• A Great friend to the HardForum with a great kid that he is trying to get a scholorship to continue his schooling. Please give hime a vote! Only 24 hours left! Thanks.
    If you have an VOTE FOR KEENAN!

Q6600 and BF3?

D

dpk33

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
233
How would a Q6600 oc'ed to 3.3 ghz do for battlefield 3 at 1280x1024. It will be paired with a GTX295.. or 4890.
 
I think you'll do fine at that res. My Q9450 @ 3.4 handles things just fine at 1080p (of course, my vid card is better...). No ultra settings of course, but should be very playable.
 
well from my experience with the beta here is what i ran:
Q6600@3.6ghz
4gb ram
Win 7 32-bit
Gigabyte GTX 460 SOC 1gb
22" LCD@1680x1050

(now granted high was more like medium in beta and destruction was at a minimum)
everything set to High(see above)
HBAO=off
Blur=off
AA=off
Vsync=off
AF=16x

on Metro I saw 46-72 fps, mostly above 54fps avg

Caspian Border 64 man I saw 38-77 fps, most hovering around 50-56 fps.

IMO, very respectable and very playable still. Granted I will most likely need to adjust a few things down come full version(things like water, shadows, etc etc) but the environment was/is still beautiful and firefights were not an issue. Smoke was of no concern as well. This will get me by as I await Ivy Bridge. Again, just my experience with the beta. Game On!
 
A 2500k would most likely get you about 5-10 percent more FPS than your Q6600, because games like Crysis, Metro 2033, and BF3 seem to all be very CPU bottlenecked / limited. They are just super demanding games. Games like these it's a better financial / performance gain to go SLI/CFX IMO rather than CPU+MOBO upgrade.

When a game is not CPU limited (RE5, Dirt2... generally older gen games) or run at an extremely low res then the 2500k shines big time. It really depends on the details and how demanding the graphics engine / game design is for it's time.
 
My $0.02

I had a Q6600 @ 3.2 with 6GB RAM and a single 6870. Metro ran more or less like a dream, averaged aorund 60fps. As soon as I got into a 64 player Caspian Border map, however, I knew I'd need to upgrade. I was often dipping as low as 25fps which put me at a huge disadvantage.

I'm certain I was CPU bottlenecked as changing resolutions and quality settings made very little difference in performance.

I've since upgraded to an i5-2500k and based on my fps roughly doubling in BC2 I'm guessing I'll see a nice boost in BF3.

Bottom line: In 64 player maps the additional physics/etc calculations the Q6600 needs to perform will likely make it an unacceptably performing game.
 
With that overclock you should be looking ok since you're paired with that level of GPU.
 
You should be just fine. It's probably a safe bet that most people running this game will have dual cores.

The rig in my sig runs the game very well on Ultra @ 1680 x 1050 with no AA but medium post AA on Medium.
 
From the one benchmark I saw based on BF3's beta (I will have to try to see if I can find the article again), this game is gpu dependent. The cpu didn't make much of a difference at all so you should be fine.

***Edit

This isn't the article I was thinking of, but has the info you are asking about.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/battlef...hd-video-walkthrough/13625.html#ixzz1ZAocP0De

"CPU - Any modern quad core processor of at least 3.2GHz will not bottleneck the framerates in the game. The workload is evenly distributed between threads and more surprisingly, we did not see any noticable scaling when we upped the frequency or core count."

***Edit AGAIN:

I think this was the article I was thinking of.

http://www.techspot.com/review/448-battlefield-3-beta-performance/page7.html
 
Last edited:
Just to reiterate.. My old system (Q6600 @ 3.2) was fine on Metro, but 64 player caspian border brought it to its knees.

32 player servers might not bottleneck a S775 Quad, but be ready for 64 player servers to.
 
I played Caspian quite a lot in the Beta and suprisingly the rig in my sig handled it very well on Ultra with no AA and medium Post AA @ 1680 x 1050.

