Wait, is an i5-3450 doing this?

[Protomize]

I do have it currently overclocked to 3.85ghz, but after a 1 hour session of Crysis 2, I "Alt-Tabbed" out and went to the task manager to see my CPU load. I've never done this. I always checked my GPU temps in a GPU Tweak. I always hear people recommending i5-2500k's and i5-3570k's or even i7's and completely downplay the lower end models for... gaming. Now, Crysis 2 is a demanding game so it's not like I'm running Solitaire and amazed at the CPU load. Crysis 2 was set to 1080p at Ultra detail settings with DX11 enabled and High-res textures....

This is the CPU load right after Alt-tabbing out of Crysis 2 in a heated battle.

 

[pantsaregood]

Anything at the level of a Core i5-2300 or faster is more than enough for gaming. Honestly, you could get by on a Sandy Bridge-based Pentium or Celeron in a pinch.

 

[Protomize]

Anything at the level of a Core i5-2300 or faster is more than enough for gaming. Honestly, you could get by on a Sandy Bridge-based Pentium or Celeron in a pinch.

That's what I figured too lol. I always hear people saying that if you don't have the 2500k or 3570k overclocked to like 4.0ghz+ you're bottlenecking your GPU. Really? People need to stop spreading misinformation. Cause a lot of people believe that if there isn't a "K" at the end of the intel Core series model number it CANNOT be overclocked. I have my 3450 which runs at 3.1ghz stock overclocked to 3.85ghz.

 

[dma0991]

That's what I figured too lol. I always hear people saying that if you don't have the 2500k or 3570k overclocked to like 4.0ghz+ you're bottlenecking your GPU. Really? People need to stop spreading misinformation. Cause a lot of people believe that if there isn't a "K" at the end of the intel Core series model number it CANNOT be overclocked. I have my 3450 which runs at 3.1ghz stock overclocked to 3.85ghz.

It is common knowledge that non K processors are able to be 'overclocked' 4 speed bins above its max Turbo, nothing more than that. What the K processors have is unlocked, meaning that it will go to its maximum of 63x multiplier. Depending on how you interpret it, some may think that if it isn't unlocked to its maximum multiplier, it shouldn't be called an overclocked CPU.

I can't infer any details on what GPU you're running as of testing but you're definitely GPU limited based on the 46 FPS you're getting. Run a higher end GPU or a multi GPU setup and you'll see that the extra CPU performance matters.

 

[pantsaregood]

I would advise not overclocking the BCLK. 50 MHz isn't worth the potential instability that comes from boosting the BCLK. You may have done stress tests on your CPU, but you have to remember that those stress tests likely didn't effectively stress the PCI-E bus or memory interface very hard - both of which are affected by the BCLK.

Some games can be slightly bottlenecked by anything slower than a 4.0 GHz Sandy Bridge.

 

[Protomize]

It is common knowledge that non K processors are able to be 'overclocked' 4 speed bins above its max Turbo, nothing more than that. What the K processors have is unlocked, meaning that it will go to its maximum of 63x multiplier. Depending on how you interpret it, some may think that if it isn't unlocked to its maximum multiplier, it shouldn't be called an overclocked CPU.

I can't infer any details on what GPU you're running as of testing but you're definitely GPU limited based on the 46 FPS you're getting. Run a higher end GPU or a multi GPU setup and you'll see that the extra CPU performance matters.

It drops the FPS when you alt-tab out and navigate through another app. In-game, I get 50-65 FPS which is BEYOND playable and just around being perfectly playable.

 

[Protomize]

I would advise not overclocking the BCLK. 50 MHz isn't worth the potential instability that comes from boosting the BCLK. You may have done stress tests on your CPU, but you have to remember that those stress tests likely didn't effectively stress the PCI-E bus or memory interface very hard - both of which are affected by the BCLK.

Some games can be slightly bottlenecked by anything slower than a 4.0 GHz Sandy Bridge.

My system is fine. I get higher scores through my benchmarks then if I left the BCLK at 100.00mhz. Also, what games are bottle necked? Didn't you say a i5-2300 is "more" than enough for gaming. I would think "more" than enough would mean no game can possibly cause it to bottleneck a GPU.

 

[pantsaregood]

Yes, your benchmark scores are higher because your CPU is clocked higher. The issue is that thoroughly testing the stability of an overclock when BCLK has been increased is much more difficult than testing stability with a raised multiplier.

Bottlenecks are impossible to eliminate from a system entirely. Battlefield 3 will benefit from a CPU running faster then an i5-2300. That doesn't mean the system is crippled by the bottleneck, just that it isn't performing at the limit of the GPU's power.

Think about it this way: if boosting your CPU's speed increases your framerate even by a small amount, then your CPU is more effectively accommodating your GPU. At some point, increasing CPU speed will no longer lead to an increase in performance - the weak link in your throughput becomes your GPU.

 

[ShintaiDK]

This is the CPU load right after Alt-tabbing out of Crysis 2 in a heated battle.

You cant use the taskmgr to anything in those terms. I can show you singlethreaded applications that shows ~25% usage on 4 cores in taskmgr. Or 100% load on 1 core in reality. Its when Windows like to jump the task around.

 

[Prey2big]

You cant use the taskmgr to anything in those terms. I can show you singlethreaded applications that shows ~25% usage on 4 cores in taskmgr. Or 100% load on 1 core in reality. Its when Windows like to jump the task around.

