etc.

Well I would also have to buy a new MB, so that cost goes into the equation as well. Not really sure if the bang-for-buck factor is justified.

 

[Termie]

An i7-920 will beat your e8400 badly in most modern games. This article looks at performance of various i5 and i7 processors, some of which are equivalent to a 920 (like 760/860), versus an e8600, which is about equivalent to your overclocked e8400: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/cpu-benchmark-highend_6.html#sect1

But keep in mind the 920 is no longer current. You should be able to get a 930 for the same price. That and the ability to OC the 920/930 makes this a pretty clear win if you have the money to upgrade.

 

[betasub]

The obvious choice for a gamer's CPU upgrade would be to i5-760 & P55 motherboard. This gets quad power, a great turbo for 1-2threaded apps/games, nice overclocking, and the relatively inexpensive LGA1156 platform (compared to X58/LGA1366).

Edit: of course, go with Sandybridge if you are not overclocking this time round, but your E8400 shows that you are not adverse to bumping up the clock speed

 

[tweakboy]

Games now adays a quad uses 30 percent to 70 percent of resources. Soo you still have 30 percent free to render in the background or some other task.

Its not justified, too much to upgrade and little difference in speed.
Also Sandy is a hoe so If I were you wait for i9 12 core CPU by 2012 2013

 

[Markfw]

Games now adays a quad uses 30 percent to 70 percent of resources. Soo you still have 30 percent free to render in the background or some other task.

Its not justified, too much to upgrade and little difference in speed.
Also Sandy is a hoe so If I were you wait for i9 12 core CPU by 2012 2013

tweakboy, you need to knock off the standard reply you have of late "you don't need a quad", including your thread on the same subject, we are all tired of hearing the reply, and its MISINFORMATION. Quads in games today do have a lot of advantages, and all of us have linked results to prove it.

 

[Vdubchaos]

tweakboy, you need to knock off the standard reply you have of late "you don't need a quad", including your thread on the same subject, we are all tired of hearing the reply, and its MISINFORMATION. Quads in games today do have a lot of advantages, and all of us have linked results to prove it.

Is the difference worth $400+ upgrade?

Doubt it, no where near.

Sure it will be better, but his OCed E8400 should be fine. Differences would be minimal at best.

He would've been better off paying extra $200 for better video card than $400 for new CPU/MB/Memory.....

 

[Markfw]

Is the difference worth $400+ upgrade?

Doubt it, no where near.

Sure it will be better, but his OCed E8400 should be fine. Differences would be minimal at best.

He would've been better off paying extra $200 for better video card than $400 for new CPU/MB/Memory.....

That statement is very logical, and very different than what we have heard from tweakboy as of late. (except "Differences would be minimal at best.", I think they would be a little more than "minimal")

But yes, in THIS case a video card upgrade first may be called for.

 

[Vdubchaos]

That statement is very logical, and very different than what we have heard from tweakboy as of late. (except "Differences would be minimal at best.", I think they would be a little more than "minimal")

But yes, in THIS case a video card upgrade first may be called for.

Perhaps saying minimal for the price would be more appropriate.

Upgrading CPU/MB/RAM and keeping the same 5850 simply doesn't make sense IMO.

I love upgrading/building PCs, but the truth is there will always be something better. And there is no worse feeling then sitting there on a newly build PC asking yourself "Why did I just spend all that money?".



If money is no object, go nuts....but he might as well get a new Video card to really see a difference.

I'll be honest, friend of mine has a new I750/580 etc and although it is impressive and better, I cannot justify a new $1200 rig for that difference. Maybe next year around this time, but even then I have doubts. If money is there....sure.

I think next year will be a better year to do it anyways. Sandy bridge will be settled in, AMD will respond. SSD prices will tank even more and I'm hoping GPU price war will be in full swing 3-6 months before christmas. Also 120hz LCD tech looks interesting/promising.

And most importantly THE GAMES. Crysis 2 and gaming industry better not disappoint. I'm just looking for a next big thing in PC gaming graphics. I think that has a lot to do with it all of the above.

