In this set of games we see absolutely no performance difference between two cores and four cores, and I’m only using 2xAA. Clearly the GTX470 completely bottlenecks performance here.
fausto: yes, it’s true, BFBC2 can use more than four cores. But the question is, does it matter? It didn’t matter in the case of my UT 3 and Far Cry 2 results, and both games can use more than two cores too.
At 2560×1600 with 2xAA (bottom graph), there’s a complete flatline because the GPU bottlenecks the system at ~73 FPS, even with an i7 920 underclocked to just 2.22 GHz. This is on 5870 CF, which is a very powerful GPU system; a single GPU will flatline much earlier, perhaps even at 1920×1200.
Now here are some CPU scaling tests in the same game:
Remember the 73 FPS flatline on the 5870 CF system above? All we need is a core i3 540 to reach it. They’re probably two different benchmarks, but my point still stands.
Providing you run your games at the highest playable settings, any decent dual-core CPU is capable of saturating your graphics system into being the primary bottleneck in the vast majority of cases.
I hope people understand this is the fundamental point I’m trying to get across in all of these CPU articles.
Would have liked to see more 1920×1200 and 1920×1080 results. Most people fall into these resolutions and few are using a 30″ monitor at 2560×1600 . 30 inch monitors are still out of reach for many bacause they’re pretty darn expensive.
I’m doubting there would be more than 5% difference in most games 1920×1080, but maybe a few would be 10% or so.
Me thinks GTA IV should be included here. My E6750 is @ 3.5Ghz from 2.66. I was messing around inside my PC shutting it on and off and the BIOS thought there were issues so it reset to defaults. I didn’t notice until I launched GTA IV and performance was shit. After I re-applied my OC it performed like I remember. GPU was GTX 275 @ 1920×1080, 16xAF with optimal settings used.
I suspect that if you included a few RTS games, like Supreme Commander Forged Alliance, where CPU matters more, you’d find that it does matter in some cases, although whether or not it justifies the costs (rather than spending the difference on a better GPU) is open for debate. It all depends on what you need your CPU for.
hello and appreciate the info : I have surely found something new through your blog. I nonetheless came across a few on site difficulties using this website. I had been thinking about if your web hosting service is ok? Not I’m complaining, but poor loading instances times will probably influence your ranking bing and might damage your high-quality articles on this site. Anyway I am adding this RSS to my email and can look for much more of your fascinating posts..
It should be noted that these findings do not apply to BFBC2. you need a quad core for that one. everyone knows that.
fausto: yes, it’s true, BFBC2 can use more than four cores. But the question is, does it matter? It didn’t matter in the case of my UT 3 and Far Cry 2 results, and both games can use more than two cores too.
Here are some 5870 Crossfire BFBC2 benchmarks:
http://www.techspot.com/article/255-battlefield-bad-company2-performance/page7.html
At 2560×1600 with 2xAA (bottom graph), there’s a complete flatline because the GPU bottlenecks the system at ~73 FPS, even with an i7 920 underclocked to just 2.22 GHz. This is on 5870 CF, which is a very powerful GPU system; a single GPU will flatline much earlier, perhaps even at 1920×1200.
Now here are some CPU scaling tests in the same game:
http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/battlefield_bad_company_2_tuning_guide,7.html
Remember the 73 FPS flatline on the 5870 CF system above? All we need is a core i3 540 to reach it. They’re probably two different benchmarks, but my point still stands.
Providing you run your games at the highest playable settings, any decent dual-core CPU is capable of saturating your graphics system into being the primary bottleneck in the vast majority of cases.
I hope people understand this is the fundamental point I’m trying to get across in all of these CPU articles.
Anyway, thanks for your comments.
Would have liked to see more 1920×1200 and 1920×1080 results. Most people fall into these resolutions and few are using a 30″ monitor at 2560×1600 . 30 inch monitors are still out of reach for many bacause they’re pretty darn expensive.
I’m doubting there would be more than 5% difference in most games 1920×1080, but maybe a few would be 10% or so.
Me thinks GTA IV should be included here. My E6750 is @ 3.5Ghz from 2.66. I was messing around inside my PC shutting it on and off and the BIOS thought there were issues so it reset to defaults. I didn’t notice until I launched GTA IV and performance was shit. After I re-applied my OC it performed like I remember. GPU was GTX 275 @ 1920×1080, 16xAF with optimal settings used.
I suspect that if you included a few RTS games, like Supreme Commander Forged Alliance, where CPU matters more, you’d find that it does matter in some cases, although whether or not it justifies the costs (rather than spending the difference on a better GPU) is open for debate. It all depends on what you need your CPU for.
hello and appreciate the info : I have surely found something new through your blog. I nonetheless came across a few on site difficulties using this website. I had been thinking about if your web hosting service is ok? Not I’m complaining, but poor loading instances times will probably influence your ranking bing and might damage your high-quality articles on this site. Anyway I am adding this RSS to my email and can look for much more of your fascinating posts..