5870 bottlenecked

[BeavermanA]

Just stuck my 5870 into my system. Guess it is about time to get a new cpu. My graphics score in Vantage was 16,602 with stock clocks on the card. That normal? Wait to oc until I get the waterblock on hopefully tomorrow.

First is the 5870, second is 4890:

 

[vjcsmoke]

16600 stock clocked 5870 sounds about right. If you upgrade your processor you'll probably get a 1-2k increase in vantage mark but you need to ask yourself if its worth it. I broke 20k with vantagemark on a single 5870 but it was overclocked to like 1ghz core/1300 mem and had the help of a physx processor as well which always is favorable for Vantage benchmarking.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Play a game, who gives a shit about Vantage? I thought most of us grew up and got away from the benchmarks for points stuff. I haven't done that in years. Now a bench to make sure your system is running where it should be, sure. But to say it's bottlenecked....why not just go try to max a new game out?

 

[Cecil]

If you are using the i7 in your sig, you arent bottlenecked. You sould see no gain at all with OCing if you were.

 

[vjcsmoke]

If you are using the i7 in your sig, you arent bottlenecked. You sould see no gain at all with OCing if you were.

I believe that OP owns an E6600 core 2 duo. If he can drop in upgrade to a Q9550, that's a pretty decent performance upgrade for the price. But he needs to ask himself if that performance upgrade is worth ~ $250 for the new quadcore.

Looking at the charts, there's probably a little bottlenecking going on. See if increasing your cpu OC to 3.8ghz helps your performance. Also what resolution and AA settings are you using for your Far Cry 2 benchmarks?

 

[BeavermanA]

Alright cool. Seems to be working fine then. Got it off ebay for less than msrp, claimed it was brand new but I'm not so sure. Looked like it had at least been opened, but it was from newegg so things I've seen lately wouldn't surprise me if it was opened before the seller even got it.

I'm not in a rush to upgrade my cpu, been trying to hold out until that Hydra is reviewed cause I need basically a whole new rig.

Play a game, who gives a shit about Vantage? I thought most of us grew up and got away from the benchmarks for points stuff. I haven't done that in years. Now a bench to make sure your system is running where it should be, sure. But to say it's bottlenecked....why not just go try to max a new game out?

I'm just trying to verify it is working correctly. FC2 is the only intensive game I have installed atm, so I was a little startled when the 5870 barely edged out my 4890.

 

[Cecil]

Saw the second post, but didnt check the name, thought it was you posting a vantage shot.

The E6600 should be ok. There might be a little bit, but I doubt it.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Alright cool. Seems to be working fine then. Got it off ebay for less than msrp, claimed it was brand new but I'm not so sure. Looked like it had at least been opened, but it was from newegg so things I've seen lately wouldn't surprise me if it was opened before the seller even got it.

I'm not in a rush to upgrade my cpu, been trying to hold out until that Hydra is reviewed cause I need basically a whole new rig.


I'm just trying to verify it is working correctly. FC2 is the only intensive game I have installed atm, so I was a little startled when the 5870 barely edged out my 4890.

Yea, that is a cpu bottleneck. 3.6ghz is a really solid OC for a E6600 though, I'm not sure if you will be very stable at 3.8. I would keep my eye on craigslist for cheap Q9550's, I saw one for $110 the other day. That alone would boost you up quite a bit.

The Far Cry 2 bench tool is actually a pretty good little app. Are you running 8xAA? Take a look at the spike downwards on the 4890 near the end of the bench, 5870 has much smoother playback.

 

[Cecil]

At 3.6 there really wouldnt be much of a bottelneck. Ive done testing with my i7 crippled down to 2 cores, no HT at 2.6Ghz with a stick of ram pulled and there is no noticeable difference in gaming between that and all threads active 4.2Ghz.

That was with a 4890, but there really wouldnt be that much of a difference.

 

[BeavermanA]

Yea, that is a cpu bottleneck. 3.6ghz is a really solid OC for a E6600 though, I'm not sure if you will be very stable at 3.8. I would keep my eye on craigslist for cheap Q9550's, I saw one for $110 the other day. That alone would boost you up quite a bit.

The Far Cry 2 bench tool is actually a pretty good little app. Are you running 8xAA? Take a look at the spike downwards on the 4890 near the end of the bench, 5870 has much smoother playback.

Was just doing 2xaa cause that was all I did when I had the 4890. The spike on the 4890 was in 1 run, was a hiccup, probably something running in the background for a second. But this was the only time I ran the bench with that card so I don't have anything else to go by.

Upped the cpu to 3.7ghz, gained 1 avg and 1 min FPS.

