• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

2.8ghz E6300 bottlenecking 5870?

D

DChen117

Gawd
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
875
I would think that the demands of eyefinity would shift all the burden to the GPU, but my CPU is rather dated by today's standards. Its OCed to 2.8, and I might be able to get another 2-300mhz out of it, but I dont expect much.

If I were to upgrade, the only thing I can afford atm is a E8400. Should I even bother?
 
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5870-cpu-scaling.html

Depends on your resolution and what games you play really. At high resolutions you will still be GPU limited, but a quad core or E8400 @ 4GHZ can still benefit you in some games. I think if you were to save up more money an upgrade to a Q9550 would be more beneficial but some people will just tell you LGA775 is a dead socket and not to bother.
 
Whats frustrating is that prices havnt really fallen either. The Q9550 at my local MC has been 160$ for a whole year now!

And people charge that much in the forums for a used one!

Thx for the link btw.
 
If he has a e6300, chances are he's on a 965/P35 age chipset. Neither are gonna be too good with the Yorkfields. Actually he probably needs a BIOS update even for an e8400.
 
$160 for that processor is actually a pretty good deal. It is still a high performance part.
 
Obviously it depends on game and resolution, but as a general matter that processor isn't enough for that card.
 
if you can hit 2.8 on an e6300 with your cooling, you should be able to hit 3.6 on an e8400. Sell your e6300 and pickup an e8400. If you can pickup the e8400 on a good sale you shouldn't be out much for your upgrade.
 
Unfortunately DoW2 is my main game. But the article doesnt compare C2D Quads, so picking between a E8400 and a Q9550 is rather difficult.

As for motherboard support, I will need a bio flash, but it should work.
 
If you can upgrade to a q9550 else try overclocking to at least 3.2, I got mine to 3.5
 
Im leaning towards a E8400 because its 120$ (used) vs 190$ (new after tax).

But this line bothers me:

Using this setup, I could quickly switch from the system with a dual-core CPU to the system with a quad-core CPU and feel the difference between them in the same parts of five games. Excepting S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky, I easily felt the difference such games as Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X., Resident Evil 5, Call of Duty 5: World at War and Crysis. The gameplay was much smoother on the quad-core CPU, without occasional jerks as on the Core 2 Duo. Game levels were loaded faster, too. So, the numbers don’t always provide the full picture, yet I hope that this test session will help you decide what CPU you need for one or two Radeon HD 5870 cards.
Click to expand...
 
I would highly reccomend the Q9550 over the E8400. I run the quad and it does not dissapoint
 
Only one I can honestly think of is Supreme Commander.

As for oc, I see 8400s hit at least 4ghz whereas Q9550 often peaks at 3.5 if it even reaches there.
 
yes it does... i have an e8400 and it bottlenecks my 4890 in single mode yet alone crossfire :p
 
Considering even a i7 920 @ 3.8ghz bottlenecks a 5870, I would say you're very limited.
 
fatlazyhomer said:
Unfortunately DoW2 is my main game. But the article doesnt compare C2D Quads, so picking between a E8400 and a Q9550 is rather difficult.

As for motherboard support, I will need a bio flash, but it should work.
Click to expand...

Compare the C2Q to the Phenom 2 and expect slightly better performance than that.
 
judging by xbit's review linked in the first reply here, your old 2.8ghz 65nm conroe's average fps is about equal to the minimum fps of a 4.1ghz core i7
 
i run a 285gtx and upgraded from an e5200@3.43ghz to an e8400@3.83ghz. the difference was night and day. for $120 you really cant go wrong with the e8400. it should last until your next big upgrade imo.
 
jaredpace said:
judging by xbit's review linked in the first reply here, your old 2.8ghz 65nm conroe's average fps is about equal to the minimum fps of a 4.1ghz core i7
Click to expand...

That is very dependent on the game, hell in at least a few of those games the E8400@ 4.1 gets better or the same minimum FPS as the i7.
 
I ran my q9550 at 4ghz easily on air. I would be unhappy with anything less than 3.8 on a q9550. Also, ran a e8600 at 4.4 easily on same mobo.
 
I dont think my memory can even go that fast. I have OCZ 6400 reapers. I can probably get to 425, maybe 450.

How much does an entry i7 setup cost? I can get the 920 and 860 for 220/250 after taxes.
 
SixtyWattMan said:
hell in at least a few of those games the E8400@ 4.1 gets better or the same minimum FPS as the i7.
Click to expand...

While your statement is not true at all except for in a run on stormrise (in a scenario that is gpu limited) it isn't even relative because the OP doesn't have a 4.1ghz wolfdale, but a 2.8ghz conroe.In situations where a 4.1ghz wolfdale 'tie's an i7 for minimums, it is because the graphics card is maxed out and has become the limiting factor.

