CPU vs GPU question

[rtwjunkie]

OK, I have this question about my kids' computer: e4600 cpu (O/C to 2.84); P5W-DH Delx MB; 2x2Gb Mushkin Redline DDR2-1000; EVGA GTX 260 Core 216 Superclocked.

Today one of my sons was playing BF/BC2. Gameplay was buttery smooth with no stuttering or lag, and it looked awesome, as it's set for quality, not just a quest for the almighty fps. Despite that, it was very quick. I noticed the performance monitor showed that both cores of the cpu were maxed out, I mean running right near 100% for quite some while during gameplay.

That got me thinking. So my question is, does that mean that the cpu is holding that GPU back? Could the GPU be performing even better? In other words, does that point to me needing a better cpu in there, or to overclock it some more?, or is that a normal think? I've not noticed that in my rig, so it can't just be a normal thing.

Again, no problems here, everything operates fine, I'm just looking for opinions on if I am thinking along the right lines on needing a more powerful cpu. Thanks!

 

[Moose]

Yes your cpu is bottlenecking the gpu, BFBC2 seems to be a cpu intensive game on my quad core cpu it uses, 100% 90% 50% and 30%! However one of the gpu or cpu will normally bottleneck the other, it's just in this case its the cpu.

So yes a new cpu would improve things, however just as normally a new gpu would, would you buy a new gpu if things were going fine? Only buy a new cpu if you actually dont like the current frame rate.

 

[Lionheart]

I don't really know much about CPU & GPU bottlenecks bro but I know this game takes advantage of quad cores and a dual core at that speed will probably hold the GPU back abit, if you can try to overclock it some more, at least around the 3.2ghz - 3.5ghz and could help with the bottleneck abit

If you have the money to buy a better CPU like the Q9550 2.8ghz which would be a good choice too I would buy one, but try too overclock that dual core some more bro and see how you go

 

[rtwjunkie]

Yes your cpu is bottlenecking the gpu, BFBC2 seems to be a cpu intensive game on my quad core cpu it uses, 100% 90% 50% and 30%! However one of the gpu or cpu will normally bottleneck the other, it's just in this case its the cpu.

So yes a new cpu would improve things, however just as normally a new gpu would, would you buy a new gpu if things were going fine? Only buy a new cpu if you actually dont like the current frame rate.

Moose, you speak with wisdom and make a very good point. I actually stated it without realizing it: There IS no problem, lol. It is good to know that my kids still have a very capable graphics card, and good to know that if it had a bettet cpu then it would perform even better.

 

[rtwjunkie]

I don't really know much about CPU & GPU bottlenecks bro but I know this game takes advantage of quad cores and a dual core at that speed will probably hold the GPU back abit, if you can try to overclock it some more, at least around the 3.2ghz - 3.5ghz and could help with the bottleneck abit

If you have the money to buy a better CPU like the Q9550 2.8ghz which would be a good choice too I would buy one, but try too overclock that dual core some more bro and see how you go

I think I may do that. I'll have to unlink the RAM and cpu, as on THIS motherboard, DDR950 is about the max that RAM can do, and I'm not ready to get them a new motherboard yet...it's probably got a good year left in it. I'm confident in this CPU reaching 3 easily unlinked, so I'll give it a try. Even maxed out like it was CoreTemp was only reading 45 on both cores! Thanks for the encouragement to O/C some more.

 

[trt740]

There are so many things to say here. I hear people say you need 60 fps for smooth game play which is totally false. Normal tv and movies use 30 fps and some as low as 25 fps. If you are getting a sustained 30fps then you are fine and don't need to upgrade. A constant 30 fps would give you perfect game play. Also at moderate to higher resolutions it is less about cpu and more about GPU. Especially if you can get your cpu up to 3.0ghz then the GPU becomes more important by far. If you want to upgrade for other reasons like burning cds then by all means. The truth be told a gpu is only really bottle necked if you don't get a sustained 30 fps. Anything above 30 fps you cannot tell the difference. If you could then movies and TV would have a higher frame rate. Having said all this your CPU, in this case, is the weakest link, but most often it is the GPU that is more important. In this case even a E8400, oced easily to to 4.0ghz, would make a giant gain in everyday tasks but most likely it wouldn't make your games more playable. It would produce higher frame rates but a sustained 30fps won't look any different than a sustained 120fps. It just won't, because your eyes cannot tell the difference. Just my two cents, here. FYI my two cents has been debated and will be disagreed with here , regardless it is true.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Might I recommend starting Process Monitor first then running the game. After you close the game down, under processor, compare "max cores used" to "average cores used" and "maximum" to "average." I'm guessing both average and maximum cores used will be "2/2." If maximum is close to or 100% and average is >90%, I'd say your CPU is a major bottleneck for the game.

