Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by AZONIC[rus], Mar 27, 2012.
Should I care about your opinion?
It's not opinion, it's fact.
And yeah you should if your purpose in this thread is to help the OP.
uhm this is what you are saying. if you have a stock i7 920 and a GT220 gpu and get low fps in bf3 upgrading to an i7 2600k will give you better fps.
untrue statement as pill already said.
easy that dude does not like criticism lol
Who does? I will listen if someone actually has something worthwhile to say.
An interesting way of putting it, but correct. While I can't find any benches that would prove right your particular example, I'm inclined to believe that a slight increase in FPS, in CPU heavy games in particular, could be gained from upgrading i7 920 to 2600K, even with GT220 as the GPU.
Would you expect identical FPS with all CPUs that will not bottleneck GT220?
The below is from bit-tech's 2600K review. The GPU is Radeon 5870.
This is what you're saying, if you actually understand what my point is. If 2600K at 4.85Ghz gives you 30 FPS more compared to 3.4Ghz, then 2600K at 3.4Ghz is clearly bottlenecking the 5870.
Btw the cpu load is not 90% - it's 80%.
So he does have at least some headroom available... maybe another ~15% before it's a real bottleneck.
The CPU (with some GPU help) does the calculations drawing wire-frames then placing polygons triangles, plotting transformation (movement) etc then hands that image to the GPU to be rendered.
In other words the GPU is the last link in the chain, it's already sitting at 100% load so how do you propose a better CPU will make it work faster?
It cannot go faster than it is, a better CPU will just be sitting around waiting for the GPU, the result being lower CPU load that's about it.
With a better gpu yes his CPU load may increase (unlikely) but even so he still has 10-15% headroom .....
Looks like closer to 90% to me. Let's call it 85%.
x3 is a cpu limited game, bf3 is more gpu limited unless you have a dual core.
That means you agree with what I originally said:
This was obviously not specific to BF3. However I do think that overclocking 2600K will increase FPS in BF3 64 player conquest
the part I disagree with when you said a q9550 would not bottleneck in sli/xfire. his cpu is ok for a single card, but not ultra high end aka 680/7970. even 2 6950`s will be bottlenecked quite a bit with that cpu
I just did mine,bought a referb Asus ASUS Sabertooth P67 sli board off the geeks($99.00),bought i7 2700k for $314.00,memory sale the egg $80.00 and a Noctua NH-D14 for $84.00,then used my case,1000wt ps,and now I'm doing 5gig OC,
yes but bf3 is a completely different story. i am still bottlenecked by graphics even in a 64player server and even if i lower my oc. bf3 takes gpu > cpu
This is just nonsense...and you're talking in circles - yet again.
You won't find benches proving Agent's example BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST except in your head.
And of course the fps would be identical if the GPU was maxed out, no matter what CPU was used.
Also, this benchmark is not in any way relevant here because it doesn't show GPU load. And even if it did you can bet your bottom dollar it's not going to be 100%.
That's pretty obvious by the 30 fps difference as you yourself pointed out. That's avg btw, min is only 19fps.
It also doesn't prove your claim that a better CPU will increase FPS even when the GPU is working at full capacity.
The only thing that IS relevant is that the OP's GPU is working at 100% in BF3. One Hundred Percent.
Which means a faster/better/stronger/moar CPU won't make a difference, as Agent-A01 just exemplified and I stated before that.
well there is 1 thing wrong with your explanation. you got the dudes name wrong
Thanks guys Very helpful discussion here...
Of course if I will put GTX 680 or 7970 or 2nd 6950 to my system my CPU will be a bottleneck. BUT my opinion is that I will receive more FPS than with new CPU. I agree that I will receive more FPS with i7 2600K (but I can buy only i5 2500k) but less than with new GPU.
To have new CPU I need to spent around 500$. Same with GPU...
P.S. yes, I need to buy SSD anyway...
Does this mean that you think 5870 is actually severely bottlenecked by 2600K @ 3.4GHz in that game? That's just ridiculous. The increase in FPS is from the CPU doing its computation faster, not from higher GPU utilization.
Neither of you have provided any evidence towards that, so I can safely dismiss your whole rant.
What? Jesus H Christ are you seriously this retarded or are you just trolling for lulz? Do you even read the stuff you post because I don't think you do.
Where did I say anything about any bottle neck? All I said was the GPU didn't have a 100% load.
I was replying to your comment in which you stated a CPU will increase fps regardless of GPU load. The benchmark you provided does not back up your claim so why even post it?
But since you mentioned it all I can say is the benchmark speaks for itself, and it's prob very CPU heavy. I can only assume tho as there is no usage shown.
And STOP TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
You just said in your last comment that it was ridiculous to think the CPU was bottlenecking the GPU. Now your saying that the increased fps are because the CPU can do calculations faster. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
A CPU which cannot complete calculations fast enough for the GPU is a BOTTLENECK because the GPU has to wait.
If the same CPU is overclocked and can work faster (calculate) to meet the GPU's then the bottleneck is removed.
Congratulations, you just managed to completely and utterly contradict yourself in one paragraph.
I don't have to provide any evidence, least of all to you, because I know how CPU's and GPU's work together to render 3D objects. Now I may not be an expert in that field, but I understand it well enough to know you don't have a goddamned clue what you're talking about.
You have to be trolling man. You have to be. Either that or else you like to argue for the hell of it....most likely both imho.
I haven't added anyone to my ignore list but you may yet be the first....Bah.
Calm down and stop the personal insults.
You implied it, I merely asked a question to confirm whether that was what you actually thought. You said the GPU was not at 100% load, and that this was clear from the 30 FPS difference. That could only mean that the 30 FPS difference arises from a difference in GPU utilization which in turn is allowed by the difference in CPU performance (3.4Ghz vs 4.85Ghz). This is what bottlenecking means.
Based on that, you did mean there was a bottleneck with the 2600K at 3.4. How else would the 30 FPS difference arise, and why was it such a huge deal I assumed it was what you meant?
But more importantly, as I said earlier, not all calculations during gaming are done by the GPU. In other words, the CPU does a share of the computation that counts towards FPS. I'd love someone to explain that is not the case, and that is not how it works. But if you are going to attempt it, refrain from doing so in your usual manner of insulting, self righteous disrespect.
Then you might as well not post at all.
I don't see where you're coming from. I'm neither trolling nor arguing for sake of arguing, you have my word on that.
Oh, the drama. Welcome to the internet, Pill Monster.