At 3.6 there really wouldnt be much of a bottelneck. Ive done testing with my i7 crippled down to 2 cores, no HT at 2.6Ghz with a stick of ram pulled and there is no noticeable difference in gaming between that and all threads active 4.2Ghz.

That was with a 4890, but there really wouldnt be that much of a difference.

Hmm well from the benchmarks I looked at it seemed the 5870 was getting higher avg fps and with 4xaa. Like this one: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...rst-DirectX-11-graphics-card/Reviews/?page=10

That is far higher than my scores and with cat 9.9. I don't think I even have AF on either, don't see an option in the bench.

I'm on Windows7 Ultimate x64 and just installed the 9.12 drivers.

 

[Cecil]

What motherboard are you using? If its a P35 you could be bottlenecked by the PCIe lane.

 

[vjcsmoke]

Are you sure that your resolution, AA/AF, and in game settings are all the same as the benchmark above and that you're testing the ranch sequence in particular? Because your 5870 should be doing 80fps average and 60 fps minimum according to that bench.

Oooh... they did that benchmark on an i7 @ 3.5 ghz. That might help to explain some of the differences in results. I believe that FarCry 2 is one of the games that benefits from and uses additional cpu horsepower.

Found a graph. Yup this confirms it. The difference is the CPU horsepower. Check it out below.

[What is deep linking exactly?]

 

[BeavermanA]

What motherboard are you using? If its a P35 you could be bottlenecked by the PCIe lane.

Nvidia 650i chipset, doesn't have pci-e 2.0. Should be the full 16x pci-e though, think this old board could be holding it back? But still though my Vantage gfx numbers are spot on as far as I can tell.

 

[vjcsmoke]

Nvidia 650i chipset, doesn't have pci-e 2.0. Should be the full 16x pci-e though, think this old board could be holding it back? But still though my Vantage gfx numbers are spot on as far as I can tell.

Check the bench that I posted above. I believe the difference is accountable by CPU horsepower rather than bottlenecking alone. i7 at 4ghz has nearly 20 fps advantage over an e6600.

 

[BeavermanA]

Check the bench that I posted above. I believe the difference is accountable by CPU horsepower rather than bottlenecking alone. i7 at 4ghz has nearly 20 fps advantage over an e6600.

Your screen got denied cause of deep linking. What is the e6600 clocked in that 20fps advantage with an i7 at 4.0ghz?

 

[Cecil]

Nvidia 650i chipset, doesn't have pci-e 2.0. Should be the full 16x pci-e though, think this old board could be holding it back? But still though my Vantage gfx numbers are spot on as far as I can tell.

Yes, thats the same as PCIe 2.0 at x8. That would account for about a 10-15% loss compaired to x16 2.0.
There isnt much of a difference, but the 5870 is actually a PCIe 2.1 card.

Check the bench that I posted above. I believe the difference is accountable by CPU horsepower rather than bottlenecking alone. i7 at 4ghz has nearly 20 fps advantage over an e6600.

http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?t=332613

The E6600 at 3.6 really shouldnt bottleneck it. Maybe a tiny bit, but not that much.


Probably a combination of the two.

 

[vjcsmoke]

Am I allowed to post just the link to the picture?
Guess not.
Ok I'll host a copy of it. That should be ok, right?

Farcry 2 CPU bench comparison:

I think... they are actually using a 4870 here, but the difference in frames from the different CPUs used seems pretty evident imo.

 

[Cecil]

Am I allowed to post just the link to the picture?
Guess not.
Ok I'll host a copy of it. That should be ok, right?

Farcry 2 CPU bench comparison:

I think... they are actually using a 4870 here, but the difference in frames from the different CPUs used seems pretty evident imo.

That site is full of shat. CPU would never make that much of a difference, unless at a tiny res. Even 1280x1024 would be enough to not make much of a difference.

 

[pandora's box]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5870-cpu-scaling_5.html#sect2

 

[Matthew Kane]

Actually it does make a difference, for example

GTA IV w/patch 1.04, 2GB, Inno3d GTS250 oc'd, Medium - High Details, 25 for light, car density and draw distance, 6 for shadow density, 1440x900
E5300 stock average 38fps
E5300 @ 3.6 average is 49fps
Q6600 stock average is 41fps
Q6600 @ 3.2 average is 53fps
E8600 stock average is 44fps
E8600 @ 3.6 average is 51fps

I can go on with more modern games, older games performance won't be evident enough though.

