Core 2 Duo - E8400 vs Sandy Bridge for lower resolution gaming?

S

Shad0w99

n00b
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
36
Hi there,

This might seem like a strange question. Here we have a system with E8400 and GTX 260. Resolution for gaming = 1024x768. I'm told that it's more CPU dependent when it comes to lower resolution. Some people tell me the E8400 with 6MB L2 as opposed to lower L2 Sandybridge CPU's will perform better on 1024x768. Is that rue? What would make more sense - upgrading the E8400 to maybe a Quad Core Yorkfield or switching to Sandybridge? Any help regarding this would be really great.

Thank you
 
A gpu upgrade first, but at that resolution I am not sure it is even necessary unless you want dx11.
 
No DX11. I forgot to mention that OS is Windows XP! Yes. Yes. I know! so no CPU upgrade needed? maybe just a GPU upgrade?

Thank you
 
What games do you play? Some are just more CPU or GPU dependent.

Also I don't think its as simple as 6MB cache vs 2MB or whatever. The architecture is vastly improved on newer chips.

Not an E8400 comparison but look how far back a Q6600 is vs a new i3 2100. The i3 2100 even does better than the i7 920 sometimes. This is with a GTX 280 at 1680x1050.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20

I'm pretty sure an new i3/i5 will be better, but depending on the games you play it may not be worth it right now.
 
Last edited:
If you're into high framerate gaming, then yes you'd gain a lot from a Sandy Bridge upgrade.

I gained a lot going from an e8400 to an i5 2500k @4,5ghz in 1080p with a GPU close to yours (GTX 275), especially in old games and BFBC2/BF3.
 
I play mostly FPS games and no CPU dependent RTS games. I would like to run MW3 and BC2. So for a lower resolution like 1024x768, SB upgrade might be worth it? I was a bit confused as lot of people were telling me on such low resolution - GPU really doesn't matter and that SB is not going to get me higher frame rates than E8400 especially on 1024x768

Thank you
 
If you play BC2 you will gain much more with a quad core. Sandy core will demolish a E8400 whatever situation.
 
Shad0w99 said:
Hi there,

This might seem like a strange question. Here we have a system with E8400 and GTX 260. Resolution for gaming = 1024x768. I'm told that it's more CPU dependent when it comes to lower resolution. Some people tell me the E8400 with 6MB L2 as opposed to lower L2 Sandybridge CPU's will perform better on 1024x768. Is that rue? What would make more sense - upgrading the E8400 to maybe a Quad Core Yorkfield or switching to Sandybridge? Any help regarding this would be really great.

Thank you
Click to expand...
CPU always plays a role in gaming. The lower resolution doesn't mean that more CPU is being used, it just means it has more responsibility than the GPU does and can bottleneck the system faster. The higher resolution means the opposite, that the GPU is usually the first to bottleneck a system.

As for your situation, just play some games and see how they feel. You don't have to upgrade right away. If you're getting 60 FPS than you're good.
 
Low resolution works the CPU a lot more, but seriously i dont see either cpu being a bottleneck. I am currently gaming on an HP ML150 G3 server that has dual xeon 5120s. I overclocked them to 2.33ghz and my gains run great at 1280x1024. (call of duty MW2, red faction guerilla, civ 5, heroes of might and magic, world of warcraft)
 
Shad0w99 said:
I would like to run MW3 and BC2.
Click to expand...

Those games should run OK with your current system at 1024x768 (BC2 runs a little bit better on a quad).

If you wanna play BF3:MP, then your e8400 is doomed - I've seen enough comparisons with that scenario. ;)
 
Seb1 said:
Those games should run OK with your current system at 1024x768 (BC2 runs a little bit better on a quad).

If you wanna play BF3:MP, then your e8400 is doomed - I've seen enough comparisons with that scenario. ;)
Click to expand...

That sucks to hear. I was hoping to play BF3:MP! Would a i5-2400 perform better? So for games like BF3, even in 1024x768 - something like i5 2500K is required?

Thank you
 
caniba said:
A gpu upgrade first, but at that resolution I am not sure it is even necessary unless you want dx11.
Click to expand...

Why would he need to upgrade GPU for that resolution?
Overclocked 260 is faster than 6770 and will play games like Fallout 3 or ME2 all maxed at full HD

As for CPU
quad core SB> i3 210x > E8400
 
@ Shad0w99: Check this t[h]read by Frito about CPU benchmarks in BF3:MP.

Another CPU benchmark from Sweclockers.

See what happens with BF:BC2 going from q9650 to 2500k.

