what do you perceive could be the variable that prevents a 720 from adequately feeding a less powerful setup like 4890's in cf? if the variable is resolution, then you are absolutely correct, as we've all come to understand that lowering resolution puts greater onus on the cpu to do the rendering. perhaps a game that requires intensive cpu physics? dual 4870x2's or dual gtx295's are ravenous gpu setups where there's no such thing as enough cpu speed even at 25x16, but for dual gpu setups like 4890 cf or even gtx260 192 sli the resolution threshold is still 25x16, so the disparity between cpus should remain the same.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Real World Gameplay CPU Scaling @ [H]
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
what do you perceive could be the variable that prevents a 720 from adequately feeding a less powerful setup like 4890's in cf? if the variable is resolution, then you are absolutely correct, as we've all come to understand that lowering resolution puts greater onus on the cpu to do the rendering. perhaps a game that requires intensive cpu physics? dual 4870x2's or dual gtx295's are ravenous gpu setups where there's no such thing as enough cpu speed even at 25x16, but for dual gpu setups like 4890 cf or even gtx260 192 sli the resolution threshold is still 25x16, so the disparity between cpus should remain the same.
But the fact remains that even with a quad-Crossfire setup, there isn't that much of a difference to begin with. How much of a difference do you think there could possibly be with only one or two 4870s instead? Obviously the difference will be smaller compared to the quadfire setup.
well, since nobody but his highness knows about hardware and since i am just a member which renders me incompetent to understand anything computing related, i better not reply to your post.
i haven't posted here in a long time, the interface has become a little unfamiliar because of this and i forgot how to do multiple quotes. ok, i got it now.
edit : let me answer this question before i get banned for good.
the difference in farcry 2 which i don't own, but will buy once i get the new rig, there is a difference of 15-20 fps between amd and intel processors. granted i will have less gpu power but i will also only have 1080p resolution. in GTA4, another game i skipped waiting to build this rig, the difference in game settings make intel look a better choice. And I am a fan of strategy games which can sometimes be more cpu dependent but of course that is not relevant.
edit : let me answer this question before i get banned for good.
the difference in farcry 2 which i don't own, but will buy once i get the new rig, there is a difference of 15-20 fps between amd and intel processors. granted i will have less gpu power but i will also only have 1080p resolution. in GTA4, another game i skipped waiting to build this rig, the difference in game settings make intel look a better choice. And I am a fan of strategy games which can sometimes be more cpu dependent but of course that is not relevant.
Last edited:
I'm sorry but that's hilarious on oh so many levels...
The majority of readers aiming for a lower-end GPU setup will instead look at GPU reviews, funny how that works... While this article did prove that a highly clocked i7 does give some advantage in certain situations with a high-end GPU setup, in the majority of situations the difference was negligible and all games were still very playable even with the lowest-end X3... Hence they aren't a huge bottleneck.
If you take several steps down the GPU ladder then the GPU becomes the bottleneck towards your overall performance, and once again, that's where you go look at GPU reviews. Your current system (the C2D @ 3.6+) is already more than capable of satisfying the needs of any mid-range GPU out there, any upgrade you do isn't gonna change that for better or worse unless you downgrade somehow. A similarly clocked P2 system w/extra cores isn't gonna put a big dent in your gaming performance with a single 4870, at all.
I fail to see the big mystery you're faced with that this article so helplessly leaves you pondering.
When the Phenom II 810 was overclocked, it was still able to push over 70FPS, and although it is still lower than the i7's performance, is still quite adequate for playability. In fact, I doubt you'd be able to notice a single difference between the two if you were watching them run the game side by side.
GTA4 was actually the one game where the overclocked Phenom II 810 was able to match the performance of both the overclocked QX9650 and the overclocked i7.
I'm sorry but that's hilarious on oh so many levels...
The majority of readers aiming for a lower-end GPU setup will instead look at GPU reviews, funny how that works... While this article did prove that a highly clocked i7 does give some advantage in certain situations with a high-end GPU setup, in the majority of situations the difference was negligible and all games were still very playable even with the lowest-end X3... Hence they aren't a huge bottleneck.
If you take several steps down the GPU ladder then the GPU becomes the bottleneck towards your overall performance, and once again, that's where you go look at GPU reviews. Your current system (the C2D @ 3.6+) is already more than capable of satisfying the needs of any mid-range GPU out there, any upgrade you do isn't gonna change that for better or worse unless you downgrade somehow. A similarly clocked P2 system w/extra cores isn't gonna put a big dent in your gaming performance with a single 4870, at all.
