Q6600 and BF3?

I have a Q6600 at 3.4 ghz and a 6970... my 6970 is pegged at 99% usage in bf3 and I get really good fps with most settings on ultra, 2x AA and MSAA or whatever off.

I think Q6600 is plenty of cpu for bf3 if overclocked... it's made me hold off on a sandy bridge i5 upgrade and i'm definately going to keep this system intact until ivy bridge on socket 2011 ships.
 
bezant said:
W7 32-bit can see only 4GB memory (including video card and other memory), you have at least 5GB... So, you should upgrade your OS
Click to expand...

There is a patch for Windows 7 32-bit that allows it to see more than 4gb, from what I've read. It's worth a Google search. If true, then no need to upgrade to 64-bit for him just for that feature.
 
isiTrue said:
There is a patch for Windows 7 32-bit that allows it to see more than 4gb, from what I've read. It's worth a Google search. If true, then no need to upgrade to 64-bit for him just for that feature.
Click to expand...

patch?

you can go in an change your uversa to 2500 for it to see 2.5gb

bcdedit /set increaseuserva 2500
 
isiTrue said:
There is a patch for Windows 7 32-bit that allows it to see more than 4gb, from what I've read. It's worth a Google search. If true, then no need to upgrade to 64-bit for him just for that feature.
Click to expand...
it allows it to see the full amount of installed ram but you cannot utilize any more of it then before that patch.
 
jbean7457 said:
I have a Q6600 at 3.4 ghz and a 6970... my 6970 is pegged at 99% usage in bf3 and I get really good fps with most settings on ultra, 2x AA and MSAA or whatever off.

I think Q6600 is plenty of cpu for bf3 if overclocked... it's made me hold off on a sandy bridge i5 upgrade and i'm definately going to keep this system intact until ivy bridge on socket 2011 ships.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's plenty, I think it's just enough to get by with playable performance. Your example just means you have your settings cranked to the point that you're GPU limited. That doesn't translate to the Q6600 having plenty of CPU.

That said, it is good enough for me to hold out until Ivy, that's not to say I dont find myself really wanting more CPU power for the game.
 
RamonGTP said:
I don't think it's plenty, I think it's just enough to get by with playable performance. Your example just means you have your settings cranked to the point that you're GPU limited. That doesn't translate to the Q6600 having plenty of CPU.

That said, it is good enough for me to hold out until Ivy, that's not to say I dont find myself really wanting more CPU power for the game.
Click to expand...
stop exaggerating. how could the overclcoked Q6600 not be enough?


even just 2 cores of an i7 is not cpu limited at just 1680. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-13.html


again here at 1680, it takes a ho hum dual core before the game even drops down at all. even then the modest Athlon 2 X2 is only a few fps behind the big boys. http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html
 
cannondale06 said:
stop exaggerating. how could the overclcoked Q6600 not be enough?


even just 2 cores of an i7 is not cpu limited at just 1680. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-13.html


again here at 1680, it takes a ho hum dual core before the game even drops down at all. even then the modest Athlon 2 X2 is only a few fps behind the big boys. http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html
Click to expand...

Exactly what part of my post is an exaggeration? The part where I said "it's good enough" (it is) or the part where I said "I don't think its plenty" (I don't) neither statement screams exaggeration, if anything is an exaggeration its your interpretation. I have an issue with minimum FPS, which your links don't publish.

You can't win this debate because you're trying to argue with my personal opinion on what is and what is not "plenty". If you're content with minimum FPS dropping below 30, then a Q6600 is plenty for you. I'm only content with that for the time it takes to get my hands on Ivy.
 
RamonGTP said:
Exactly what part of my post is an exaggeration? The part where I said "it's good enough" (it is) or the part where I said "I don't think its plenty" (I don't) neither statement screams exaggeration, if anything is an exaggeration its your interpretation. I have an issue with minimum FPS, which your links don't publish.

You can't win this debate because you're trying to argue with my personal opinion on what is and what is not "plenty". If you're content with minimum FPS dropping below 30, then a Q6600 is plenty for you. I'm only content with that for the time it takes to get my hands on Ivy.
Click to expand...
well any person can deduce that if much slower cpus are gpu limited even at 1680 then of course an overclocked Q6600 would be providing the same playable framerate as the better cpus which are dead even. the proof is right in front of you but you want to act like somehow an overclocked Q6600 must be tanking on minimums? jeez they even show you the game is playable on cpus that would only be half as fast as an overclocked Q6600.
 
cannondale06 said:
well any person can deduce that if much slower cpus are gpu limited even at 1680 then of course an overclocked Q6600 would be providing the same playable framerate as the better cpus which are dead even. the proof is right in front of you but you want to act like somehow an overclocked Q6600 must be tanking on minimums? jeez they even show you the game is playable on cpus that would only be half as fast as an overclocked Q6600.
Click to expand...

