Computer Question.

[Crazyowl]

Cool, Thanks a lot, so I guess my bottleneck here is my GPU and power supply.

 

I guess this is what Ill try to upgrade.

 

<S> and thanks for the help people. :pilotfly:

[Fopeyducker]

Sorry didn't look at the very first post, yes PSU & GPU upgrades would be your best bet at the moment

[EtherealN]

Ok so my doubt now for what I read around here in the forum is that for shure and correct me if I'm wrong my bottleneck here is my GPU, giving the cpu the safe cause it never reach 100%. am

 

Am I correct or this test is not valid?

 

Unfortunately this test is not valid - your processor is a 4-core processor, and the application will not be able to fully utilize all cores no matter what due to a lot of technical reasons.

 

That said, I do believe having a 9500 is the most probable bottleneck at this point, but that is based solely on my knowledge of that chip, not on your CPU utilization numbers (which could bottleneck you even if it only says 30% utilization, since it's utilization of the individual cores that is relevant). The 75% utilization result is most likely caused by secondary processes in your computer since I don't think you'd even be theoretically able to see more than 50% utilization from DCS (it has two main threads = two cores occupied, though one of the threads is unlikely to be able to fill a core, and the main thread will most likely fill it's core).

[Vault]

There's a good topic on overclockers about CPU's and gaming. Get a good duo-core, I've got an E6800 that I've currently overclocked to 4GHZ on air using AI suite!, I only run 4GHZ when I'm gaming. Unless you multitask multiple CPU demanding applications like video encoding/decoding quads and i cores are a waste of money. Not many people are able to hit 4GHZ barrier on quads or i cores.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Vault

[EtherealN]

That's partly wrong, imo. I have seen i7 9xx relatively reliably hit between 4 and 4.2 stable, and the i7 8xx end up around there as well. i5's and i3's get even better results (though the i3's are dual-core obviously, and they do have some weird "islands of stability" where 4.2GHz might be impossible at any voltage but you can go up to 4.5GHz if you dare experiment higher).

 

As you observed though, the main advantage of quads isn't really increasing the compute power for the application itself, but to separate all background and OS processes to cores that will not affect your game.

[Vault]

That's partly wrong, imo. I have seen i7 9xx relatively reliably hit between 4 and 4.2 stable, and the i7 8xx end up around there as well. i5's and i3's get even better results (though the i3's are dual-core obviously, and they do have some weird "islands of stability" where 4.2GHz might be impossible at any voltage but you can go up to 4.5GHz if you dare experiment higher).

 

As you observed though, the main advantage of quads isn't really increasing the compute power for the application itself, but to separate all background and OS processes to cores that will not affect your game.

 

I'm reitterating the words of dedicated overclockers. Yes i cores can hit 4GHZ but it takes specialist knowledge and a very expensive cooling set up to reach 4GHZ. Your fuel bills increase on overclockinging an i core, one user estimated the extra running cost of oc'ing an i core at $150 a year in electricity. The general consensus from the overclockers was for just gaming a duo-core is king. Go on overclockers and check the records for duo, quad and i cores.

 

I can run my CPU reliably at 4GHZ on air. Show me an i core or quad that can do that.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Vault

[EtherealN]

I'm reitterating the words of dedicated overclockers.

 

Yeah, that's me. The only thing I have that is not overclocked is my HTC Desire. (My ASUS EEE runs games real nice after overclocking it's Intel GMA GPU tho ;) )

 

Yes i cores can hit 4GHZ but it takes specialist knowledge and a very expensive cooling set up to reach 4GHZ.

 

No, it takes a good PSU, a 50 dollar heatsink, and a motherboard of acceptable quality. I know people on this very forum with i7's at and above 4GHz that had zero previous overclocking experience.

 

Your fuel bills increase on overclockinging an i core, one user estimated the extra running cost of oc'ing an i core at $150 a year in electricity.

 

This is true, but it is also true (though slightly less extremely so) for the old C2D's. It is also extremely dependant on your PSU.

 

The general consensus from the overclockers was for just gaming a duo-core is king. Go on overclockers and check the records for duo, quad and i cores.

 

This all WAS true. But today you can get a 4GHz+ capable 4-core i5 for less than my C2D e8500 and at equal power draw.

 

I can run my CPU reliably at 4GHZ on air. Show me an i core or quad that can do that.

 

 

All on air. :)

 

Need more?

 

(Images stolen from techreport)

Edited November 17, 2010 by EtherealN

[Fopeyducker]

Overclocking a i7 doesn't require specialist knowledge. In fact if you get lucky with the CPU, have a decent case and some thermal compound people have managed it on the stock cooler with only changing 1 setting in the bios!

