|
The Official Budget-Conscious Dream Machine!
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
21. August 2008 @ 21:27 |
Link to this message
|
Update: post reboot, Crysis now averages 25fps maxed out at 2560x1600 versus the 21-22 I made earlier, and 18 I made with the solo card. Notably, I also get 25fps at 1920x1200 - looks like the CPU ceiling is lower than I thought.
Got GRiD working at 60fps rather than 25, but there's horrific microstutter, I'm guessing that's the problem mentioned in reviews.
Update 2: FEAR does work with crossfire, and was working before. I just so happened to have reached a point of the game that ran worse than the others. Frames are solidly 60+, typically 95-180. :) I think I was too hasty calling this card out perhaps. Bugs were annoying, but I think they were created by running older games...
Update 3: Age of Conan is now working better, minor frame rate improvement, 23-25 from 19-21, but noticeable, but the textures are coming out in low quality (a bug I've always had with AoC) more often than usual. Fortunately, the crippling lag spikes seem far, far fewer than before. Adding to that, I get the same frame rate at 1920 as I do at 2560. Another CPU bottleneck? Suddenly I want that Quad core far more...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. August 2008 @ 21:45
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
22. August 2008 @ 11:40 |
Link to this message
|
Yeah, I would think you'd be seeing CPU limitations at 3.15GHz. Hopefully a 3.4-3.6GHz Quad will be sufficient. Though, the Q6600 might not clock as high as the Q9450. I don't know really.
If you want to go back to a single 4870, your current CPU will do just fine. But if you want to keep the X2, you're going to need something that can clock higher.
Also, is there a keyboard shortcut to go into hibernate? My PC was randomly going into hibernate on me and then freezing when I tried to turn it back on. I rebooted and the password bar started scrolling on its own like a key was being held down. So I unplugged my USB keyboard and got out my PS/2 keyboard and it works fine.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388 |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. August 2008 @ 11:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thing is, if I had a Q9450 I wouldn't want to overvolt it for fear of the damage it could do, so I'm probably still limited to around 3.4 with one of those. I'd sooner get the Q6600 for half the price. At least that's actually feasible.
|
|
proxyRAX
Junior Member
|
22. August 2008 @ 11:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't even know whether to get the q6600 or the e8400 anymore. I won't bo OCing like crazy, so I figure better to get the higher stock, but upgrading will have to wait a while because I will not be able to afford it. q6600 seems more future proof, but will there be a significant dropoff in performance as of right now?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. August 2008 @ 12:02 |
Link to this message
|
Well this is it, I'm just not sure. Originally I thought a 3.15Ghz Duo wouldn't hold me back, but it's causing me CPU ceilings of 20-25fps in at least two games... An E8400 will only ever be about 40% faster even at a slightly risky 3.8Ghz, but Will a Quad core give any advantage at all?
|
|
proxyRAX
Junior Member
|
22. August 2008 @ 12:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
What kind of games are you playing where you get a CPU ceiling at 3.15? Everyone seems to talk about how quads are great because more games are coming out that support them. I think that unless you are playing SupCom or running like two instances of any other game, there should not be a significant performance increase from dual to quad. To me, it seems like dual will be fine for another year or so. The people that argue for q6600 perfomance OC them to 3.2 or 3.4
That seems like a lot of effort to OC your quad like that, shorten its lifespan, and then wind up with a minimum increase in most apps right now at almost the same speed as a stock Wolfdale.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. August 2008 @ 12:18 |
Link to this message
|
Crysis and Age of Conan - I get the same frame rate at 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 - identical graphics settings, identical parts of the games, I daresay that's pretty conclusive.
|
Member
|
22. August 2008 @ 12:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
Meh,
You could get a duo core at 3.0 for ~$200
and a quad core at 2.4 for ~$200
But the quad core you have two more cores or two dual cores, and can you honestly say you only game? The Q6600 is good for gaming as well, especially when you OC it.
I myself use my computer for everything...including gaming.
So you have one dual core at 3.0 for ~200 or essentially two dual cores at 2.4 for ~200, I'd say the 2nd option is better. Also quad cores are on the up-n-up.
xfx 790i P08 Bios
Q6600 at 3.4GHz
Patriot Viper DDR3 1600MHz 7-7-7-20-1T
GTX280 710 core clock i think
Dual boot system with:Ubuntu 64-bit,Vista Ultimate 64-bit,
Electrical Eng, Gamer, and Heavy PC user.
|
|
proxyRAX
Junior Member
|
22. August 2008 @ 12:38 |
Link to this message
|
I've heard Crysis has (although quite limited) quad support. People have been bragging about better frame rates with quad. AoC, I know nothing about. Are those the only two games that are limited for you?
