is my friends cpu bottlenecking his system?

E

etegv

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
334
who is right here? he is on a quad core phenom 940 w/ a 6950 (w/ i think 6gb ddr2) but is still lagging in games like bf3, etc @ 1080. I told him to upgrade the CPU but he feels upgrading the GPU will give him more perfmance. I told him at higher resolutions that is true but his cpu will bottleneck his card no matter what he upgrades to..

so who is right? should he upgrade his cpu or gpu? thanks
 
Last edited:
my vote is oc the cpu and get a better gpu. also would wait until we get the numbers for the new amd cards before he buys since its next month.
 
Last edited:
His platform is most definitely a bottleneck. Upgrading the GPU will do practically nothing for him unless he's going for resolution beyond 1080. OC the hell outta the CPU or upgrade the platform entirely.
 
He can overclock his cpu to 3.6 Ghz on stock or close to stock voltage with little to no issues. Get him to hit 3.8 or 4Ghz and I guarantee he will see a noted increase in framerate in BF3 etc.
Imo from then on it comes down to money, Bf4 will make good use of Six Core Cpus giving a great increase in Fps with the right hardware...
Overclocking is free, as long as he has a decent aftermarket cooler then he can get a "free" performance boost. From there He can buy himself a nice video card and hold onto it if he decides to upgrade platform later.
 
Nauseous said:
my vote is oc the cpu and get a better gpu. also would wait until we get the numbers for the new amd cards before he buys since its next month.
Click to expand...

really? you dont think that CPU is outdated? he got it around march 2009. I figured he wouldnt get a huge increase in FPS if he kept his CPU but upgraded his GPU to say a 7770 ( at least he wouldnt get his moneys worth)

cortexodus said:
His platform is most definitely a bottleneck. Upgrading the GPU will do practically nothing for him unless he's going for resolution beyond 1080. OC the hell outta the CPU or upgrade the platform entirely.
Click to expand...

this is exactly what I was thinking. He isnt a hard core game and recently bought a tv with 1080P, so he'll be at that resolution for a while.

runudownquick said:
He can overclock his cpu to 3.6 Ghz on stock or close to stock voltage with little to no issues. Get him to hit 3.8 or 4Ghz and I guarantee he will see a noted increase in framerate in BF3 etc.
Imo from then on it comes down to money, Bf4 will make good use of Six Core Cpus giving a great increase in Fps with the right hardware...
Overclocking is free, as long as he has a decent aftermarket cooler then he can get a "free" performance boost. From there He can buy himself a nice video card and hold onto it if he decides to upgrade platform later.
Click to expand...

I read that BF3 multi is very cpu intensive and theres just no way that 940 can keep up, am I wrong? Right now he is deciding between a CPu upgrade and a GPU upgrade and @ 1080 I feel like a CPU upgrade would be a much better upgrade right now considering he has a 6950. How serious is the bottle neck? if ocing it will reduce the bottleneck greatly then I will tell him to keep the cpu. otherwise, ill tell him to upgrade his gpu

so at 1080, would the GPU be a better upgrade or the CPU? Which would get better results? because for bf3 Ive read a lot about it needing a good cpu b/c of all the people on the servers.

thanks for the help.
 
CPU upgrade without a doubt. Specifically an Intel quad vote Core I5
 
Dangman said:
CPU upgrade without a doubt. Specifically an Intel quad vote Core I5
Click to expand...


thank you. Im linking him to this thread right now b/c Ive been reading the opinions here and everyone says to take bottle necking seriously
 
etegv said:
really? you dont think that CPU is outdated? he got it around march 2009. I figured he wouldnt get a huge increase in FPS if he kept his CPU but upgraded his GPU to say a 7770 ( at least he wouldnt get his moneys worth)
Click to expand...


Not sure if you made a typo there. The 6950 is A LOT more powerful than a 7770, so do not by any means let him upgrade to that.

The 6950 should be more than adequate for handling BF3 on high or so. Definitely either overclock that CPU or make the upgrade. But he'll definitely want to upgrade his CPU before he does his GPU.
 
Besides the less than ideal performance, the other main reason to upgrade is to get 8GB DDR3 RAM while it is still around $60. RAM prices are going up so best upgrade now before they hit $80 for low end 8GB RAM. In addition, apparently theres only going to be a Haswell refresh next year so a Pastel Core I5 setup would still be considered the latest tech.
 