 

[Cecil]

Actually it does make a difference, for example

GTA IV w/patch 1.04, 2GB, Inno3d GTS250 oc'd, Medium - High Details, 25 for light, car density and draw distance, 6 for shadow density, 1440x900
E5300 stock average 38fps
E5300 @ 3.6 average is 49fps
Q6600 stock average is 41fps
Q6600 @ 3.2 average is 53fps
E8600 stock average is 44fps
E8600 @ 3.6 average is 51fps

I can go on with more modern games, older games performance won't be evident enough though.

Thats un-realistic settings though. Its a really low res, and medium to high details.

Anyone considering a 5870 should have at the very least 1080P. At 1080P the CPU makes very little difference as long as its half way decent. The main thing the better CPU will give is better minimum frame rates.

 

[Matthew Kane]

Thats un-realistic settings though. Its a really low res, and medium to high details.

Well 1440x900 is the max res my monitor could go to on my test bed. I have a 22inch, but thats my dads, so its out of reach.

Ok being more thorough now, heres the full list of settings used"
Video Mode: 1440x900 (60hz)
Aspect Ratio: 16:10
Texture Quality: Medium
Reflection Resolution: High
Water Quality: High
Shadow Quality: High
Texture Filter Quality: High
View Distance: 25
Detail Distance: 25
Vehicle Density: 75
Shadow Density: 6
Definition: On
V-Sync: Off

 

[Cecil]

Well 1440x900 is the max res my monitor could go to on my test bed. I have a 22inch, but thats my dads, so its out of reach.

Ok being more thorough now, heres the full list of settings used"
Video Mode: 1440x900 (60hz)
Aspect Ratio: 16:10
Texture Quality: Medium
Reflection Resolution: High
Water Quality: High
Shadow Quality: High
Texture Filter Quality: High
View Distance: 25
Detail Distance: 25
Vehicle Density: 75
Shadow Density: 6
Definition: On
V-Sync: Off

Exactly, those settings are way to low to stress any decent card. A 4850 would max Crysis at that res.

 

[Matthew Kane]

Exactly, those settings are way to low to stress any decent card. A 4850 would max Crysis at that res.

You know that GTA IV runs complete like shit compared to Crysis right? And its the most demanding game to run at near adequate performance to/graphics quality ratio on the market today? lol...majority of graphics cards available today can run Crysis at full settings at res up to 1650x"""". let alone, Crysis is a shit game, more should focus more on GTA IV as a benchmark.

 

[Cecil]

You know that GTA IV runs complete like shit compared to Crysis right? And its the most demanding game to run at near adequate performance to/graphics quality ratio on the market today? lol...majority of graphics cards available today can run Crysis at full settings at res up to 1650x"""". let alone, Crysis is a shit game, more should focus more on GTA IV as a benchmark.

GTA4 looks like shit, plays like shit, and runs like shit on the best hardware. Crysis is actually a fun game, is the best looking game, and is by far the most technical game out there. Anyone who thinks its not optimised well, knows nothing about how graphics work. Its the best looking game, and the whole island is being rendered, you never get a load screen.

And no, majority of GPUs can not max it up to 1680x1050.

 

[BeavermanA]

Well Crysis runs pretty well on this card, definitely a big improvement at 19x12 over the 4890. Now my problem is it looks like shit on my LCD, haven't played it since I switched from my CRT. Guess a higher quality LCD should be my next purchase, or a wireless kb/m for the plasma.

 

[Cecil]

Well Crysis runs pretty well on this card, definitely a big improvement at 19x12 over the 4890. Now my problem is it looks like shit on my LCD, haven't played it since I switched from my CRT. Guess a higher quality LCD should be my next purchase, or a wireless kb/m for the plasma.

I like the bluetooth PS3 keyboard, since it has the mouse pad on it. Not good for games, but for relaxing in bed or on the couch browsing they work great.

 

[Matthew Kane]

GTA4 looks like shit, plays like shit, and runs like shit on the best hardware. Crysis is actually a fun game, is the best looking game, and is by far the most technical game out there. Anyone who thinks its not optimised well, knows nothing about how graphics work. Its the best looking game, and the whole island is being rendered, you never get a load screen.

And no, majority of GPUs can not max it up to 1680x1050.

haha you obviously have no idea what your talking about do you?

