Constraints of using 7870 with Q6600 for Battlefield 3?

I

icanhazapple

n00b
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
15
Hello. I recently purchased an ATi 7870 to replace an aging 4850. The rest of my hardware that is typical for that time period; Intel Q6600 (stock @ 2.4GHz), 8GB DDR1333 (recently upgraded from 4GB of 1066), etc.

My question is - how CPU constrained will I be if I attempt to run Battlefield at 1920x1080 under Ultra settings? Will I have to knock it down to High?

I'll find out on Thursday, but I'm curious as to what kind of experience others have had with new videocards and older cpus with Battlefield 3.

Thanks.
 
You'll be chocking your 7870's potential with Q6600, especially at stock 2.4GHz...!!!! Time to upgrade....
 
mzs_biteme said:
You'll be chocking your 7870's potential with Q6600, especially at stock 2.4GHz...!!!! Time to upgrade....
Click to expand...

Why would you say that ? I disagree, I think the Q6600 holds it's own and as far as I'm concerned, you only need a half decent processor anyway for gaming....it's the gpu that counts.
 
As res goes up, cpu dependency goes down. At high res, the difference in frame rate between different cpu's is very little.

This applies for most games except the one's that are cpu dependent (rts and simulators).
 
For multiplayer the q6600 will slow down the gpu. You're better off going with either a 560 ti, 6950 2gb, or 7850 and save up for an i5 cpu/mb/ddr3.
 
rolling_tiger said:
For multiplayer the q6600 will slow down the gpu. You're better off going with either a 560 ti, 6950 2gb, or 7850 and save up for an i5 cpu/mb/ddr3.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll probably go with an Ivy Bridge i5 & motherboard this summer. It will be interesting to see how the Q660 fares though.
 
actually someone on the forums recently did a test with a 6970 I believe. He used a 3ghz Q6600 and 4ghz i7 920. The Q6600 was a pretty big bottleneck at 3ghz and yours is at 2.4ghz. Trust me it will hold you back a great deal.
 
WOW...yup at 2.4GHz that 7870 is going to be starved...if your able try to OC a bit and run tests both at stock and OC'd that should at least prove it.
 
i think if the OP increases the clock on his q6600, the CPU bottle neck shouldn't be too bad. he'll need to aim for 3.2 to 3.6 imo. to hit 3.4 to 3.6, a high-end cooler is needed providing the chip is up to it. most q6600 (G0 revision) should have no trouble doing 3.3-3.4 on a half decent heatsink.

personally i've wondered how a 7970 would cope with a q6600. still have my q6600 and i'm tempted to perform some tests with my 7970 (currently using 7970 with my 1100T/990FX PC).
 
Light-tower said:
Why would you say that ? I disagree, I think the Q6600 holds it's own and as far as I'm concerned, you only need a half decent processor anyway for gaming....it's the gpu that counts.
Click to expand...

this is the worst advice you could give somebody ever.


processor goes along ways especially at lower resolutions.
 
aphasia said:
i think if the OP increases the clock on his q6600, the CPU bottle neck shouldn't be too bad. he'll need to aim for 3.2 to 3.6 imo. to hit 3.4 to 3.6, a high-end cooler is needed providing the chip is up to it. most q6600 (G0 revision) should have no trouble doing 3.3-3.4 on a half decent heatsink.

personally i've wondered how a 7970 would cope with a q6600. still have my q6600 and i'm tempted to perform some tests with my 7970 (currently using 7970 with my 1100T/990FX PC).
Click to expand...

I'm not one to OC (been sitting at stock since I bought it three years ago) but I think now might be a good time to start. I have a pretty good heatsink sitting on it (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835118003&nm_mc=TEMC-RMA-Approvel&cm_mmc=TEMC-RMA-Approvel-_-Content-_-text-_- so it should pretty easily get me to 3Ghz
 
dremic said:
this is the worst advice you could give somebody ever.


processor goes along ways especially at lower resolutions.
Click to expand...

The worst advice ? Little emotional here. This is what I would catergorize as

:eek: "the worst advice":eek: :

  1. cool off your system by filling the pc cavity with foam insulation
  2. run the cpu on a passive heatsink
  3. modify pc3200 ram by cutting the notches to fit your motherboard
  4. that little switch on the pws from 110v to 220v...switch it over...more juice.

I stick by my comment. Keep that sweet q6600 and overclock her - easily with that hsf and enjoy. Don't waste your money.
 
I still use a Q6600 @ 3.6 in my LAN/Backup Rig, and I feel that it gets the job done for that purpose. Make no mistake however, it won't hold a candle to a Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge processor.

Why the heck would you run it at stock? My first Q6600 was a B3 and even with the stock heatsink I could still hit 3Ghz.
 
i tried to use a ferrari engine inside my wash machine for better wash quality, and it didnt work out as planned.
 
Light-tower said:
The worst advice ? Little emotional here. This is what I would catergorize as

:eek: "the worst advice":eek: :

  1. cool off your system by filling the pc cavity with foam insulation
  2. run the cpu on a passive heatsink
  3. modify pc3200 ram by cutting the notches to fit your motherboard
  4. that little switch on the pws from 110v to 220v...switch it over...more juice.

I stick by my comment. Keep that sweet q6600 and overclock her - easily with that hsf and enjoy. Don't waste your money.
Click to expand...
I have a radeon 5850 and it was paired with a 8400 dual core at 3,8ghz. Than i got a 2500k and the difference just from swiching cpus is enormeous. It was like i upgraded my video card,everything was just ultra smooth. Cpu and a mid range card > an old cpu and a top card. Doesnt matter what u say that q6600 is quite old and weak....
 