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of those that are at 4ghz are running on air, (probably not stock air granted but air non the less).

 

Overclocking records mean nothing as it depends on how the CPU operates, how many operations per cycle etc. If a duo core at 8ghz can't perform in the real world as well as a i7 at 5ghz what's the point?

[Vault]

 

Your £130 CPU versus my £80 CPU, cheaper fuel bills, less heat issues. You got ripped off. Unlike yours I'm on a stock Intel fan and there's more to go. Can't wait till I get big fan. :)

[Fopeyducker]

Is this your CPU?

Core 2 Extreme Dual-Core X6800

[EtherealN]

I'm sorry, but wasn't the i-series incapable of 4GHz?

I'm sure I saw someone say that they were...

 

Well, let's look at this as well:

 

Given, that's not games, that's cinebench, but remember that if the processor isn't fully loaded it won't draw full power anyhow.

 

Now for some full-system comparisons:

 

 

Would you look at that... system price increase from 7600 to 875k is 12.5%, but efficiency goes 50% (and that's a zero overclock). Hmm...

 

And on the prices, let's have a look at this then:

i3 540: 995 SEK (incl. VAT)

e8400: 1695 SEK (incl. VAT)

i5 760: 1689 SEK (incl. VAT)

 

Performance comparison for games:

 

Some more performance/watt numbers:

 

And so far we haven't even touched on the nitty-gritty detail that an i-series processor will do more than the old C2D per clock cycle and core. A single 4GHz i7 core has performance advantages over a single 4GHz C2D core. There's a LOT more to processor performance than clock speed.

[Vault]

Is this your CPU?

Core 2 Extreme Dual-Core X6800

 

It's just a standard E6800. My chassis fan doesn't reach my mainboard so I know I can go a bit higher when I fix that issue, I'm gonna add a huge fan and heatsink soon so I expect to see 4.3-4.5 GHZ reliably. :)

[EtherealN]

Good luck. ;)

 

You'll most likely run into mobo issues before that, since the old C2D's don't have an integrated memory controller and will therefore be heavily limited by the FSB for overclocking, something that the i-series (and AMD) processors do not suffer from due to integrated controllers.

 

And with the i-series actually being cheaper to both purchase and operate than the C2D's... ;)

[Vault]

Etherreal the fact remains with a big fan are CPU's will be very similar in clock speeds. We will run any game or program as fast as each others. Now go and price up a custom built i core system. It's alot more expensive. Considering DCS can only utilise one core you have cores wasting electricity and generating heat.... for nothing, unless you are multi tasking CPU intensive applications whilst in game.

[Vault]

Good luck. ;)

 

You'll most likely run into mobo issues before that, since the old C2D's don't have an integrated memory controller and will therefore be heavily limited by the FSB for overclocking, something that the i-series (and AMD) processors do not suffer from due to integrated controllers.

 

And with the i-series actually being cheaper to both purchase and operate than the C2D's... ;)

 

Lol your CPU is £50 more than mine, what's that in US about $70-80?. Your DDR3 memory is more than likely treble the cost of mine and my CPU will still keep up with yours lol. You got ripped off clean.

 

It's simple. More cores = more electricity. Less cores = cheaper fuel bills and less heat issues.

 

For gaming you only need two cores, it really is as simple as that.

[KillaALF]

Oops, wrong thread.

[EtherealN]

Sigh.

 

First of all, yes, we will run applications at similar speeds, since we have almost identical processors. In case you didn't notice - I run a C2D currently. ;)

 

Secondly, i-series processors are capable of differentially and dynamically overclocking individual cores. You will NOT increase power draw on unused cores.

 

Thirdly, DCS does utilize more than one core, and has done so ever since the FC2 compatibility patch. (Two cores, to be precise.)

 

Fourthly, as I already said, a 4GHz i7 core will perform better than a 4GHz C2D core. With margin. There is more to processor performance than clock speed. Or else the old pentium 4's would perform equal to our system which they have a strange habit of not doing.

 

Fifthly, weren't the i-series incapable of 4GHz?

 

Sixthly, have you heard of this funny thing called an "operating system"? Yeah, on your two-core it shares cores with your game, including DCS:BS since it does now access a second core. On a 4-core it doesn't.

[EtherealN]

Lol your CPU is £50 more than mine, what's that in US about $70-80?. Your DDR3 memory is more than likely treble the cost of mine and my CPU will still keep up with yours lol. You got ripped off clean.

