E5200 + 5850 = bottleneck

[Mussels]

Yeah it would have. This game threads really well.

not when i couldnt run it above 3.4Ghz, it wouldnt. and this is the only game i have that it does it in, anyway.

 

[Wile E]

not when i couldnt run it above 3.4Ghz, it wouldnt. and this is the only game i have that it does it in, anyway.

3.4 quad > 4.0 dual

 

[Mussels]

3.4 quad > 4.0 dual

in BC2? yes. in all my other games? no.

 

[Bundy]

in BC2? yes. in all my other games? no.

Just the same, I reckon you are going to loose sleep over this now.

Just to be sure you don't sleep, remember that guy who jumped around the corner last night and nailed you? He prolly had a quad.

 

[Wile E]

in BC2? yes. in all my other games? no.

Yet.

 

[Zubasa]

Thanks for the working link, Mussels. I already printed-to-PDF and will read the thread tonight.

Was playing BC2 single player last night, settings max (DX9, 1080p, 1xAA, 8xAF, HBAO on, vsync off)and I noticed that my GPU usage (Afterburner overlay) barely went higher than 50%. I wonder if its CPU or driver related.

May I ask why do you run BC2 with such crap settings?
Running BC2 in DX9 mode wouldn't fix anything, it might actually make matters slighly worst.

 

[Mussels]

Yet.

which is why i'm assembling a 1090T system

oh and i just raised it to 4.2, it'll hold out a bit longer. i had to go back up to stock volts tho

 

[anonemus]

May I ask why do you run BC2 with such crap settings?
Running BC2 in DX9 mode wouldn't fix anything, it might actually make matters slighly worst.

Funny thing you should say this. I just read your comment. Last night I installed BC2 in Win7 Ultimate 32-bit and MAXED everything-- DX11, 1080p, 8xAA, 16xAF, Vsync on, HBAO on and the weird this is I got an average 40-60 FPS! GPU usage was 60-90%!

This is totally opposite of my DIRT2 experience wherein in DX9/WinXP I was getting consistent 60FPS (Vsync On) but only 30FPS under DX11/Win7 :shadedshu

 

[Dan848]

Funny thing you should say this. I just read your comment. Last night I installed BC2 in Win7 Ultimate 32-bit and MAXED everything-- DX11, 1080p, 8xAA, 16xAF, Vsync on, HBAO on and the weird this is I got an average 40-60 FPS! GPU usage was 60-90%!

This is totally opposite of my DIRT2 experience wherein in DX9/WinXP I was getting consistent 60FPS (Vsync On) but only 30FPS under DX11/Win7 :shadedshu

That is a driver issue.

As to upgrading, it will only be six months until November [you said you will upgrade at the end of the year]. If you are able to get acceptable frame rates with the equipment you now have there is no reason to upgrade, even in November.

Around the end of the year we should see motherboards equipped with PCIe 3.0, not that an HD 5850 can use that much bandwidth, however, it could help future proof your new computer build/upgrade.

As to your current CPU, yes, it is not the best gaming CPU. I have benchmarked different Intel Core 2 CPUs and L2 cache size does impact performance. The most likely reason you cannot get your CPU to 4GHz is a "FSB wall", or, after reaching a specific FSB the system will refuse to go higher. Motherboards and CPUs impact the FSB wall.

Note that Intel has the habit of selling imperfect CPUs by renumbering them [from E8xxx to E5xxx for example]. A wafer will not yield 100%, so if there is a problem Intel simply shuts off access to something [usually memory] and sells the product for less money. It is better for them than throwing them away.

The flip side of that coin for consumers is that sometimes there are higher % CPUs in a wafer than can be sold at a premium, so Intel sometimes disables functions or lowers the clock frequency in perfectly good chips. Those are the chips that overclock well and or run at much lower voltages [cooler] and are what overclockers wish for when they purchase inexpensive CPUs. It is a crap shoot, but you might wind up with a winner on your hands.

Note that your motherboard is not the best overclocker for the long term as it has small or no heatsinks on ICs, so, I do not suggest pushing the FSB beyond 360MHz and that might need an extra .1 volt increase in certain areas.

To keep from writing a book I would once again suggest, if what you have works, do not worry about an upgrade.