The rig I built for my kids has a q6700. We upgraded to that from an E5300 just so they could play BF3. They play at 1080p with a 5670 1gb. We definitely need more GPU horsepower however I think if I suddenly had the money I would opt for an upgrade to something newer in the CPU department. BF3 multiplayer is brutal on the CPU and our q6700 has all it can do to keep up. Especially after having built 2 2500k based rigs for customers with even older GPUs that walk all over the 2500k.
.
 
Light-tower said:
The worst advice ? Little emotional here. This is what I would catergorize as

:eek: "the worst advice":eek: :

  1. cool off your system by filling the pc cavity with foam insulation
  2. run the cpu on a passive heatsink
  3. modify pc3200 ram by cutting the notches to fit your motherboard
  4. that little switch on the pws from 110v to 220v...switch it over...more juice.

I stick by my comment. Keep that sweet q6600 and overclock her - easily with that hsf and enjoy. Don't waste your money.
Click to expand...

wow, when were these useful nuggets dispensed?

i did have an old system i donated to a friend who did hit the 110v to 240v switch, i tried not to laugh when she described what she did. when PSUs started using auto switching was one of the smarted innovations (against computer illiterate) since internal cabling became keyed.


TroyX said:
i tried to use a ferrari engine inside my wash machine for better wash quality, and it didnt work out as planned.

Sojuuk said:
broke down immediately?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

nice. ;)


the OP has already stated he'd be upgrading the platform in the middle of this year. he just wants feedback what to expect with his 7970 on the temporary q6600 rig.

the short answer is @ stock, the 7970 won't perform all that well. clock the the CPU near 50% (3.6GHz) and the system should perform well enough till the upgrade.

his upgrade path is pretty well thought out actually, get to experience a decent upgrade with his new 7970 (with OC'ed q6600) till IB CPU/MB's surfaces later this year.
 
With that cooler, you can push a good 9550 to 3.5+Ghz easily. I ran mine at 3.7Ghz for almost 2 years with a CNPS9500. That being said, with the CPU at stock speed, yes it probably would bottleneck your system. Overclocked, it would be much better, 3.7Ghz+ is what I'd be trying for, (if you don't wish to upgrade to a SB). At those speeds, it would keep up fine probably. The older Quads are still good gaming chips and are by no means junk, they just need a bit of a "push" that overclocking would do easily. The only thing you'd need to worry about is having some solid DDR2 for your overclock, your Zalman is fine.
 
Pitbully said:
...The only thing you'd need to worry about is having some solid DDR2 for your overclock, your Zalman is fine.
Click to expand...

the old Q9xxx/Q6xxx did like the higher memory straps b/c they lacked the integrated memory controller. the op mentioned 1333 so i'm guessing he has a later (P45/X48) with DDR3 controller on the Northbridge.

getting 3.6+ might be a push, not all q6600's could hit that. i could on mine tho the NB needed some serious cooling (had a NB waterblock on X38 MB) to be stable. if he does indeed have the later P45/X48 chipset, the CPU might be able to pull it off.
 
hammerforged said:
Intel CPU Scaling on an AMD Radeon HD 7950

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1877/
Click to expand...

I don't see how any of the processors benchmarked in that article could compare against a Q6600 in any way. All of the processors they used were Sandy Bridge processors. The only "slow" processors they tested were Dual-Core Sandy Bridge chips.

A Quad-Core chip with slower individual cores is going to be a completely different animal.
 
At 3.0 ghz, the 45nm quads are similar to the new i3s. So I'd assume at 3.2+ the 65nm quads would be similar aswell.
 
I thought it pertained to it pretty well. The BF3 graph shows how little the different processors vary in performance. Good for someone looking to save some money. Also helps the OP decide on how to upgrade if he does.
 
hammerforged said:
I thought it pertained to it pretty well. The BF3 graph shows how little the different processors vary in performance. Good for someone looking to save some money. Also helps the OP decide on how to upgrade if he does.
Click to expand...

Where is this BF3 graph you are referring to?
 
I most certainly am. In no way am I saying that is not. This is not my review. Comment on the article if there is an issue with the article as you see fit. Its a good baseline to go off of in my opinion.
 
Florin22xxl said:
I have a radeon 5850 and it was paired with a 8400 dual core at 3,8ghz. Than i got a 2500k and the difference just from swiching cpus is enormeous. It was like i upgraded my video card,everything was just ultra smooth. Cpu and a mid range card > an old cpu and a top card. Doesnt matter what u say that q6600 is quite old and weak....
Click to expand...

this.


I had an AMD 840 Phenom II x4


and

a gtx560ti 448 core



guess what? BOTTTTLLLLLENECK

upgraded my cpu to an i5 2500k and RMA'd the video card went back to my gtx460 768 mb and my performance tripled.
 
dremic said:
this.


I had an AMD 840 Phenom II x4


and

a gtx560ti 448 core



guess what? BOTTTTLLLLLENECK

upgraded my cpu to an i5 2500k and RMA'd the video card went back to my gtx460 768 mb and my performance tripled.
Click to expand...

Really? Your performance 'tripled' going to a GTX460 from a GTX 560ti due to using a better cpu? Are you sure or are you just exaggerating?
 
Bman123 said:
Single player review, hope you don't expect that performance online lol
Click to expand...

^^ That!

There is a HUGE difference in CPU usage between single player maps and lets say a 64 player MP game-play... Q6600 will NOT be enough for large MP maps...
 
mzs_biteme said:
^^ That!

There is a HUGE difference in CPU usage between single player maps and lets say a 64 player MP game-play... Q6600 will NOT be enough for large MP maps...
Click to expand...

The question is how much of a bottleneck will playing BF3 online create using a Q6600?
 
mp and sp are nothing alike in bf3.

in sp a c2q can give you 60fps but in mp you could be playing at 20fps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top