Where are all the gaming benchmarks comparing CPU's?

[scheibler1]

I've currently got a E2180 @ 3ghz which is equivilant to a E6700 at stock speeds(2.6ghz) paired with a GTX 260 overclocked to GTX 280 performance. I can't find any benchmarks shwoing different processors, dual or quad core, at mid-high resolutions b/c I game @ 1920x1200.

I was thinking about going with a Q6600 and overclocking it to 3.0-3.6ghz if lucky. Or getting an E8500/E8600 and pumping that sucker up to 3.6-4ghz

Would FPS actually increase with my current setup?

 

[Tempered81]

yes the community is definitely in need of a hardware review site to do a comparison like this. Toms hardware has a big list in a cpu comparison, yet they don't overclock the processors, and they test mainly on an older set of games like doom3, quake4, and prey. Xbit did an article comparing 4.3ghz duo vs. 3.6ghz quad in games, yet they only used 1024x768 & 1280 x 1024 with all the games at low-med settings. Techpowerup and other sites have done some comparisons using AA and high res, but they do it on crazy platforms like Skull trail & R700 Crossfire. PcgamesHardware did an article where they ran a single GTX280 in med-high resolutions in crysis/cod4/ut3 using an E8500. They compared the minimum & average framerates at 2, 2.4, 3, 3.6, and 4Ghz, but didn't do 4.5ghz or comparisons to quad cores. All of these are good references, but slightly inconclusive.

Not sure why hardware sites don't do a "Q9xxx vs. Q6xxx vs. QX vs. E2xxx vs. E6xxx vs. E7xxx vs. E8xxx vs. AMD" cpu shoot-out using overclocking & benching games through all resolutions & settings. Anand, anybody? Sure it may be consuming, but the end-all results would be quite conclusive & settle many arguments. You would see people all over the net quoting this one "review" over and over. heheh.

Originally posted by: scheibler1
I've currently got a E2180 @ 3ghz...
Would FPS actually increase with my current setup?

since you're on 65nm with conroe core, lacking Penryn IPC improvements, L2 cache, and at 3ghz, you would be significantly slower than a 45nm @ 3ghz. (your 3Ghz E2180 = about 2.65ghz E8xxx) If you get a quad & hit ~3.8 then you'd be safe for Multithreaded stuffs later on down the line.

Here is an e8500 & 2, 3 & 4ghz :
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...ticle_id=647744&page=1

Stock E8400 vs. Stock E2160:
http://www.tomshardware.com/ch...Mark-of-Chaos,399.html
Anand's:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3112&p=11

Edit: Tom's has updated their charts.

 

[kmmatney]

I don't think a new cpu will do a whole lot for you at that resolution. Maybe you can gain 5 fps - not worth the expense. Of course you'd gain more for games that use Quad-core, but those are still rare. For non-gaming (movie encoding) you'll gain whever the speed increase is, plus a little extra due to having more cache.

Overall, I would say you have a great setup - lot's of bang for the buck there. Are there any games you "can't" run at 1920 x 1200 with your setup? Certainly a faster cpu won't let you add AA to your games, if that's what you want.

 

[scheibler1]

thanks for the links. It looks as if it would be beneficial to go for a E8500/8600 @ 3.6-4.0ghz. Wish PCGH would have tested Quad cores too.

I'm mainly concerned about performance in Crysis, Crysis Warhead, FarCry 2, WiC....but I dunno if those are quad core optimized

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: scheibler1
I can't find any benchmarks shwoing different processors, dual or quad core, at mid-high resolutions b/c I game @ 1920x1200.

There are benchmarks like that all over the web. They're called video card benchmarks. If you benchmark at 1920x1200 or 2560x1600, you aren't benchmarking the CPU, you're benchmarking the video cards. That's why all CPU benchmarks are done @ a CPU-bound resolution. It hasn't been very long at all since CPU gaming benchmarks were done @ 640x480, then they moved up to 800x600, then 1024x768, and now finally, the majority of sites do CPU benchmarks @ 1280x1024.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: scheibler1
I can't find any benchmarks shwoing different processors, dual or quad core, at mid-high resolutions b/c I game @ 1920x1200.