I fail to see the big mystery you're faced with that this article so helplessly leaves you pondering.
you have a thing for sarcasm don't you... i don't think i need you to explain to me what this article says and what i should go read. there is only one bit of information i need and yes i can make an educated guess about how a p2 might perform with a dual crossfire setup and what sort of a performance difference I might be looking at compared to an i7 or c2q roughly. this is not, nor ever was my point. we can all play that guessing game for a quad hd4870 setup as well and many of the more informed readers might guess quite accurately what to expect from such a combo. still hardocp went through and ran some benchmarks for proof. i wanted to see some other numbers before making a decision, the editor told me to fuck off and i'm pretty certain i won't get those numbers here.
and i think you are incorrect about your assumptions of a gpu bottleneck in my case. these guys ran many games like farcry 2 @ 2560x1600 2xAA 16xAF and GTA4 @ 2560x1600 whereas i am limited to 1920x1080 which is roughly 1/2x the number of pixels. also, the reason i'm upgrading is not because i need more power for gaming but i need more cores to encode video and compile. i have a hd dvb-s2 card which i record stuff with to watch later when i'm busy working/gaming on my pc and lets say if i need to game and record encoded hd at the same time, gameplay becomes choppy. whether i get one or two gpus is not decided atm, it all depends how much money i will have after spending on mobo/cpu/mem. i wouldn't have made such a fuss about this if i was dead certain i was getting a single hd4870. any p2 would be sufficient to put a single hd4870 through its paces. finally i am left pondering because i can't simulate in my head how a p2 or a i7/c2q would compare when coupled with 2x4870s.
i can accept that although my sweet spot for games is 60 fps. my main concern is how the two cpus compare for what i want. if i had statistical data on how the two processors performed in a dual 4870 setup (mind you this article included 7 games) it would help tremendously with my decision. you know, not just avg. fps but min fps and the graphs etc.
yep, overclocked p2 performs real well in this case. i was focusing on the first graph where x3 had lower values for in-game settings. even so it's not mine but the editors conclusions which makes me think twice about buying p2.
for crysis warhead
for farcry 2
for burnout
as a note : i think this thread has taken a weird course which wasn't my intention. i gave my feedback, the reason for my feedback and the reason why i think it would be good to have additional results for lesser gpu setup(s). it is not productive to argue anymore since i know i can't get what i want out of the article or the editors and even though many people strongly disagree, i will stick to my opinion. thank you zero, kyle and impulse for your input.
Last edited:
The article I thought was very well laid out in terms of what you would expect a CPU to do for you in gaming. The only one CPU which would be beneficial to most of us would be to use a E8400 and have it overclocked to see how well it does against the big boys. But his conclusion basically suggest it does with the $130.00 CPU being able to compete. Just some results to see that within the article would of been reassuring then scouring the forums for the answer. :-p
The Phenom2s were capable of pushing a quad Crossfire setup so there is no way in hell they wouldn't be able to push a dual setup. That was the whole point of the article, to see if there were any major differences between the CPUs and by using a quad Crossfire setup they were able to minimize the GPU bottleneck and put more stress on the CPUs. As it is, the games were still video card limited. That means the CPU is not the bottleneck.
Your problem seems to be that you're trying to argue that fewer and slower video cards will put more stress on the CPU and that's not the case. It doesn't matter if you think that or not, that's what you're arguing.
The solution to your problem is simple. Choose whatever CPU fits your needs and then pair that with whatever video card(s) which fit your needs. You're not going to be CPU limited in games.
IndianScout
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2004
- Messages
- 591
I spend more time in game servers than the average gamer, while I agree to a point with the article on the high end hardware, not everyone can afford those parts, I would of liked to seen some similar runs with smaller resolutions..
my OC'd Q6600 will serve me well into next year I personally believe as I've not found a game yet that it's hindered me in, I do need a GPU upgrade..
as always great informative article..
my OC'd Q6600 will serve me well into next year I personally believe as I've not found a game yet that it's hindered me in, I do need a GPU upgrade..
as always great informative article..
When the GPU is the limitation, the CPU is important, but not significantly so. Or rather, most modern CPUs aren't going to make a significant impact on most games when you're using say a 4850 or GTX 260 or whathaveyou.
Comparing CPUs in such circumstances isn't going to tell you much other than the GPU was holding us back by this much with this setup and that much with that setup.
Thus, one must use a very powerful GPU to insure it is above and beyond the relative capability of the CPUs in question - thus making something other than the GPU the bottleneck. Quad 4890s, dual 295s, or in this case, dual 4870x2s will reasonably fit the bill.
