SLI leaving me disappointed

[Fx1]

You should look into the Real Virtuality engine (that powers ARMA2 and DayZ):

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687620/ArmA-2-tested-Benchmarks-with-18-CPUs/Reviews/



It's no crappy console engine....it a true multicore beast...and we need more engines like that.

I never said Arma 2 was a console engine.

Also his CPU is as fast as a i7 920 which proves my point! That bench shows the 950 Faster which is just a clock speed difference.

If you think paying 270 GBP for a new CPU and 150 GBP for a new Mobo and new ram too is a good idea rather than turning up the clock speed of your current CPU with better cooling then people are foolish.

i currently use a i7 950 while i wait for haswell and it looks to me that a Q9650 is easily good enough to play modern games. Especially if you clock it.

A quick Google shows that exact CPU hitting 4.2ghz on air which would make it possibly as fast as my i7 950 4 ghz in 4 threaded games.

We need clock for clock benchmarks since ALL i7 and i5's have boost which screw up the benchmarks

 

[Fx1]

I just upgraded from a Q6600 @ 3.2GHZ to a 3770k @ 4.3GHZ. Both systems with an HD7770 because I carried the card over to my new system.




A Q6600 can not hit 3.6GHZ easily. It will do about 3.0 - 3.2 easily, after that you will need to be tweaking a lot of system voltages, ratios, timings, and other bios settings. Cooling also gets more difficult at that point.

There is a substantial difference in gaming between these two CPU's as well. With the Q6600 there was a lot of microstuttering that made games unplayable. Also, a frequent problem I was encountering, was that I would set the in game settings for a playable FPS when I first installed games (When there was no action) and as soon as the going got tough and there was a lot of action the FPS would drop to unplayable levels.


With my new i7 3770k @ 4.3GHZ. I can play games at frame rate I use to consider unplayable (24-35) and it's butter smooth!!! I have no problem playing single player games at 24FPS now, there is no microstuttering or lag! The Q6600 could play a game at 40-60FPS and not be this smooth. It felt like it was dropping frames all the time and stuff, just jerky and laggy even tho the frames were high. It didn't even really matter what graphics settings I used, it was always "shitty," no matter what the FPS was and I thought it was always my graphics cards fault. With the 3770k here, I now realize it was the Q6600's fault games played shittily.

You know how like, you would turn a corner real quick or enter a new area and there would be that split-second "freeze?" That little "freeze" that doesn't allow you to correctly position your crosshairs on an enemy so it gets you killed? It's a thing in the past now.

I had clocked my Q6600 way passed 3.2 ghz when i owned that chip. Also i was playing Bad Company 2 multiplay on that very chip with a 4870 X2 and then a 460 GTX SLI and never had problems with my FPS. Also your microstutters was probably lack of system memory or your HDD not loading quick enough especially as you claim it happened around 'new areas' or turning corners. This is clearly not a CPU issue.

His chip is a Q9550 which can clock way higher than the first gen Quad cores.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I never said Arma 2 was a console engine.

Also his CPU is as fast as a i7 920 which proves my point! That bench shows the 950 Faster which is just a clock speed difference.

If you think paying 270 GBP for a new CPU and 150 GBP for a new Mobo and new ram too is a good idea rather than turning up the clock speed of your current CPU with better cooling then people are foolish.

i currently use a i7 950 while i wait for haswell and it looks to me that a Q9650 is easily good enough to play modern games. Especially if you clock it.

A quick Google shows that exact CPU hitting 4.2ghz on air which would make it possibly as fast as my i7 950 4 ghz in 4 threaded games.

We need clock for clock benchmarks since ALL i7 and i5's have boost which screw up the benchmarks

You should look again:
http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/91-real-virtuality-going-multicore

The engine likes both clockspeed...and cores.

It's not you average engine...read up....before you make the mistake of confsuing clockspeed with multicore support again.

 

[Fx1]

You should look again:
http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/91-real-virtuality-going-multicore

The engine likes both clockspeed...and cores.

It's not you average engine...read up....before you make the mistake of confsuing clockspeed with multicore support again.

He has 4 cores so hes not exactly losing out to the i5 Ivy brigade.

The engine sucks its 2009 and buggy as hell. It likes cores and clockspeed because its coded terrible. There is near zero optimization and it can bring a 5ghz 2600k down to 20 fps in some areas.