 

It's simple. More cores = more electricity. Less cores = cheaper fuel bills and less heat issues.

 

For gaming you only need two cores, it really is as simple as that.

 

I'm sorry, but you really need to read what you are replying to.

 

My DDR3 memory? Which DDR3 memory? I don't use DDR3 memory.

 

But let's take a price comparison there anyway, just for fun:

Crucial DDR2 PC5300 4GB KIT CL5 (2x2): 689 SEK incl. VAT

Corsair Value S. DDR3 1333MHz 4GB CL9 (2x2): 529 SEK incl. VAT

(both cheapest 4GB kit for their type at komplett.se)

 

What's that? The DDR3 was actually cheaper. Funny... :)

[Vault]

I'm sorry, but you really need to read what you are replying to.

 

My DDR3 memory? Which DDR3 memory? I don't use DDR3 memory.

 

But let's take a price comparison there anyway, just for fun:

Crucial DDR2 PC5300 4GB KIT CL5 (2x2): 689 SEK incl. VAT

Corsair Value S. DDR3 1333MHz 4GB CL9 (2x2): 529 SEK incl. VAT

(both cheapest 4GB kit for their type at komplett.se)

 

What's that? The DDR3 was actually cheaper. Funny... :)

 

Like I said, like for like, i core systems are more expensive to build and more expensive to run. That's a FACT. Unless you mulitask 3+ CPU intensive applications whilst in game an i core system is an expensive waste, over the course of the CPU's life I wonder how much you actually waste in electricity. $450+?. I've also been told that the extra heat that is generated by i core systems degrade mainboard components quicker.

 

Oh rly? How many cores does DCS.exe use again?.

 

So the i5 CPU-Z screenshot you posted below isn't your system? Do you even have an i core based system?.

 

Edited November 17, 2010 by Vault

[EtherealN]

Vault, seriously. READ.

 

My personal system is in my signature. I've also explicitly stated several times things like "my own C2D".

 

Dcs.exe runs two main threads (sound engine separated) plus additional microthreading by DirectX.

 

Also, you fail to take into account that newer processors (including the C2D e8500) run at a smaller lithocraphic node (yours is 65nm if I recall correctly, mine is 45nm, new i3's and i5's are 32nm). You know what that means? Yup - lesser die area, higher transistor density, smaller gate width and thus: higher power efficiency. As, btw, the graphs and tables I displayed earlier does show you.

 

Also, as I already mentioned, the important point in wasted energy is your PSU, not the CPU. Especially since the i-series processors are capable of rather aggressive differential overclocking of individual cores - that is, Core0 runs at 4GHz, Core1 runs at 4GHz, Core2 runs at 1.6GHz, and Core3 runs at 1.6GHz.

 

"I've also been told"... I'm not sure I should comment on that. Why would you let your heat go into the motherboard? Especially since the i-series processors have moved the FSB and memory controller on-chip, and in the case of the really new ones even the PCI-e controller is on-chip.

 

You know what that means? That a good bit of the wattage you see on the i-series is power draw that you don't see on the C2D's because for the C2D's those components aren't even on the chip. They're on the motherboard.

 

Seriously. READ VERY CLOSELY because I'm growing tired of repeating myself.

[Succellus]

You can brag all you want i m still waiting benchmark to prove your point.

You can overclock all you want, when you go subsistem I7 core processes more per hertz/core than older cores.

MGhz is nice and shiny but it ain t only that, the weakest link is the maximum speed your computer can go.

You re probably bottlenecked and don t even know it.

[Vault]

Vault, seriously. READ.

 

My personal system is in my signature. I've also explicitly stated several times things like "my own C2D".

 

Sorry if I misunderstood but it looked like you was stating your system specs. Seriously I'll read in futre, if you stop posting other peoples specs that you cannot verify.

 

Dcs.exe runs two main threads (sound engine separated) plus additional microthreading by DirectX.

 

I already knew that. Just a guess here but does the most CPU intensive side of DCS runs on just 1 core?.

 

Also, you fail to take into account that newer processors (including the C2D e8500) run at a smaller lithocraphic node (yours is 65nm if I recall correctly, mine is 45nm, new i3's and i5's are 32nm). You know what that means? Yup - lesser die area, higher transistor density, smaller gate width and thus: higher power efficiency. As, btw, the graphs and tables I displayed earlier does show you.

 

Wrong it's 45nm. According to the users on OCUK I've got the best version of 8600 for OC'ing and if there advice is correct I will get between 4.3 and 4.5 GHZ.