It does seem like you hit a cieling if it plays exactly the same.
As for me, I will go e8400. I'll stick with my original decision because the q6600 only makes sense if you OC it to 3.2 or so.
EDIT: Well, I don't only game, but there is nothing that I do that requires 4 cores. I am a programmer, but I don't really work on huge multi-threaded projects that require hours to compile. I do some light graphics, but not very serious. Once again, quad makes sense if you OC it and I don't really plan to OC too much. If I do, it will probably be minimal.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. August 2008 @ 12:45
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. August 2008 @ 12:43 |
Link to this message
|
They're the two that are affected the worst, but I get half the frame rate posted in reviews in games like Episode Two etc. so I feel it could soon be a problem in other titles. I'd go for an E8400 but how much faster than two cores of a Quad can it go? It's the same price as the Q6600, for half as many cores...
|
Member
|
22. August 2008 @ 12:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
Dude, OC the Q6600. It oc's easy to 3.15 on Auto.
Overclocking is fun and it doesn't take to long, maybe a couple hours a day, then run a program while your at work or whatever.
I built my own computer and overclocked perfectly fine withing the 1st week of doing either of these things for the 1st time.
Hes right, you pay the same price for half as many cores.
xfx 790i P08 Bios
Q6600 at 3.4GHz
Patriot Viper DDR3 1600MHz 7-7-7-20-1T
GTX280 710 core clock i think
Dual boot system with:Ubuntu 64-bit,Vista Ultimate 64-bit,
Electrical Eng, Gamer, and Heavy PC user.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. August 2008 @ 12:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
I will do, but what if it doesn't make any difference? An expensive waste, I'm sure you'll agree...
|
Member
|
22. August 2008 @ 12:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
Heh?
xfx 790i P08 Bios
Q6600 at 3.4GHz
Patriot Viper DDR3 1600MHz 7-7-7-20-1T
GTX280 710 core clock i think
Dual boot system with:Ubuntu 64-bit,Vista Ultimate 64-bit,
Electrical Eng, Gamer, and Heavy PC user.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. August 2008 @ 12:55 |
Link to this message
|
What if it's the clock speed of the CPU not the number of cores? Having a 3.15Ghz Q6600 won't make any difference if that's the case...
|
|
proxyRAX
Junior Member
|
22. August 2008 @ 12:57 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by TheftAuto:
Dude, OC the Q6600. It oc's easy to 3.15 on Auto.
Overclocking is fun and it doesn't take to long, maybe a couple hours a day, then run a program while your at work or whatever.
I built my own computer and overclocked perfectly fine withing the 1st week of doing either of these things for the 1st time.
Hes right, you pay the same price for half as many cores.
Maybe you are right, but I don't really like the idea. I was never much of a gambler...
I'd like it to last a while because I will not be upgrading for at least a year or two. Hmm...guess that implies q6600. =p I'll go with the q6600 then, but I need to research the OCing aspect of it. I may change my mind when I hear about them lasting a month.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. August 2008 @ 12:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
That's the 45nm quads, which is why I'm not buying one, apart from them being double the price. The 65nm quads seem to overclock fine within reason.
|
|
proxyRAX
Junior Member
|
22. August 2008 @ 13:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ok, I will get the q6600 then and go from there. How about you? =]
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. August 2008 @ 13:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm probably going to do the same.
|
Member
|
22. August 2008 @ 13:15 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
What if it's the clock speed of the CPU not the number of cores? Having a 3.15Ghz Q6600 won't make any difference if that's the case...
Thats true. All I know is that the quad core is more than good enough for gaming and especially good for applications.
At 3.15 the clock speed is already higher than the duo core clock speed stock..but then again you can over clock the dual core as well.