DayZ is a classic example where in Cherno you can be running a 7970 ghz and a 5ghz CPU and be stuttering all over the place.

How much IPC improvement do you honestly think has been baked in since the Q9xxx days? and how many games take advantage of that? basically if you can get to 3.8 ghz on a 4 core CPU you will be fine at least until the next consoles arrive.

Heck that Engine was made when the Q9xxx was still a new CPU!

 

[slightlyhuman]

cheeseandrice, did i get lost in p&n? you guys are f'ving passionate, but way over my head.

about to take a look at OC'ing this guy. pretty sure i have value ram so going to do some reading as i haven't OC'd anything since my q9400(albeit, a simple OC to 3.2ghz). it's been a while!

damn you technology.

 

[MrK6]

See how the overclock helps you and go from there. Arma 2/DayZ is severely CPU and I/O bound, even with a 2500K @ 5GHz I get slowdowns. If you're worried your RAM won't be up to snuff, just use RAM dividers to keep it at a lower frequency as you up the FSB.

 

[Ferzerp]

cheeseandrice, did i get lost in p&n? you guys are f'ving passionate, but way over my head.

about to take a look at OC'ing this guy. pretty sure i have value ram so going to do some reading as i haven't OC'd anything since my q9400(albeit, a simple OC to 3.2ghz). it's been a while!

damn you technology.

I think this board has become *worse* than p&n to be honest. It needs fixed. Badly.

 

[2is]

No game should be CPU limited. Games run mostly on GPU power.

Only things like huge multiplayer battles are CPU intensive so you can rule out CPU in 90% of games.

You certainly wont double your FPS

This is nonsense.

 

[Lonbjerg]

He has 4 cores so hes not exactly losing out to the i5 Ivy brigade.

The engine sucks its 2009 and buggy as hell. It likes cores and clockspeed because its coded terrible. There is near zero optimization and it can bring a 5ghz 2600k down to 20 fps in some areas.

DayZ is a classic example where in Cherno you can be running a 7970 ghz and a 5ghz CPU and be stuttering all over the place.

How much IPC improvement do you honestly think has been baked in since the Q9xxx days? and how many games take advantage of that? basically if you can get to 3.8 ghz on a 4 core CPU you will be fine at least until the next consoles arrive.

Heck that Engine was made when the Q9xxx was still a new CPU!

Funny...the same fallacy was used against Crysis in 2007.
You either provide documentation for this "crappy coding"....or start reading up and look into what the engine is really doing.

Just because it broke your e-peen...dosn't mean it's bad..damn I hat that console mentality...it needs to DIE!!!

Games should PUSH hardware...ffs

 

[omeds]

As has been said ArmA2 is a CPU hog, it loves IPC speed as long as you have a few cores. An Ivy or Sandy pushing near 4.8 to 5GHz will trounce a C2Q, providing the best performance available (assuming you have enough GPU performance).
I've owned a Q6600 and 2700k myself, and can tell you a 3.6 Q6600 has no hope of maintaining 60fps in it, not even close, or a number of other games, while the 2700k at 5.1 does an excellent job.
That said, if you don't mind holding out until Haswell it may be a better choice for a new system build.

 

[DerekZ06]

@FX1, my system had 8GB of ram and a raid setup. It was the CPU.

 

[Fx1]

Funny...the same fallacy was used against Crysis in 2007.
You either provide documentation for this "crappy coding"....or start reading up and look into what the engine is really doing.

Just because it broke your e-peen...dosn't mean it's bad..damn I hat that console mentality...it needs to DIE!!!

Games should PUSH hardware...ffs

Have you seen ARMA 2? IT LOOKS LIKE CRAP. Its a rubbish engine. its so clunky that its terrible. Press the jump key and your player does some spaz irish jig jump The physics are awful and they try really hard to make it realistic but it fails so badly that it hurts.

It doesnt exactly get glowing reviews either. It was developed as a combat simulator for some Army. Its hardly a benchmark in modern gaming.

Arma 2 engine is a classic example of doing lots of things badly rather than a few things brilliantly.

 

[Fx1]

This is nonsense.

Really?

Mass effect 3
Dishonoured
Skyrim
BF3
BF2 BC
Hitman
Fallout vegas
Deus Ex
Crysis 1 & 2

I can keep listing games that run perfectly at 60 FPS even on older generation Quad cores such as the Q9650.