+1

 

[sm625]

The average load during heavy gaming isnt going to be anywhere near 100% on a quad core. But there are moments where one or more threads will briefly fully load a core. That is where the high frame rates come from. You wont see it in task manager because these peak loads are only for a few milliseconds or less.

 

[jacktesterson]

Remember, this forum is filled with enthusiasts with biased opinions.

The truth is 9/10 games will work fine with any Quad core CPU. Hell, I had a G530 pushing a 5870 in a box recently and 1080p was easily playable.

I actually had a A8 with a GTX 580 in a box I was messing around with and never experienced any noticeable slow downs compared to a 2500k. I needed to benchmark to actually see a difference for the most part.

There are a *few* games out there that require a high end CPU to get good performance. Majority of games will still run fine at 1080p or Higher on a Phenom II. Not everyone needs to play Starcraft II on Ultra, or BF3 on Ultra on 64 player maps. We are a small percentage.

 

[Maximilian]

Remember, this forum is filled with enthusiasts with biased opinions.

The truth is 9/10 games will work fine with any Quad core CPU. Hell, I had a G530 pushing a 5870 in a box recently and 1080p was easily playable.

I actually had a A8 with a GTX 580 in a box I was messing around with and never experienced any noticeable slow downs compared to a 2500k. I needed to benchmark to actually see a difference for the most part.

There are a *few* games out there that require a high end CPU to get good performance. Majority of games will still run fine at 1080p or Higher on a Phenom II. Not everyone needs to play Starcraft II on Ultra, or BF3 on Ultra on 64 player maps. We are a small percentage.

Yeah... this.

People with Q6600's still have a potent gaming CPU.

 

[Protomize]

Depending on how you interpret it, some may think that if it isn't unlocked to its maximum multiplier, it shouldn't be called an overclocked CPU.

Overclocking is "forcing" a component to run at a higher clock than the manufacturer specified. If I were to set my i5-3450 from 3.50ghz ( Max Specified Turbo Multiplier by Intel ) to 3.51ghz, I've overclocked my CPU.

 

[dma0991]

Overclocking is "forcing" a component to run at a higher clock than the manufacturer specified. If I were to set my i5-3450 from 3.50ghz ( Max Specified Turbo Multiplier by Intel ) to 3.51ghz, I've overclocked my CPU.

I've seen this argument before which I am not a part of and both parties will claim that it is or it is not overclocking, hence the emphasis on the interpret part of my sentence.

There have been certain situations where CPU bottleneck exists with high end multi GPU setups. 'Overclocked' or not, I think it hardly matters to you since you're content with having playable frame rates at 1080P which your GPU isn't bottlenecked by your CPU and the extra MHz you're pushing in isn't going to improve your FPS since you're not CPU limited. Try testing it with a different game like BF3 or Skyrim.

 

[2is]

You cant use the taskmgr to anything in those terms. I can show you singlethreaded applications that shows ~25% usage on 4 cores in taskmgr. Or 100% load on 1 core in reality. Its when Windows like to jump the task around.

In addition to this, checking it while at a menu isn't exactly the most taxing thing you can do.

 

[2is]

Remember, this forum is filled with enthusiasts with biased opinions.

The truth is 9/10 games will work fine with any Quad core CPU. Hell, I had a G530 pushing a 5870 in a box recently and 1080p was easily playable.

I actually had a A8 with a GTX 580 in a box I was messing around with and never experienced any noticeable slow downs compared to a 2500k. I needed to benchmark to actually see a difference for the most part.

There are a *few* games out there that require a high end CPU to get good performance. Majority of games will still run fine at 1080p or Higher on a Phenom II. Not everyone needs to play Starcraft II on Ultra, or BF3 on Ultra on 64 player maps. We are a small percentage.

Pretty much... I have three boxes that I consider game worthy

1) i7 3770k + GTX 680 (1920x1200)
2) i5 2500k + HD 5870 (1920x1080)
3) Unlocked Athlon II X3 555 + 5770 (1680x1050)

And they can all play every game I have. That said, #3 certainly benefited from unlocking and overclocking, particularly in BFBC2 and BF3.

Graphics perspective, in terms of BF3, i have it all maxed on the 680 with no issues. On the other two I disable Ambient Occlusion

 

[Protomize]

In addition to this, checking it while at a menu isn't exactly the most taxing thing you can do.

I paused the game and quickly Alt-tabbed right after within about 2 seconds. That's why you see the menu. The core monitors tell you info from about 1-3 minutes ago.

 

[CPUarchitect]

This is the CPU load right after Alt-tabbing out of Crysis 2 in a heated battle.

That doesn't mean a slower CPU would give you equal performance in this game!

Think of some application tasks as a relay race. If you have four runners then each of them is active for only 1/4 of the time, but when they do run they run as fast as they can. With slower runners the activity is exactly the same, but you finish later.

Task Manager only shows the average activity of each core, but not how they depend on each other. I imagine Crysis 2 has a large number of "yield" operations, which allow the operating system to reschedule threads and thus distribute the load. But the graphs don't show us the actual distribution of tasks nor the (longest) dependency chain between them. The only way to know the impact of the clock frequency, is to benchmark it.

I do believe that overclocking should not be a necessity to play current games smoothly, but in many cases it won't be in vain either regardless of a low apparent activity in Task Manager...

 

[Schmide]

I hope you have your temp monitor to Fahrenheit! otherwise you're throttling at 100+ Celsius

 

[Protomize]

I hope you have your temp monitor to Fahrenheit! otherwise you're throttling at 100+ Celsius

Yep, they're in Fahrenheit.