• 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.

i7 2600K usage % in gaming

B

Beezzer

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 26, 2009
Messages
152
If you get a chance, would you mind posting your i7 2600K's maximum CPU usage % when playing games known for pushing CPUs (e.g., Metro 2033, BC2, others?).

I'm curious because my current CPU (Q9650 @ 3.9GHz) is starting to hit 100% on all 4 cores in a few games, and I'm likely to upgrade this year. I thought I was going to wait until socket 2011 came out, but since I primarily use my PC for gaming and web surfing, I'm starting to think 2600K is the way to go. But if that CPU is already challenged by games, maybe I need to reconsider.

Thanks in advance.
 
|well it sorta will, those games are designed to run on quads, most games are only writen to use 2 cores/threads. So it will take as many cores as it can. So on the 2500/2600 iot will fill the 4 cores... the 2600 will have the virtual cores still, but they aren't real cores... though task manager will show 50% use.
 
I would say in your situation. (As a Quad Core CPU owner whose main uses for a PC being gaming and web browsing)

The biggest jump in better gaming performance for yourself. (smoothness of gameplay, better balance across CPU cores)

Currently is a 6 core Intel or AMD CPU. (Intel Core i7-970 Gulftown 3.2GHz, or AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Thuban 3.2GHz.

Or wait for a possible 6 core Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, or Bulldozer CPU when it's released or hold out longer for an 8 core, but I'm not sure when that is scheduled...so ask someone else about that or google. :p
 
Well, I have a 2500k, but I'm pushing around 60% utilization for most modern games @1080p.
 
Hex cores arent used in gaming.... a 2600k destroys x6's in 90% of applications. Intels fake 4 cores are usually better than amd's 6 cores.
 
He's saying don't bother with 6-core CPUs for gaming. And he's right. For now... eventually I'm sure there will be some games that can utilize 6, 8 or more threads.
 
Beezzer said:
If you get a chance, would you mind posting your i7 2600K's maximum CPU usage % when playing games known for pushing CPUs (e.g., Metro 2033, BC2, others?).

I'm curious because my current CPU (Q9650 @ 3.9GHz) is starting to hit 100% on all 4 cores in a few games, and I'm likely to upgrade this year. I thought I was going to wait until socket 2011 came out, but since I primarily use my PC for gaming and web surfing, I'm starting to think 2600K is the way to go. But if that CPU is already challenged by games, maybe I need to reconsider.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

I don't have a 2600k - but this may help in your decision. I have a 920@4.2 - my utilization in BC2 is 40%,30%,60%,30% and less than 5% on the HT cores.

I am a bit surprised that yours is getting maxed out - what's the utilization like in windows?
 
@Beezzer A 2600K is a very good choice for gaming and web browsing. I don't think you should wait for 2011 because those will be high-end CPUs and will be too expensive for a gaming PC.
@SeaFoam I think you get such a low usage because the 920 you have is a newer architecture than the Q9650 and is more efficient while processing data.
 
The Intel® Core™ I7 2600k is an outstanding processor and most likely the overall best value per performance that you can find on a CPU. As far as what hyper-threading does, it allows a second thread to be run on a single core on the left over resources. In other words you get the performance of lower power extra cores without the cost, power and heat of the extra cores.

Now if the cost of the Core I7 2600k is a little outside of your budget you may want to look at the Intel Core™ I5 2500k, it is a quad core with some great performance on its own.
 
Thanks for the replies. I hadn't given any thought to a six core CPU, such as the i7-970. I need to look into that a bit more, though I'm concerned about the end of life for the 1366 socket. I'm not familar with AMD CPUs, so I have no basis for an opinion there. Though I'm not looking to throw "crazy money" at a CPU, I'm fortunate to have a nice enough budget that I can consider anything that makes sense for a gaming rig. As a few noted, going beyond 4 cores (or 8 virtual) may be overkill for a gaming machine, but I'll need to do a bit more homework on that.

SeaFoam said:
I don't have a 2600k - but this may help in your decision. I have a 920@4.2 - my utilization in BC2 is 40%,30%,60%,30% and less than 5% on the HT cores.