Only BF3 64 player and Planetside 2 seem to warrant the most powerful CPU you can get.

I currently use a i7 950 4ghz which soon will be 4 generations old when haswell arrives. I have yet to seen any loss in FPS in any games.

This pattern will continue while the current consoles are the lead platforms for most games.

 

[2is]

Really?

Mass effect 3
Dishonoured
Skyrim
BF3
BF2 BC
Hitman
Fallout vegas
Deus Ex

I can keep listing games that run perfectly at 60 FPS even on older generation Quad cores such as the Q9650.

Only BF3 64 player and Planetside 2 seem to warrant the most powerful CPU you can get.

I currently use a i7 950 4ghz which soon will be 4 generations old when haswell arrives. I have yet to seen any loss in FPS in any games.

No, you can't. What you can do is make up performance stats. There's no way you're going to get 60FPS in BF3 MP with 64 players on even an i5 much less a Q9550. Mabe you're used to BSing your friends who don't know any better, but please GTFO with this BS on this forum. Funny you list it as a game you can easily get 60fps on then in the same breath say it needs more power. lol

And 60fps in any game, doesn't mean you're not CPU bound either.

 

[Fx1]

No, you can't. What you can do is make up performance stats. There's no way you're going to get 60FPS in BF3 MP with 64 players on even an i5 much less a Q9550. Mabe you're used to BSing your friends who don't know any better, but please GTFO with this BS on this forum. Funny you list it as a game you can easily get 60fps on then in the same breath say it needs more power. lol

And 60fps in any game, doesn't mean you're not CPU bound either.

Your reading skills need some work.

I listed BF3 as a game you can play and since there is a single player mode and smaller multiplayer servers you really dont need an 3770k to play those modes.

This is why i listed BF3 64 player and PS2 as games you need higher CPU performance.

Also ALL (not PS2) those games work on a 7 year old console with 512mb of ram. The are only graphics improvements which are GPU bound in the PC versions.

 

[2is]

Looks like you need work on the reading comprehension as well

This isn't about weather or not you can play the game. Of course you can play them, it's about when you're CPU bound vs GPU bound.

To refresh your memory:

No game should be CPU limited. Games run mostly on GPU power

I'm not even sure what that means... No game "should" be CPU bound? Based on what? And what does games mostly run on GPU power mean?

Plenty of today's games can easily be CPU limited, there are a lot of factors that will determine where the bottleneck is. There is no "should" factor

 

[Fx1]

Looks like you need work on the reading comprehension as well

This isn't about weather or not you can play the game. Of course you can play them, it's about when you're CPU bound vs GPU bound.

To refresh your memory:


I'm not even sure what that means... No game "should" be CPU bound? Based on what? And what does games mostly run on GPU power mean?

Plenty of today's games can easily be CPU limited, there are a lot of factors that will determine where the bottleneck is. There is no "should" factor

What games are CPU limited apart from the 2 that i mentioned already?

As i already said most of the games released today are made to work on 7 year old consoles that quite frankly are pretty weak by standard that were around when they launched.

PC exclusive games like diablo 3 arent exactly taxing either.

The only time i have EVER seen a CPU bottleneck was on Planetside 2 where huge concentrated battles were going on and it dips to 35-40 FPS

As i said earlier 90% of games are GPU limited. NINETY PERCENT - understand? When you then tell me 1 or 2 games are limited they obviously fall in to the TEN percent i allowed for.

 

[Fx1]

No game should be CPU limited. Games run mostly on GPU power.

Only things like huge multiplayer battles are CPU intensive so you can rule out CPU in 90% of games.

You certainly wont double your FPS

Only quoting part of my post to help your point is just a poor way to get your own point across.

 

[2is]

On the system in my sig? None, at least none that I know of. If there are any, the performance is sky high enough for me not to have checked where the limiting factor is.

On another C2D and Athlon II X4 systems I have, several.

Which illustrates my point exactly, there is no "should" when it comes to bottlenecks. There are a lot of factors that will determine that, and barring any configuration issues, where ever that bottleneck is, be it CPU or GPU is exactly where that bottleneck should be.

 

[2is]

Only quoting part of my post to help your point is just a poor way to get your own point across.

So now that you've quoted the entire thing we can continue the discussion as it hasn't changed a thing. But now you feel better, so good on you.