And I'm the one exagurating? lol. I clearly said it was playable but when I hit my minimum fps, its very noticable and kills the fluidity and seemlessness of the game.

and "they" very clearly don't show minumum FPS which is what I have issues with, yet you're still trying to impose your will on something you have no clue about.

actually nvm. The game plays great. Now please, stfu.
 
RamonGTP said:
And I'm the one exagurating? lol. I clearly said it was playable but when I hit my minimum fps, its very noticable and kills the fluidity and seemlessness of the game.

and "they" very clearly don't show minumum FPS which is what I have issues with, yet you're still trying to impose your will on something you have no clue about.

actually nvm. The game plays great. Now please, stfu.
Click to expand...
sounds like the problem is your card NOT your cpu.
 
I'm quite capable of determining where my bottleneck is, but thanks anyway.
 
yeah your video card is kinda slow ,

If you want to keep that Q6600 at 3.4 pickup a GTX 570 until ivy comes out.
I have a Q9550 at 3.61 with a GTX 570 and i get a full 60 FPS now in battle field bad company.. i dont care about BF3. That game needs to be optimized and the video card drivers need to mature a bit more. anyway. I am sure we will see a series of patches the next 6 months. So my point is if i can run BFBC at 60 FPS max settings 1920x1200, i do not think i will have any issues running 99 percent of the games out there until ivy is released.
I would upgrade sooner if i had a top of the line video card though. I think 60FPS is all i need i dont need 120hz. I am going to milk this Q9550 until games really show a big time cpu bottleneck. Still running strong about 36 months.
 
UnrealCpu said:
yeah your video card is kinda slow ,

If you want to keep that Q6600 at 3.4 pickup a GTX 570 until ivy comes out.
I have a Q9550 at 3.61 with a GTX 570 and i get a full 60 FPS now in battle field bad company.. i dont care about BF3. That game needs to be optimized and the video card drivers need to mature a bit more. anyway. I am sure we will see a series of patches the next 6 months. So my point is if i can run BFBC at 60 FPS max settings 1920x1200, i do not think i will have any issues running 99 percent of the games out there until ivy is released.
I would upgrade sooner if i had a top of the line video card though. I think 60FPS is all i need i dont need 120hz. I am going to milk this Q9550 until games really show a big time cpu bottleneck. Still running strong about 36 months.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure who you're refferring to since the only person I recall having a Q6600 at 3.4GHz has a 6970 which is every bit as fast as a 570 and the OP is running at 3.3GHz and I'm running at 3.2GHz... If you're replying to me, here's my rebuttal.

It's not the card. I'll say it again for the third time. I'm talking about minimum FPS, this is almost always a CPU bottleneck, not a GPU one. Not to mention, a 570 will only net a few fps ore than a 5870 Not even enough to be worth the effort of reinstalling video drivers especially considering minimum fps will change by about 0 fps.


Not to mention, I've monitored my in-game GPU usage and it averages in the mid 80's. The only time it gets to 99% usage is at the end of the round when I'm looking at the score board. You know why? Because at that point the CPU isn't doing shit and is finally able to saturate the GPU. Wanna know what that means? It means that during the actual game, there's a CPU limitation.
 
Smooth enough for my sigrig to finish the sp campaign. Mp..you will need to upgrade to have settings high or above.
 
http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html

This review would seem to indicate that you will be fine with a Q6600 clocked 3.3GHz or somewhere abouts. Minimum FPS really doesn't drop off until you get to the Dual-Core processors.

While it doesn't specifically mention the Q6600, consider this:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-a6-3650-apu-processor-review/15

The A6-3650 scores a little over 9000 in the 3DMark Vantage CPU test. My Q6600 scored a little over 11000 in the same test today, clocked at 3.20GHz. The Techspot CPU Scaling review indicates that an A6-3650 is only a few FPS slower than an i7-2600K. So, the Q6600 should be fine.

Frankly, every review on the performance of BF3 that I've read so far is saying the same thing. This game doesn't care what CPU you have, so long as it's a Quad-Core clocked @ or above 3.00GHz. Read the reviews, figure out what card you need to play at the resolution/quality you want, profit.''

- Nim
 
yeah the 2.6 3650 A6 is showing a minimum of 62fps and a Q6600 oced to 3.2 should easily be as fast or faster.
 
Then again you can OC a 3650 A6 to 4 GHz. ;)
CPU Score = 5678

I only get 5000 with my unlocked X4 @ 3.875Ghz those Llanos are nice chips.

