*PICS* BC2 from 60fps to 120fps with i5-2500k upgrade from Q9650 Benchmark

Yup, people really underestimate the importance of the CPU it seems nowadays... I remember fighting on various forums to argue that dual core CPU's were good... then in 2007 I was battling to argue quad-cores were useful... then more recently I was trying to make known that a Sandy Bridge OC'd cpu would be faster for these kinds of games (and around the same in normal 4-5 threaded apps, i.e. virtually everything) than a first-gen i7 (even the 980X @ 4ghz, vs. a 2600K @ 5ghz)... glad to see people starting to "get it" finally in this thread :).
 
cannondale06 said:
5850 crossfire is faster than a gtx580 in BC 2. so much like your belief of the messiah it was all in your head...:p


[*url=http://www.postimage.org/][*img]http://s4.postimage.org/m07qn4gur/33831.png[/img][/url]
[*url=http://www.postimage.org/]image uploading[/url]
Click to expand...

WRONG. Those benches are based on single-player run-throughs (multi uses a different client for Battlefield Bad Company 2, which performs much differently) and do not account for minimum FPS, just "average" framerate at a low resolution (compared to 2560x1600). Minimums and steady averages are much more important than high averages skewed by high max FPS. AMD's "crossfire" is known to have many dips in FPS and a much less steady framerate compared to nVidia's single-GPU or SLI setups, this can be easily seen on any time graphs of framerates for a run-through of a game, and has been shown on many sites including this one.
 
GoldenTiger said:
WRONG. Those benches are based on single-player run-throughs (multi uses a different client for Battlefield Bad Company 2, which performs much differently) and do not account for minimum FPS, just "average" framerate at a low resolution (compared to 2560x1600). Minimums and steady averages are much more important than high averages skewed by high max FPS.
Click to expand...
lol whatever you need to tell yourself. the fact is he greatly exaggerated like most people do when they try to justify their new toys.
 
cannondale06 said:
lol whatever you need to tell yourself. the fact is he greatly exaggerated like most people do when they try to justify their new toys.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter to me if you want to bury your head in the sand... :). I don't know why you feel it's something I "need to tell" myself :rolleyes:. Anyway, please stop spreading fud. He also had mentioned switching CPU's to a sandy bridge setup, which makes a large impact as well.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Doesn't matter to me if you want to bury your head in the sand... :). I don't know why you feel it's something I "need to tell" myself :rolleyes:. Anyway, please stop spreading fud.
Click to expand...
well those are real numbers showing 5850 being clearly faster. so either show me me some real numbers of 580 being faster or stop calling it fud. and even if a 580 could be faster in multi, its not going to be the "second coming of the messiah" like he claims.
 
cannondale06 said:
well those are real number showing 5850 being clearly faster. so either show me me some real numbers of 580 being faster or stfu.
Click to expand...

The really important part is that the single-player run-throughs of bfbc2 are not comparable to multiplayer gameplay as they use different clients for single/multi. This has been known as common knowledge since it launched. Thus, you can't link a singleplayer based canned "average" benchmark with no minimum reading, as a comparison of multi bfbc2 performance. Additionally, it doesn't show minimum fps on a timegraph which would show the numerous dips and stutters 5850cf would incur vs. a 580 single setup.

You won't find many multi numbers for obvious reasons on review sites due to the time-intensive process to gain reliable results in it.

Here's a demonstration of crossfire having very spiky framerates compared to even SLI, let alone a faster single-GPU setup: http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1294739584IQDHAMEkyP_5_6.gif (note this is singleplayer but that's a pretty universal truth to crossfire vs. single gpu across all titles).
 
Last edited:
jesus christ it was a joke.

(see what i did there)

my performance upgrade was a noticeable difference, I used a joke to emphasize this.

I dont know what else to tell you.
 
evanisthecoastie said:
jesus christ it was a joke.

(see what i did there)

my performance upgrade was a noticeable difference, I used a joke to emphasize this.

I dont know what else to tell you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understood that, I just wanted to debunk the misinformation/misconceptions regardless. :)
 
RamonGTP said:
No, that's actually a VERY poor and inaccurate way to determine a bottleneck. If you have a quad core CPU but the game you re playing only uses 2 cores then you will only see ~50% CPU utilization and STILL be CPU and not GPU limited.
Click to expand...

Okay. How would you do it then? Considering none of the cores on my cpu were maxed, yet the GPU was.

I doubled checked my readings. Each core was used almost evenly. So that was 50% across the board.
 
Last edited:
Dallows said:
Okay. How would you do it then? Considering none of the cores on my cpu were maxed, yet the GPU was.

I doubled checked my readings. Each core was used almost evenly. So that was 50% across the board.
Click to expand...

That's becuase the windows scheduler will split the time between the different cores. If a game uses 2 threads it typically doesn't just run 2 cores at 100%.

The easest way to tell is to run fraps in benchmark mode and log your min/avg/max fps. Then adjust your graphics settings (either up or down) and run a benchmark again. If you raise your graphics settings but you see little to no change in your benchmarks, particularily the minimum and average then you are likely CPU limited. If you see a significant decrease then you're probably GPU bound.

Similarily, if you lower your settings and don't a nice jump in FPS, you're probably CPU limited.

That said, being CPU limited in one game doesn't mean you will be in another. In Metro and Crysis, i'm largly GPU bound, while in BC2 my performance is limited by my CPU.
 
RamonGTP said:
That's becuase the windows scheduler will split the time between the different cores. If a game uses 2 threads it typically doesn't just run 2 cores at 100%.

The easest way to tell is to run fraps in benchmark mode and log your min/avg/max fps. Then adjust your graphics settings (either up or down) and run a benchmark again. If you raise your graphics settings but you see little to no change in your benchmarks, particularily the minimum and average then you are likely CPU limited. If you see a significant decrease then you're probably GPU bound.

Similarily, if you lower your settings and don't a nice jump in FPS, you're probably CPU limited.

That said, being CPU limited in one game doesn't mean you will be in another. In Metro and Crysis, i'm largly GPU bound, while in BC2 my performance is limited by my CPU.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I do notice fps changes if I adjust the video settings. Because I'm GPU limited.

Also, what you're saying seems to contradict what the OP Shiz depicts on even the first page. There is clear CPU and GPU usage differences in his screenshots and all he's using is task manager + MSI Afterburner
 
Except that it doesn't. He's running a game that scales well with 4 cores so using task manager is not as useless as it would be for other games. The task manager results would be less straight forward if this was a 2600k spanning 8 threads.

GPU usage is pretty straight forward, if you're maxed out you're maxed out, you don't have to worry about threads, so yeah you can use that to try and determine a GPU bottlneck, but using task manager to determine a CPU limitation isn't anywhere near as straight forward.
 
ARGH I was about to retailedge myself an i7 2600k... And then I reconsidered because I want a motorcycle..

And now I want it again :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top