 

Wrong again!. Give it up!. An i5 has three more cores and it WILL use more electricity and generate more heat. Core for core an i5 uses less electricity but because it has 3 more cores than a duo an i5 will use more electricity! do you understand?. It's all school boy stuff. I thought you would have known that.

 

Also, as I already mentioned, the important point in wasted energy is your PSU, not the CPU. Especially since the i-series processors are capable of rather aggressive differential overclocking of individual cores - that is, Core0 runs at 4GHz, Core1 runs at 4GHz, Core2 runs at 1.6GHz, and Core3 runs at 1.6GHz.

 

Were talking CPU's not PSU's lol. A nasty PSU will always waste more electricity than a good quality PSU and your point is?.

 

"I've also been told"... I'm not sure I should comment on that. Why would you let your heat go into the motherboard? Especially since the i-series processors have moved the FSB and memory controller on-chip, and in the case of the really new ones even the PCI-e controller is on-chip.

 

Then don't. It's what Ive been told and I beleive it, you don't have too. Theoretically the more heat thats generated and the more power that is pulled should put a higher stress on components.

 

Seriously. READ VERY CLOSELY because I'm growing tired of repeating myself.

 

OK I'll read better when you explain yourself better and actually have an understanding of what you're posting.

[EtherealN]

Vault, to make it very clear for you I'll re-post this picture (it was posted earlier by me but it appears you didn't take the time to really look at them):

 

 

What we have there is performance and system price. That is, power efficiency for work done against the price of the entire system. On there we have e6500 and e7600 at roughly the same system price as the i3-530, i5-661 and i5-750. This includes the entire system. The whole computer. Everything.

 

But we can see how the relevant i-series processors (with overclocking results previously linked as well) do a lot more work for the dollar spent on electricity.

 

Purchase price of system: the same.

Performance per dollar of electricity: vastly better.

[Vault]

You re probably bottlenecked and don t even know it.

 

I do. It's my GPU. :(

[EtherealN]

Seriously I'll read in futre, if you stop posting other peoples specs that you cannot verify.

 

Then you should stop posting second-hand opinions from random forums?

The figures I've posted are from people who make a living out of testing hardware and writing consumer guidance.

 

I already knew that. Just a guess here but does the most CPU intensive side of DCS runs on just 1 core?.

 

Yup, but that's not relevant since the i-series processors that are 4-cores can run the unused cores at non-overclock settings and in some cases pretty much shut them off entirely if they are not needed at a specific moment in time.

 

Wrong it's 45nm. According to the users on OCUK I've got the best version of 8600 for OC'ing and if there advice is correct I will get between 4.3 and 4.5 GHZ.

 

Clarify if that was a typo then:

 

I've got an E6800 that I've currently overclocked to 4GHZ

 

The picture you posted (http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1033310&postcount=34) says 6800, not 8600, and the 6800 is a Conroe pre-die shrink - that is, 65nm. Or is this the Wolfdale-M?

 

Wrong again!. Give it up!. An i5 has three more cores and it WILL use more electricity and generate more heat. Core for core an i5 uses less electricity but because it has 3 more cores than a duo an i5 will use more electricity! do you understand?. It's all school boy stuff. I thought you would have known that.

 

 

Where are those "three more cores"? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm seeing dual-core processors there?

 

Were talking CPU's not PSU's lol. A nasty PSU will always waste more electricity than a good quality PSU and your point is?.

 

My point is that the wattage difference between older C2D's and newer i5's is negligible. (And for i3's which are both cheaper and higher performing than the C2D's it is the C2D that consumes more power in spite of the i3's having memory controller and PCI-e controller on-chip) It disappears in the noise of what the PSU does for your efficiency. AND the newer cpu's also have more stuff on them, like the mentioned memory controllers and PCI-e controllers. To make a fair comparison you would have to take C2D+FSB vs i3/i5/i7. And the picture changes completely when you do that. This is not trivial.

 

Then don't. It's what Ive been told and I beleive it, you don't have too. Theoretically the more heat thats generated and the more power that is pulled should put a higher stress on components.

 

No, what stresses the components as far as heat goes isn't just heat generated. It's actual heat in the component. A processor drinking 200 watt but sitting at 30 degrees Celcius will not wear down faster than a processor drinking 20 watt and sitting at the same temperature.

 

OK I'll read better when you explain yourself better and actually have an understanding of what you're posting.

 

I have to have an understanding of what I am posting, eh? I'll just refrain from answering that and let you stew on what happened to the whole i-series cannot do 4GHz and DDR3 costs triple of DDR2 things. They made my point adequately. :)

Edited November 17, 2010 by EtherealN