Dangman said:
Besides the less than ideal performance, the other main reason to upgrade is to get 8GB DDR3 RAM while it is still around $60. RAM prices are going up so best upgrade now before they hit $80 for low end 8GB RAM. In addition, apparently theres only going to be a Haswell refresh next year so a Pastel Core I5 setup would still be considered the latest tech.
Click to expand...

The rig the OP is referring to uses I am pretty sure uses a Triple Channel set up, so 8GB in not possible unless he wants to run 6GB in triple channel and 2GB in single channel.

Next logical upgrade would be 12GB.
 
etegv said:
who is right here? he is on a quad core 940 w/ a 6950 (w/ i think 6gb ddr2) but is still lagging in games like bf3, etc @ 1080. I told him to upgrade the CPU but he feels upgrading the GPU will give him more perfmance. I told him at higher resolutions that is true but his cpu will bottleneck his card no matter what he upgrades to..

so who is right? should he upgrade his cpu or gpu? thanks
Click to expand...

This chip he is running is an Intel i7-940, correct?

If so, what speed is the RAM running at?

BF2 was laggy on the older i7 setups unless the RAM was bumped up a bit.

If his RAM is running at at 1066 or 1333, jumping to at least 1600 should smooth things out quite a bit, the faster the better. The uncore and QPI speed make a decent difference on the older i7 setups as well.
Getting the blck up a decent amount while keeping the same CPU and RAM speed helps a decent amount as well.

Overclock the CPU while at it. Like others said, 3.6Ghz should be super easy, and going up higher will help even more.
 
cyclone3d said:
This chip he is running is an Intel i7-940, correct?

If so, what speed is the RAM running at?

BF2 was laggy on the older i7 setups unless the RAM was bumped up a bit.

If his RAM is running at at 1066 or 1333, jumping to at least 1600 should smooth things out quite a bit, the faster the better. The uncore and QPI speed make a decent difference on the older i7 setups as well.
Getting the blck up a decent amount while keeping the same CPU and RAM speed helps a decent amount as well.

Overclock the CPU while at it. Like others said, 3.6Ghz should be super easy, and going up higher will help even more.
Click to expand...

intel has a 940? lol didnt even know, sorry

this is with a AMD phenom x4 940 so its quite a bit older. i just feel like no OC can help him at this point, but maybe im wrong?

an AMD phenom x4 940 will hold him back no matter what he upgrades to, right? this is for 1080p gaming. He keeps arguing with me telling me im wrong. I know im right but do any of you guys have a link? something definitive on bottle necking for people with simple minds?

thanks :D
 
Might as well overclock the CPU and see. All it's going to cost is the little bit of time it takes to get a decent overclock.

And are you guys sure that the lag in BF3 is system-caused, as opposed to server-caused?

Regardless, you guys can solve your debate by overclocking one component, measuring the gains, then putting it back to stock and then overclocking the other component. Clearly if you overclock to a significant relative increase, and see no improvements, it's the other component that is the culprit.

It is possible that he'll see gains from just the GPU upgrade, as generations implement different technology, in addition to overall raw clock/bandwidth increases. All I'm saying is don't discount it--though I can't say it's the most cost-effective way of getting more performance. At that point, it's probably best to do a complete system overhaul.

Could also be the DDR2 holding it back. Tough to say with "such" an old system.
 
You will get a very decent upgrade in performance going from an AMD 940 to a core i5 or i7.
The CPU, chipset and memory are all holding it back.
Check the CPU Mark results, the AMD 940 is waaay down the list and bear in mind you can clock the nads off modern intel CPUs.
The slowest Intel overclocking Quad is the 2500K, it scores 6373 at stock speed, it will get to around 50% faster with a good overclock.
The AMD 940 x4 scores 3658.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

See how you get on after moving to an intel setup, performance may be acceptable without upgrading the GPU.
 
How much does he want to spend? But yeah PII's perform pretty badly for games that are cpu intensive these days. Especially if he's running at the stock 3ghz.
 
Overclock and test. Like everyone else says, 4GHz would be nice.
 
