CPU BOTTLE NECK REVIEW (except in games)

[Darren]

Hey guys I need a review that shows that CPUs make little difference in games


Edit:

Originally Posted by Charper2013

Good luck man.. From my knowledge they make alot of difference..

Didn't think CPU made much difference in games these days, any old CPU can power up a GPU right?

e.g. I can get between 50-70 FPS in all of todays games with my 9600GT and 3800+ X2, full detail with 4xAA


Edit 2:


I play all my games at high detail, 1440x900, 4x AA.

Grid plays @ 75 FPS constant, Tombaider Underworld 65-80 FPS, COD:WAW between 45-100 FPS, 3D Marks 06 is 9, 500

Someone actually posted a review a few days ago showing that in games the difference between a £50 CPU and a £150 quadcore was only a small difference, like 2-10 FPS maximum. I was hoping that someone knew the website I was talking about can could provide the link.


Edit 3:

Originally Posted by 3xploit

yeah i remember that one as well...they tested like 10 cpus paired with an 8800ultra at low and high res. iirc the athlon x2 lagged behind the qx9650 at a low res but at a high res all cpus performed the same

lol now all I need is the link.

My friend thinks his AMD 6400+ is bottle necking his ATI 4850. He is thinking of getting a cheap X3 AMD, but his frame rates in games will not improve much, perhaps 10 FPS, but £100 is an expensive perchase for an extra 10 FPS, especially when he is already getting 60 - 150 FPS in games anyways!

[Charper2013]

Originally Posted by Darren

Hey guys I need a review that shows that CPUs make little difference in games

Good luck man.. From my knowledge they make alot of difference..

[Damian^]

The resolution also plays a big part. What do you run your games at?
A 9600gt is probably not a good example for bottlenecking since its nothing special compared to other video cards out at the moment.

EDIT: You probably won't find a review like that since most reviewers have top of the line hardware or "up to date" hardware. It wouldn't make sense using an old P4 with a GTX 260 for testing.

[a111087]

Originally Posted by Darren

Didn't think CPU made much difference in games these days, any old CPU can power up a GPU right?

e.g. I can get between 50-70 FPS in all of todays games with my 9600GT and 3800+ X2, full detail with 4xAA

I run 8800gt with single core Athlon , but even ocing it by 300Mhz (12% oc) made a 25% boost in aqua mark score.

[3xploit]

Originally Posted by Darren

I play all my games at high detail, 1440x900, 4x AA.

Grid plays @ 75FPS constant, Tombaider Underworld 65-80 FPS, COD:WAW between 45-100 FPS, 3D Marks 06 is 9, 500

Someone actually posted a review a few days ago showing that in games the difference between a £50 CPU and a £150 quadcore was only a small difference, like 2-10 FPS maximum. I was hoping that someone knew the website I was talking about can could provide the link.

yeah i remember that one as well...they tested like 10 cpus paired with an 8800ultra at low and high res. iirc the athlon x2 lagged behind the qx9650 at a low res but at a high res all cpus performed the same

[The Haunted]

Try running a crossfire/sli setup with a poor processor...

[a111087]

I also want to say that I upgraded my single core athlon because i was frustrated not just with bottleneck but general performance as well. I do a lot of stuff besides playing games and upgrade was imminent.
BUT athlon still pulled even latest titles well enough

EDIT: the 25% boost in aquamark was a surprise (tested twice) to me since in games it never really felt that much faster. it did felt just a bit smoother, but i never really checked FPS difference.

[Marineborn]

HAHAHAHAH!! go grab a ol 533mhz proecssor and play some crysis on it!! go ahead somehow someway! set it up with 4x4870x2! and watch the game not even load!...rediculous! lol

[francis511]

Try running Company of heroes with a slow processor... no on second thoughts - don`t !

[cdawall]

unless he swaps his 6400BE for a 720BE he wont notice to much difference

Originally Posted by francis511

Try running Company of heroes with a slow processor... no on second thoughts - don`t !

runs fine on a stock phenom 9550 and dual 4850s in dual screen@1680x1050

[Error 404]

Originally Posted by Marineborn

HAHAHAHAH!! go grab a ol 533mhz proecssor and play some crysis on it!! go ahead somehow someway! set it up with 4x4870x2! and watch the game not even load!...rediculous! lol

Hey man, just look for one of u2konline's threads; he (apparently) plays crysis on a PIII-600 with a 2400 Pro PCI

From my experiance, any CPU which is dual core and above 3 GHz will easily run games and not bottleneck a graphics card (unless you have something like 3 GTX 280s, 2 GTX 295s or 2 4870x2s). I noticed a nice performance boost between 2.5 GHz and 3.8 GHz on my E5200, and my 2.13 GHz E6400 + 7900 GS is completely wiped even when playing non-GPU intense games (e.g, most source games).
His 6400+ should do fine with an overclock.