Running at lower resolutions in this scenario is basically the equivalent of those 1024X768 tests with a "normal" gaming setup. It's unrealistic and determining the cause of the limitation is not reliable.
The summation at the end of the article is pretty concise and objective I think:
If you are building a gaming rig and are looking to spend $150 to $200 on a graphics card, the AMD Phenom II X3 720 and AMD Phenom II X4 810 offer very good gaming values which will very likely last you through a couple of GPU upgrades. Likewise, mid-level Intel Core 2 Quad processors can offer you the same value at a slightly higher price point. In the middle of the pack, it is hard to go wrong as long as you are a up on which processors are overclocking nicely. But for a budget barn burner, you would be remiss to discount AMD’s Phenom II 720 BE without giving it serious consideration. Looking forward, it is hard for us to suggest a dual core build, because I think you will find limitations in gaming soon. Of course, if you can get your E8500 dual core up to 5GHz, that certainly might be the way to go! If you building a rig that will be gaming, heavily multitasking, and creating and encoding content, the Intel Core i7 is the way to go. The Intel Core i7 is going also allow you a more dynamic upgrade path as faster processors come to market. Also keep in mind if you wish to push your memory footprint out to the 12GB envelope you can do it easily on most Core i7 motherboards. 6GB should do you fine for now though. Those of you that need the memory already know it and don’t need us telling you about it.
I agree that shelling out a couple grand for the cards, power supply and monitor for this form of graphic setup would create an imbalance with a modestly priced CPU and/or motherboard even if the CPU presents excellent performance for the dollar.
*edit - corrected typo
Comparing CPUs in such circumstances isn't going to tell you much other than the GPU was holding us back by this much with this setup and that much with that setup.
Thus, one must use a very powerful GPU to insure it is above and beyond the relative capability of the CPUs in question - thus making something other than the GPU the bottleneck. Quad 4890s, dual 295s, or in this case, dual 4870x2s will reasonably fit the bill.
Running at lower resolutions in this scenario is basically the equivalent of those 1024X768 tests with a "normal" gaming setup. It's unrealistic and determining the cause of the limitation is not reliable.
The summation at the end of the article is pretty concise and objective I think:
If you are building a gaming rig and are looking to spend $150 to $200 on a graphics card, the AMD Phenom II X3 720 and AMD Phenom II X4 810 offer very good gaming values which will very likely last you through a couple of GPU upgrades. Likewise, mid-level Intel Core 2 Quad processors can offer you the same value at a slightly higher price point. In the middle of the pack, it is hard to go wrong as long as you are a up on which processors are overclocking nicely. But for a budget barn burner, you would be remiss to discount AMD’s Phenom II 720 BE without giving it serious consideration. Looking forward, it is hard for us to suggest a dual core build, because I think you will find limitations in gaming soon. Of course, if you can get your E8500 dual core up to 5GHz, that certainly might be the way to go! If you building a rig that will be gaming, heavily multitasking, and creating and encoding content, the Intel Core i7 is the way to go. The Intel Core i7 is going also allow you a more dynamic upgrade path as faster processors come to market. Also keep in mind if you wish to push your memory footprint out to the 12GB envelope you can do it easily on most Core i7 motherboards. 6GB should do you fine for now though. Those of you that need the memory already know it and don’t need us telling you about it.
I agree that shelling out a couple grand for the cards, power supply and monitor for this form of graphic setup would create an imbalance with a modestly priced CPU and/or motherboard even if the CPU presents excellent performance for the dollar.
*edit - corrected typo
Last edited:
Sorry, I dont have time to read the whole 15 page thread, but why wasnt the pII 940 and 955 used instead of the 8 and 7 series AMD chips? They are even cheaper than the i7 920 and qx9650. When people consider CPU upgrades they do NOT compare the i7 920 and qx9650 vs the 840 and 720, but rather the more capable AMD chips. Sorry, but for that reason, this review was a big letdown for me. Furthermore, I have seen other reviews where the 940 and 955 did better than their Intel counterparts at high res. Sadly, we'll never get to know from this review.
If you would bother to actually read the thread, you'd see that all of those things have been addressed already.
Although I stated I dont have the time to read the whole lengthy thread, I should've figured that it was addressed. It was just too big of a thing not to have been mentioned.
This is not the proper place to ask that question.
A
akotlar
Guest
Don't worry about him. Kyle's ego runs rampant in his life. That's what happens when average people run a public forum.
Nice. You responded to a two and a half month-old post just to bash the guy who runs this forum. Real classy
.
