CPU scaling with GeForce 295 GTX

[MUYA]

Originally Posted by methimpikehoses

Sell your body.

That's not a sacrifice I am willing to make....or others willing to make on me! bwahahahaha!

[Bman212121]

Originally Posted by ikjadoon

I mean, the guy is reputable; he actually built the rig in my sig (and plenty more). Last clocks I saw, he was selling the E8600 @ 4.2GHz on air, backed with a warranty. The quote was from the CTO, Mario Cifaldi. I usually take his word on computer stuff, lol.

Let me see if I can find a bench...

It sounds like that quote might be out of context, or they are implying something with the quotes around "fits". The exe is 4.45MB on my pc, but I'll assume the v1.0 exe was 4.2MB. It doesn't make sense to load the entire exe into cache. There are thousands of lines of code that might never be used while playing the game. You have to have code that sets keybinds, player name, changes all of the graphic settings, code to handle the server browser, connect to a server, download updates, etc. All of that would just be wasting space that needs to be used by other things. There are 26 dll files in the Crysis folder that all have libraries that the code needs to pull from. These allow the program to run lots of other functions that aren't in the exe. They add up to 27MB.

In a nut shell, a dynamic link library (DLL) is a collection of small programs, which can be called upon when needed by the executable program (EXE) that is running. The DLL lets the executable communicate with a specific device such as a printer or may contain source code to do particular functions.

http://www.easydesksoftware.com/dll.htm

On top of that there is going to need to be some room in that cache for D3D, nvidia driver code, and the Windows kernel.

If I way into what he said maybe he meant something like the core functionality from the exe was a little too big to fit into l2 cache, but that's definitely not what it says if you read it at face value.

[Bman212121]

Originally Posted by MUYA

If you read the report, i7 does benefit the 295...how much is relative to what you can justify for yourself as a purchase. Certainly in some situations, an overclock in quadcores seems to boost average fps. As you mentioned, min fps has been overlooked but, still average fps is still indicative as a form of measurement...not fool proof but still.

I hear your point about all the other intricacies of benching/gaming but, coming from a q6600@3Ghz and finding 400mhz more could benefit you (as I mentioned onionmarks). More specifically, for SLI reliant situations in which the 295 is an example, I would think (if you have cash/credit to burn for a 295...) you could probably consider such things. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

I intend to bench crysis warhead and far cry2.

I play AoC a lot and will try to bench it with Fraps...but benching consistently in AoC is a problem. You probably have rely on feel, perception more than anything else and that is always subjective

I understand what you're saying. No doubt whenever you increase the processor speed the potential for better performance is there, even if it is a GPU bound application. It depends upon the angle you are looking at. The 3 games you listed that you are going to play might all benefit from it, where the upgrade for me I'm looking at performance across the board. What I consider cost effective is more than likely different from what you might. When there is a 10% gain I don't consider that a large boost in performance. It needs to be more like a 25% gain if I were to consider replacing the processor. For the price of that CPU, it wouldn't be considered cost effective for me.

[ikjadoon]

Originally Posted by Bman212121

It sounds like that quote might be out of context, or they are implying something with the quotes around "fits". The exe is 4.45MB on my pc, but I'll assume the v1.0 exe was 4.2MB. It doesn't make sense to load the entire exe into cache. There are thousands of lines of code that might never be used while playing the game. You have to have code that sets keybinds, player name, changes all of the graphic settings, code to handle the server browser, connect to a server, download updates, etc. All of that would just be wasting space that needs to be used by other things. There are 26 dll files in the Crysis folder that all have libraries that the code needs to pull from. These allow the program to run lots of other functions that aren't in the exe. They add up to 27MB.


http://www.easydesksoftware.com/dll.htm

On top of that there is going to need to be some room in that cache for D3D, nvidia driver code, and the Windows kernel.

If I way into what he said maybe he meant something like the core functionality from the exe was a little too big to fit into l2 cache, but that's definitely not what it says if you read it at face value.

You're right; I didn't even notice those quotes and I'm the one who posted it, lol!

I think you might have to read between the lines here, like you said. I feel like there would also have to be some files from Windows in that cache, etc. Here is the full thread, if you're wondering. This was, however,just one isolated incidence.

Thanks for the research and I actually get it...

~Ibrahim~

[MUYA]

Originally Posted by Bman212121

When there is a 10% gain I don't consider that a large boost in performance. It needs to be more like a 25% gain if I were to consider replacing the processor. For the price of that CPU, it wouldn't be considered cost effective for me.

hahaha 10% in crysis is like 3fps...feel my pain! 30 fps to 33 fps, I think I got a that much in boost in average fps in crysis warhead with a 400 mhz overclock!!! This is at 1920 res / 4X AA / Dx9 / with all settings maxed to "enthusiasts" except shadows..which is set to gamer.


But that's better than early teens fps with my GTX at the same setting

[JohnDio]

I totally agree with that Review/Scalling comparisson. Indeed my E6600 is holding me back at Far Cry 2, although it runs smooth at the res. that i'm playing it

[Bman212121]

Originally Posted by MUYA

hahaha 10% in crysis is like 3fps...feel my pain! 30 fps to 33 fps, I think I got a that much in boost in average fps in crysis warhead with a 400 mhz overclock!!! This is at 1920 res / 4X AA / Dx9 / with all settings maxed to "enthusiasts" except shadows..which is set to gamer.


But that's better than early teens fps with my GTX at the same setting

Yea I hear ya! I was looking into the Q9650 a little more, and one thing that I would definitely suggest trying if you decided to go for one would be to see how high your FSB on your board goes. This 780i doesn't seem happy at 1600+ for me, but I've seen other people run them at as much as 1800+. Since the multiplier is the same for the 9650 and the q6600 (9x), in order to go higher than where you are now it's all up to the board. To hit 4ghz you'd need almost 450fsb or 1800mhz effective. it might only do 400 - 425fsb before you hit a wall, then you're going to be stuck around 3.6 - 3.8ghz.

[Bee_Dee_3_Dee]

Originally Posted by MUYA

The article;

Might plonk in some dollars in a q9650 and o/c that to 4GHz or more?

OC a Wolfdale E8400 or better yet an E8600 (They cost $100 more but OC much easier to 4.1GHz and higher.).

Wolfdale E8400 $164.99:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115037

Wolfdale E8600 $269.99:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115054

QX9650 Yorkfield $1,029.99:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115034

Screw getting (or get screwed) a 9650 for $1,029.99. And stick with the most road tested platform ever. The LGA775!

Look what money you can save OCing: (Identical Systems with OCed Wolfdales versus stock 9650s)





And there are six pages of just OCing Benchmarks for Wolfdales.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...s,1777-13.html

[JohnDio]

My main issue with Wolfdale is that i'll have to buy new RAM, so overall it will cost me around 250-300 euros. As i'm not experiencing major limitations with my Conroe (and i don't know if my N680i SLI fully supports the E8400) i'll just pass for the time being