4850e performance question

[bruenor]

OK, so my old system finally gave up the ghost and I have to build a new one. I really want to use the 4850e for the power savings since this will be my main rig and it runs 24x7. It mainly just runs uTorrent and serves up movies. I do play the occasional game (Stuff like The Witcher, Warhammer Age of Reckoning, NWN2) and don't care about any higher than 1440x900 and medium levels of detail.

My problem is that all of the sites have benchmarked the 4850e +780G as if it were only an HTPC and never with a decent GPU installed. If I pair it with a 3850/70 or a 9600GT can it stand up to the task?

Anyone who owns a 4850e that could offer some insight, or cpu benchmark numbers, or anything would be helpful. If it can't cut it I'll go Intel Wolfdale.

Thanks!

 

[nerp]

It boils down to being a 2.5ghz x2. Performance is pretty much what you'd expect. You will probably bottleneck a high end GPU but not by a massive amount. I'm one of those people using it with just the 780G IGP so I can't provide benchmarks for you. But I've had plenty of time to gauge the chip's performance and it is quite capable.

An intel chip would devastate it in many respects though. And the real good power savings with is only realized when you're using something like the 780G. Once you start throwing in add-in cards and GPUs, the power savings for the platform starts to diminish. At that point, you might be better off with a P45 board, a 45nm c2d chip and enabling C1E and EIST (speedstep) to get very good power consumption at idle and at load, you'd probably be using less than than a similar AMD build.

 

[harpoon]

http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/

Here it is (amongst other CPUs), paired up with a 8800 Ultra. Its a big bottleneck in many of the latest games.

Heres a look at NWN2 performance: http://au.gamespot.com/features/6163248/p-7.html
The 4850e would be roughly equal to the FX-60, 27fps is pretty poor performance, to be blunt...

You'll be better off getting a 45nm C2D if power efficiency *and* gaming performance is important to you. An E7200 would be my recommendation, though it costs a bit more than the 4850e. If you want something a little cheaper an E5200 would be ideal. Although its not supposed to be launched until August 31st, some stores already have it for sale: http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=E5200

 

[harpoon]

It boils down to being a 2.5ghz x2. Performance is pretty much what you'd expect. You will probably bottleneck a high end GPU but not by a massive amount.

I'd have to disagree, based on the following:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/4
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/5
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/8
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/9

Not to mention the NWN2 benchmark I linked in the previous post.

So depending on the game, it could potentially be a massive bottleneck...

 

[Nenu]

I agree that an Athlon x2 can be a big bottleneck, so much so that I was forced to upgrade to a C2D.
I was running an A64 x2 @ 2.7GHz and could only get approx 80% of the performance from my 8800GT at stock speeds.
Clocking the card made no difference.
With an even faster card like the 4850, the bottleneck will be even greater.

With an E8400, my 8800GT can now use an overclock so a 20% overclock of the gfx card yields 50% higher framerate than with my old A64.

 

[Tom128]

The 4850e will bottleneck modern video cards at stock speeds but if you OC up to the 3Ghz range it generally wont. That does start to defeat the power saving benefits though.

I was running an A64 x2 @ 2.7GHz and could only get approx 80% of the performance from my 8800GT at stock speeds.

That does not sound right at all. My 8800GT offered zero FPS gains in basically any game when my X2 hit 2.8Ghz, regardless of how much higher I took it (3.3 was about my max). Also, overclocking my 8800GT gave more FPS when paired with my X2 @ 3GHz.

Which is why when I went with that build I decided I would save the money and get a cheap X2 or e2180 and spend my money on the video card.

 

[harpoon]

That does not sound right at all. My 8800GT offered zero FPS gains in basically any game when my X2 hit 2.8Ghz, regardless of how much higher I took it (3.3 was about my max). Also, overclocking my 8800GT gave more FPS when paired with my X2 @ 3GHz.

It doesn't sound right based on what? Have you compared a C2D to X2 in games? I suspect not.