All you guys swear the cpu is bottle necking but I run an osd at all times and my cpu averages around 40% usage on large bf3 online maps......very rarely spikes to 80% here and there
On top of that im able to even run bd_rebuilder in the background and STILL play bf3...course its staying at 100% doing that. And Im just using an 920 at 3.4ghz......So how exactly is my cpu going to really be holding me back when i upgrade to say 290x in a few weeks? Course i will admit, i don't need 120fps playing online...60ish is fine for me

but still......explain how my old cpu would hold back a newer card lol yes its several years old but my Nehalem is still working fine......I am tempted to drop in a 6 core...but a hole new system? hardly seems necessary
 
You can always over/underclock your processor just to see how much it affects for FPS, even if it's just temporary, it will let you know if it's a CPU related bottleneck.
 
primetime said:
All you guys swear the cpu is bottle necking but I run an osd at all times and my cpu averages around 40% usage on large bf3 online maps......very rarely spikes to 80% here and there
On top of that im able to even run bd_rebuilder in the background and STILL play bf3...course its staying at 100% doing that. And Im just using an 920 at 3.4ghz......So how exactly is my cpu going to really be holding me back when i upgrade to say 290x in a few weeks? Course i will admit, i don't need 120fps playing online...60ish is fine for me

but still......explain how my old cpu would hold back a newer card lol yes its several years old but my Nehalem is still working fine......I am tempted to drop in a 6 core...but a hole new system? hardly seems necessary
Click to expand...

Did you read the thread?
 
cyclone3d said:
The rig the OP is referring to uses I am pretty sure uses a Triple Channel set up, so 8GB in not possible unless he wants to run 6GB in triple channel and 2GB in single channel.

Next logical upgrade would be 12GB.
Click to expand...

AMD 940 uses double channel
 
940 was a bugged CPU also, it had some really bad inefficiencies, thats why they released the 9900 series so quickly after (3 months I think?)

Don't get me wrong its a good CPU for just common tasks, but if he wants to run games maxed out at 1080p the CPU and the memory simply dont have the bandwidth to support modern GPUs.

With the same CPU and 4870s in crossfire I was getting CPU bottlenecks, and that was 4-5 years ago!

Yeah simply upgrading to a modern CPU that utilizes DDR3 RAM will be a night and day difference. You could literally pick any CPU now-days and he would be blown away by the performance
 
Nenu said:
Did you read the thread?
Click to expand...


Shouldn't have to TBH. That's something that should be in the OP and edited in. I thought the very same thing before it was clarified and was wondering why people were saying bottleneck all gung ho myself.

AMD 940 would definitely be a bottleneck at this point and OC'ing isn't going to shit out skittles either, but it would be something. I'd ditch the AMD platform and go Intel for the best bang for your buck. Save money and go for the higher end i5 parts.

i5 4670K for the overclocking headroom is well worth the added $30 and it'll keep you clear of bottlenecks for years to come. Or you can even save some money and go i5 3570K. The difference between Ivy and Haswell on the parts isn't even worth mentioning.
 
etegv said:
an AMD phenom x4 940 will hold him back no matter what he upgrades to, right? this is for 1080p gaming. He keeps arguing with me telling me im wrong. I know im right but do any of you guys have a link? something definitive on bottle necking for people with simple minds?D
Click to expand...
Two years ago, some Swedes did do a multiplayer CPU test:
http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3/5#pagehead

Note that the Phenom II 980 is clocked a full 700Mhz higher than your friend's Phenom II 940. In addition, those results are a tad outdated since the game has been updated a bit since 2011. Still, it shows that there is a big difference in CPU performance between older AMDs and Intels.

This article is a bit more up-to-date and shows that HT and additional cores do help out a lot with BF3:
http://www.techbuyersguru.com/CPUgaming.php

Finally, there is this Russian article showing CPU performance during the Multiplayer only Armored Kill expansion pack for BF3 (Scroll all the way down to the last chart):
http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-3-armored-kill-test-gpu.html

It even includes your friend's Phenom II 940. Note how it's getting outperformed by $100 to $130 CPUs let alone ~$200 CPUs.
 
tosgamer said:
Op has a Phenom II 940 not an I7 940. Downclock your i7 to around 2.2 ghz and see if you bottleneck. That's about the power of a PII 940 at stock.
Click to expand...