Last edited:
Cr4ckm0nk3y
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2009
- Messages
- 847
Would like to just say thanks to Kyle and the [H] crew for actually doing a FSX multi CPU test.
It would be cool to see benchmarks using multiple resolutions and higher scenery/graphics settings.
It would be cool to see benchmarks using multiple resolutions and higher scenery/graphics settings.
Sorry for bumping old thread but iirc there is around 10% gain oc vs stock (average) fps knowing that
i'm having hard time to oc my cpu and i'm planing to get 2X GT300 and run them on stock i7 this test
was a god send for me i will go for it! 10% loss on average is totally ok for me i tought it will be quite more.
i don't really care for maximum fps and the game i plain to play is Crysis where the impact was even
lower then 10% so i think ill get the 2xGT300 even with stock cpu! The power of GT300 should be close to
4870X2 tbh faster but not alot so i can say the bottleneck would be similar even with a bit more i'm ok even with 15%
lower performance GT300 SLI here i come!
Thanks for an great test Kyle it was pleasure !
i'm having hard time to oc my cpu and i'm planing to get 2X GT300 and run them on stock i7 this test
was a god send for me i will go for it! 10% loss on average is totally ok for me i tought it will be quite more.
i don't really care for maximum fps and the game i plain to play is Crysis where the impact was even
lower then 10% so i think ill get the 2xGT300 even with stock cpu! The power of GT300 should be close to
4870X2 tbh faster but not alot so i can say the bottleneck would be similar even with a bit more i'm ok even with 15%
lower performance GT300 SLI here i come!
Thanks for an great test Kyle it was pleasure !
I would say this Article like this is a really good guide for CPU upgrade,
May be it's ought to be done once a year, with new games that comes with better optimization for multicore CPUs, and with incoming 6-core and 8-core processors.
Thank you. I'm thinking about upgrading my system already.
May be it's ought to be done once a year, with new games that comes with better optimization for multicore CPUs, and with incoming 6-core and 8-core processors.
Thank you. I'm thinking about upgrading my system already.
WBurchnall
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 2,622
Hello guys, as i see all of you are experts
I want buy new "gaming" computer but im not sure which CPU is the best for gaming (price/performenc)
Plz tell me what is the best buy right now. i7, i5, Phenom?
Difficult question but ultimately it depends a lot of your budget Neish. There's actually a sub-board about new computer builds were you can explain your situation, how much money you have, what parts you need. There's a sticky threat at the top with information you need to fill out to get assistance. Information like "What do you use your computer for mostly? Gaming, graphics, internet surfing, videos?", "What components from your old PC will you be re-using?" etc.
With the little bit of information you've provided, I guess I'd say this: If you have a lot of money, I'd go for a iCore i7-920, 6GB of DDR3 paired with a ATI Radeon 5970.
If you have a medium amount: iCore i5-860 or 870, 4GB of DDR3 memory(possibly 8GB) paired with an ATI Radeon 5850 or 5870.
If you have a low-to-medium amount to spend: An iCore i3-processor or AMD Phenom x3 shown in this article, 4GB of DDR3 or DD2 ram and an ATI Radeon 5770 or 5850.
Again, you'll get a much better response if oyu use the sticky-thread form in the 'new computer builds' board.
Doesn't matter how you "stack the deck", i7 is faster than AMD.
Alouette Radeon
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
- Messages
- 40
Not when you're gaming it isn't. You can't be that dumb. You put a Phenom II X4 940, 945, 955 or 965 against a core i7-920 or 965 and if you slap a Radeon HD 5850 in there, there will be no discernible difference in game play. And this site is saying that it's better to blow an extra 75% of your money on Intel parts for gaming? I know sites get rewarded by Intel to make their stuff look better than it actually is. You look around the net and see how many sites recommend the extra expense of the Core i7-920 or Jesus, the Core 2 Extreme QX9650. Let's check costs shall we? BTW, you see a bunch of morons referring to the Core 2 QX9650 as a Core 2 Quad, it's not, it's a core 2 extreme!