I am a bit surprised that yours is getting maxed out - what's the utilization like in windows?
Click to expand...

I like your utilization, and that's the reason I'm looking to upgrade. My utilization in windows usually bounces around the low single digit percentages (1% to 3%), with spikes much higher than that. The 100% usage I'm seeing is the max during play, but I admit I haven't paid close attention to the usage through a game session, just the max. That's something I should look into a bit more.
 
Beezzer said:
Thanks for the replies. I hadn't given any thought to a six core CPU, such as the i7-970.
Click to expand...

Here is an opinion youtube video (He owns a 2600k and a i7-970 and does it for hobby) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbHaBmTw5ms&feature=channel_video_title

He says personally in a post below the video...

"Faster performance in some programs, more cache, more threads and more cores.

i7 2600 = 4 cores, 8 threads, 8MB cache

i7 970 = 6 cores, 12 threads, 12MB cache = faster = win, and not to mention X58 has more PCI-E slots and tri channel memory."

Tinytimlogan also achieved OC'z of 4.0 - 4.8ghz with the i7-970. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BD-sEluShs

Devils Advocate says http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=157 Anandtech Bench CPU comparisons show the i7-970 winning 11 of 42 tests with the 2600k taking 31 of 42.

It's very confusing, but I also personally think the i7-970 is the way to go if you can handle the extra 271.00 usd and aren't to bothered with the extra watt usage. It's more future proof IMO, and would tear up some video encoding + gaming.
 
My QX6850 @ 3.44 Ghz sits around 82%/75%/75%/80% in BC2. That's with a 5770, 4GB DDR2 on a Asus P5Q Pro
 
Unless you need 6 cores *right now*, there's really no point in paying the price premium with all the new stuff (faster 4 cores, cheaper 6 cores, and publicly available 8 cores) right on the horizon. There are times in a product cycle when it's best to wait before tossing a forkload of cash on expensive hardware, and unless someone wants a 990x for the best of the best, now may be that time...

Next thing you know, we may be seeing 6 core cpu's hitting 5.5 ghz on air...
 
Beezzer said:
I'm curious because my current CPU (Q9650 @ 3.9GHz) is starting to hit 100% on all 4 cores in BC2
Click to expand...

I've got a Q9650 @ 4.27ghz and I'm around 90-95% usage, I never see it say 100%, but I'm sure it's bottlenecking my potential performance of my 5870.

Lets get some more screenshots or posts of people's CPU usage with 2500k's or i7-920, 950, etc.

I'll post my usage tonight.
 
Does any body knows a good review of CPU scaling (MHz/cores) in recent games? It was long ago that I check this, but my perception is that all those quad cores are not the bottleneck in gaming and that a i7-970 would be a waste of money for gaming.
 
Here's CPU usage of a Q9650 @ 4.27ghz in a 32 person server, around 82-98%...

You can see the gtx570 usage spike up during the explosion, here's the ss during that explosion...

Full server Panama Canal
1600x1200
4xAA
16xAF
All HIGH settings
HBAO off

Funny thing is that the 570 actually performed worse then my 5870, I think this is due to CPU bottlenecking.

cpuusage.jpg

bfbc2screen.jpg
 
Last edited:
alot of games are showing usage on 8 threads now. More threads = better gaming!
 
§·H·ï·Z·N·ï·L·T·ï;1036958675 said:
I've got a Q9650 @ 4.27ghz and I'm around 90-95% usage, I never see it say 100%, but I'm sure it's bottlenecking my potential performance of my 5870.

Lets get some more screenshots or posts of people's CPU usage with 2500k's or i7-920, 950, etc.

I'll post my usage tonight.
Click to expand...

Interesting...I have a Q9550 @ 3.4, 8gb ram, and I never see it get that high in BC2...I suppose it could be the Vid card quality settings (but I don't think so)...I also have a 5870. My 4 cores tend to run between 55 and 85%...I'd say averaging 65 - 70 %.

I think:

1920x1200
4xAA
2x MSAA
HBAO off
All setting high, except one Medium (shadows)

.
 