 

[Arkaign]

I dunno, I think a 5850 is definitely good enough to warrant a Quad. There are quite a few games where the minimums will pick up dramatically with the Quad (Metro, GTA, SC2), and the titles that don't really improve much with Quads will be fine either way.

Another good thing is that an X58 board will take a 2nd 5850 pretty easily, which are coming down quickly. An Xfired 5850 setup with a mild OC is better than pretty much any single GPU right now anyway, so that opens the door up to solidifying the rig for the next couple of years probably as a decent to excellent gaming rig. Bonus is that lightly used 5850s are popping up quickly with lots of people moving to the GTX5xx series and Radeon 69xx series, so it should be a relative bargain.

Another imporant note to remember : The E8400 still sells for a commandingly high price used, so a lot of $ could be recouped quickly from the sale of the old stuff. Say $100+ for the CPU, $50 (?) for the mobo ..

 

[Markfw]

One more thing... Why not OC to 920 to 3.5 also ? or 4 ghz ? The 920 will win at the same clock speed due to better IPC.

The days of a dual-core are numbered for almost anything usable, except word processing and the like.

 

[Concillian]

An i7-920 will beat your e8400 badly in most modern games. This article looks at performance of various i5 and i7 processors, some of which are equivalent to a 920 (like 760/860), versus an e8600, which is about equivalent to your overclocked e8400: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/cpu-benchmark-highend_6.html#sect1

Metro 2033 is the only game in that series of benchmarks where the E8600 is really limiting performance to a level where you might actually perceive it.

IMO this article demonstrates how little CPU is really necessary for gaming these days. 120 FPS vs 70 FPS? who cares? Seriously... this is not a worthwhile performance gain, even though it's huge. 70 FPS is fast enough that you aren't even going to notice a near doubling of the framerate.

Is the 920 faster? Sure is. No doubt.
Will you notice it gaming on a 5850 that has the details turned up to the point that it's almost 100% of the limit of games? Most likely you won't even notice.

If it's my money being spent, I don't spend it unless I'm worried about Metro 2033 performance. Or some other application other than games.

A purchase decision isn't just about looking at which bar is longer.

 

[toyota]

Metro 2033 is the only game in that series of benchmarks where the E8600 is really limiting performance to a level where you might actually perceive it.

IMO this article demonstrates how little CPU is really necessary for gaming these days. 120 FPS vs 70 FPS? who cares? Seriously... this is not a worthwhile performance gain, even though it's huge. 70 FPS is fast enough that you aren't even going to notice a near doubling of the framerate.

Is the 920 faster? Sure is. No doubt.
Will you notice it gaming on a 5850 that has the details turned up to the point that it's almost 100% of the limit of games? Most likely you won't even notice.

If it's my money being spent, I don't spend it unless I'm worried about Metro 2033 performance. Or some other application other than games.

A purchase decision isn't just about looking at which bar is longer.

they did not even use games such as Dragon Age, Prototype, Ghostbusters, GTA 4, Red Faction Guerrilla and a few others where there is a sometimes a playable difference.

 

[Arkaign]

they did not even use games such as Dragon Age, Prototype, Ghostbusters, GTA 4, Red Faction Guerrilla and a few others where there is a sometimes a playable difference.

BC2 and SC2 also seem to juice up the minimums with a quad v. dual as well.

 

[toyota]

BC2 and SC2 also seem to juice up the minimums with a quad v. dual as well.

yes BC 2 loves quads in DX10 and especially so in DX11.

 

[Concillian]

Those are average framerates. Higher avg framerates also means higher minimum framerates. 70fps avg may mean minimum framerates down to the 30s when the action heats up, which is definitely noticeable especially in fast twitch FPS style games.

I'm basing my opinion off of my experience, testing actual play while underclocking in FPS games. I'm saying I don't notice a difference until these games dip to right around 30 FPS.

Generally 70 FPS average is plenty to maintain 30 FPS minimums.

