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

IndianScout said:
it's really no upgrade at all, but I can use the cpu in my other box,

are you kidding I'm very happy with my Q6600 still, compared to my other box that has a e8500 @ 4ghz, the 6600 eats it up for newer multi threaded games, older games of course the 8500 screams..
Click to expand...

I assumed it was to upgrade the Q6600. I have both the E8500 and Q9550 at 4ghz. The Q9550 just murders the E8500 in BC2. That's the main game I'm playing now. The other games I play, there's really no difference between them.
 
I got a q6600 at 3.7ghz with a gtx 260 right now and it definitely doesnt run BF2 that great but good enough. Hoping to pull another 4-5 months out of the q6600 before BF3 and SWTOR come out. And I'm still hoping a Maximus IV Gene will be released.
 
Yea the gtx 260 is pretty old, but since my cpu/video card are in the same water loop, it's a 4-5 hour job to swap a video card and I'd rather just do it all at once when I'm upgrading everything. It runs TF2, WoW, l4d2, and bfbc2 pretty damn good for 3 years old though.
 
the game was perfectly smooth and 100% playable on my rig pc at 1920x1080 high settings and 2x AA. there is no way your Q6600 and gtx260 should run noticeably bad as even I averaged 50 fps with my setup.
 
Not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but the difference in RAM throughput between Core2 and Core-i based systems accounts for a decent amount of the FPS difference.

How about clocking the RAM down to the lowest speed possible in the i5 setup and doing some testing?
 
Anyone here with a similar setup that can verify with 2 different cpu's? I don't doubt the op but I've been linking this around and people are still skeptical. I'm still waiting on 1155 motherboard stock at my MC otherwise I would.
Hopefully we can see a 775 quad vs SB on different video cards for this game.
 
Vexerz said:
Anyone here with a similar setup that can verify with 2 different cpu's? I don't doubt the op but I've been linking this around and people are still skeptical. I'm still waiting on 1155 motherboard stock at my MC otherwise I would.
Hopefully we can see a 775 quad vs SB on different video cards for this game.
Click to expand...

i posted my experience in post #157 of this thread. others have posted in here as well.

Porter_ said:
i experienced essentially the same results as the OP, going from a Q6600 @ 3.0GHz to an i5-2500K.

Q6600:
~50 fps average with dips into the 30's during chaotic moments

i5-2500K:
~100 fps average with dips into the 70's during chaotic moments
Click to expand...
 
Hmmm a mildly overclocked Q9550 and GTX 580 give me a solid 60fps in multiplayer @ 1920x1200 vsync on. What's the point of a faster CPU? :)
 
trinibwoy said:
Hmmm a mildly overclocked Q9550 and GTX 580 give me a solid 60fps in multiplayer @ 1920x1200 vsync on. What's the point of a faster CPU? :)
Click to expand...

Cuz getting 100 constant is better than getting 60 constant. This is America, bigger is better, newer is faster and smaller. Plus it's just more fun for those who have a way to afford it.
 
trinibwoy said:
Hmmm a mildly overclocked Q9550 and GTX 580 give me a solid 60fps in multiplayer @ 1920x1200 vsync on. What's the point of a faster CPU? :)
Click to expand...
an overclocked gtx460 would have given you that too so why did you pay 350 bucks more for the gtx580? :p
 
cyclone3d said:
Not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but the difference in RAM throughput between Core2 and Core-i based systems accounts for a decent amount of the FPS difference.

How about clocking the RAM down to the lowest speed possible in the i5 setup and doing some testing?
Click to expand...

Vexerz said:
Anyone here with a similar setup that can verify with 2 different cpu's? I don't doubt the op but I've been linking this around and people are still skeptical. I'm still waiting on 1155 motherboard stock at my MC otherwise I would.
Hopefully we can see a 775 quad vs SB on different video cards for this game.
Click to expand...