 

[Fx1]

On the system in my sig? None, at least none that I know of. If there are any, the performance is sky high enough for me not to have checked where the limiting factor is.

On another C2D and Athlon II X4 systems I have, several.

Which illustrates my point exactly, there is no "should" when it comes to bottlenecks. There are a lot of factors that will determine that, and barring any configuration issues, where ever that bottleneck is, be it CPU or GPU is exactly where that bottleneck should be.

Those bottlenecks might happen once every blue moon in those games and barely be noticeable. Especially on games that are on consoles as well as the PC. There is nothing usually different between those games. They will run even on C2D ere processors and better with a half decent overclock.

We can all try and make ourselves feel better to justify why we spend big money on PC's and upgrade them every year. But a fact is that Intel and the sponsored tech sites do a great job of getting us to upgrade well before we need to.

While consoles limit game development this will always be the case

 

[2is]

Those bottlenecks might happen once every blue moon in those games and barely be noticeable. Especially on games that are on consoles as well as the PC. There is nothing usually different between those games. They will run even on C2D ere processors and better with a half decent overclock.

We can all try and make ourselves feel better to justify why we spend big money on PC's and upgrade them every year. But a fact is that Intel and the sponsored tech sites do a great job of getting us to upgrade well before we need to.

While consoles limit game development this will always be the case

So I should ignore my lying eyes and believe your guess work instead?

Considering I'm the one with the machine and I'm the one playing the games, I can assure you, I had a handful of games that did not well. Like I said, you can try and fool your friends with made up performance stats but you can't do it here. Though you do keep trying.

As far as upgrading every year, my current system is the first new build I did in 4 years, so I guess we can chalk that up to you not knowing what you're talking about also.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Have you seen ARMA 2?

I have owned games from BIS since Operation Flashpoint -> ARMA -> ARMAII

IT LOOKS LIKE CRAP.

That is your llimited view, not a fact.

You find another engine that does ALL the stuff that the ARMA engine does....and don't look like wireframes...I dare you!


Besides the what does that have to do with the CPU performance?
You are just barking now...did ARMA hurt your E-peen?

Its a rubbish engine. its so clunky that its terrible.

Compared to what it actually DOES....it's amazing.
And WFT is "clunky"? LOL

Press the jump key and your player does some spaz irish jig jump

You try and do gymnastics in full combat gear...you don't jump aound in that.

The physics are awful and they try really hard to make it realistic but it fails so badly that it hurts.

Good thing they are going PhysX for ARMA III then...as a former veteran myself, I can tell you no other game comes even close to real life combat.
You have one option if you want realism...that is ARMA II.

BF and COD are just kiddie-shooters.

It doesnt exactly get glowing reviews either. It was developed as a combat simulator for some Army.

IT's hard to take you serious when you are obvious ignrant about the topic.

ARMAII is a home user vesion of VBS...used by armed forces...because it's the best mil-sim out there....do read up!
There is a reason why the commnuity consists of many former and current military servicemen...*sigh*

Its hardly a benchmark in modern gaming.

Again, you view conflicts with reality:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/08/10/arma_ii_gameplay_performance_image_quality/

Arma 2 engine is a classic example of doing lots of things badly rather than a few things brilliantly.

Name a better mil-sim...come on...I dare you!

All you FUD is about how ARMA broke you E-peen and you cannot run it at max settings.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/04/23/intel-core-i7-3770k-review/7

Do you have anything relevant...like data, documentation ect. for any of your claims?
What?
No.

Didn't think so.

 

[2is]

Looks like the raising of the BS flag is quite common following a post by Fx1...

 

[Lonbjerg]

Really?

Mass effect 3
Dishonoured
Skyrim
BF3
BF2 BC
Hitman
Fallout vegas
Deus Ex
Crysis 1 & 2

I can keep listing games that run perfectly at 60 FPS even on older generation Quad cores such as the Q9650.

Only BF3 64 player and Planetside 2 seem to warrant the most powerful CPU you can get.

I currently use a i7 950 4ghz which soon will be 4 generations old when haswell arrives. I have yet to seen any loss in FPS in any games.

This pattern will continue while the current consoles are the lead platforms for most games.

Mass effect 3 = consoleport....LOL

Skyrim @60 FPS on Q6600 = lie: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-9.html

I give up...you are going on ignore for lying.