Even so, is it necessarily reason to upgrade if you have 1 second out of 300 that gives a noticeable difference? To some that answer is yes. To others that answer is no. Just trying to get the OP thinking about the actual value of an upgrade. A move to a 920 is close to double the cost of a move to a 750 / 760. If you're upgrading to get rid of one barely perceptible slowdown, then the less expensive path might make sense... especially when SB comes out and a bunch of current 750 / 760 owners who MUST HAVE the latest even when they don't need it dump their used mobo / CPUs for creap on FS/FT and upgrade for no real perceptible performance improvement.

 

[Termie]

I'm basing my opinion off of my experience, testing actual play while underclocking in FPS games. I'm saying I don't notice a difference until these games dip to right around 30 FPS.

Generally 70 FPS average is plenty to maintain 30 FPS minimums.

Even so, is it necessarily reason to upgrade if you have 1 second out of 300 that gives a noticeable difference? To some that answer is yes. To others that answer is no. Just trying to get the OP thinking about the actual value of an upgrade. A move to a 920 is close to double the cost of a move to a 750 / 760. If you're upgrading to get rid of one barely perceptible slowdown, then the less expensive path might make sense... especially when SB comes out and a bunch of current 750 / 760 owners who MUST HAVE the latest even when they don't need it dump their used mobo / CPUs for creap on FS/FT and upgrade for no real perceptible performance improvement.

This was never a discussion of the value of 760 vs. 920. Obviously, 760 is the better value. It was a discussion of the relative performance of the 8600 vs. 760/920, which is what the xbit graphs demonstrate, and what you originally said wasn't significant. All of those graphs were presented at a resolution of 1680x1050, which necessarily inflates the FPS. At the more typical 1920, the average FPS will be lower and the minimums will be even more important. There is no doubt that an i5/i7 can present significant benefits in modern games, and that for those who want to use the newest graphics cards, such an upgrade is almost essential. I will basically never get above 40fps in BC2 on my e8400 at 1920x1080, regardless of what my other settings are. That's ok, but it's cutting it close, and below what my VGA is capable of.

 

[Concillian]

yes BC 2 loves quads in DX10 and especially so in DX11.

??? BC2 doesn't look very CPU dependent when you turn up the settings to something you'd actually use with a 5850:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,7...ks-Update-DirectX-11-Werte/Action-Spiel/Test/

AMDx2 all the way up to 4 GHz, no difference.

Very few games are very CPU dependent at all... when used at settings people actually play games at

CPU reviews purposefully use low resolution and lower settings than people would actually use in order to show differences between CPU, but when you crank the video settings to what you'd actually use, the CPU differences melt into nothingness.

For all but a select few games an overclocked e8600 will not see a performance degradation at settings someone would actually play with on a 5850 when compared with an i7-920.

 

[Makaveli]

This was never a discussion of the value of 760 vs. 920. Obviously, 760 is the better value. It was a discussion of the relative performance of the 8600 vs. 760/920, which is what the xbit graphs demonstrate, and what you originally said wasn't significant. All of those graphs were presented at a resolution of 1680x1050, which necessarily inflates the FPS. At the more typical 1920, the average FPS will be lower and the minimums will be even more important. There is no doubt that an i5/i7 can present significant benefits in modern games, and that for those who want to use the newest graphics cards, such an upgrade is almost essential. I will basically never get above 40fps in BC2 on my e8400 at 1920x1080, regardless of what my other settings are. That's ok, but it's cutting it close, and below what my VGA is capable of.

I agree with this ^^^

 

[Termie]

I agree with this ^^^

Thanks.

??? BC2 doesn't look very CPU dependent when you turn up the settings to something you'd actually use with a 5850:

...

CPU reviews purposefully use low resolution and lower settings than people would actually use in order to show differences between CPU, but when you crank the video settings to what you'd actually use, the CPU differences melt into nothingness.

For all but a select few games an overclocked e8600 will not see a performance degradation at settings someone would actually play with on a 5850 when compared with an i7-920.

I disagree.

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

Even though this is at 1680x1050/0xAA, I can promise you the 100% difference between an i7 and a dual-core will not "melt into nothingness" at 1920/4xAA. I've seen this for myself.

 

[TekDemon]

Thanks.



I disagree.

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

Even though this is at 1680x1050/0xAA, I can promise you the 100% difference between an i7 and a dual-core will not "melt into nothingness" at 1920/4xAA. I've seen this for myself.