[spearman914]

Originally Posted by Error 404

Hey man, just look for one of u2konline's threads; he (apparently) plays crysis on a PIII-600 with a 2400 Pro PCI

From my experiance, any CPU which is dual core and above 3 GHz will easily run games and not bottleneck a graphics card (unless you have something like 3 GTX 280s, 2 GTX 295s or 2 4870x2s). I noticed a nice performance boost between 2.5 GHz and 3.8 GHz on my E5200, and my 2.13 GHz E6400 + 7900 GS is completely wiped even when playing non-GPU intense games (e.g, most source games).
His 6400+ should do fine with an overclock.

Nah, a 3GHz E8600 won't bottleneck any card yet unless octo sli GTX295's lolz.

[ChromeDome]

no way does a 6400+ "bottleneck" a 4850. he would need a far heftier vid card to even consider what its doing a bottleneck

OCD runs rampant itt

[RevengE]

Originally Posted by Error 404

Hey man, just look for one of u2konline's threads; he (apparently) plays crysis on a PIII-600 with a 2400 Pro PCI

From my experiance, any CPU which is dual core and above 3 GHz will easily run games and not bottleneck a graphics card (unless you have something like 3 GTX 280s, 2 GTX 295s or 2 4870x2s). I noticed a nice performance boost between 2.5 GHz and 3.8 GHz on my E5200, and my 2.13 GHz E6400 + 7900 GS is completely wiped even when playing non-GPU intense games (e.g, most source games).
His 6400+ should do fine with an overclock.

U2k makes crap up there is no way he plays crysis. and I play crysis on my old packard bell from 1996.

[Melvis]

Originally Posted by Darren

Hey guys I need a review that shows that CPUs make little difference in games


Edit:




Didn't think CPU made much difference in games these days, any old CPU can power up a GPU right?

e.g. I can get between 50-70 FPS in all of todays games with my 9600GT and 3800+ X2, full detail with 4xAA


Edit 2:


I play all my games at high detail, 1440x900, 4x AA.

Grid plays @ 75 FPS constant, Tombaider Underworld 65-80 FPS, COD:WAW between 45-100 FPS, 3D Marks 06 is 9, 500

Someone actually posted a review a few days ago showing that in games the difference between a £50 CPU and a £150 quadcore was only a small difference, like 2-10 FPS maximum. I was hoping that someone knew the website I was talking about can could provide the link.


Edit 3:




lol now all I need is the link.

My friend thinks his AMD 6400+ is bottle necking his ATI 4850. He is thinking of getting a cheap X3 AMD, but his frame rates in games will not improve much, perhaps 10 FPS, but £100 is an expensive perchase for an extra 10 FPS, especially when he is already getting 60 - 150 FPS in games anyways!

I agree with you there Darren that a CPU doesn't make a huge difference in games to a point. But i think there is a limit on what speed your CPU would run at that would make a difference in games, like when you buy a game it will give you details on the back of the box that say min requirements and recommended requirements and most of the time its around 2.0GHz CPU or better, and recommended 2.8GHz etc and i think this is true, they wouldn't do it if it wasn't for a reason. But yes most of the time a CPU at 2.0GHz up to 3.2GHz or more you wont see much difference at all if any in game performance.

The most difference you will see in game performance and i tell this to all the people i build or upgrade comps for is a graphics card will give you alot more boost in performance then a fast CPU. Unless the CPU is like old m8s that 600MHz thing, then yes that would be killing that system, thats just insane.

That dude there that thinks his 6400+ is bottlenecking his 4850 is also insane lol as that CPU would run any game with easy, gezz even my single core FX-57 keeps up with 90% of the games today so i think its all in his head. But it does depend on the game if its multi threaded etc, there for more cores are better and or the game is heavy on units then yes a faster more cores CPU would be better, but there just isnt that many out there yet that do this.

Also my brother has found his 4800+ has hit a brick wall when a certain thing in COH OF is turned on, i cant remember what but he says if he turns this off the game runs better, and he thinks its CPU bound, id have to check on this.

Anyway i think you are right Darren and i agree with ya, and i hope you find the site that you are looking for