CPU Scaling with HD 4870 x2

[Heinz68]

Legion Hardware (http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=0) tested Hd 4870 x2 with 40 CPU configuration and it showed the faster the CPU the faster is the 4870 x2.
The Core 2 Quad outperformed the Core 2 Duo in every test. Company of Heroes was about 100% faster with Intel Quad. Devil May Cry was the most GPU-dependent.
The AMD X4 Phenoms performed much worse than I expected.

Here part of the Conclusion.
There were certainly a number of interesting results recorded when testing such a large range of processors with the Radeon HD 4870 X2. Perhaps the most interesting thing that we have noticed is how much faster the Core 2 Quad processors were when compared to the Core 2 Duo’s, this is not something that we have really seen before. This was really evident in Company of Heroes, where the Intel quad-core processors were roughly 100% faster than their dual-core parts.

Although it was not all that surprising to see just how much the Athlon64 X2 architecture has aged since we last looked at it, we were still somewhat shocked at how slow the 3.46GHz 6400+ processor was. Obviously we do not expect that AMD Athlon64 X2 owners are going to race out and purchase a Radeon HD 4870 X2, but we still felt that including this processor series would be useful. Those still using an Athlon64 X2 should seriously consider upgrading their platform, even if they only plan to purchase a single current generation AMD or Nvidia graphics card.

Given that all tests were conducted at 1920x1200 with 8xAA/16xAF enabled, the results were impressive, and while the Phenom X4 processors did deliver acceptable performance, processors such as the Core 2 Quad Q9650 proved that the Radeon HD 4870 X2 still has much more potential just waiting to be unleashed.I hope my soon coming Nehalem will unleash it. :)

[LordJuanlo]

Very interesting numbers, glad I swapped my C2D with this C2Q a year ago

[Vanzagar]

what no crysis? ... meh...

[Tr1cK]

what no crysis? ... meh...

Thank god. I'm so sick of hearing about that game.

[mullet]

Thank god. I'm so sick of hearing about that game.

+1million

[Tr1cK]

+1million

People act as if it's the tech demo from the future. It's not.

[Heinz68]

what no crysis? ... meh...
If you did read at least the beginning of the review you would know why.

Since I'm a nice guy I make it easy for you.
Now because this is primarily a CPU scaling article, we have selected benchmarks that do work well with Crossfire technology. There would have been little point in trying to work out what kind of processor gamers are going to require in order to power something like the Radeon HD 4870 X2 at full speed if only one GPU is working. Therefore the list of games includes Company of Heroes, Devil May Cry 4, Enemy Territory Quake Wars, Supreme Commander, and Unreal Tournament 3.

[Blkout]

Very interesting numbers, glad I swapped my C2D with this C2Q a year ago

Only Company of Heroes showed any real gain, all other games were within a few frames of each other. What the article doesn't take into account is that many people with dual core CPU's are able to overclock much higher than quad core CPU's which means that with the exception of CoH, dual cores are going to be faster in every other game.

It's a cute article, but really means nothing in reality other than quad cores are made for CoH, but this was known even before the 4870x2.

[KasuCode]

Ive known this from owning 3870x2s. My gpu score would go up in 3dmark06 and vantage when I overclocked my cpu. 4870x2s are the same way but like even more cpu. All I can give mine is 4.2ghz for now.

[J-Mag]

I thought it was odd that the games most heavily optimized for more than two cores (UT and SupCom) showed the least improvement.

[Viral]

Unfortunately for AMD, Vista SP1 has the TLB patch erroneously applied to all phenoms, not just the ones that actually have the TLB errata (pre B3). This decreases performance dramatically (10-40%). The TLB issue wasn't even a problem for any normal user and as such no phenom gaming system should have the patch applied... too bad MS did this, it's the last thing AMD needed. Hopefully it's not applied to the 45nm Deneb.

That aside, I'd better start saving for a quad core.....

[DHP]

Why did they not test an GTX280/260 SLi setup as well?? Too bad. Would have been interesting too imho. :o


I hope my soon coming Nehalem will unleash it. :)

Nehalem not better for gaming?:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2434

http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=480

http://www.zimbio.com/Laptop+Reviews/articles/5543/Intel+Nehalem+Not+built+gaming

[Viral]

I can't see Nehalem being great for overclocking either, with the memory controller voltage fixed to core voltage. Not to mention the fact that the memory controller is said to only support DDR3 800 and 1066. What's the point in that? DDR3 is useless unless clocked high as the latency is far too high. At 1600MHz of course it only needs 8,8,8 timings to equal DDR2 800 4,4,4. Why have a DDR3 memory controller at all if it can only sustain DDR2 speeds...

