What video card wont be bottlenecked by my 2.4ghz E660

[evolucion8]

I dont care what he says because that is not true for many games. even the other day in Mass Effect I fired it up forgetting that my cpu was at 2.4. I had been playing some older games so I had lowered my cpu speed from my 3.8 oc.

Mass Effect is one kind of a game, just like GTA4, I played that game and it put a load in all four cores of my CPU, an average load of 33%, which shows that Mass Effect is CPU bound by a considerable margin, so besides of those two games, you should care of the data of the review that MarcVenice posted, it was a very nice done review with lots of data that proves some points in your favor like some CPU bottlenecks in some games, but in the majority of the games, the Core 2 E6600 will be enough for any card currently except SLI/Crossfire, who kind of person uses SLI/Crossfire in CPU bound resolutions anyway?

So OP, get a HD 5750/HD 5770 and enjoy gaming!! If you need more performance later on, overclock that CPU, it should go as high as 3.60GHz without issues.

 

[crisium]

I think it's clear he should get a 5770 or 5750 depending on how much he wants to spend.

Both OC pretty good too, but you'd get a greater % gain from OCing a 5750, so something to consider. If you won't OC the video card than grab a 5770, imo, but if you are gonna OC then get a 5750 and get it to at least 5770 default clocks (will still be a bit slower due to less shaders, but a bit cheaper as well).

 

[toyota]

Mass Effect is one kind of a game, just like GTA4, I played that game and it put a load in all four cores of my CPU, an average load of 33%, which shows that Mass Effect is CPU bound by a considerable margin, so besides of those two games, you should care of the data of the review that MarcVenice posted, it was a very nice done review with lots of data that proves some points in your favor like some CPU bottlenecks in some games, but in the majority of the games, the Core 2 E6600 will be enough for any card currently except SLI/Crossfire, who kind of person uses SLI/Crossfire in CPU bound resolutions anyway?

So OP, get a HD 5750/HD 5770 and enjoy gaming!! If you need more performance later on, overclock that CPU, it should go as high as 3.60GHz without issues.

he didnt even test many other games where the cpu would be even more of a bottle neck though. I am/was playing some those games so saying that doesnt matter because most other games will be fine is silly. its great that a 2.4 E6600 is fine for 99% of games but if you are playing those 1% of games then it is of little meaning. all I am really saying is that he needs to oc that cpu to get the most out every game and I think we can agree on that.

 

[AzN]

Heck I played mass effect just fine and dandy on my lowly E6300 @3.05ghz with 2meg cache which shouldn't be all that much faster than a E6600 @ stock speeds. Not the highest frame rates but in never went under 25fps which is plenty enough to play a 3rd person role playing shooter.

I recently fired up mass effect 1 again just to play it again for 2 to come out with my CPU settings in my sig. Again max graphics detail 1080P 4xAA. Hovering 30-60fps. Seems plenty for what kind of game it is.

 

[toyota]

Heck I played mass effect just fine and dandy on my lowly E6300 @3.05ghz with 2meg cache which shouldn't be all that much faster than a E6600 @ stock speeds. Not the highest frame rates but in never went under 25fps which is plenty enough to play a 3rd person role playing shooter.

I recently fired up mass effect 1 again just to play it again for 2 to come out with my CPU settings in my sig. Again max graphics detail 1080P 4xAA. Hovering 30-60fps. Seems plenty for what kind of game it is.

massive difference in smoothness with my cpu at 3.8 then with it at 2.4. some spots lagged so bad with frames dropping down to low 20s at 2.4. with my cpu at 3.8 the min framerate is doubled and it doesnt dip down like that ever. I would have never even thought about testing that game and found this out purely by accident. I absolutely would not want to play the game with my cpu at 2.4 knowing how it plays at stock speed or overclocked to 3.8. his cpu at 2.4 would be even a bit slower so IMO that would not be a very good experience on highest settings.

 

[AzN]

Well it was smooth for me with my crappy low end CPU that is more than 3 years old. It's a 3rd person single player shooter. Not even a fast paced online shooter like COD. When you talk of smooth are you talking about minimum fps hitting under 25fps where it stutters? Or are you trying to get 60+fps average to be competitive in 3rd person shooting competitions?

I have no idea where you are coming from as my system gets decent mid 40's or so average frame rate with mass effect 1 and that's with all max gpu settings with 4xAA. I got 2 but haven't installed it yet. Will let you know if my low end CPU can play or not.

 

[AzN]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2045354

Oh this is another guy who had a problem with his system with mass effect on his crappy E2160 with 1meg cache. Seems his problem is fixed. He seems to be getting solid 55-60fps with his crappy CPU.

Seems like there's something strange with your system. I said this in the batman benchmark thread where I was getting higher frame rates than you with my CPU clocked much lower which you swore it was your CPU.