Mind you, I did see some dips into the very high 20s but mostly it was a contant 45-50 fps. Very playable, for me anyway.
 
1280x1024 is not the way to play a modern game like BF 3. you are missing 1/3 of the fov that widescreen would give you. :eek:
 
cannondale06 said:
1280x1024 is not the way to play a modern game like BF 3. you are missing 1/3 of the fov that widescreen would give you. :eek:
Click to expand...

Haha this isn't even for me. It's for a friend who doesn't have desk space for a larger monitor.
 
teletran8 said:
A 2500k would most likely get you about 5-10 percent more FPS than your Q6600, because games like Crysis, Metro 2033, and BF3 seem to all be very CPU bottlenecked / limited. They are just super demanding games. Games like these it's a better financial / performance gain to go SLI/CFX IMO rather than CPU+MOBO upgrade.

When a game is not CPU limited (RE5, Dirt2... generally older gen games) or run at an extremely low res then the 2500k shines big time. It really depends on the details and how demanding the graphics engine / game design is for it's time.
Click to expand...

Except that BF3 is incredibly CPU demanding and the difference will be more than 5 or 10%

OP: I ran the beta at 30-40fps. there were occasional dips to 25 but not often. I'm certainly looking for more performance, but that'll do until Ivy Bridge comes out for me. BTW, this is at 1920x1200
 
RamonGTP said:
Except that BF3 is incredibly CPU demanding and the difference will be more than 5 or 10%

OP: I ran the beta at 30-40fps. there were occasional dips to 25 but not often. I'm certainly looking for more performance, but that'll do until Ivy Bridge comes out for me. BTW, this is at 1920x1200
Click to expand...

So a Q6600 at 3.4ghz might not cut it?

And what resolution do you play at?
 
dpk33 said:
So a Q6600 at 3.4ghz might not cut it?

And what resolution do you play at?
Click to expand...

I listed my resolution ;) 1920x1200

Might not cut it is really personal preference. THe game is very playable, but if you're one that has to have 60fps, then no, it won't cut it. I had no issues with the playability of the game with my Q6600 at 3.2GHz. That's not to say it couldn't have been better, but nevertheless it was quite playable and did not lag or stutter or anything like that.
 
BF3 might not care... The person playing may though. There's no question an i5/i7 is going to provide you with significantly higher fps.
 
Not enough to justify the upgrade. Sandy Bridge is the logical choice IMO if you're going to upgrade... Actually, the logical choice is to run it with your current setup and if you want more performance, then decide. I'll say it again, a Q6600, especially at 3.3GHz is more than capable of running the game.
 
dpk33 said:
Would a Phenom II x4 at 4 ghz make a difference in the framerates?
Click to expand...

3DMark06 nowadays is very CPU limited, making it a good application to check CPU performance. The scores that you see are the CPU test itself, not overall 3DMark06 scores.

3DMark06 v120 Basic Edition Download Link.

Prices taken from Newegg.com.

You should run 3D Mark 06 on your system and compare it's score to these other CPU's. Maybe that can help you decide.

(Just so you know, the higher the CPU 3D Mark Score, the higher/harder a CPU can push your GPU(s) framerates + the smoothness of the gameplay.)

$139.99 - Q6600 = 3311

$119.99 - Phenom 955 = 4325

$129.99 - Phenom 965 = 4669

$149.99 - Phenom X6 1055T = 5246

$169.99 - Phenom 1090T = 5770

$189.99 - Phenom 1100T = 5986

$219.99 - i5 2500K = 6101

$314.99 - i7 2600K = 6608

$169.99 - Phenom 1090T @ 4.1 Ghz = 7084

$579.99 - i7 980X = 7388

$314.99 - i7 2600K @ 4.3Ghz = 8109

Sources:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-review/14

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-2500k-and-core-i7-2600k-review/16
 
Just saw this stock BD 8150 results for 3D Mark 06 also. Not that it's anything special since the CPU costs 279.99 for a score of 5579. 110.00 dollars less gets you a higher score with the 1090T for 169.99. Just thought I'd add it to the mix.
amd_fx8150_3d06cpu.jpg
 
dpk33 said:
Would a Phenom II x4 at 4 ghz make a difference in the framerates?
Click to expand...