[Blkout]

Unfortunately for AMD, Vista SP1 has the TLB patch erroneously applied to all phenoms, not just the ones that actually have the TLB errata (pre B3). This decreases performance dramatically (10-40%). The TLB issue wasn't even a problem for any normal user and as such no phenom gaming system should have the patch applied... too bad MS did this, it's the last thing AMD needed. Hopefully it's not applied to the 45nm Deneb.

That aside, I'd better start saving for a quad core.....


Well, if you're simply out to upgrade, a quad core is something to think about but dual cores are always going to overclock higher and therefore be faster in almost every game except CoH.

[Viral]

Well, if you're simply out to upgrade, a quad core is something to think about but dual cores are always going to overclock higher and therefore be faster in almost every game except CoH.

Yes I'll see what I can get out of this E6600 OC wise, I can't see it going much over 3.2 though. It's a weird situation, but someone I work with bought an E8400 for their old P4 rig :o

I offered to sell them my entire rig cheapish minus the E6600 mainly cause I need a new case/PSU anyway and am not 100% happy with the mobo and monitor. So my old E660 is getting an all new home. Now it had just better clock higher so I can make use of that 4870X2!

[Xion X2]

a quad core is something to think about but dual cores are always going to overclock higher and therefore be faster in almost every game except CoH.

Actually, it depends on the chip, and it's not as big a difference as you're making it out to be.

I have a quad on air at 4.0GHz, for example..

[Wolken007]

Viral, you should be able to squeeze more out of that E6600. I have one that I run at 3.51ghz, and it wasn't hard to get it there either.

[Viral]

We'll I've got a Thermalright 120 extreme on the way and will setup two fans for a push pull setup if need be. So cooling won't be a problem, it all depends on the chip itself (bought it about a year ago) and my new motherboard - Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS4P.

*Crosses fingers*

Hmph, just realised I had the wrong mobo in my sig.. no I'm not downgrading from an X38, I have a P35. Fixed.

[walterman]

Viral, you should be able to squeeze more out of that E6600. I have one that I run at 3.51ghz, and it wasn't hard to get it there either.

What about the FSBT Voltage ? I fear to raise it, cause i heard that it can kill the CPU really fast.

[Blkout]

Actually, it depends on the chip, and it's not as big a difference as you're making it out to be.

I have a quad on air at 4.0GHz, for example..

Quads at 4GHz+ aren't exactly common unless it's a 45nm. And you're right it's not a big difference over a quad and I never said it was, I just said it was faster, but some people after reading this article seem to think that a quad is big difference over a dual. Until more games scale like CoH, color me not too impressed with quad cores. The fact remains that higher overlocked duals will always be slightly faster in the majority of games, even if it's only slightly and they cost about 1/2 of a quad that will get near 4GHz. I just can't see the logic in buying a quad unless you're a CoH fanatic.

Who am I to tell someone else how to spend THEIR money though? ;)

[Blkout]

Viral, you should be able to squeeze more out of that E6600. I have one that I run at 3.51ghz, and it wasn't hard to get it there either.

My E6600 would do 3.6GHz on water cooling, but it did take quite a bit of voltage to get there. However, it ran fine at that speed for over a year without a hiccup before I gave the CPU to my brother and it's been fine in his PC for the last 6 months at 3.4GHz on air cooling.

[Xion X2]

Quads at 4GHz+ aren't exactly common unless it's a 45nm.

Neither are duals. ;)

And you're right it's not a big difference over a quad and I never said it was

Actually, you did:

What the article doesn't take into account is that many people with dual core CPU's are able to overclock much higher than quad core CPU's

And again I'll emphasize that it depends on the chip. A 45nm quad will overclock almost as well as a 45nm dual as long as there's someone at the controls who knows what they're doing. And a 65nm quad will scale only slightly less than a 65nm dual.

It depends on the chip, really.. not just the # of cores.

The fact remains that higher overlocked duals will always be slightly faster in the majority of games

That may be true, but you're much more likely to tell the difference between the two on a game that scales with a quad vs. a game that scales only with a dual.

For example, you'd be hard-pressed to notice a 200-400MHz difference in speed on a game that scales only for dual-core, but the difference in performance is obvious as day on games like Lost Planet and CoH that scale across 4 cores because it often doubles the framerate on the quad-equipped rig.