Many benchmarks have shown that an X2 @ 2.5GHz (or even 3GHz) will bottleneck a reasonably fast GPU (Geforce 8800 series or better). Of course it doesn't occur in every game, some don't require a fast CPU, but newer games tend to use a lot of advanced physics effects which are quite taxing on the CPU, and the X2 is starting to struggle in some of those titles (check the Guru3D links I posted earlier).

 

[Tom128]

It doesn't sound right based on what? Have you compared a C2D to X2 in games? I suspect not.

Did you even read the post you quoted? Is it just a compulsion to bring up the Intel vs AMD topic? Does my post even have anything to do with tests comparing C2D to X2? You ask "Does not sound right based on what" ? Seriously wtf read the post. I owned an X2, I owned an 8800GT, I overclocked them both, that's what my post is based on. Beyond 2.8Ghz I noticed no difference in FPS in games on my 8800GT at stock settings. I have played many hours of Crysis, TF2, Bioshock, CoH, and others.

I don't care what "Many benchmarks have shown", I OWNED THE HARDWARE I AM TALKING ABOUT. Did you? I suspect not.

 

[harpoon]

Did you even read the post you quoted? Is it just a compulsion to bring up the Intel vs AMD topic? Does my post even have anything to do with tests comparing C2D to X2? You ask "Does not sound right based on what" ? Seriously wtf read the post. I owned an X2, I owned an 8800GT, I overclocked them both, that's what my post is based on. Beyond 2.8Ghz I noticed no difference in FPS in games on my 8800GT at stock settings. I have played many hours of Crysis, TF2, Bioshock, CoH, and others.

I don't care what "Many benchmarks have shown", I OWNED THE HARDWARE I AM TALKING ABOUT. Did you? I suspect not.

I know exactly what you're talking about, nenu upgraded from an X2 to a C2D, noting a large increase in gaming performance with the 8800GT, which would not have been possible had he been running the X2 @ 2.7GHz due to CPU bottlenecking. This can be backed up by numerous benchmarks done by professional reviewers, though you can choose to ignore those all you like, since obviously only your opinion matters. Just because your own (limited) experiences have been different doesn't necessarily make someone else 'wrong'.

As for bringing up Intel vs AMD, I guess you have a thing or two to learn about context... reread the OPs post, then Nenu's post, it might give you a clue or two about what the discussion was about.

 

[Nenu]

Did you even read the post you quoted? Is it just a compulsion to bring up the Intel vs AMD topic?

lol, you assume wrong, its an extremely valid point which is why it needs bringing up.

 

[bruenor]

Thanks for the replies so far, and I appreciate any benchmark/real performance comments... it doesn't need to turn into a AMD vs. Intel issue. Honestly. I've been a system builder for over 15 years now and I've gone from Texas Instruments (486) to AMD to Cyrix to Intel and back and around again. I use what will get the job done properly, quick enough, and efficiently (cost and performance). I am aware of the X2 vs. C2D differences, what I don't know is the actual performance of the 4850e because it is new and while based on the older K8 architecture it has some differences/changes... that was what I'm looking for.

At $77 it is a good bargain, but at $119 I can do an E7200 so if it is going to be a medium to substantial bottleneck then it is worth the extra $40 as the motherboards are almost identically priced between the Gigabyte EP43 and Gigabyte 780G. All in all it is $100 difference between the 4850e system and the E7200 system and a difference of about $0.10 a day (30-40watts extra) or $3.00 a month electricity wise so even over 4-5 years it is a negligible difference.

Until the day a CPU maker sponsors me and gives me chips for free I have no reason to be "brand loyal" and really no one does. Price/performance is what matters.

 

[Tom128]

I know exactly what you're talking about, nenu upgraded from an X2 to a C2D, noting a large increase in gaming performance with the 8800GT, which would not have been possible had he been running the X2 @ 2.7GHz due to CPU bottlenecking. This can be backed up by numerous benchmarks done by professional reviewers, though you can choose to ignore those all you like, since obviously only your opinion matters. Just because your own (limited) experiences have been different doesn't necessarily make someone else 'wrong'.