Yes, the i5-2400 would be the cheapest quad SB and it would perform waaay better.
The i5-2500k isn't required to play BF3 with a mid-end/single GPU rig, BUT a good quad is required.

Don't choose the H67 chipset, because you will be limited to DDR3-1333 speed and probably loose the limited OC feature of that i5-2400 (I'm not sure about the second part of the sentence...).
 
Yeah on P67/Z68 you would get 400 Mhz more out of any i5-2x00 as H67 has no oc options.
 
MrXROK said:
If you play BC2 you will gain much more with a quad core. Sandy core will demolish a E8400 whatever situation.
Click to expand...

Unless you go with a low-cache amount quad-core, pretty much any Intel quad-core will beat up a dual-core.

Consider that I have an utterly bone-stock Q6600 currently chained to the overclock-blocking G41 chipset - yet NFS - The Run or BF3 (both based on Frostbite 2, and thus at least taking some advantage of DX11 in Windows 7) are quite smooth at 1280x720 (definitely comfortably above 30 fps). This is Intel's *slowest* LGA775 quad-core. And the GPU is the notebook-GPU-in-desktop-clothes AMD HD5450. And I am Quite Aware that a stock i5-2500K (which I am moving to, as soon as I can make the trip to the Land of Fair Faxes) will easily eat its lunch (with the same GPU, even).

It's why the move is filling me with at least SOME dread, since I haven't even been in the MIDDLE of the power curve since Ye Days of Northwood
 
why don't you try to overclock your E8400 to 3.8Ghz .... and wait to upgrade to the Ivy Bridge on April/May.
 
EmualDave said:
why don't you try to overclock your E8400 to 3.8Ghz .... and wait to upgrade to the Ivy Bridge on April/May.
Click to expand...

Just to be picky. He could probably run that E8400 at 400 MHz FSB aka. 1600 MHz with very little tweaking. That could probably hold him over til IB, as you mentioned.

That will give him an 3.6 GHz OC, I know a dual is not as good as a quad, but I have a freind playing BF3 with a [email protected] and he claims it runs smooth.

Unfortunately I do not have any frame rates from my friend, and I do not know if he ever plays 64 player maps.

EDIT:
Unless you can get a cheap used part cheap, don't buy a quad socket 775 CPU, they are way to expensive compared to the performance gain you get with a SB i5.
If you go for SB or wait for IB, go for a quad, as games do benefit from a quad core.
 
Last edited:
FWIW my mate with a e7200@3,6ghz and a GTX 275 can barely play 32 players map in BF3 with medium settings (high and ultra are unplayable, and 64 player maps run at like 15fps or so even on low). His GPU usage is very low (60-70% maximum, mine is 100%...)

With the same GPU and an i5 @ 4,5ghz I can play 64 players map on ultra at about 30fps. I much prefer to play on low at 40-50fps minimum (64 players map) though.

We both play in 1080p as well. So BF3 is clearly CPU bound even in a high res.
 
ordovician said:
^ I'd take a dual-core i3-2100 over a Q6600 any day.
Click to expand...

Unless you run applications that take advantage of HTT, that would be a bad bet.

First off, i3-2100 has less cache than Q6600 (both in absolute terms and per-core terms).

While I'll grant you Sandy Bridge's greater efficiency, it's not great enough to overcome a core deficit compared to Q6600. Maybe compared to an AMD quad-core - but not one from Intel, even an earlier quad-core.

Maybe if i3 overclocks *significantly* higher than Q6600, you may have a case. However, that hasn't been shown unless you hobble the earlier quad with air-cooling, while you go liquid cooling for i3. And in that case, it's apples vs. oranges.
 
PGHammer said:
Unless you run applications that take advantage of HTT, that would be a bad bet.

First off, i3-2100 has less cache than Q6600 (both in absolute terms and per-core terms).

While I'll grant you Sandy Bridge's greater efficiency, it's not great enough to overcome a core deficit compared to Q6600. Maybe compared to an AMD quad-core - but not one from Intel, even an earlier quad-core.

Maybe if i3 overclocks *significantly* higher than Q6600, you may have a case. However, that hasn't been shown unless you hobble the earlier quad with air-cooling, while you go liquid cooling for i3. And in that case, it's apples vs. oranges.
Click to expand...

Erm what?

Q6600 has IPC of Phenom II - i3 2100 at least matches 4 Ghz Phenom II in gaming.

And good luck overclocking i3-2100 :D
 
I moved from the Q9650 to i7 2600K, both overclocked to 4.0GHz, and barely noticed an increase in gaming performance. It seems to be more smooth and less stuttering. Those Penryn CPU's are respectable in terms of gaming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top