• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

X3 720 @ 3.8Ghz Vs C2D E8500 @ 4.7Ghz

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I think I just had a bad luck of draw, nothing unusual for me 🙁
1.520vcore, 2500ish NB @1.4v, 667 limit on the ram on a 790gx mobo (biostar)
lowering the NB clock didn't seem to improve stability at higher cpu speeds.

but again, no worries. its just a mental thing, I am totally video card limited with my hd4830 anyway.
 
can someone please explain to me why people expect faster CPUs to make games faster when the limiting factor is shading power? an RTS with a billion units is one thing, but if you're playing a shooter at 1080p with high filters, how on earth does the CPU get the blame?
 
Originally posted by: alyarb
can someone please explain to me why people expect faster CPUs to make games faster when the limiting factor is shading power? an RTS with a billion units is one thing, but if you're playing a shooter at 1080p with high filters, how on earth does the CPU get the blame?
Click to expand...

Depends on the shooter. If you are playing a corridor shooter, you are more likely GPU bound. If you are playing a sandbox shooter, then you are CPU bound, because these games are closer to what an RTS is--bigger maps, more models, more points of interaction. Of course in this case, it would be more like Hard Drive -> CPU -> GPU.

Sort of like comparing Crysis vs Bioshock. There's almost linear scaling of GPUs in Bioshock, whereas in Crysis, its nearly linear scaling of CPU (according to PCGHs benchmarks, Crysis scales linearly on Core2 arch from 2.4GHz to 4GHz--from 6fps to 12fps).
 
what you say disagrees completely with data i've seen in benchmarks. show me a high resolution, high quality crysis benchmark that shows improvement (>2 FPS) from low frequency K8 to high frequency Penryn.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...quad-core-processors/9

you cannot demonstrate GPU boundedness by benching at 1024x768. who cares if a CPU is faster at resolutions that are not used? at enjoyable, practical resolutions, we are shader limited.

and uh, when was the last time a hard disk was paged during a direct3d session? most people have enough RAM to store the whole game.
 
Originally posted by: alyarb
what you say disagrees completely with data i've seen in benchmarks. show me a high resolution, high quality crysis benchmark that shows improvement (>2 FPS) from low frequency K8 to high frequency Penryn.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...quad-core-processors/9

you cannot demonstrate GPU boundedness by benching at 1024x768. who cares if a CPU is faster at resolutions that are not used? at enjoyable, practical resolutions, we are shader limited.

and uh, when was the last time a hard disk was paged during a direct3d session? most people have enough RAM to store the whole game.
Click to expand...


This is more or less linear scaling. Slideshow vs somewhat bearable when all hell breaks loose. Average framerates are nice, and sure thats GPU bound, but you stop exploring and enjoying the view once in an while in a shooter and actually get into a gun fight. This is when CPU is critical.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...4&page=1&show=original

and uh, when was the last time a hard disk was paged during a direct3d session? most people have enough RAM to store the whole game.
Click to expand...

Paging (in the form of disc writes) occurs all the time at a frenetic pace--it's a part of Windows. As far as disc reads--in a corridor shooter you can pre-load most of the level before the level starts, but in a sandbox game where you've got the entire gameworld accessible its not practical. Now you may have $10,000 to spare for 48GB of RAM, but most people don't. Just saying.

Also, while loading a level is an unfortunate sacrifice that has to be made for games, pre-loading an entire game world would take an hour. Not too keen on waiting that long for my game to start--assuming I had that much RAM to start with.
 
so, for your minimum FPS data, you actually see better than linear scaling going from 2.0 to 4.0 GHz. what if they went from one GPU to two? would the minimum change for a given CPU freq?


and, why does everyone harp on hardocp's data? their graphs show FPS versus time and you can see all the minima.
 
So now that you changed to the SSD, what are your thoughts on the PII? Would you rather have a PII and an SSD or you I7 and a magnetic drive?
 
Originally posted by: alyarb
can someone please explain to me why people expect faster CPUs to make games faster when the limiting factor is shading power? an RTS with a billion units is one thing, but if you're playing a shooter at 1080p with high filters, how on earth does the CPU get the blame?
Click to expand...

didnt you know 4ghz + gives you power lvl of over 9000??

sorry i had to say it. :X
 
Originally posted by: baddog60
So now that you changed to the SSD, what are your thoughts on the PII? Would you rather have a PII and an SSD or you I7 and a magnetic drive?
Click to expand...

I've been alittle hard on the P2 in the past but it is a very SOLID bang for your buck processor.

Originally posted by: Hacp
Can I have your E8500?
Click to expand...

It was just your run of the mill E8500 with some good watercooling. I couldn't get it stable at 4.9Ghz. Most i could get stable was 4.85
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top