I got a Q9650 thats capable of 4.6Ghz gaming and maxed memory bandwith for DDR2. No DX11 card though :(
 
Spooony said:
don't you mean kernel? There's a lot of them. But main point. Cpu caches ain't as effective due to the software not being effective. Theory that sounds good but in practice they don't do it. We are talking now line of gaming coz that is what's the discussion is about.
The cpu doesn't know which data will be used a lot. Guessing is not going to help it. Just waste space and cycles. But the guy who made designed the software knows what gets used a lot. So he need to specify so it can get a place in the cache. Does cutting out the ram where cpu can run happily at top performance. But that's not happening. Hence the bench here and there with caches that show its a boost. But its not consistent. the developers don't use it effectively like it was intended to

And I didn't mention any names. I mention that part to show that our expensive hardware is in the hand of the people who design the software. We make one mistake when the software is junk. Instead of ignoring it and playing something else and let them make no profit out of their junk we upgrade upgrade upgrade. So we are rewarding the developer for the junk he created.
Click to expand...

you blamed windows drivers for CPU cache inefficiencies. What point are you trying the make now?
 
cannondale06 said:
an overclocked gtx460 would have given you that too so why did you pay 350 bucks more for the gtx580? :p
Click to expand...

False. I had an overclocked 460 prior to this card and it definitely didn't "give me that too" :)

Believe me it's not cost. I could buy a new rig every month if I wanted to. I guess I'm just past the stage of buying hardware for benchmarking that doesn't give me any practical benefit. I was there once though so I definitely see why people do it. I was really just asking about bc2 on a 60Hz LCD.
 
Its funny to see some people defending their older hardware or wanting everyone else to provide them quantified and measured results with screenshots and benchmarks... umm, not our job to convince you to upgrade. Either you want to or you are happy with sub-par performance. I mean it's not like we are making commission convincing you to upgrade.

Will you see a huge difference upgrading from anything to Sandy Bridge? Yes, of course you will it's fucking fast as shit. The 2600k @ 4.8Ghz blew away my i7 860 @ 4.0Ghz, in cinebench, super pi 3dmark and yes, even games. Anything less than an i7 860 will be an even bigger performance gain I can confirm that.

Will you see a difference upgrading your pre GTX 500 series card? Yes, of course you will.

You all know this already but you want people to tell you its not so you can feel better about sticking with your old hardware. If you have the money and want to upgrade do it, if not just shut up already and quit demanding everyone provide you with stats, benchmarks and screenshots. I'm happy to go 30-5 in BF BC2 because you are running a Q6600 and GTX 260.
 
Please stop telling me how great the new cpus are. I am trying to save up for it ffs. Making me self concious playing with my q9450. I keep thinking, man if I only had a 2500K, I would have gotten all 4 of them. lol

I have cpu envy.
 
spaceman said:
Please stop telling me how great the new cpus are. I am trying to save up for it ffs. Making me self concious playing with my q9450. I keep thinking, man if I only had a 2500K, I would have gotten all 4 of them. lol

I have cpu envy.
Click to expand...

Thats not the fault of everyone that has the money to upgrade. Then stay off the internet till you have the $$ to buy it lmao.
 
dnottis said:
Its funny to see some people defending their older hardware or wanting everyone else to provide them quantified and measured results with screenshots and benchmarks... umm, not our job to convince you to upgrade. Either you want to or you are happy with sub-par performance. I mean it's not like we are making commission convincing you to upgrade.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for the budget conscious but it's equally funny to see people overhyping the benefits of hardware that provide no useful benefit. Like snake-oil salesmen for CPUs :)

I agree with you that nobody owes anyone else proof of their experience. There are dozens of reviews out there by respected sites and common sense goes a long way as well.
 
Awesome thread man !, I have i5 750 @ 3.6 for now, I do play BC2 most of times, I will buy 2500K cpu when BF3 come out same time, plus mobo, ram and maybe new video card too.

Thanks OP.
 
trinibwoy said:
Hmmm a mildly overclocked Q9550 and GTX 580 give me a solid 60fps in multiplayer @ 1920x1200 vsync on. What's the point of a faster CPU? :)
Click to expand...