Last edited:
dekruyter said:
Interesting...I have a Q9550 @ 3.4, 8gb ram, and I never see it get that high in BC2...I suppose it could be the Vid card quality settings (but I don't think so)...I also have a 5870. My 4 cores tend to run between 55 and 85%...I'd say averaging 65 - 70 %.

I think:

1920x1200
4xAA
2x MSAA
HBAO off
All setting high, except one Medium (shadows)

.
Click to expand...

Do you have xfire, if so PM me your screen name I'd like to join the same server and do some comparative tests.

"My 4 cores tend to run between 55 and 85%...I'd say averaging 65 - 70 %." -dekruyter

That's crazy to see it that low, my roommate who has a Q9550 @ 3.8ghz is also in the high 90's in BC2 like I am with my Q9650. I also checked out a couple peoples usage at this lan I went to that had Q9650's and they had the same results.

I'll do some more tests tonight... try to check CPU usage with highest graphic settings with max AA and with lowest settings with no AA and see what the CPU and GPU usage looks like.
 
4.27ghz on average is about the max for these Q9650's, I can go 4.5ghz but run into stability.

It's only BC2 that I get this high CPU usage, all other games are around 50-75% mark.
 
no xfire...not home right now and can't remember my Steam ID...I agree that BC2, of all my games, tends to use the most cpu.
 
Who gives a shit where the CPU usage is at. Are you getting decent performance or are you not? That should be the catalyst for an upgrade, not task manager.
 
 
Last edited:
With HT on my Stock(I think it has turbo on, not sure, 2.8 instead of 2.67) W3520 I get a usage of 50% on Core 4(Seems to do the HT) and around 25-40%(40 being the max ever) on a 32 person server. I play @ 1920x1080, but my GPU is a big limiting factor.
 
RamonGTP said:
Who gives a shit where the CPU usage is at. Are you getting decent performance or are you not? That should be the catalyst for an upgrade, not task manager.
Click to expand...
CPU usage is very important. If you don't pay attention to it you could have some serious hardware bottlenecks in performance when you try to make system upgrades to gain fps. It's something you have to look at when making a video card upgrade.

Performance is very important to me as I'm a competitive gamer, shit son I still use a hi-grade Sony Trinitron CRT and play some games at 170hz with locked framerate of 170fps...

In BC2 I like to stay at 1600x1200 @ 85hz with a constant 85fps.

Check this out, I tested (6) different video cards in my Q9650 4.27ghz rig. (2) of the higher end cards were a 2gb ati 5970 and a gtx570.

Since all benchmarks online show the 5970 as having the best performance in BC2 even passing the gtx580 I was hoping to never drop below 85fps in a full 32man BC2 server while running the game at 1600x1200 2xAA 16xAF highest settings with shadows on low in DX11 mode, but guess what... this card that was selling for $700 performed the same as my $200 1gb 5870 because my CPU was bottlenecking my performance, same goes with the gtx570, the gtx570 did allow for higher levels of AA, but the max fps I was able to obtain was no higher then my 5870.

Hence the importance of being aware of CPU usage, if your peaking at 100% in BC2 that's not good, your limiting what your GPU's full potential is.

So regardless of the BC2 graphics settings I use I'm being bottlenecked by my CPU... only way to get my min fps to never drop below 85fps is to get a i7-950^ or a i5-2500k^.
 
Last edited:
Hedonsim Bot said:
Games on my 2600k usually run at 18%-30% usage. I did overclock to 4.5Ghz but that gave me absolutely no performance gain so I put it back to stock. Here's some screens:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v128/lakerswallpaper/bc2.jpg

*had to play in windowed mode otherwise printscreen wouldn't work.
Click to expand...
Man, thnx a bunch for taking all those screenshots. Do you think you could join a full 32man BC2 server and take just one more SS for me please. Thanks again! Awesome rig you have BTW!
 
At 1080p which is the becoming more or less the Avg resolution the cpu play less of a role. That's why they always say buy a gpu to power your monitor not your ego. Playing with a high end card two resolutions of what it are able to handle your going to run into trouble with a cpu below 3Ghz.
 