If you skim through this review and look at all the 1024 and 1920 0AA single card benches, you can clearly see a 4.1ghz i7's minimums are equal to a 2.7ghz wolfdales averages.
A 2.8ghz conroe is still a very fast cpu, and (already mentioned again) you probably have a p35 or 965 or 975x.

Trying to add another 300-500mhz, or going for a s775 Quadcore is you only upgrade path unless you opt out for a completely new phenom II or core i7 system
 
SixtyWattMan said:
I agree, it's still $260 on newegg and is better than a Phenom 2.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... yes and no. I did a side by side comparison of a Q9550 at 3.4 vs. a Phenom II at 3.4 (both with DDR2 1066 and a 4890) and the Q9550 scored a bit higher in benchmarks like 3D Mark 06, but the Phenom II "felt" faster when actually gaming. My guess is that min fps are better with the Phenom II, though max are not. I did the comparison because I had a choice to keep one of the platforms, and sell the other to a friend. I kept the Phenom II.
 
But at eyefinity resolution, I just need something to something to keep up with the 5870.
 
jaredpace said:
While your statement is not true at all except for in a run on stormrise (in a scenario that is gpu limited) it isn't even relative because the OP doesn't have a 4.1ghz wolfdale, but a 2.8ghz conroe.In situations where a 4.1ghz wolfdale 'tie's an i7 for minimums, it is because the graphics card is maxed out and has become the limiting factor.

If you skim through this review and look at all the 1024 and 1920 0AA single card benches, you can clearly see a 4.1ghz i7's minimums are equal to a 2.7ghz wolfdales averages.
A 2.8ghz conroe is still a very fast cpu, and (already mentioned again) you probably have a p35 or 965 or 975x.

Trying to add another 300-500mhz, or going for a s775 Quadcore is you only upgrade path unless you opt out for a completely new phenom II or core i7 system
Click to expand...

Also when I talk about those minimum FPS values I'm only talking about 1920x1200 at 8xAA and there were several games where they were damn near the same or the same so I think you need to reread the review. A Core2Quad is his best upgrade path right now besides an i7. A Phenom2 is a downgrade from a C2Q.

ordovician said:
Hmmm... yes and no. I did a side by side comparison of a Q9550 at 3.4 vs. a Phenom II at 3.4 (both with DDR2 1066 and a 4890) and the Q9550 scored a bit higher in benchmarks like 3D Mark 06, but the Phenom II "felt" faster when actually gaming. My guess is that min fps are better with the Phenom II, though max are not. I did the comparison because I had a choice to keep one of the platforms, and sell the other to a friend. I kept the Phenom II.
Click to expand...

Well I'm glad we have your objective review of a chip "feeling" faster.

fatlazyhomer said:
But at eyefinity resolution, I just need something to something to keep up with the 5870.
Click to expand...

At such high resolutions you would be GPU limited. I would try to find a cheap Q9550 if I were you.
 
fatlazyhomer said:
But at eyefinity resolution, I just need something to something to keep up with the 5870.
Click to expand...

This is why Sixty insisted on knowing what games/resolution you are playing. If you are going above and beyond the 2560x1600 resolution, then all you really need is a modern chipset. In a sense, the 5970 CPU scaling article is a better match for your questions. 2560x1600 with maxed AA/AF is GPU-limited regardless of PhII or i7.
 
JCDenton said:
That article has been debunked as a complete joke written by morons.

"Hey, let's boot our games at 2560x1600 with 8xAA to test for CPU limitations"
Click to expand...

You should be testing at high resolutions. No one wants to see the performance at 800x600, they want to see how their card is going to work at 1920x1080, 1920x1200, and 2650x1600 with AA.
 
SixtyWattMan said:
You should be testing at high resolutions. No one wants to see the performance at 800x600, they want to see how their card is going to work at 1920x1080, 1920x1200, and 2650x1600 with AA.
Click to expand...

See what's odd is that their GTX295 article included the lower resolutions (1920 and 1680), but the 5970 article did not. I'll chock it up to...maybe time constraints? But I agree that maxed AA and 2560 is not the ideal "CPU scaling" article. As an EyeInfinity prep article, it make some sense, but for single GPU/single display users, the article isn't as helpful.
 
It seems like an entry i7 setup can be had for ~400$. Since most of you are recommending a C2 quad, I'm going to be spending at least 200$. If I sell my current stuff and go i7, im really only spending 75-100$ more.
 
I'm sure no one will fault you on going i7 from Conroe. But here's a more fun debate, 1366 or 1156? i5 or i7? hehe, no let the fun begin...
 
fatlazyhomer said:
It seems like an entry i7 setup can be had for ~400$. Since most of you are recommending a C2 quad, I'm going to be spending at least 200$. If I sell my current stuff and go i7, im really only spending 75-100$ more.
Click to expand...

Good plan brah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top