Thank you just the proof i needed.. Running at 3.6 gigahertz q9550 12mb cache , GTX 570
8gb ram , windows 7
1920x1200
 
2wiced said:
Cuz getting 100 constant is better than getting 60 constant. This is America, bigger is better, newer is faster and smaller. Plus it's just more fun for those who have a way to afford it.
Click to expand...

still not worth the upgrade now ,
maybe if something doesnt come out here in the next 3 months i will upgrade
 
trinibwoy said:
I can't speak for the budget conscious but it's equally funny to see people overhyping the benefits of hardware that provide no useful benefit. Like snake-oil salesmen for CPUs :)

I agree with you that nobody owes anyone else proof of their experience. There are dozens of reviews out there by respected sites and common sense goes a long way as well.
Click to expand...

Then why are they all here asking for people to benchmark, graph, document and prove to them?? No one is over hyping anything... if you have the money and the means to upgrade do it. Calling names and insulting people that have the money to upgrade is just stupid and immature. If their Q6600 is "good enough" then why are they here arguing??
 
Truth sucks. 'Nough said. OP has already done enough providing screenshots and vids and people still are in disbelief.
 
dnottis said:
Then why are they all here asking for people to benchmark, graph, document and prove to them?? No one is over hyping anything... if you have the money and the means to upgrade do it. Calling names and insulting people that have the money to upgrade is just stupid and immature. If their Q6600 is "good enough" then why are they here arguing??
Click to expand...

I really don't think anyone is arguing per se, obviously a SB cpu is going to do better then a Q series, I don't think anyone is doubting that. Just as the OP is posting his experiences others are also sharing their opinion that their Q series is good enough to not NEED an upgrade for themselves.

Lets also not make this strictly about what one can and cannot afford just because someone choses not to upgrade. I do "ok" I've got two cousins who make bank. One of them is extravagant while the other one is far more frugal then I am, despite his household income being about 5x what mine is.
 
Last edited:
the point is,

if you're happy with your game play and fps with your current hardware, no matter what anyone says, "being able to afford it or not" it's your decision,

some of the reply's have been a little biased towards those who have upgraded already, but some of their assumptions on older hardware not being able to keep up or give satisfactory game play is simply wrong..

it all boils down to what you feel you need to play any given game..

game on..
 
RamonGTP said:
I really don't think anyone is arguing per se, obviously a SB cpu is going to do better then a Q series, I don't think anyone is doubting that. Just as the OP is posting his experiences others are also sharing their opinion that their Q series is good enough to not NEED an upgrade for themselves.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't think anyone thinks the OP is lying. Personally I think it was a cool experiment. It's just that some people's reaction to 120 fps on a 1680x1050 lcd is "so what?". There's just no added value.

Lets also not make this strictly about what one can and cannot afford because just because someone choses not to upgrade. I do "ok" I've got two cousins who make bank. One of them is extravagant while the other one is far more frugal then I am, despite his household income being about 5x what mine is.
Click to expand...

Yeah no doubt. Also some people spend their cash on multiple hobbies or on other things they consider worthwhile - travel, cars etc. The speed of your CPU is not an estimate of the size of your bank account.
 
I find it funny. When comparing sandy bridge to core 2 quads people complain and say it's not enough difference to make switch. But when we compare sandy bridge to phenom II x6s and x4s, people say its a huge difference...... Some just don't make sense.

It's faster no matter what anyone says. Whether it's worth it or not is up to the user, but it's faster.
 
2wiced said:
I find it funny. When comparing sandy bridge to core 2 quads people complain and say it's not enough difference to make switch. But when we compare sandy bridge to phenom II x6s and x4s, people say its a huge difference...... Some just don't make sense.

It's faster no matter what anyone says. Whether it's worth it or not is up to the user, but it's faster.
Click to expand...

Great point mang.
 
IndianScout said:
I kinda have a puzzled look on my face at his results tho,

I'm not saying he's right or wrong but something just doesn't add up to me..

I'm on a Q6600 / 560ti OC

here's my settings and results,

http://i52.tinypic.com/1h6ka0.jpg

http://i52.tinypic.com/b6ang0.jpg

http://i51.tinypic.com/71lmw8.jpg

I'm not sure that switching out to a 2500/2600 would double my fps, so I really don't know how or what his methods in testing were..
Click to expand...

What did you use for the geforce / intel osd and what are those numbers under intel for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top