§·H·ï·Z·N·ï·L·T·ï;1036962632 said:
CPU usage is very important. If you don't pay attention to it you could have some serious hardware bottlenecks in performance when you try to make system upgrades to gain fps. It's something you have to look at when making a video card upgrade.

Performance is very important to me as I'm a competitive gamer, shit son I still use a hi-grade Sony Trinitron CRT and play some games at 170hz with locked framerate of 170fps...

In BC2 I like to stay at 1600x1200 @ 85hz with a constant 85fps.

Check this out, I tested (6) different video cards in my Q9650 4.27ghz rig. (2) of the higher end cards were a 2gb ati 5970 and a gtx570.

Since all benchmarks online show the 5970 as having the best performance in BC2 even passing the gtx580 I was hoping to never drop below 85fps in a full 32man BC2 server while running the game at 1600x1200 2xAA 16xAF highest settings with shadows on low in DX11 mode, but guess what... this card that was selling for $700 performed the same as my $200 1gb 5870 because my CPU was bottlenecking my performance, same goes with the gtx570, the gtx570 did allow for higher levels of AA, but the max fps I was able to obtain was no higher then my 5870.

Hence the importance of being aware of CPU usage, if your peaking at 100% in BC2 that's not good, your limiting what your GPU's full potential is.

So regardless of the BC2 graphics settings I use I'm being bottlenecked by my CPU... only way to get my min fps to never drop below 85fps is to get a i7-950^ or a i5-2500k^.
Click to expand...

That only matters if you're not getting the performance you want, which is what I said. If you're getting the performance you desire it doesn't matter what the CPU usage is at. If you're not, then it MAY matter in order to determine where your bottleneck is, and even then, task manager won't do it for you much of the time. A game that only uses 2 threads may only show ~50% utilization on a quad core and STILL be CPU bottlenecked.

Best way to determine your bottleneck is to reduce or increase your clock speeds. If you reduce clock by 10% and your performance drops by about 10% then you're being CPU limited. This is a much more accurate way then using task manager.
 
RamonGTP said:
That only matters if you're not getting the performance you want, which is what I said. If you're getting the performance you desire it doesn't matter what the CPU usage is at. If you're not, then it MAY matter in order to determine where your bottleneck is, and even then, task manager won't do it for you much of the time. A game that only uses 2 threads may only show ~50% utilization on a quad core and STILL be CPU bottlenecked.

Best way to determine your bottleneck is to reduce or increase your clock speeds. If you reduce clock by 10% and your performance drops by about 10% then you're being CPU limited. This is a much more accurate way then using task manager.
Click to expand...
Ya whatever man... obviously if your happy with what you have don't bother fixing it. Some people are happy with never dropping below 30fps some never below 60fps and some like myself never dropping below 85fps.

For me and the OP in this thread we are obviously not happy with our CPU's coming close to 100% usage in BC2 and we know this is effecting performance...

Made this post last week...
§·H·ï·Z·N·ï·L·T·ï;1036913288 said:
In BC2 I have massive fps gains when I OC.

Going from a stock speed of 3ghz to a OC of 4.27ghz I gain about 20-25fps.
Click to expand...
 
Bc2 is cpu intensive. A lowly clocked quad will suffer. But the question is a game consist of lot of graphical work. Why does the cpu have to do the work that the gpu was suppose to be doing? It can mean only 1 thing. Bad coding. They're good for benchmarks and bragging rights in forums as the case was with GTA IV. But is it fair that pc users gets thrown console bad ports and that we should be happy with it? I think bad ports shouldn't be supported.
 
§·H·ï·Z·N·ï·L·T·ï;1036963972 said:
Ya whatever man... obviously if your happy with what you have don't bother fixing it. Some people are happy with never dropping below 30fps some never below 60fps and some like myself never dropping below 85fps.

For me and the OP in this thread we are obviously not happy with our CPU's coming close to 100% usage in BC2 and we know this is effecting performance...

Made this post last week...
Click to expand...

I think you just don't understand what i'm saying. I'm saying upgrade if you are wanting more performance. Don't upgrade simply based on a "feeling" you get because of what task manager says. If you can conceptualize how multi-threading skews the results of what you think task manager is telling you, you'd understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top