I'm curious about this also.

I'm sure there will be tons of benchmarks with this game when it comes out. Probably more than any other game ever.


just to note, the 955 is $112 at Amazon and has been for a while
 
teletran8 said:
3DMark06 nowadays is very CPU limited, making it a good application to check CPU performance. The scores that you see are the CPU test itself, not overall 3DMark06 scores.

3DMark06 v120 Basic Edition Download Link.

Prices taken from Newegg.com.

You should run 3D Mark 06 on your system and compare it's score to these other CPU's. Maybe that can help you decide.

(Just so you know, the higher the CPU 3D Mark Score, the higher/harder a CPU can push your GPU(s) framerates + the smoothness of the gameplay.)

$139.99 - Q6600 = 3311

$119.99 - Phenom 955 = 4325

$129.99 - Phenom 965 = 4669

$149.99 - Phenom X6 1055T = 5246

$169.99 - Phenom 1090T = 5770

$189.99 - Phenom 1100T = 5986

$219.99 - i5 2500K = 6101

$314.99 - i7 2600K = 6608

$169.99 - Phenom 1090T @ 4.1 Ghz = 7084

$579.99 - i7 980X = 7388

$314.99 - i7 2600K @ 4.3Ghz = 8109

Sources:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-review/14

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-2500k-and-core-i7-2600k-review/16
Click to expand...

Is that 6101 stock or overcranked for the i5-K?
 
I got 5268 on my cpu score

Q9550 at 3.61 with a GTX 570

owned computer for 3 years will not upgrade till ivy is released

ttyl
 
Last edited:
teletran8 said:
That was stock according to Guru 3D.coms testing.

Here's an OC'd 2500k 3DMark06 score 4.88GHz gets you north of 8500.

2500k3dmark06.jpg
Click to expand...

No way am I gonna reach that - not on air and with the stock HSF (for now - I am thinking about a Hyper-212 Plus down the road).

Still, even the stock numbers are north of my usual territory by quite a stretch.
 
My wife's Q6600 at 3.6 with a 560ti 1680x1050 plays the game just fine on high settings, medium FXAA, 8x AF. Keeps a steady 50-60 fps campaign and multi. GPU usage is around 80-90%.
 
I dont plane on playing BF3 until steam offers it as a download.

If it takes 6 months so be it.. Ivy will be out then
 
That cpu test in 3dmark06 really hammers a cpu. Maybe within the next 10 years, there will be a cpu that can average 10+ fps on that test. :D

I was using an Athlon 64 3400+ when I first tried 3dmark06. The cpu score averaged 900, and was very slooooooow. I think it was around 0.2 something fps for cpu test 1, and 0.4x for cpu test 2.
 
UnrealCpu said:
lol you just wait steam will get it...

Steam is the ultimate DD and always will be
Click to expand...

Except your interface with steam lasts an entire 1-2 seconds. Basically the time it takes to find the game and click on it, so who gives a shit if you spend that 2 second looking at Origin instead? Once you double click they're identical and you'd STILL need Origin even if Steam ever did get it. If there ever was a totally meaningless reason to wait for something, this would be near the top of that list.
 
Got a Q6600 @ 3.3Ghz and a HD6950 1GB and MSI Afterburner showed only 70% of the GPU is used. Probably gonna bump up the OC and see what happens.
 
NIVO said:
well from my experience with the beta here is what i ran:
Q6600@3.6ghz
4gb ram
Win 7 32-bit
Gigabyte GTX 460 SOC 1gb
22" LCD@1680x1050
Click to expand...


W7 32-bit can see only 4GB memory (including video card and other memory), you have at least 5GB... So, you should upgrade your OS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top