 

[Mussels]

i had my core 2 duo at 4.2GHz and i was still CPU limited.


bad company 2 is VERY CPU intensive - it will max out every dual core in existence.

That said, if you get 30FPS+, who gives a damn?

 

[trt740]

Might I recommend starting Process Monitor first then running the game. After you close the game down, under processor, compare "max cores used" to "average cores used" and "maximum" to "average." I'm guessing both average and maximum cores used will be "2/2." If maximum is close to or 100% and average is >90%, I'd say your CPU is a major bottleneck for the game.

How? If it produces playable frame rates then hows it a major bottleneck. A true bottleneck would be if the cpu makes the game not playable at a smooth frame rate. If thats not the case then it's not a bottleneck. If your cpu is at 100 percent use and the game plays right, then it sounds like the game was optimized correctly for your cpu. Not trying to argue, but if you were benching it might be a bottle neck but not in a game.

 

[rtwjunkie]

How? If it produces playable frame rates then hows it a major bottleneck. A true bottleneck would be if the cpu makes the game not playable at a smooth frame rate. If thats not the case then it's not a bottleneck. If your cpu is at 100 percent use and the game plays right, then it sounds like the game was optimized correctly for your cpu. Not trying to argue, but if you were benching it might be a bottle neck but not in a game.

I see I set off a debate. I'm seeing both sides here. I have monitored the cpu processes, and normal usage rarely gets above 50% in most computing tasks. It's at or near 100% in this game. However, like as also has been said, it plays completely smooth AND at high visual quality, so apparently it's hitting or passing the 30fps barrier no matter what. So, no problem.

I guess I was just under the assumption that the game visuals are a cpu to GPU handoff on creating the game visuals, and so, I was under the further assumption that if the cpu was maxed, maybe it was not giving this card all that it could be. That being said, it appears it may be a mismatch, but from what I understand here, it's not going to get the game any "faster", as it's already doing what the eye can perceive at all high quality settings. Correct?

In any case, I believe what I've learned is that in future games this may not be the case, and it MAY need a CPU upgrade. Have I got THAT correct? Thanks for all the input!

 

[Yukikaze]

How? If it produces playable frame rates then hows it a major bottleneck. A true bottleneck would be if the cpu makes the game not playable at a smooth frame rate. If thats not the case then it's not a bottleneck. If your cpu is at 100 percent use and the game plays right, then it sounds like the game was optimized correctly for your cpu. Not trying to argue, but if you were benching it might be a bottle neck but not in a game.

A bottleneck is a bottleneck. If the CPU is not letting the GPU produce the maximum FPS it is capable of, then the CPU is a bottleneck in this specific case.

However, if it still produces completely playable results, who cares ?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Correct?

Pretty much. If you were having problems, I would consider swapping that dual core for a quad. Most games made since about 2007 will put quite a lot of load on 4 cores but they are still capable of running on two (or less).

 

[Mussels]

Pretty much. If you were having problems, I would consider swapping that dual core for a quad. Most games made since about 2007 will put quite a lot of load on 4 cores but they are still capable of running on two (or less).

VERY few games get benefits from quads, with BC2 being one of them.

one thread always limits the game, so a faster dual core is the better choice in many games than an inferior quad core.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

From what I've seen, most games have 4 heavy threads that are capable of loading each core to at least 50%. Even Oblivion is that way and it came out in 2006. Generally they'll run fine on a dual-core but they are designed to take advantage of a quad-core too. Basically, that just means your system is less likely to freeze up when the game is running on a quad-core. The chances of FPS drops due to CPU are also remote. Some games can't even run smooth on a dual-core (e.g. Saints Row 2).

As Moose said, BFBC2 can load 3 cores easily if the conditions are right. As rtwjunkie pointed out, his game configuration allows it to run smooth on just 2. The game consists of at least 4 threads of significance.

 

[Mussels]

From what I've seen, most games have 4 heavy threads that are capable of loading each core to at least 50%. Even Oblivion is that way and it came out in 2006. Generally they'll run fine on a dual-core but they are designed to take advantage of a quad-core too. Basically, that just means your system is less likely to freeze up when the game is running on a quad-core. The chances of FPS drops due to CPU are also remote. Some games can't even run smooth on a dual-core (e.g. Saints Row 2).