:eek: Oh that explains it...In that case its probably severely bottle necked
 
I have a similar system performance wise and I can safely say it's his CPU. I can't wait for new hardware, upgrading to a 4670k and whatever video card solution is the best for under $600 in October. (Probably R9 290X, 760 4gb sli, or 670 4gb SLI.)
 
primetime said:
All you guys swear the cpu is bottle necking but I run an osd at all times and my cpu averages around 40% usage on large bf3 online maps......very rarely spikes to 80% here and there

but still......explain how my old cpu would hold back a newer card lol yes its several years old but my Nehalem is still working fine......I am tempted to drop in a 6 core...but a hole new system? hardly seems necessary
Click to expand...

Because it's not about total CPU time, it's about IPC. Just because you're not seeing your CPU hit 100% doesn't mean the CPU isn't a limiting factor. Although, in your case, you're still better off than OP's friend ;) CPU usage and GPU usage are not like some kind of power gauges that fill up to 100% and then you're at "limit".

The issue in discussion here is, basically, how many instructions can a person's machine pass back and forth from the CPU, RAM, and the GPU before one of those components becomes the jerk holding up the show?

If the CPU is a raging 8 core 7Ghz inferno, but the GPU is a X1300 Pro, it won't matter how awesome that CPU is since it's trying to shove data into a hole that's too damn small. Likewise, If the CPU is too slow, it's like the GPU is sucking data through a boba straw at the bottom of a slurpy cup being filled through a kinked coffee stirrer.
 
odd, i had my 940 running stock and a 5870 1gb (isnt the 6950 just a tad bit faster?) and was running mid-high at 1080p 2 years ago and was getting 30-75fps. when i switched to a new platform (2500k and 12gb ddr3 with same gpu) definitely smoother, minimum fps was 55 on 2500k (stock) instead of the 30 on 940.



I say cpu. Should upgrade to a new platform, ever since I left my 940 for my 2500k, i havent had the need to upgrade my cpu for the last two years. and the 6950 is still a decent card at the moment, or he could always grab a 7950 since they are cheap now. (I love my 7950!!!)
 
Last edited:
while were on the cpu subject....i wonder if spending the money on this is practical for my system after i have upgraded to a newer card. lol when is a decent intel 6 core going to be cheap...been waiting 4 years and still hasn't happened..

Intel Xeon E5645 Processor 2.4 GHz 12 MB Cache Socket LGA1366 Price: $549.99
http://www.amazon.com/Intel-E5645-Processor-Socket-LGA1366/dp/B004NSEO5C
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
A 940 will probably bottleneck a 7950, but if the lag described isn't fps related then try lowering the resolution as there might be some driver conflicts.
 
primetime said:
while were on the cpu subject....i wonder if spending the money on this is practical for my system after i have upgraded to a newer card. lol when is a decent intel 6 core going to be cheap...been waiting 4 years and still hasn't happened..
Intel Xeon E5645 Processor 2.4 GHz 12 MB Cache Socket LGA1366 Price: $549.99
http://www.amazon.com/Intel-E5645-Processor-Socket-LGA1366/dp/B004NSEO5C
Click to expand...

Prices on high end Cpus, Video cards etc don't usually ever fall too low. Unless you luck out on some clearance blowout etc. Don't hold your breath!
To be honest look for something used if you really want a hex core for socket 1366. Just today I missed out on a used i7 980x for $200 used locally, I'm trying for a i7 970 for $220 from another person used. I wouldn't go too much higher than say $250 for a used hex core. At that point save up for Socket 2011.

etegv said:
So at 1080, would the GPU be a better upgrade or the CPU? Which would get better results? because for bf3 Ive read a lot about it needing a good cpu b/c of all the people on the servers.
thanks for the help.
Click to expand...

If it is indeed a Phenom 2 x4 940 then.....overclock it anyways!! Just to see what kind of gains in fps he can get. But yes if its a phenom then you'd see a monstrous gain in framerate from most recent cpu/socket upgrades.

staticlag said:
940 was a bugged CPU also, it had some really bad inefficiencies, thats why they released the 9900 series so quickly after (3 months I think?)
Click to expand...

If Ops friend indeed has a Phenom 2 x4 940 that is not the bugged cpu you are thinking of. The original Phenoms ie: Phenom x3 8400, x4 9400 had the Tlb erratum which was fixed for the next stepping ie: x3 8450, x4 9450 etc
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
primetime said:
while were on the cpu subject....i wonder if spending the money on this is practical for my system after i have upgraded to a newer card. lol when is a decent intel 6 core going to be cheap...been waiting 4 years and still hasn't happened..

