Jump to content

pc upgrade question


ruprecht

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I'm currently running a Q6600 quad oc'd to 3.2 GHz, on an x48 mobo with a 9800GTX+ and 6GB of RAM. This rig pulls about 14,300 in 3dMark 06.

 

I'd like to get better FPS in BS and ArmA, as I'm running Triplehead at 3x1280x768 plus a 1024x768 ABRIS/Shkval.

 

My options are:

 

- Upgrade CPU to say a Q9550 2.8GHz for about $400 AUD, which will probably overclock well past 3.2 GHz

 

OR

 

- Go for a full i7 upgrade, which will be roughly $1000 AUD incl an X58 mobo and 6GB RAM. The Core i7 920 Quad 2.6GHz should go to 3.2 GHz fairly easily.

 

My question is this: if BS FPS is limited by CPU (as tends to be the case) does an i7 upgrade really offer me anything, given that there is no difference in the raw CPU speed I can achieve (in GHz terms) with i7 vs Core 2 Quad? In reality, are either of these upgrades going to give me anything significant?

 

Thanks for reading

DCS Wishlist: | Navy F-14 | Navy F/A-18 | AH-6 | Navy A-6 | Official Navy A-4 | Carrier Ops | Dynamic Campaign | Marine AH-1 |

 

Streaming DCS sometimes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your reasoning is very well aimed, although I think you´ll get better OC results overall with the i7, I understand you get bigger L1 and L2 caches. Faster RAM bus and controller will help also.

But you´ll never get anywhere near twice the bang for twice the money, though. That will come when ED implements multithreading, I hope they do it soon...

 

Could I ask what FPS are you getting with your current setup, and with what settings?

Westinghouse W-600 refrigerator - Corona six-pack - Marlboro reds - Patience by Girlfriend

 

"Engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand, into shapes we cannot precisely analyse so as to withstand forces we cannot properly assess, in such a way that the public has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance." (Dr. A. R. Dykes - British Institution of Structural Engineers, 1976)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going to a Q9550 basically just gets you a 45nm CPU; apart from some optimizations, I don't think it makes much difference. I7 would yield a more substantial improvement ("real" quad-core, integrated memory controller), but I still doubt it would make much difference.

 

I get lowest FPS around farp/airfield (lot of stuff on screen), so I think it's the GPU holding me back, not the CPU. Not sure though.

 

Q9550 3.4GHz

4GB DDR2 4-4-4-12

8800GTS 512

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

DCS A-10C: putting the 'art' into 'warthog'.

(yes, corny. Sorry.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got a Q6600 and an 8800 and I did some benchmarking while messing around with cpu overclocking in Black Shark using fraps and a mission track (which had a lot going on).

 

Running on Vista using the affinity trick at 1680 x 1050 I found no difference at all in frame rate between the stock cpu speed of 2.4 up to 3.0, so like Arclight, I'd say I'm limited by my graphics card. I'm just thinking that with the res you're pumping out, you might be better off going with a MB upgrade and getting another card and running in SLI?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever" - Napoleon Bonaparte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the same dilemma around xmas time. The biggest issue for me then was DDR3 prices. I had 4 gb DDR2 with a Q6660 @3.2ghz 8800gtx I believe there were a couple i7 boards that supported DDR2 at the time, but if I was going to get an i7 I wanted to get the triple channel benefit (3 ram slots occupied increases speed somewhat for i7s). Plus, I was not too impressed with i7 benchmarks over higher quad core cpus in games.

 

I ended up getting the Q9550 and overclocked it to 4Ghz(some can go to 4.2Ghz, my board was the limiting factor). I immediately saw a 20% increase in frame rates. I wanted to see if I could get more fps, and i bought a 295gtx and my fps actually went down some :(


Edited by morsmortis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is this: if BS FPS is limited by CPU (as tends to be the case) does an i7 upgrade really offer me anything, given that there is no difference in the raw CPU speed I can achieve (in GHz terms) with i7 vs Core 2 Quad? In reality, are either of these upgrades going to give me anything significant?

 

Thanks for reading

 

You can't compare the processing power of two completely different processors based on their clock speed (MHz).

 

From what Chizzy101 said, find a track which has a good range of conditions and which tends to drop your frame rate.

 

Play the track whilst looking at your FPS, either using the in-game function or fraps, etc.

 

Reduce your processor speed (back to the normal frequency, or lower, preferably 20-30% lower than the first test's speed), and re-run the same track whilst monitoring FPS.

 

If there's a big difference, you'll know that upgrading your processor will help significantly, if not, look elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could I ask what FPS are you getting with your current setup, and with what settings?