With mass effect I don't get anything under 25fps at all. If anything I'm hovering nicely @ 40-50fps all the time. It's smooth in my eyes maybe not yours.

 

[toyota]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2045354

Oh this is another guy who had a problem with his system with mass effect on his crappy E2160 with 1meg cache. Seems his problem is fixed. He seems to be getting solid 55-60fps with his crappy CPU.

Seems like there's something strange with your system. I said this in the batman benchmark thread where I was getting higher frame rates than you with my CPU clocked much lower which you swore it was your CPU.

With mass effect I don't get anything under 25fps at all. If anything I'm hovering nicely @ 40-50fps all the time. It's smooth in my eyes maybe not yours.

he does NOT average 55-60 fo the whole game so you need to reread what he said. for me it only dips below 25 with my cpu at 2.4 and then only in certain spots. if I run at stock 3.16 then its in the mid 30s for a low and I average about 55-60fps. if I turn down the settings then it stays above 30 even with it at 2.4. there is nothing wrong with my pc at all.

 

[AzN]

he does NOT average 55-60 fo the whole game so you need to reread what he said. for me it only dips below 25 with my cpu at 2.4 and then only in certain spots. if I run at stock 3.16 then its in the mid 30s for a low and I average about 55-60fps. if I turn down the settings then it stays above 30 even with it at 2.4. there is nothing wrong with my pc at all.

Right but he is getting decent enough where his crappy CPU is smooth enough to play.

Well I'm telling you other wise even my low end CPU and now the guy with lower end CPU in the thread is getting good frame rates to play the game. I think the problem lies within your system just like the guy in that thread with the problem. Instead of picking posts you should check your system instead. Perhaps a format might cure your problems.

 

[toyota]

Right but he is getting decent enough where his crappy CPU isn't smooth enough to play.

Well I'm telling you other wise even my low end CPU and now the guy with lower end CPU in the thread is getting good frame rates to play the game. I think the problem lies within your system just like the guy in that thread with the problem. Instead of picking posts you should check your system instead. Perhaps a format might cure your problems.

again there is nothing wrong with my system. it performs the same on Vista and Windows 7. I am pointing out that it is smoother in places with the cpu above 2.4 and delivers a better overall experience. I am not having the issues he was having.

 

[AzN]

again there is nothing wrong with my system. I am pointing out that it is smoother in places with the cpu above 2.4 and delivers a better overall experience. I am not having the issues he was having.

are you sure? Why is that every time you want to argue it's the CPU everyone else is getting higher frame rates with lower end CPU? Can you explain that?

 

[toyota]

are you sure? Why is that every time you want to argue it's the CPU everyone else is getting higher frame rates with lower end CPU? Can you explain that?

yes so when I lower my cpu speed and get lower framerates then something is wrong with my pc? I am pointing out one game here and if you look at the results they are about the same as yours and the guy you linked to.

Heck I played mass effect just fine and dandy on my lowly E6300 @3.05ghz with 2meg cache which shouldn't be all that much faster than a E6600 @ stock speeds. Not the highest frame rates but in never went under 25fps which is plenty enough to play a 3rd person role playing shooter.

I recently fired up mass effect 1 again just to play it again for 2 to come out with my CPU settings in my sig. Again max graphics detail 1080P 4xAA. Hovering 30-60fps. Seems plenty for what kind of game it is.

see here in this post, you basically just said that you even hit 25fps with your cpu at 3.05. you also said that you hit 30fps with your cpu in sig which is at 3.36.

Well, this is weird... I just made a new partition and put a clean Vista install on it (wanted to put XP on it, but the XP disc I had burned seemed to be corrupted). In the bridge where I used to be hitting 10-15FPS, I'm now at a solid 25-30FPS. On the ground during the first mission where I was CPU (?) limited at 20FPS, I'm now at a very solid 55-60FPS.

I have no idea what caused such a massive performance increase. Maybe it's because I haven't installed any audio drivers at all yet? Still, I can't see sound cutting performance in half. I'll see what happens when I install my x-fi drivers in Vista tomorrow.

now this guy from the thread you linked to earlier is still hitting 25-30 in spots and if you actually look in his sig you would see that his cpu is overclocked to 3.4.

now I am only saying that it drops to mid to low 20s in certain spots with my cpu at 2.4 which is perfectly feasible. for most of the game it might not ever go below 30-40fps so it probably just depends on where in the game you are testing. we all got in the 20s at times and even if you factor in clock for clock advantage, my E8500 at 2.4 probably is still a little slower than your cpu at 3.05 and his at 3.4. now please stop trying to make an argument when we are really getting about the same results.

 

[AzN]

yes so when I lower my cpu speed and get lower framerates then something is wrong with my pc? I am pointing out one game here and if you look at the results they are about the same as yours and the guy you linked to.