What the hell settings are you playing at where the X2 is not providing enough power? I mean yes at 1024x768 on low setting a Core 2 will crush an X2 in the benchmark, but it will be 150 vs 300fps. Run the game on a 22" or larger flatscreen with highest details and an X2 is NOT going to bottleneck an 8800GT. Perhaps SLIed 8800GTX's but not an 8800GT. Seriously just stop, its OK to admit that an AMD cpu can be used to play games. I know, I've seen me do it. I saw people in real life that I know do it, which is why I was confident enough to buy the parts in the first place. When I have the parts in my own hands hell yes my opinion matters more to me than some review site. I would hope that would apply to anyone here.

And while we're on this issue of benchmarks here you go, specifically about the 8800GT:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/$500_gaming_pc_upgrade/page7.asp

Sure the 3Ghz X2's are scoring lower but by single digits. Go ahead and spend that extra $700 on anC2Q Extreme for those 7 fps.

How about a topic right here on [H] from the mouth of the guy who runs the site?
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1032214885&highlight=bottleneck#post1032214885

So Kyle is stupid and has limited experience knowing what will bottleneck a 8800GT? In fact I think that was one of the threads that decided it for me. I was upgrading for as little as possible for that build and there was no reason to spend more money on the CPU when I was picking the 8800GT as my card.

As for bringing up Intel vs AMD, I guess you have a thing or two to learn about context... reread the OPs post, then Nenu's post, it might give you a clue or two about what the discussion was about.

You want me to learn about context? You replied to MY post with counter points that were completely unrelated to what I saw saying. What does a C2D being able to beat an X2 have to do with the fact that an X2 at 2.8Ghz and beyond was giving me no FPS gains? You are correct that an X2 is weaker but it has no bearing on what you were replying to.

Regardless I am done, and I am sorry for de-railing the thread. I just get annoyed seeing people dry-hump benchmarks so much so that they will tell someone who has actually had the hardware in their hands they are wrong, because the all mighty benchmarks (that were never done with the CPU being discussed) say otherwise.

EDIT:
Ok I actually see you did immediately tell Kyle he was wrong in that thread. I remember reading the entire post and chuckling now that I think about it. Ironic.

 

[Nenu]

Kyle isnt stupid but he is mistaken about AMD x2 chips.
I believe my own results, I posted in numerous threads here about it around December and others drew a similar conclusion from their own experiences.

 

[Tom128]

Hey may have had some wishful thinking about a 2.6Ghz X2 but at 3Ghz you need to pick a bigger beast.

 

[harpoon]

What the hell settings are you playing at where the X2 is not providing enough power? I mean yes at 1024x768 on low setting a Core 2 will crush an X2 in the benchmark, but it will be 150 vs 300fps. Run the game on a 22" or larger flatscreen with highest details and an X2 is NOT going to bottleneck an 8800GT. Perhaps SLIed 8800GTX's but not an 8800GT. Seriously just stop, its OK to admit that an AMD cpu can be used to play games. I know, I've seen me do it. I saw people in real life that I know do it, which is why I was confident enough to buy the parts in the first place. When I have the parts in my own hands hell yes my opinion matters more to me than some review site. I would hope that would apply to anyone here.

Um, where did I say an X2 couldn't run games?

Its clearly not optimal for many of the latest games, it may run well with your particular games, however you're hardly representative of the entire gaming community, unless you claim to have run every single game in existence and benchmarked them all.

I'm not questioning your own experiences, that would be rude and I'd practically be calling you a liar, which I'm not. But I do suggest you be more open minded and try to consider other opinions and data that may not necessarily fit in with your views. Your utter disregard for benchmarks and reviews that may differ from your experiences wreaks of arrogance and narrow mindedness.