 

[anonemus]

Thanks for the insights, Dan848! I'm about to get a Q8400 soon for free! This time, my bottleneck with surely be my G31 mobo and its FSB wall. 360Mhz x 8 = 2.8Ghz Q8400 is good enough, I hope!

 

[Mussels]

Thanks for the insights, Dan848! I'm about to get a Q8400 soon for free! This time, my bottleneck with surely be my G31 mobo and its FSB wall. 360Mhz x 8 = 2.8Ghz Q8400 is good enough, I hope!

in single/dual threaded games (most of em), it may well be slower than what you have... more cores does not mean faster.

 

[anonemus]

That's actually my worry. Mussels...

2.8 Quad 4MB L2 cache vs 3.6 Dual 2MB L2 cache

 

[Mussels]

Q8400 is actually 2x2MB cache - think of it as two dual cores with 2MB per core.

so its basically a lower clocked version of what you already have... just an extra two cores.

 

[anonemus]

For me as a gamer, should I stick with my E5200 or go with the Q8400?

 

[Mussels]

For me as a gamer, should I stick with my E5200 or go with the Q8400?

if its free, i'd just try both.

 

[mlee49]

For me as a gamer, should I stick with my E5200 or go with the Q8400?

Or you could just play multithreaded games

The Q8000 line up are not very good, but free is nice. You may consider selling both for $120(used) and pick up an e8500.

 

[Mussels]

Or you could just play multithreaded games

The Q8000 line up are not very good, but free is nice. You may consider selling both for $120(used) and pick up an e8500.

even with a multithreaded game, one thread always holds the others back. Be it the AI in an RTS or the one thread feeding his GPU, or one running the physics engines... one will always be the cause for lag, while other threads/cores remain unused.

I have to agree, selling both for a chip with more cache is not a bad idea at all.. and the E8500s OC really well.

 

[anonemus]

Nah, its a straight-swap trade between my E5200 and a friend's Q8400. So it's an either-or situation for me guys...what should I do?

 

[Mussels]

Nah, its a straight-swap trade between my E5200 and a friend's Q8400. So it's an either-or situation for me guys...what should I do?

if all you do is game, stick with the dual.

 

[anonemus]

I guess so, Mussel. I have a week to decide so I'll be mulling over these choices...

Thanks!

 

[m1dg3t]

I'm running my e5200 @ 355 x 10 right now with my 5870 and smooth as silk for me

 

[anonemus]

How's your BC2 performance, m1dg3t?

 

[m1dg3t]

How's your BC2 performance, m1dg3t?

No BC2 for me yet but Crysis and Farcry2 (prolly the most "demanding" game's i own) play smooth @ 1080p with eye candy on

 

[Dan848]

That's actually my worry. Mussels...

2.8 Quad 4MB L2 cache vs 3.6 Dual 2MB L2 cache

As others here have suggested you will be better off using your dual core in most games, 2.8GHz for gaming is weak these days.

There is a reason I have not upgraded my E8600 to the "latest and greatest", even though a "poor man's" unlocked Intel Core i7-875K is available.

My E8600 runs at 4GHz with only a tiny bump up from stock voltage and will outlast my motherboard. This CPU is capable of over 4.5GHz on water [I have had it to 4.5GHz on air but there is no game I play that needs that much power, and most games are happy with the E8600 with as little as 3.6GHz].

 

[Mussels]

As others here have suggested you will be better off using your dual core in most games, 2.8GHz for gaming is weak these days.

There is a reason I have not upgraded my E8600 to the "latest and greatest", even though a "poor man's" unlocked Intel Core i7-875K is available.

My E8600 runs at 4GHz with only a tiny bump up from stock voltage and will outlast my motherboard. This CPU is capable of over 4.5GHz on water [I have had it to 4.5GHz on air but there is no game I play that needs that much power, and most games are happy with the E8600 with as little as 3.6GHz].

Me Xeon E3120 (E8500) at 4.2GHz was far faster than my old Q6600 at 3.6Ghz, and i'd not found anything it was slower at until i ran into bad company 2. that game really does need as many cores as you can give it (but as i said before, more cores means nothing if they're all too slow to meet the minimum FPS goals you need)