Gaming Bottleneck

  • Thread starter Deleted member 169154
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 169154

Guest
This could also go into the CPU boards, but it could be both.

I recently built a computer, and I used an e6600 CPU. I have used a placeholder GPU (7600GT) until I decide what one I want to purchase for the long run.

When I built my computer a few months ago the general consensus was there was practically no reason for a quad-core. Now I have read games (notable Crysis) will be optimized for 4 cores. I want to know if my CPU will actually be my bottleneck though.

For example if I purchase the new 8800GT and run Crysis, how much more FPS would I get on a Qcore compared to a identical clocked core2.

I really do not want to have "wasted" $230 on a CPU and feel the need to upgrade to a quad core. I am getting married in less than 2 months, and with me still in college I won't have too much spare money to pick up a new CPU. This computer was my last big bang before I became enslaved :p
 
Many tried to advocate quad-cores for quite awhile but were drowned out by people having no clue what they were talking about. MANY games make use of quad-cores today, as was said months ago would be the case. Crysis, UT3, HL2 engine (Ep2, others soon), Supreme Commander, Company of Heroes, World in Conflict, Bioshock, Oblivion (for awhile), multiple copies of any MMO, etc. etc. etc. There will be a bottleneck, but it shouldn't be severe over a well-clocked dual-core. In your position, and I gather you are trying to avoid spending the money, I'd stay with what I had (plus the 8800GT :) ). You're going to see people still claiming all new buyers should go dual-core even today, which is a sad thing that people are spouting without educating themselves first, as though it were gospel. This is just for games... for anything else such as encoding/rendering/audio-work/general desktop use/etc., the quad core just demolishes the dual-core.
 
What does it matter then if you're not gonna buy a quad core anyways? Do you want us to make you feel bad? ;)
 
if i was running a platform which truely supported quad-core, i'd upgrade. but i don't, and i'm in love with the way my e4300 performs.

i'm gonna wait until my part sucks before i upgrade. the [H] will let me know, if i get too complacent.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Many tried to advocate quad-cores for quite awhile but were drowned out by people having no clue what they were talking about. MANY games make use of quad-cores today, as was said months ago would be the case. Crysis, UT3, HL2 engine (Ep2, others soon), Supreme Commander, Company of Heroes, World in Conflict, Bioshock, Oblivion (for awhile), multiple copies of any MMO, etc. etc. etc. There will be a bottleneck, but it shouldn't be severe over a well-clocked dual-core. In your position, and I gather you are trying to avoid spending the money, I'd stay with what I had (plus the 8800GT :) ). You're going to see people still claiming all new buyers should go dual-core even today, which is a sad thing that people are spouting without educating themselves first, as though it were gospel. This is just for games... for anything else such as encoding/rendering/audio-work/general desktop use/etc., the quad core just demolishes the dual-core.
Click to expand...

Bollocks, why are you spouting this stuff with no evidence? Please post benchmarks where minimum, average or median framerates are better on a quad-core at actual gaming settings and resolution.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_extreme_qx9650_penryn_performance/page11.asp
 
trinibwoy said:
Bollocks, why are you spouting this stuff with no evidence? Please post benchmarks where minimum, average or median framerates are better on a quad-core at actual gaming settings and resolution.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_extreme_qx9650_penryn_performance/page11.asp
Click to expand...

Your own link shows that the quad's perform better :rolleyes:. If you aren't running a high res, you WILL be CPU bottlenecked with modern graphics cards. The one you linked is CRYSIS at that, which everyone knows is primarily GPU-bound right now. Here's a better one: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600.html Quad-core gaming IS here and will continue to be the norm from here on out.

Xbitlabs graph, note the clock speeds:
quadcoregamingcomparisoyd6.png
 
Lol did you even look at the firingsquad link? The quad was faster at 800x600 low quality. Yeah.....
 