1. GTAIV looks more realistic because its 3rd person, you get a full 360 rotation of the scenes realism around you making it more harder to render, then crysis 1st person perspective where you only look out of the players view point and not a full 360 around graphics perspective.
2. You can go google whether GTA IV or Crysis is more demanding, and you will easily get your results that GTA IV is more demanding, yes it is buggy and more glitchy then Crysis, but there still yet future patches to improve its full playability. Also, GTA IV is game of the year voted by many, what about Crysis? Yeah its only famous for its graphics nothing much else and I have played both the games and its other instalments.
3. "Anyone who thinks its not optimised well, knows nothing about how graphics work. Its the best looking game, and the whole island is being rendered, you never get a load screen" you obviously don't know shit yourself with your trolling there, yes it was one of the best looking games out there, but it ain't anymore, but theres games like Arma 2 and GTA IV etc that can take a piece of that pie that Crysis is on.
4. Actually yes I've done some benchmarks with quite alot of graphics cards both from the red and green side, and majority of them maxed out can run Crysis smoothly and playable up to the 1650xXXX res range, theres simply a graphics mod, and correct if I'm wrong, there were even mentioned on this site as recommendation to optimise Crysis, these mods work better then the shitty gimmick ingame graphics system Crysis has and actually enhances playability and adds more beauty to the graphics.
5. And lastly to sum it up "Your living 2007, move onto 2009<".

 

[Cecil]

haha you obviously have no idea what your talking about do you?

1. GTAIV looks more realistic because its 3rd person, you get a full 360 rotation of the scenes realism around you making it more harder to render, then crysis 1st person perspective where you only look out of the players view point and not a full 360 around graphics perspective.
2. You can go google whether GTA IV or Crysis is more demanding, and you will easily get your results that GTA IV is more demanding, yes it is buggy and more glitchy then Crysis, but there still yet future patches to improve its full playability. Also, GTA IV is game of the year voted by many, what about Crysis? Yeah its only famous for its graphics nothing much else and I have played both the games and its other instalments.
3. "Anyone who thinks its not optimised well, knows nothing about how graphics work. Its the best looking game, and the whole island is being rendered, you never get a load screen" you obviously don't know shit yourself with your trolling there, yes it was one of the best looking games out there, but it ain't anymore, but theres games like Arma 2 and GTA IV etc that can take a piece of that pie that Crysis is on.
4. Actually yes I've done some benchmarks with quite alot of graphics cards both from the red and green side, and majority of them maxed out can run Crysis smoothly and playable up to the 1650xXXX res range, theres simply a graphics mod, and correct if I'm wrong, there were even mentioned on this site as recommendation to optimise Crysis, these mods work better then the shitty gimmick ingame graphics system Crysis has and actually enhances playability and adds more beauty to the graphics.
5. And lastly to sum it up "Your living 2007, move onto 2009<".

Moronic posts like these are why most people give up fighting noobs. If you think GTA4 looks good, then you need to stab your eyes out. Its looks fine for a console game, but thats it. Textures look like crap. The only thing its got going for it is the lighting and all the details like papers flying around and crap.

The game is so poorly optimised that it runs better on consoles then on PC with better hardware. Thats sad. With Crysis you are rendering an entire island, that you can travel without load screens. You should try out devmode, and fly around it a bit.

Also, first and third person has nothing to do with anything. Regardless of the view, you are viewing 3d objects. You arent playing pong


And are you really going to trust reviewers who get paid to give games good scores over the people that actually play them?

 

[Matthew Kane]

Moronic posts like these are why most people give up fighting noobs. If you think GTA4 looks good, then you need to stab your eyes out. Its looks fine for a console game, but thats it. Textures look like crap. The only thing its got going for it is the lighting and all the details like papers flying around and crap.

The game is so poorly optimised that it runs better on consoles then on PC with better hardware. Thats sad. With Crysis you are rendering an entire island, that you can travel without load screens. You should try out devmode, and fly around it a bit.

Also, first and third person has nothing to do with anything. Regardless of the view, you are viewing 3d objects. You arent playing pong


And are you really going to trust reviewers who get paid to give games good scores over the people that actually play them?

WTF? So you don't think GTAIV looks good? Fuck me, but did you drop your glasses or something, go make a thread here and ask people if they think the game has good graphics or not.

Yes I know the game game ain't really up to date with its optimizations, but its entirely playable with even a 8600gts at mid-to high graphics settings, I have tried developer mod in crysis and flown around, its alright, but its not the best, and the graphics look shiny plastic, and I believe GTA IV does look bit more better then Crysis

Leave pong out of this If GTA IV was fps view, it will achieve about the same fps as Crysis, have you ever done 3d graphics and CGi modeling, i.e Maya, 3dsmax those kind of things? You should because you have no idea about a viewpoint looking straight and turning only left, right, up and down to the full rotation view of 3rd person view like in GTA IV, the more you see on the screen, the more it has to render. hence why full screen explosion and smoke always has the biggest hits on your fps.