Intel Xeon E5645 Processor 2.4 GHz 12 MB Cache Socket LGA1366 Price: $549.99
http://www.amazon.com/Intel-E5645-Processor-Socket-LGA1366/dp/B004NSEO5C
Click to expand...
Not really a good idea for a few reasons:
1) No guarantee that it'll actually work with your mobo and RAM
2) It may not overclock
3) That $550 can be better spent on faster Core i7 4770K + mobo + cheap RAM setup
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Dangman said:
Two years ago, some Swedes did do a multiplayer CPU test:
http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3/5#pagehead

Note that the Phenom II 980 is clocked a full 700Mhz higher than your friend's Phenom II 940. In addition, those results are a tad outdated since the game has been updated a bit since 2011. Still, it shows that there is a big difference in CPU performance between older AMDs and Intels.

This article is a bit more up-to-date and shows that HT and additional cores do help out a lot with BF3:
http://www.techbuyersguru.com/CPUgaming.php

Finally, there is this Russian article showing CPU performance during the Multiplayer only Armored Kill expansion pack for BF3 (Scroll all the way down to the last chart):
http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-3-armored-kill-test-gpu.html

It even includes your friend's Phenom II 940. Note how it's getting outperformed by $100 to $130 CPUs let alone ~$200 CPUs.
Click to expand...

thank you. I forwarded these links to him.

Tbird87 said:
I have a similar system performance wise and I can safely say it's his CPU. I can't wait for new hardware, upgrading to a 4670k and whatever video card solution is the best for under $600 in October. (Probably R9 290X, 760 4gb sli, or 670 4gb SLI.)
Click to expand...

Yup, thats what I told him.
He bought his 6950 for about 120 last year. I told him he wont get the most out of his gpu if he doesnt upgrade his ancient cpu. He might get some more frames from a newer gpu, but a cpu/mobo is a better investment, especially if he wants to play BF and some of the newer games online.

thank you all for the help.
 
I recommend your friend tries to pick up a used i5 CPU, MB and RAM.
 
runudownquick said:
If Ops friend indeed has a Phenom 2 x4 940 that is not the bugged cpu you are thinking of. The original Phenoms ie: Phenom x3 8400, x4 9400 had the Tlb erratum which was fixed for the next stepping ie: x3 8450, x4 9450 etc
Click to expand...


Ah yes!!!! I forgot it was the 9900 style series that came out first!

I remember now I had a 9950 then upgraded to the 940, then eventually to a 2600k.

Currently:
9950 I gave to my 16 yr old brother in law
940 is serving as a NAS
 
etegv said:
really? you dont think that CPU is outdated? he got it around march 2009. I figured he wouldnt get a huge increase in FPS if he kept his CPU but upgraded his GPU to say a 7770 ( at least he wouldnt get his moneys worth)



this is exactly what I was thinking. He isnt a hard core game and recently bought a tv with 1080P, so he'll be at that resolution for a while.



I read that BF3 multi is very cpu intensive and theres just no way that 940 can keep up, am I wrong? Right now he is deciding between a CPu upgrade and a GPU upgrade and @ 1080 I feel like a CPU upgrade would be a much better upgrade right now considering he has a 6950. How serious is the bottle neck? if ocing it will reduce the bottleneck greatly then I will tell him to keep the cpu. otherwise, ill tell him to upgrade his gpu

so at 1080, would the GPU be a better upgrade or the CPU? Which would get better results? because for bf3 Ive read a lot about it needing a good cpu b/c of all the people on the servers.

thanks for the help.
Click to expand...
i dont think the cpu would be a big as an upgrade as you think.. i was playing bf3 on a dual core amd x2 6400+ with an nvidia 8800gts @1080p up until july, only reason i moved away from it the mobo died.
 
runudownquick is you system really stable at 4ghz?...please post pictures of all relevant bios settings to achieve that.....and let me know if you see any hot used deals on 1366 hexa cores:)
 
primetime said:
runudownquick is you system really stable at 4ghz?...please post pictures of all relevant bios settings to achieve that.....and let me know if you see any hot used deals on 1366 hexa cores:)
Click to expand...

Absolutely it is! I'll post later tonight.
About the hex cores, I'm in Ottawa Canada so I don't see many used deals around here. When I do I jump on em fast as I can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top