There are benchmarks like that all over the web. They're called video card benchmarks. If you benchmark at 1920x1200 or 2560x1600, you aren't benchmarking the CPU, you're benchmarking the video cards. That's why all CPU benchmarks are done @ a CPU-bound resolution. It hasn't been very long at all since CPU gaming benchmarks were done @ 640x480, then they moved up to 800x600, then 1024x768, and now finally, the majority of sites do CPU benchmarks @ 1280x1024.

+1

On a somewhat related note, anyone remember Sharkyextreme? I always thought back when Alex (sharky) Ross owned and managed the site they did great videocard shootouts. Like all the others though, once they sold out the reviews went to shit as advertising revenue takes precedence and nobody likes to piss on their true customers of the website.

 

[scheibler1]

I'm still very much active on sharkyforums.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: scheibler1
I'm still very much active on sharkyforums.

Are their reviews worth anything these days? I'll admit I haven't checked back in years, has the quality improved?

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: scheibler1
I can't find any benchmarks shwoing different processors, dual or quad core, at mid-high resolutions b/c I game @ 1920x1200.

There are benchmarks like that all over the web. They're called video card benchmarks. If you benchmark at 1920x1200 or 2560x1600, you aren't benchmarking the CPU, you're benchmarking the video cards. That's why all CPU benchmarks are done @ a CPU-bound resolution. It hasn't been very long at all since CPU gaming benchmarks were done @ 640x480, then they moved up to 800x600, then 1024x768, and now finally, the majority of sites do CPU benchmarks @ 1280x1024.

+1

How about 1650 x 1080 Max Details 4xAA 16xAF?
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...ticle_id=647744&page=1

But it varies by the game as to wether or not you're CPU bound. Crysis doesnt do shit with a 2ghz -> 4ghz processor, except for increasing min. FPS.

Here's one where a 3.4ghz AthlonX2 averages 88 FPS and a 3.6ghz E8400 averages 133 FPS using the same graphics card at 1920 x 1200 Max details 8xAA. Therefore, it's obvious you are benching the CPU.
http://www.legionhardware.com/...eon_HD_4870_X2/UT3.png

 

[scheibler1]

sharkyextreme is terrible. Sharkyforums is awsome though

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: scheibler1
sharkyextreme is terrible. Sharkyforums is awsome though

Hyperbole FTW

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
How about 1650 x 1080 Max Details 4xAA 16xAF?
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...ticle_id=647744&page=1

1680x1050 using Max details, plus AA with a new game, is more of a video card benchmark than a CPU benchmark. I say "more of" because 1680x1050 is a quasi CPU-bound resolution-- it isn't completely CPU-bound (assuming your CPU is fast enough), but it isn't completely GPU-bound either (assuming your video card is fast enough). Like I've already said, gaming CPU benchmarks are done @ CPU-bound resolutions, using 0x AA and Medium (sometimes even Low) in-game settings. Of course, the page you linked isn't a CPU benchmark, it's an article showing how CPU-bound the 4870X2 happens to be. While the two are kissing cousins, they aren't the same thing.

 

[Tempered81]

that's actually a gtx 280

the 1920 x 1200 8xAA used a 4870x2

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
that's actually a gtx 280

the 1920 x 1200 8xAA used a 4870x2

It makes no difference to me. Everything I said in my above post applies either way.

 

[Tempered81]

Fine, no need to argue. Being Cpu bound is determined more by the game being tested, and is not solely dependent on a high res, max filters, or max quality.

 

[RussianSensation]

Overclock that GTX 260 card. You should get another 15-20% performance increase.

If that doesn't provide a performance boost, then you can start looking into a 4.3ghz E8500

 

[soccerballtux]

You should be able to push your CPU harder, probably to 3.4 @1.5V. As long as you go no higher than 74, you'll be good.
I run mine at 3.4Ghz, but if I need to I can go to 3.5.