As Moose said, BFBC2 can load 3 cores easily if the conditions are right. As rtwjunkie pointed out, his game configuration allows it to run smooth on just 2. The game consists of at least 4 threads of significance.

the original supreme commander had 7 threads. one of those threads was for the AI - this thread would always bog down and load that one core to 100%, long before the others approached their limit.

Yes, having more cores does allow less to be ran on that one core, giving it a little bit more headroom - but the problem is people buy SLOW quads for the same price as a faster dual core (EG, E8600 3.16GHz with 6MB of cache between two cores, or a Q8400 at 2.66Ghz with 4MB of cache between four cores) so even with the 'extra room' on one core, that one bottlenecking thread hits its limit earlier, making the extra threads pointless.


Is more threads better? yes. So long as you dont end bottlenecking just one thread that the game uses (which is really the same situation as single threaded apps maxing one core and leaving the others alone)

 

[rtwjunkie]

I appreciate all the insight everyone has given me! Some good things to consider when I do get around to upgrading the kids to a current platform. I appreciate all the advice and thoughts.

 

[KainXS]

if you say the game is running buttery smooth then I would keep it like that, if its already buttery smooth why upgrade the cpu so it can be buttery smooth, just like mussels said that game will eat every cpu you throw at it it, and you don't have a problem playing it.

 

[Indra EMC]

OK, I have this question about my kids' computer: e4600 cpu (O/C to 2.84); P5W-DH Delx MB; 2x2Gb Mushkin Redline DDR2-1000; EVGA GTX 260 Core 216 Superclocked.

Today one of my sons was playing BF/BC2. Gameplay was buttery smooth with no stuttering or lag, and it looked awesome, as it's set for quality, not just a quest for the almighty fps. Despite that, it was very quick. I noticed the performance monitor showed that both cores of the cpu were maxed out, I mean running right near 100% for quite some while during gameplay.

That got me thinking. So my question is, does that mean that the cpu is holding that GPU back? Could the GPU be performing even better? In other words, does that point to me needing a better cpu in there, or to overclock it some more?, or is that a normal think? I've not noticed that in my rig, so it can't just be a normal thing.

Again, no problems here, everything operates fine, I'm just looking for opinions on if I am thinking along the right lines on needing a more powerful cpu. Thanks!

Your CPU was bottlenecking your GPU, because GPU still need CPU to encode Physx (even Nvidia GPU have phsyx support)

your GPU will perform much better if you decide to upgrade your CPU (for LGA 775 , you can use Q9450) and sayonara to GTX 260 bottleneck

 

[Mussels]

Your CPU was bottlenecking your GPU, because GPU still need CPU to encode Physx (even Nvidia GPU have phsyx support)

your GPU will perform much better if you decide to upgrade your CPU (for LGA 775 , you can use Q9450) and sayonara to GTX 260 bottleneck

bad company 2 doesnt use PhysX.

A q9450 wont alleviate any bottlenecks either, unless he OC's it a huge amount.

 

[_Zod_]

By the time you go to upgrade the machine you're only choice will be quad or better so that will be inevitable. Since it's playable as is I wouldn't even bother over clocking since that would probably lead to more voltage and a higher power bill. No rational adult wants a higher power bill for no practical reason.

I say leave it be and enjoy the smile on your kids face.

 

[SUPERREDDEVIL]

simple: this game requires a quad. no doubt about it. the vga? it´s fine, but damn physics processing gives all the CPU to work, so, if your system is stable and you got a nice FPS on this ame, keep it that way. but if you dont want to stress the cpu that way playing hour of bc2, go quad, a powerful one cheers.

 

[hat]

Under 3GHz on a Core 2 Duo is virtually unheard of here at TPU... take that thing higher man. You should be able to take it to 3.4-3.6 no problem.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Under 3GHz on a Core 2 Duo is virtually unheard of here at TPU... take that thing higher man. You should be able to take it to 3.4-3.6 no problem.

I did find an X6800 in the garage I had forgotten about. That starts out almost at 3Ghz, and has more cache, I just don't know if it will overclock as high as the e4600 allendale that is in there right now?

 

[erocker]

Tough call. The x6800 is a much hotter chip, unless of course you have one that isn't very hot. With good cooling the x6800 definitely has a better chance of clocking higher but since the e4600 is a smaller more efficient processor, I would see what that could do first.