PDA

View Full Version : Which cpu it faster for games?


Destroy
08-02-08, 05:01 PM
Everything else being equal, which overclocked cpu is better for most games today and the next 6 months? Only interested in gaming performance.

Q6600 2.4 @ 3.4GHz

or

E8500 3.16 @ 4.1GHz

Bman212121
08-02-08, 05:39 PM
At those speeds I really don't think it's going to matter which one. If you're talking about pairing them with the single 8800GTX in your sig, that card isn't going to be enough to outperform either of those configurations.

SH64
08-02-08, 05:44 PM
The E8500 since most games do not take advatage of quad-cores.

methimpikehoses
08-02-08, 05:45 PM
The E8500 since most games do not take advatage of quad-cores.

+1

mullet
08-02-08, 05:46 PM
I would go 8400 @ 3.6 24/7 and forget about it. Enjoy the power and temps.

Bman212121
08-02-08, 05:48 PM
The E8500 since most games do not take advatage of quad-cores.

+1

Looks at both of your sigs with Q6600s in them... :p

mullet
08-02-08, 05:54 PM
Well I am happy with my Quad @ 3.4 1.2 vcore.

SH64
08-02-08, 05:54 PM
Looks at both of your sigs with Q6600s in them... :p
I was after the latest tech when i got the Q6600. for example i didnt know Crysis will not take any advantage of quads back then :thumbdwn:

Bman212121
08-02-08, 06:09 PM
I just tested WiC and apparently that isn't even CPU bottlenecked too much by 2 cores. I thought it needed more than what it does, but I guess it doesn't.

dual core @ 3.15ghz(simulated)
min: 16
avg: 43
max: 96

quad core @ 3.15ghz

min: 19
avg: 45
max: 97

That's using DX9, Very High, and 16x CSAA 16x AF. Cards are stock clocked but even in this very stressful game I'm not seeing a huge difference. I'll OC the cards and drop the AA / AF, but IMO the game is already playable right now. Dropping the AA / AF should prove if there is a cpu limitation or not, but you still want to know what it runs like at real settings, not 800 x 600 low quality where it's going to be 150 fps + in either case.

SH64
08-02-08, 06:22 PM
On DX10 WiC was GPU limited for me. when i got the 280 i noticed an obvious performance improvement.
WiC DX10 (1280x1024,4xAA,16xAF) , 8800U/Q6600@2.7 : min=15 , av=35 , max=66
WiC DX10 (1280x1024,4xAA,16xAF) , GTX280/Q6600@2.7 : min=19 , av=40 , max=80

maybe because i have a quady ?

Bman212121
08-02-08, 06:31 PM
I'm actually surprised but it doesn't look like WiC takes much out of the quad at all. I thought it was more than this.

To really show that it is a CPU limit here are another pair of tests.

This time I upped the GPU from 575/1350/1800 to 620/1453/2000. Turned down the AA from 16x CSAA to 4x AA. Between those two you'd really expect to see some gains in fps if it weren't CPU limited.

Dual core:

min: 17
avg: 43
max: 101

quad core:

min: 19
avg: 46
max: 100

Not exactly anything to write home about there.

I'd like to see someone with a 4.0ghz dual core put up some numbers cause I'm going to have to say that a dual core at higher clocks would actually help in this game. (One of the games where I though the quad was going to take the lead) I know going from 2.4ghz to 3.15ghz nets some pretty good gains, but I figured you would either run out of GPU or hit the frame cap before you would still be limiting the CPU.

methimpikehoses
08-02-08, 06:34 PM
I was after the latest tech when i got the Q6600. for example i didnt know Crysis will not take any advantage of quads back then :thumbdwn:

Yep... me too.

I'm happy w/ my quad, but I would by a screamer duo core right now, if I was buying a new cpu.

Bman212121
08-02-08, 06:41 PM
My big question is what games will it really matter to have a dual core above say 3.4ghz? My line of thinking is you would obviously grab a quad core over a dual if both were at 3.4ghz, but after 3.4ghz how much more can you speed up?

Apparently I already found the answer to that question on the first try because I'm going to guess it would matter in WiC. Others like COD4, COH I already sit on the frame cap at 3.15ghz, so 4ghz wouldn't see any gains.

Destroy
08-02-08, 09:14 PM
My big question is what games will it really matter to have a dual core above say 3.4ghz? My line of thinking is you would obviously grab a quad core over a dual if both were at 3.4ghz, but after 3.4ghz how much more can you speed up?

Apparently I already found the answer to that question on the first try because I'm going to guess it would matter in WiC. Others like COD4, COH I already sit on the frame cap at 3.15ghz, so 4ghz wouldn't see any gains.