GoldenTiger said:
Your own link shows that the quad's perform better :rolleyes:. If you aren't running a high res, you WILL be CPU bottlenecked with modern graphics cards. The one you linked is CRYSIS at that, which everyone knows is primarily GPU-bound right now. Here's a better one: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600.html
Click to expand...

Yes, Lost planet has one Cave benchmark that shows a difference. However, did you even read the conclusion of your own linked article?

Summing up the results we have just seen, I can conclude that if the gamers don’t feel like overclocking their processor, they shouldn’t go for CPUs with more than two cores. Gamers-overclockers should definitely decide in favor of the Core 2 Quad Q6600, although a strong opposite opinion exists these days.
Click to expand...

Your definition of a high resolution is probably pretty low. Most modern games at 16x12 with AA/AF are GPU bottlenecked even on a GTX.
 
I would upgrade it if the difference was justified.

For example if framerates went to 20FPS -> 30FPS that would be huge. But like 20->22 FPS isn't quite the same.

I MAY purchase Crysis, never been a huge shooter person, but I do plan on purchasing FSX for sure. Does anyone know if FSX gets more performance from the quad over a dual core?

Right now I have my e6600 at 3.0 GHz (1.3 V). What is the recommended overclock for gaming?
 
trinibwoy said:
Yes, Lost planet has one Cave benchmark that shows a difference. However, did you even read the conclusion of your own linked article?
Click to expand...

Did you even read what they said?

Gamers-overclockers should definitely decide in favor of the Core 2 Quad Q6600, although a strong opposite opinion exists these days.

Basically, in dual-threaded apps, the Q6600 will perform similarly, what you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of is that most games are now, and are becoming, multi-threaded and will thus perform FAR better on the quad-cores from here on out. I run 1680x1050 personally.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Did you even read what they said?

Gamers-overclockers should definitely decide in favor of the Core 2 Quad Q6600, although a strong opposite opinion exists these days.

Basically, in dual-threaded apps, the Q6600 will perform similarly, what you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of is that most games are now, and are becoming, multi-threaded and will thus perform FAR better on the quad-cores from here on out.
Click to expand...

That's fine. If I was doing a new build I would also go quad considering how cheap they are. But the OP already has a dual-core conroe. He will see zero improvement in games by going to an equivalently clocked quad-core.
 
trinibwoy said:
That's fine. If I was doing a new build I would also go quad considering how cheap they are. But the OP already has a dual-core conroe. He will see zero improvement in games by going to an equivalently clocked quad-core.
Click to expand...

We both agree on that, see my first post:

GoldenTiger said:
In your position, and I gather you are trying to avoid spending the money, I'd stay with what I had (plus the 8800GT :) ).
Click to expand...

:) For a new system I 100% say go for a quad, however if someone already has an existing dual-core one and is trying to spend a lower amount, there's little point in the upgrade for the bang/buck ratio.

I do apologize for my last post, though, I was a bit over-aggressive with it.
 
shmo007 said:
Right now I have my e6600 at 3.0 GHz (1.3 V). What is the recommended overclock for gaming?
Click to expand...

A 3 GHz Core 2 will be good for years. Assuming you're like most 8800 owners and game at 1600x1200 or above, it will be a long time before you are bottlenecked by your CPU.
 
Thanks for the replies everyone.

Like I mentioned earlier, main games I will probably play these in the future:

Oblivion, FSX, Warhammer Online, random strategy games (usually not the most graphics intensive)

I am thinking atleast in those games quad core will make no difference. Warhammer shouldn't be too taxing on graphics anyway, because online games usually are behind in graphics to appeal to a larger market (look at WoW), and also internet connections and super graphics do not mix that well.
 
Scyles said:
A 3 GHz Core 2 will be good for years. Assuming you're like most 8800 owners and game at 1600x1200 or above, it will be a long time before you are bottlenecked by your CPU.
Click to expand...

I game at 1680x1050.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top