630867.jpg
 
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 video card 3DMark06 benchmark test score
Name

Description

Processor
Processor
Intel Core 2 Quad Processor Q9550
Processor clock3612 MHz
Physical / logical processors1 / 4
# of cores4
Graphics Card
Graphics Card
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570
VendorMicro-Star International Co ., Ltd.
# of cards1
SLI / CrossFire Off
Memory1280 MB
Core clock786 MHz
Memory clock2100 MHz
Driver name
Driver version8.17.12.8562
Driver statusNot FM Approved
General
Operating system64-bit Windows 7 (6.1.7601)
MotherboardASUSTeK Computer INC. P5Q PRO TURBO
Memory8192 MB
Module 1
2048 MB G.Skill 7 @ 400 MHz
Module 2
2048 MB G.Skill 7 @ 400 MHz
Module 3
2048 MB G.Skill 7 @ 400 MHz
Module 4
2048 MB G.Skill 7 @ 400 MHz
Hard drive model1,000GB WDC WD1002FAEX-00Z3A0 ATA Device


Detailed scores

3DMark Score14831 3DMarks

SM2.0 Score6115

HDR/SM3.0 Score5993

CPU Score5327




GT1 - Return To Proxycon47.02 FPS
GT2 - Firefly Forest54.9 FPS
CPU1 - Red Valley1.76 FPS
CPU2 - Red Valley2.58 FPS
HDR1 - Canyon Flight59.83 FPS
HDR2 - Deep Freeze60.02 FPS
Settings
Default settings used Yes
Width1280
Height1024
Anti-AliasingNone
Texture FilteringOptimal
VS Profile3_0
PS Profile3_0



Not bad for a computer i bought 3 years ago lol
 
Most with the q series have been with them for as long if not longer, and they still do everything decently. The only thing I would like to see is if MW3 and skyrim will choke my system up past unplayability. Then it's time to upgrade.
 
sonicboom said:
Most with the q series have been with them for as long if not longer, and they still do everything decently. The only thing I would like to see is if MW3 and skyrim will choke my system up past unplayability. Then it's time to upgrade.
Click to expand...

i am sure it will... But who really wants to play a console port on a pc. I dont play on buying that game till the price drops 15-20 bucks.. be about 5-6 months.

I can play any game at a smooth 60fps on 4x fsaa . I havent played bf3 so i am sure that would be a different story.. i have the itch to upgrade and think when i do it i will definitely go with another GTX 570
 
UnrealCpu said:
i am sure it will... But who really wants to play a console port on a pc. I dont play on buying that game till the price drops 15-20 bucks.. be about 5-6 months.

I can play any game at a smooth 60fps on 4x fsaa . I havent played bf3 so i am sure that would be a different story.. i have the itch to upgrade and think when i do it i will definitely go with another GTX 570
Click to expand...

I hope you're not referring to COD because there hasn't been a COD game that makes a Q6600 choke yet and I doubt MW3 will. In all likelihood, it will have slightly higher requirements than MW2 and perform way better than Black Ops. Also, when was the last time a MW game dropped to 15-20 bucks in 5-6 months? Or even a year? Answer is never.
 
RamonGTP said:
I hope you're not referring to COD because there hasn't been a COD game that makes a Q6600 choke yet and I doubt MW3 will. In all likelihood, it will have slightly higher requirements than MW2 and perform way better than Black Ops. Also, when was the last time a MW game dropped to 15-20 bucks in 5-6 months? Or even a year? Answer is never.
Click to expand...

im sure steam will put it on sale for 19.99 in 6 months.. no i am not talking about COD, talking about BF3
and yes i agree any new game coming out in 2012 will need more cpu power..
 
Truth is that the Q6600 has 8MB L2 cache that helps it a lot with gaming. If it had less it wouldn't be the powerhouse it still is.
 
HydroBudz said:
Truth is that the Q6600 has 8MB L2 cache that helps it a lot with gaming. If it had less it wouldn't be the powerhouse it still is.
Click to expand...

Q9550 has 12mb cache that is why i bought it .. almost 3 years ago. I think i paid like 320 bucks
 
Just want to throw my setup in. I've had no problem running BF3, ultra settings, at 1680x1050. My QX6850 keeps my overclocked GTX 470 the limiting factor.
 
Last edited:
i noticed i do have a bottleneck with boarderlands

i run it at 1920x1200 max settings .. Anything over 4x fsaa i get dips.. means i am at 60 fps most of the time but sometimes it can did 45-50 fps from 60fps.. At 4x fsaa max settings i get no dips , same with battlefield bad company .. I am sure i could run BF3 at 2xfssa just fine with max settings or with no fsaa. but out of my 400 games i have on steam 99 percent of them run fine and alot of those games were released recently, i am sure if i ran higher res or more fsaa i would have issues.. All my valve games i run at 16x fsaa max settings no issues.. so until they release some more games like BF3 i am not upgrading.. I can wait till march-april.
 