[Blkout]

Neither are duals. ;)

Sure they are, almost every 45nm dual core will hit 4.0-4.2GHz without a problem and the newer E0 cores are going as high as 4.5-4.6GHz.



Actually, you did:

And again I'll emphasize that it depends on the chip. A 45nm quad will overclock almost as well as a 45nm dual as long as there's someone at the controls who knows what they're doing. And a 65nm quad will scale only slightly less than a 65nm dual.

It depends on the chip, really.. not just the # of cores.

I meant the difference in performance between a dual and quad, not overclocking ability which actually is quite different. And yes the number of cores has a signifcant impact as a quad draws more power, generates more heat, and causes more stress on a motherboard. There's a reason why almost every dual core overclocks higher on average than a quad core, it's not just the individual chip.



That may be true, but you're much more likely to tell the difference between the two on a game that scales with a quad vs. a game that scales only with a dual.

For example, you'd be hard-pressed to notice a 200-400MHz difference in speed on a game that scales only for dual-core, but the difference in performance is obvious as day on games like Lost Planet and CoH that scale across 4 cores because it often doubles the framerate on the quad-equipped rig.


Well, if one or two games is all that takes advantage of a quad core, I'm just fine with my 4.2GHz dual core which is still faster in the dozens of other games on the market and it draws less power, generates less heat, and causes less stress on the motherboard. Win-win for dual core.

[Xion X2]

Sure they are, almost every 45nm dual core will hit 4.0-4.2GHz without a problem and the newer E0 cores are going as high as 4.5-4.6GHz.

You misinterpreted my statement. I never said that 45nm duals weren't common on 45nm.

You had said--

Quads at 4GHz+ aren't exactly common unless it's a 45nm.

And my response was "neither are duals," meaning that dualies weren't common at 4GHz+ either unless they were on 45nm. I've seen a few 65nm over 4GHz but usually only if they were on watercooling.

You have to look at the process size and chip model. Speaking from experience, sometimes duals will not overclock even as well as quads. On my last rig, I owned an E6600 that I put on water. The highest I could ever get it was 3.6GHz. I replaced it with a Xeon 3220 (two E6600s under one IHS) on the same watercoooling setup and was able to get it to 3.8GHz Prime stable. Both CPUs out of the box were at 2.4GHz, but the quad OC'd better on the same platform.

And 45nm tells a similar story. The highest I could get my Wolfdale E3100 dualie before this quad I have now, on air, was 4.2GHz. Now I have this quad at 4.0GHz.

There just isn't the difference in speed or performance there that you're claiming. It's bogus. If you take one quad and one dual on the same process and same model chip, they're going to be very close.

The rest of your argument I don't follow, because you seem to be contradicting yourself. You say one moment, that--

many people with dual core CPU's are able to overclock much higher than quad core CPU's

.. and then you come back and say--

I meant the difference in performance between a dual and quad, not overclocking ability which actually is quite different.

So I'm having difficulty following you here. Even if you were talking about performance, what are you referencing? Power draw?

Well yeah, it draws more power.. just as a 4870X2 draws more power than a 4870. :lol:

That's probably a factor for some guys, albeit it minimal on an enthusiasts forum where most of us (including yourself) own high-end GPUs (and some of us 2, 3, or 4 of 'em.)

I'm just fine with my 4.2GHz dual core which is still faster in the dozens of other games on the market

And again, that's where you're wrong. It's not faster. Not on the same process and factory clockspeed, and not when overclocking. The quad scales a little higher in performance on most games, clock for clock, and will overclock just slightly less than a dual will as long as you're taking two equivalent chips that are on the same process. Just look at the Devil May Cry benchmarks again in that article linked above. That's not really a game that is very A.I.-intensive (just a button-masher) yet it scales 263fps on the quad vs. 258 on the dual at the same clockspeeds. By the time you OC the dual 200-400MHz faster, you may see them balance each other out.

Then again, this is nitpicking to hell and back. None of us are likely to see those frames anyway since those of us with high-end hardware tend to crank up the AA and everything else for a pretty picture. I'm only speaking up here because I believe your arguments about a quad being a drawback are bogus on every front except money and power. Money is obviously not an issue for some (including myself, since a quad can be had relatively cheap) and neither is power for most of the guys around here who own high-end GPUs (or 2, or 3, or 4 of 'em) that suck power at the same rate as your average Hoover sucks down carpet dust.

Just saying.

[abtomat74]

It would have been nice to see Crysis as well, maybe they did and found some oddities with the results?