Obvious answer is of course any game that gets CPU bound....Oblivion with mods (http://rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33926571), Crysis in certain areas, WiC, Joint Task Force, I'm sure there are others (can anyone think of other games?) but they are indeed few in numbers.

CaptNKILL
08-03-08, 05:33 AM
Obvious answer is of course any game that gets CPU bound....Oblivion with mods (http://rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33926571), Crysis in certain areas, WiC, Joint Task Force, I'm sure there are others (can anyone think of other games?) but they are indeed few in numbers.

Yeah, any recent game will be pretty CPU heavy in certain areas. The more head room your CPU has, the higher your framerates will be when things get messy.

As for the OP, if you can get 3.4Ghz on a quad with decent temps (under 55C, full load) it'd be great for most games now, and in the few games that actually take advantage of quad cores, it'd be much faster than a dual.

Still, a year ago we were saying "next year quad cores will be more useful" but I don't think any games have come out in the past year that actually perform significantly better on a quad than on a dual.

At this point, we're probably more likely to see everything shift to GPU processing before a quad core becomes standard. Physics is the big thing these days and that's already going to the GPU.

So... maybe its better to stick with a high clocked dual until quads are more useful and there are better chips available. This is what I waited for last year and the time still hasn't come for me to even consider a quad.

Toss3
08-03-08, 09:20 AM
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/3

A q9450 would be the best way to go imho - all of the upcoming games have multi-core support and it's already faster than an 8500(3Ghz) at stock speeds.

Remember that the games used in the test above are already pretty old and that most newer games have been patched to take advantage of 4 cores.

Destroy
08-03-08, 10:16 AM
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/3

A q9450 would be the best way to go imho - all of the upcoming games have multi-core support and it's already faster than an 8500(3Ghz) at stock speeds.

Remember that the games used in the test above are already pretty old and that most newer games have been patched to take advantage of 4 cores.

Taken from that link..
"The Verdict

So then, the hardcore truth today is a very simple fact: you'll gain a better bang for buck in your games from a faster clocked dual-core processor opposed to having a somewhat slower clocked quad-core processor. That doesn't mean though that quad-core processors offers less value. Contrary, and I know I've been evangelizing it for over a year now, but the future is multi-core gaming, the fact is just that dual-core is the sweet spot value wise anno 2008 as 95% of the games still only use one and maybe two CPU cores."

Besides a few select engines, we have yet to see much quad core support in games. Is there a future list of up coming games in the next 6 to 12 months that will use quad cores?

$n][pErMan
08-03-08, 11:59 AM
I would not trade my Quad for anything less :) Very happy with my quad. GREAT for video encoding and more games are starting to use 4 cores... including FSX! :)

SH64
08-03-08, 12:13 PM
[pErMan;1731963']I would not trade my Quad for anything less :) Very happy with my quad. GREAT for video encoding and more games are starting to use 4 cores... including FSX! :)
FSX is now using quad cores ? numbers ? benchies ?

Bman212121
08-04-08, 12:30 PM
Yeah, any recent game will be pretty CPU heavy in certain areas. The more head room your CPU has, the higher your framerates will be when things get messy.

As for the OP, if you can get 3.4Ghz on a quad with decent temps (under 55C, full load) it'd be great for most games now, and in the few games that actually take advantage of quad cores, it'd be much faster than a dual.

Still, a year ago we were saying "next year quad cores will be more useful" but I don't think any games have come out in the past year that actually perform significantly better on a quad than on a dual.

At this point, we're probably more likely to see everything shift to GPU processing before a quad core becomes standard. Physics is the big thing these days and that's already going to the GPU.

So... maybe its better to stick with a high clocked dual until quads are more useful and there are better chips available. This is what I waited for last year and the time still hasn't come for me to even consider a quad.

You're thinking just like I am. The quad should ultimately provide an advantage, but I'm still looking for stuff where it's going to really help. Apparently WiC doesn't help as much as I thought it did.

I'm honestly going to have to agree that a ultra clocked dual would probably be the best option, but I'm still wondering how high do you need to go before the speed no longer increases performance. At 3.4ghz would a dual core even limit games where either the framecap or the GPU wouldn't bottleneck first? I'd love to play around with a few more tests but I have to find the time first.

Bman212121
08-04-08, 12:33 PM
FSX is now using quad cores ? numbers ? benchies ?

I know the SP1 patch was supposed to allow it to use up to like 16 cores, but it would be interesting to see some hard numbers to tell if it really matters.

Destroy
08-04-08, 12:44 PM
So anyone have a link to a list of games that TRULY makes proper use of 4 cores or more?