As of yesterday I set all my start-up processes to my second core (Core 1), as Esthuansis (SP?) recommended, and my computer boots faster and navigates a bit better, It is however a minorly noticeable change.
xfx 790i P08 Bios
Q6600 at 3.4GHz
Patriot Viper DDR3 1600MHz 7-7-7-20-1T
GTX280 710 core clock i think
Dual boot system with:Ubuntu 64-bit,Vista Ultimate 64-bit,
Electrical Eng, Gamer, and Heavy PC user.
|
|
proxyRAX
Junior Member
|
22. August 2008 @ 13:42 |
Link to this message
|
I just thought about it, and I think that the q6600 will be plenty tough for me. My current computer has an integrated graphics chip and is not very good at...anything. When you get to high resolutions and have your CPU at 3.0+ there should be a GPU cieling. I am trying to google your problem sam, beacuse it just boggles me.
edit: after extensive hunting...I have no idea. All that I've gathered is that AoC has an option for using "all available cores" but for Crysis, a guy with a q6600 said that he only sees two being used. The GPU is definetely not the bottleneck and you've been wanting a quad for a while anyway. lol
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. August 2008 @ 14:09
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
22. August 2008 @ 14:29 |
Link to this message
|
Yeah, jump on the bandwagon, sam. lol
Truth is some games are starting to use quads. So I figured I could future-proof my self a bit with this upgrade. I'll have the quad and the option for crossfire so I can hopefully handle future games pretty well.
I still can't wait for Crysis Warhead. I want to see what they do about performance. Maybe they'll add some new features to the engine like better shadowing and maybe fix some of the rough spots we see in Crysis. I can only hope :)
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. August 2008 @ 15:04 |
Link to this message
|
The 45nm chips seem a little faster at the same clock speed though, from what I've read a stock 3.0Ghz E8400 would be more like a 3.3-3.4Ghz E6750. That means an 8400 would be an improvement, but not much of one, as I wouldn't want to take it to above 3.6 - and like with the gamble of the quad core - what if having four cores would make a difference - I've spent £100 for a minimal performance boost...
proxyRAX: Remember, I am using an HD4870X2, and in XP too, so that may have something to do with it. As for AoC, It's not a top priority since it hardly even uses more than 1 core, but I don't want it to be a precedent for other games. I'm thinking mainly about future here.
Estuansis: I'm looking forward to Warhead 2, especially given how the original runs now.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
22. August 2008 @ 15:10 |
Link to this message
|
Well I used to have a E6750 at 3.8Ghz. I've been using a quad core for the past few computers. Personally I would take a Quad core even if it is a little bit more expensive.
TheftAuto is right. Do you ONLY game? I do other things with my computer as well. Things that really use that extra L2 cache. Hell, it doesn't shorten the life of your CPU SIGNIFICANTLY even at 3.4ghz. IMHO, the Core 2 Quads are very safe to OC as long as you stay within a safe voltage.
Anyway who keeps their computer for more than 6 months anyway? lol JK
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. August 2008 @ 15:45 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by abuzar1:
. Hell, it doesn't shorten the life of your CPU SIGNIFICANTLY even at 3.4ghz. IMHO, the Core 2 Quads are very safe to OC as long as you stay within a safe voltage.
I certainly will be...
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
23. August 2008 @ 12:20 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
The 45nm chips seem a little faster at the same clock speed though, from what I've read a stock 3.0Ghz E8400 would be more like a 3.3-3.4Ghz E6750.
From what I've seen and read, the differences are more like 10%, maximum. A 3.4GHz E6750 is way faster than an e8400. The advantage of the E8400 is its higher OC potential. You can reach like 4.2GHz on one with a good tower cooler. I'll post the article if I can find it. Whereas a lucky E6750 owner will hit more like 3.8GHz with a tower cooler. I tried it with the Tuniq. I could not break 3.79GHz without bluescreens, though the temps were still ok.
I could have had it at 3.6GHz, but 3.4 let me drop the voltage a bit and lower the temps. The Tuniq could handle it but not the Freezer 7 Pro. It would idle at 40*C, which is a bit toasty for me.
Quote:
Well I used to have a E6750 at 3.8Ghz. I've been using a quad core for the past few computers. Personally I would take a Quad core even if it is a little bit more expensive.
I agree. The E6750 was sweet and still is. So you need something Quite recent to have any sort of improvement. The Q9450 is way above it in specs, cores, and cooling potential. Plus the price is right, not a beast, but not cheap. So I hope for an improvement, even if not really noticeable in performance. Last check says some guys did 3.4GHz at 1.3v. I'm going to aim for that and see where I end up. I still don't think I need to go over 3.4GHz though. Maybe if I go Xfire I'll need some extra power.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