Even in your link the stock Core i3 is putting out 72FPS. Since LCD monitors refresh at 60Hz anything over that is rather pointless. What matters more is where the minimum framerates are sitting and an overclocked E8400 still provides excellent minimum FPS support.

You can't see anything over 60FPS on most LCDs so it's really silly to compare whether or not the CPU lets you run 150FPS or 80FPS because your monitor can only show 60 frames max, and even then LCDs refresh kinda slow so you'd have overlap of the frames anyway.

The reason why we look at those CPU benchmarks is to see how future-proof the CPU is going to be. If I was building a new system I wouldn't build it with a Core2 Duo because while it'll play every game today just fine, in a year or two it might start limiting your FPS. But as far as the games that are out today, an overclocked Core 2 Duo with 6MB of cache gives virtually identical gameplay compared even to the fast i7s because most games will bottleneck at the GPU, or if they're not bottlenecked then your LCD won't be able to display the difference anyway.

Basically the only time you'll really notice is if some game is getting minimum FPS <40 on the C2D but maintaining much higher minimums on the i7. The only game I can think of where you might actually see this scenario is maybe Supreme Commander but even then if you have your C2D overclocked to 3.6+Ghz you should have perfectly playable FPS.

So if you still have an E8400 you can probably keep playing games for a while without really seeing much of a difference. I'd hold out for Sandy Bridge instead of buying i7 at this point since it's not like the E8400 is struggling to run games acceptably. There's a reason why they still fetch so much money used, and it's because they still run all the games out there.

 

[Termie]

Even in your link the stock Core i3 is putting out 72FPS. Since LCD monitors refresh at 60Hz anything over that is rather pointless. What matters more is where the minimum framerates are sitting and an overclocked E8400 still provides excellent minimum FPS support.

...

So if you still have an E8400 you can probably keep playing games for a while without really seeing much of a difference. I'd hold out for Sandy Bridge instead of buying i7 at this point since it's not like the E8400 is struggling to run games acceptably. There's a reason why they still fetch so much money used, and it's because they still run all the games out there.

Ok guys, I just did some tests to demonstrate what I'm talking about. I set my e8400 at 3.3, my GTX460 at 720/900 and then 800/950, and played a few full rounds of BC2.

Here are the settings:
Resolution: 1920x1080
2xAA, 4xAF, HBAO off

Here are the results:
(1) Avg FPS: 35
(2) Avg GPU usage: 60&#37;
(3) CPU usage: 100% the entire time

Then I upped the settings
Resolution: 1920x1080
4xAA, 16AF, HBAO on

Here are the results:
(1) Avg FPS: 35
(2) Avg GPU usage: 65%
(3) CPU usage: 100% the entire time

Then I upped the GTX460 clocks to 800/950

Here are the results:
(1) Avg FPS: 35
(2) Avg GPU usage: 55%
(3) CPU usage: 100% the entire time

In comparison, here are numbers from my i7-860/5850 (clocks listed in sig):
Resolution: 1920x1200
4xAA, 16AF, HBAO on

(1) Avg FPS: 57
(3) Avg GPU usage: 99%
(3) CPU Usage: ~50%

Now do you all see what I'm talking about? Could I play BC2 on my e8400 at the settings I wanted? Well, I made it through a few games (and got an Ace Pin in my last one), but it was choppy and I definitely couldn't react as fast.

My GPUs are very, very close in power, and yet my FPS is 63% higher on the 5850 (and the resolution is actually slightly higher due to the 16:10 monitor). More importantly, overclocking the GPU got me no return in FPS, and upping the quality did not lower the FPS. That would be ok if I were playing at a comfortable FPS, but I was not.

Another fascinating tidbit: my undervolted e8400 with an underutilized GTX460 only uses 175 watts while gaming in BC2. This is 90 watts lower than what my i7-860/5850 combo uses with the very same settings, despite the GTX460 typically showing higher power use in benchmarks. Obviously, this is partly due to the undervolted e8400, but it also shows that the GTX460 simply isn't working at full capacity.