UnrealCpu said:
i noticed i do have a bottleneck with boarderlands

i run it at 1920x1200 max settings .. Anything over 4x fsaa i get dips.. means i am at 60 fps most of the time but sometimes it can did 45-50 fps from 60fps.. At 4x fsaa max settings i get no dips , same with battlefield bad company .. I am sure i could run BF3 at 2xfssa just fine with max settings or with no fsaa. but out of my 400 games i have on steam 99 percent of them run fine and alot of those games were released recently, i am sure if i ran higher res or more fsaa i would have issues.. All my valve games i run at 16x fsaa max settings no issues.. so until they release some more games like BF3 i am not upgrading.. I can wait till march-april.
Click to expand...
are you actually saying that a gtx570 is not enough to stay above 60fps in Borderlands with 4x AA? I really doubt AA would bring you down below 60fps in that game. if you are going below 60fps then its probably a spot where there is some very unoptimized dynamic shadows which does happen in that game.

I fired up the game at 1920x1080 on max settings with 4x AA with vsync off and framerate cap off just to take a look.

ran a bench with lots of action it and some running around got this:

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
22861, 195017, 70, 165, 117.226

resized screenshot

image hosting png
 
i am at 1920x1200. Also the game does not did at 4x fsaa below 60 fps.. only when i increase to 8x fsaa maximum graphical settings.. There is a cpu bottle neck with my core 2 quad 9550.. Most of the newer games will dip below 60 fps at 8xfsaa max settings on my computer.. However until the day comes when i have to reduce other graphic settings to say medium or low and no fsaa. I feel it will be a good time to upgrade.. My plan is to purchase another GTX 570 and just run SLI with a core 2700k or Sandy-E. I would prefer to see some benches of IVY after christmas before jumping into a new build. So i would think by febuary - march time frame will be a good time to upgrade to sandy-E or ivy. Or i could just sell everything and build a core 2700k now and wait longer. Hopefully we will see some benches of sandy-e and ivy soon
 
UnrealCpu said:
i am at 1920x1200. Also the game does not did at 4x fsaa below 60 fps.. only when i increase to 8x fsaa maximum graphical settings.. There is a cpu bottle neck with my core 2 quad 9550.. Most of the newer games will dip below 60 fps at 8xfsaa max settings on my computer.. However until the day comes when i have to reduce other graphic settings to say medium or low and no fsaa. I feel it will be a good time to upgrade.. My plan is to purchase another GTX 570 and just run SLI with a core 2700k or Sandy-E. I would prefer to see some benches of IVY after christmas before jumping into a new build. So i would think by febuary - march time frame will be a good time to upgrade to sandy-E or ivy. Or i could just sell everything and build a core 2700k now and wait longer. Hopefully we will see some benches of sandy-e and ivy soon
Click to expand...
AA and most other settings have nothing to do with your cpu. if you cant turn up AA or run higher graphical settings without dipping down that is your gpu at fault.
 
UnrealCpu said:
it is a combination of both but mostly the cpu right now..
Click to expand...
again AA and most graphics settings have nothing to do with your cpu. if turn on AA and your framerate drops too low then that is your gpu that is holding you back NOT your cpu.
 
Thats funny i gurantee if i am running a 2700k at 5 gigahertz i will have more head room to operate at a higher fsaa. My video card and cpu is the issue but i agree it is mostly the video card. I will have to add another GTX 570 to solve my issues.. But i would have to disagree that in my situation it is probably best to upgrade the cpu to run at a higher fsaa. If i were running insane resolutions i.e. 2500x yes the video card would be my biggest factor.. So i am curious if i had 3 GTX590s running in SLI and a core 2 quad running at 2.5 gigahertz i would be getting 60FPS in battlefield 3 at 1920x1200?
 
UnrealCpu said:
Thats funny i gurantee if i am running a 2700k at 5 gigahertz i will have more head room to operate at a higher fsaa. My video card and cpu is the issue but i agree it is mostly the video card. I will have to add another GTX 570 to solve my issues.. But i would have to disagree that in my situation it is probably best to upgrade the cpu to run at a higher fsaa. If i were running insane resolutions i.e. 2500x yes the video card would be my biggest factor.. So i am curious if i had 3 GTX590s running in SLI and a core 2 quad running at 2.5 gigahertz i would be getting 60FPS in battlefield 3 at 1920x1200?
Click to expand...
you are starting to make yourself look a bit silly. I guess it does not do any good to keep explaining to you that a faster cpu will not help you run more AA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top