Judging by your post, you're basically saying under ANY circumstances an X2 will NOT be a bottleneck on a 8800GT on a 22" (1680 x 1050) res. I find it incredible you can say that so definitively since in this thread alone I've provided links to 5 separate game benchmarks that show otherwise, and I could easily find more.

 

[P3N1X0R]

tell me my system cpu in sig is a bottleneck

itll oc pretty sweet to like 225fsb which iirc is around 2500mhz plenty for a 7950gt on *gasP* AGP!

it runs sweet with the right games. as if there are any other games than battlefield 2

 

[qwksi1]

tell me my system cpu in sig is a bottleneck

itll oc pretty sweet to like 225fsb which iirc is around 2500mhz plenty for a 7950gt on *gasP* AGP!

it runs sweet with the right games. as if there are any other games than battlefield 2

 

[swarm]

4850e @ 2750 mhz, stock voltage & cooling in a foxconn a74mx-k with ati 4350 @ 550 mhz and 2gb sys mem @ 395 mhz (790 ddr) - rock solid stable and runs cool & quiet. Performance testing shows that the GPU is the gaiming bottle neck.

Total cost of system about $160, i.e. $20 less than the cost of a e6600 alone.

@ 1280x1024 it plays everything I play just fine inc nwn2.
It will run 3 vm servers in hyper-v without noticable lag.

If price + performance is what you are looking for this is a good chip for a bargin "low end" gaming rig, esp. since you already have a better video card.

If you have money to burn but aren't totally insane get a e6600.

If you are one to believe Tom's Hardware, about any modern CPU that is 2.8 ghz or better is going to be fine for the vast majority of gaming apps and will drive the GPU of all but the most insane video cards just fine. The CPU is very, very rarely the bottle neck and even when it is, the fps is already faster than you can see the difference of. (Your eye really tops out about 45 fps, if you get 60 fps then even during dips from intensive action you aren't going to notice). Sure you might only get 150 fps instead of the 200 fps you could get, but who cares?

An overclocked e6600 seems to be a sweet point for mid range systems and would be a good match for a 9600gt and you could probably put it together for <$300 and it should handle anything you could want to throw at it currently.

 

[ZMTToxics]

I ran a 5200+ with my 4850 and got 120fps on the counterstrike source test - which I thought was great. I just got a Phenom 9950 (125W) and now I get 210fps on the same test.

Thats a pretty big difference if you ask me.

 

[cannondale06]

well I had a 2.6 5000 X2 and held back even cards like the 4670 and 9600gt. I had used an overclocked 8600gt for about a year and then decided I wanted a better card. I was surpised that a 4670, 9600gt or even a 8800gt delivered the SAME minimum framerates as the 8600gt did in my system. pairing the 4670 with a decent Core 2 game me those numbers I saw in all the reviews of the card though. even on a slow 4670 I literally got a 25-35% increase in performance in newer games over the 5000 X2 and yes I ran benchmarks to prove it.

just imagine how bad a slow X2 will hold back a faster card. if you look at cpu benchmarks for newer games they look almost like gpu benchmarks do where you have a huge range from top to bottom. those like me that have actually dumped their slow cpus and upgraded now KNOW that it makes a huge difference.

 

[swarm]

That's a huge difference alright, if you are rendering a movie, compiling, crunching numbers or doing something where it would actually make a perceptible difference. But playing a game? 150 fps or 210fps your eye still tops out at 45fps.

That phenom is 80 more watts of power, or more if it is heavily overclocked, and is 2-3 times the cost for absolutely no actual gain where it counts visually.

Chasing the high end is great fun if you have more money than sense.

Knowing your needs and getting a system that will meet them at a bargin is what chips like the 4850e are there for. For low end gaming it gets the job done. If you have to play the most modern first person shoot'em up at huge resolutions, you'll need a more frisky system all around.

But power you don't need is just a very expensive space heater.