I asked why my system and everyone else is getting higher fps than you when you have higher end CPU? Your e8400 @ 2.4ghz should be fast as my CPU @ 3.05ghz literally. When I played that game last year or so ago I wasn't hitting under 25fps like you claim with your E8400@ 2.4ghz.

see here in this post, you basically just said that you even hit 25fps with your cpu at 3.05. you also said that you hit 30fps with your cpu in sig which is at 3.36.

Instead of picking posts and she said he said you might have better luck checking your system which I've mentioned. I don't know what it is. Perhaps something is eating CPU cycles? In case of batman bench I was dead serious. Your system seemed way off. I even took screen shots as you may recall and not much CPU scaling with that game with GPU and PhySx @ max settings. You were getting much lower results with a faster CPU. So again I think you should check your system. A new format, bios update, or something as the other guy in the thread was getting bad results with his CPU. It could happen to anyone and even the most tip top maintained computers.

now this guy from the thread you linked to earlier is still hitting 25-30 in spots and if you actually look in his sig you would see that his cpu is overclocked to 3.4.

now I am only saying that it drops to mid to low 20s in certain spots with my cpu at 2.4 which is perfectly feasible. for most of the game it might not ever go below 30-40fps so it probably just depends on where in the game you are testing. we all got in the 20s at times and even if you factor in clock for clock advantage, my E8500 at 2.4 probably is still a little slower than your cpu at 3.05 and his at 3.4. now please stop trying to make an argument when we are really getting about the same results.

Architecturally E8400 @ 2.4ghz is about fast as my E6300 @ 3.05ghz give or take few mhz. The guy with 3.4ghz CPU has 1 meg cache and is about fast as my E6300@3.05ghz. I wasn't getting anything below 25fps if anything not even anything under 30fps as it was long time ago trying to recall. Let's not play the she said he said game.... To me that's completely smooth. I recently fired it up with my CPU in my sig settings again smooth hovering 35-45fps constantly. Maybe not online competitive smooth but for a single player it is. I think your expectations is high which you try to use your own view to everyone's eyes as different people have different perception of what is considered smooth.

 

[toyota]

I asked why my system and everyone else is getting higher fps than you when you have higher end CPU? Your e8400 @ 2.4ghz should be fast as my CPU @ 3.05ghz literally. When I played that game last year or so ago I wasn't hitting under 25fps like you claim with your E8400@ 2.4ghz.

Instead of picking posts and she said he said you might have better luck checking your system which I've mentioned. I don't know what it is. Perhaps something is eating CPU cycles? In case of batman bench I was dead serious. Your system seemed way off. I even took screen shots as you may recall and not much CPU scaling with that game with GPU and PhySx @ max settings. You were getting much lower results with a faster CPU. So again I think you should check your system. A new format, bios update, or something as the other guy in the thread was getting bad results with his CPU. It could happen to anyone and even the most tip top maintained computers.

Architecturally E8400 @ 2.4ghz is about fast as my E6300 @ 3.05ghz give or take few mhz. The guy with 3.4ghz CPU has 1 meg cache and is about fast as my E6300@3.05ghz. I wasn't getting anything below 25fps if anything not even anything under 30fps as it was long time ago trying to recall. Let's not play the she said he said game.... To me that's completely smooth. I recently fired it up with my CPU in my sig settings again smooth hovering 35-45fps constantly. Maybe not online competitive smooth but for a single player it is. I think your expectations is high which you try to use your own view to everyone's eyes as different people have different perception of what is considered smooth.

okay so you said you hit 25fps with your cpu at 3.05 and my cpu at 2.4 is about the same and I hit right below 25fps in a few spots. maybe if you happen to have fraps on at that same place in the game then perhaps you would have went right below 25fps at that spot too. different spots in a game can provide different results and I doubt you had a framerate counter on the whole time. I have played around in other spots where it didnt go below 30 or even 40 at times. that still doesnt change the fact that it does go to mid to low 20s at times in spots. with my cpu at normal speed or overclocked it DOES NOT dip down that low and provides a better overall experience. that was the whole point of what I said earlier.

 

[AzN]

okay so you said you hit 25fps with your cpu at 3.05 and my cpu at 2.4 is about the same and I hit right below 25fps in a few spots. maybe if you happen to have fraps on at that same place in the game then perhaps you would have went right below 25fps at that spot too. different spots in a game can provide different results and I doubt you had a framerate counter on the whole time. I have played around in other spots where it didnt go below 30 or even 40 at times. that still doesnt change the fact that it does go to mid to low 20s at times in spots. with my cpu at normal speed or overclocked it DOES NOT dip down that low and provides a better overall experience. that was the whole point of what I said earlier.