Core i7-920 - $289 at newegg.com
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202
Core 2 Extreme QX9650 - $1,179 at infotec.com (the other site wanted $1,284)
http://www.infonec.com/site/main.php?module=detail&id=351984
Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition - $190
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103727
Now let's consider motherboards. I'll use the cheapest 2-slot board that the i7 will fit. I'm not even going to bother with a board for the QX9650 because as you can tell, it's a joke.
i7:
JetWay JBI-600-LF - $150 (not that I think anyone would by a Jetway board for their i7)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813153148
Phenom II:
ASRock M3A770DE - $60
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157176
Ok so far here's what it looks like:
i7 = $289+$150=$439
Ph2 = $190+$60=$250
Well there's an extra $189 left over, I wonder what you could do with that to make the Phenom II game BETTER than the i7... OH YEAH, INCREASE THE VIDCARD! You end up with enough to just buy an HD 5770 outright. Or let's say you were going to get a 5770 anyway... Then compare the i7-920 with the HD 5770 against a Phenom II with an HD 5850 because that's what the test would be! Or if you had an i7 with an HD 5850, you'd have a Phenom II with a 5870! Who gives a DAMN about how fast the CPU is? This test was supposed to be about gameplay which is primarily about the vidcard and the CPU not bottlenecking it. All this test ended up being was "Here's how we can make Intel happy by telling people that their highest-end CPUs totally dominate AMD's mid-line CPUs in gaming! HOORAY!!!"
Should be ashamed of yourself. If you want to say who is better at gaming, take a budget of $1000 and I guarantee that the Intel setup will lose, BADLY. Go on giving your money to Intel if you want to, they're the ones who held CPU advancement back which is also why they were so heavily fined. That pisses me off and I can't understand how ANYONE could be so enamored with them after that. Oh well, stupid is as stupid does.
Except the 920 can be had from any microcenter in the country for 200$. Here's a foxcon flaming blade for 145AR. Which is a much better product than the jetway you mentioned and has some serious overclocking potental. That brings your magic price down to 84$. It's a hell of a lot more power in an OC'ed i7 than a Ph2 for 84$. Oh and a much better motherboard.
Hello guys, as i see all of you are experts
I want buy new "gaming" computer but im not sure which CPU is the best for gaming (price/performenc)
Plz tell me what is the best buy right now. i7, i5, Phenom?
A Phenom ll will bring more bang for the buck as for as gaming since the gpu will take over as resolution increases.It can also handle other programs fairly well.These cpu's were not meant to take on I7 series processors.
If you are into editing,encoding and other such projects a I7 will serve you better.The I7 is the better processor and therefore commands a higher price.
Edit:I7 processors tend to show a better minimal fps average than AMD offerings.
Last edited:
Alouette Radeon
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
- Messages
- 40
Agreed but it's still more money that will not translate into any increase in gaming. That is money wasted. If you're into wasting money, then hey, what can I tell you? I'm not and neither are most people.
Alouette Radeon
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
- Messages
- 40
Ok, I'll respond to both points individually.
1.) The fps difference is not noticeable unless you're using a really weak vidcard. I don't know anyone who has either an i7 or Phenom II X4 system with a weak vidcard.
2.) Editing no, video encoding yes. The Core i7 is ideal for high-level algorithms and machine virtualization. There is no doubt that the i7 stands alone in pure performance. However, the title of this article is "Real World Gameplay CPU Scaling" which is trying to show significant differences between Intel and AMD CPUs. What you're describing is not valid in this situation because this is about gaming.
What I believe happened was that hardocp originally tried using high-end Phenom IIs and realized that all they would be able to say is "Use whatever" because CPUs have become more or less irrelevant to gaming unless your CPU is weak enough to bottleneck the vidcard. Can you honestly tell me the logic of using second-rate AMD CPUs against top-end Intel CPUs that were OVERCLOCKED half of the time? I mean seriously, what does this tell us that we didn't already know? Would you have run a test like this? I sure as hell wouldn't. There's no surprise to it. Oh yeah, an overclocked CPU that costs $1200 beats a low-powered Phenom II 810. I don't see the point of even having the test if you're going to do that. Let's have a race then in Car&Driver shall we? A Ferrari Enzo vs a Chevrolet Camaro. After the Enzo laps the Camaro for the third time, shall we then say "Yeah, we recommend the Enzo over the Camaro." and pat ourselves on the back? No, we probably won't see that.
Look, I know that HardOCP worked really hard on this article and I congratulate the editors of this site on their hard work. Do I think it was slanted? Maybe, but I don't think it was intentional. This can't have been an easy test to do and although I do believe in the things I said, I think I was remiss in not saying that I have a lot of respect for HardOCP because this can't have been an easy test to do at all. I tip my hat to them.
Last edited:
Alouette Radeon
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
- Messages
- 40
Heh, well thank-you.
Just out of curiosity, what % do you agree with my statements?
Alouette Radeon
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
- Messages
- 40
I completely agree. One can get a Quad-Core CPU for $100 USD:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103704