 

I get about 20-30 FPS on instant action, with medium settings across the board.

 

Going to a Q9550 basically just gets you a 45nm CPU; apart from some optimizations, I don't think it makes much difference. I7 would yield a more substantial improvement ("real" quad-core, integrated memory controller), but I still doubt it would make much difference.

 

This was my suspicion.

 

Running on Vista using the affinity trick at 1680 x 1050 I found no difference at all in frame rate between the stock cpu speed of 2.4 up to 3.0, so like Arclight, I'd say I'm limited by my graphics card. I'm just thinking that with the res you're pumping out, you might be better off going with a MB upgrade and getting another card and running in SLI?

 

I found a noticeable difference going from stock to 3.2GHz on the Q6600. I already have a dual-GPU-capable mobo (x48 2xPCIe16) so SLI is an option.

 

What type of harddrive do you have? I changed from an IDE drive to a SATA2 drive and the difference is amazing.

 

Dual 10k SATA Raptors in RAID 0 :)

 

I ended up getting the Q9550 and overclocked it to 4Ghz(some can go to 4.2Ghz, my board was the limiting factor). I immediately saw a 20% increase in frame rates. I wanted to see if I could get more fps, and i bought a 295gtx and my fps actually went down some :(

 

This is partly my dilemma - does it come down to raw CPU cycles, or is there some inherent superiority (cache etc) in the i7 architecture that trumps raw cycles.

DCS Wishlist: | Navy F-14 | Navy F/A-18 | AH-6 | Navy A-6 | Official Navy A-4 | Carrier Ops | Dynamic Campaign | Marine AH-1 |

 

Streaming DCS sometimes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i7, it is the more wise investment, nothing more to add.

 

I guess that if i7 doesn't offer me a significant FPS boost, then it's not "wise" for me to spend the money just now.

 

You can't compare the processing power of two completely different processors based on their clock speed (MHz).

 

Knowing nothing about the difference in Core 2 and i7 architectures, this was exactly my issue. So there is something inherent about i7 that will give me faster CPU processing despite no appreciable difference in clock speed? Can you point me to any references that explain it?

 

From what Chizzy101 said, find a track which has a good range of conditions and which tends to drop your frame rate. Play the track whilst looking at your FPS, either using the in-game function or fraps, etc. Reduce your processor speed (back to the normal frequency, or lower, preferably 20-30% lower than the first test's speed), and re-run the same track whilst monitoring FPS. If there's a big difference, you'll know that upgrading your processor will help significantly, if not, look elsewhere.

 

I will do this, thanks. can you suggest a good benchmarking track?

DCS Wishlist: | Navy F-14 | Navy F/A-18 | AH-6 | Navy A-6 | Official Navy A-4 | Carrier Ops | Dynamic Campaign | Marine AH-1 |

 

Streaming DCS sometimes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lynnfield ... september

 

September is about perfect timing. Will keep an eye out, thanks.

DCS Wishlist: | Navy F-14 | Navy F/A-18 | AH-6 | Navy A-6 | Official Navy A-4 | Carrier Ops | Dynamic Campaign | Marine AH-1 |

 

Streaming DCS sometimes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing nothing about the difference in Core 2 and i7 architectures, this was exactly my issue. So there is something inherent about i7 that will give me faster CPU processing despite no appreciable difference in clock speed? Can you point me to any references that explain it?

The main difference between core2 and i7 is (1.) integrated memory controller and (2.) 4 cores that are directly linked.

 

1. Normally, with Intel, the memory controller is integrated into the northbridge. On i7, it's located on the CPU itself. Simply put, it reduces latency; the time between requesting and receiving data is reduced, meaning faster memory.

 

2. On Core2 quad CPU, there are 2 pairs of 2 cores tied together through the Front Side Bus. Each pair communicates directly through the cache on the CPU itself, but communication between the 2 pairs takes a detour. With i7, all 4 cores communicate directly through a shared cache on the chip. Simply put, C2Q is 2 C2Ds stuck together, while i7 is a "true" quad-core CPU.

 

Another benefit is triple-channel. It effectively triples the bandwith compared to running the modules normally. High bandwith is nice, but only really comes into play when writing/reading very large, continguous blocks of data. In general, you'll see a greater boost in performance (in games) from low latencies.

 

And then there's the optimizations that always come with new architectures. Even without afore mentioned benefits, i7 would be slightly faster than C2.

 

 

 

At any rate, considering you're running 3 screens, it's pretty safe to say you need more powerfull graphics, at least IMHO. :ermm:


Edited by Arclight

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

DCS A-10C: putting the 'art' into 'warthog'.

(yes, corny. Sorry.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...