That's the thing I do have fraps and use it to watch the fps when I first fire up a new game. What I do know is that the game doesn't hit much below the 25-30fps mark as I can easily perceive with my eyes if it does. Again this was with 1920x1080 4xAA which can also be GPU limited at some of these spots you mention only to be covered with your faster CPU in some cases. My GPU is a bit faster than your GPU so I'm probably not as GPU limited as your system which can perceive discrepancies between the 2 systems.

What settings were you using when playing mass effect 1?

 

[toyota]

That's the thing I do have fraps and use it to watch the fps when I first fire up a new game. What I do know is that the game doesn't hit much below the 25-30fps mark as I can easily perceive with my eyes if it does. Again this was with 1920x1080 4xAA which can also be GPU limited at some of these spots you mention only to be covered with your faster CPU in some cases. My GPU is a bit faster than your GPU so I'm probably not as GPU limited as your system which can perceive discrepancies between the 2 systems.

What settings were you using when playing mass effect 1?

all max at 1920x1080 but no AA. average is probably about 50-60fps for the majority of the game but it really depends on whats going on.

I just tested ME with nobody around but my squadmates and we just walked around in a tunnel basically doing nothing. doing that the performance was nearly identical with never more than 2 fps difference from 2.4 to 3.16. now outside the citadel with lots of other people and more open environment there was more than 10 fps difference between 2.4 and 3.16 in spots. lowest framerate around the citadel was 23 fps with cpu at 2.4 and 34 fps with cpu at 3.16. there seems to be something around the citadel that just hits the cpu pretty hard for some reason. its not my pc because it is easily reproducible on Vista and 7 with different drivers even.

I do remember the beginning of the game being pretty demanding in spots too even with cpu at stock speeds. I dont have a save spot to go back and test it though.

 

[AzN]

I took the liberty of taking screen shots.

Worst case scenario I'm hovering 35fps. This is with 1080p 4xAA.

 

[AzN]

now outside the citadel with lots of other people and more open environment there was more than 10 fps difference between 2.4 and 3.16 in spots.

Open environment is where GPU have whole lot more to do than your CPU. NPC might also be at effect here with the CPU.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Here we go again...

Quick simplistic guide to build a Gaming PC:

1) Choose a screen.

2) Choose a GPU that can play at that resolution with maximum settings (or the settings you can afford to pay for).

3) Buy the cheapest CPU that has as many cores as the game you play use - most only take advantage of 2, but the number that takes advantage of more is increasing. If you buying new, look at the i3/i5/i7 and Athlon II/Phenom II. Core2 and even Athlon X2 are probably fast enough for most games still if you have one, though.

4) Proceed to spend all the leftover money in SSD drives, more GPU power, bigger screen, more screen, 3D stuff if that turns you on, better headsets/keyboards, gaming mouse, gaming controllers. etc.

5) Spend any leftover money to get more CPU power, be it faster CPU or better coolers for less noise or overclock.

6) Enjoy your games.

 

[toyota]

Open environment is where GPU have whole lot more to do than your CPU. NPC might also be at effect here with the CPU.

check outside the citadel and you will see. for whatever reason there are just way worse framerate drops than other places. with my cpu at stock or better they are not distracting though. this happened to be the spot where I fired up the game that day I had left my cpu at 2.4. it look like I got the most demanding spot in the game so thats why I was on about the cpu mattering so much.


here is a screen with my cpu at 2.5 (333x7.5). now this isnt the average but its just showing one of the dips.

 

[AzN]

Yeah I don't have a save file at the citadel as my system was formatted last year losing all my save files. Perhaps if you can send me a save file or upload it somewhere we can compare.

 

[toyota]

Yeah I don't have a save file at the citadel as my system was formatted last year losing all my save files. Perhaps if you can send me a save file or upload it somewhere we can compare.

yeah its that area called the presidium. really after spending some more time running around that area its a mess. it will just hit the cpu and hd kind of hard. its much more noticeable with fraps on for sure. by that I mean you actually will see the framerate numbers dip so it makes you more aware of it.

I think this is the right save. just click "Save file to your PC: click here" located towards the bottom. http://www.2shared.com/file/10955608/4f3758e1/John00_10.html

 

[AzN]

It seems I don't have the DLC. I have to download and install it first.

 

[toyota]

It seems I don't have the DLC. I have to download and install it first.

thats the DLC? I thought that was part of the regular game. the only DLC I have is that free one I installed at the same time I installed the game. I believe its called Bringing Down the Sky but I sure didnt know that was it. maybe the save is somehow just tied to my particular game that had the dlc already installed.

here is that DLC walk through part 1 and I have never done any of this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVsVBw2cLCg

 

[AzN]

It's asking me for Bring the sky files. I know that is part of DLC. My download should finish in 10 minutes anyway.