The Game Rundown: Finding CPU/GPU Bottlenecks, Part 1

[gm0n3y]

There's an Avatar video game? Wasn't the movie bad enough?

 

[hangfirew8]

[citation]The game uses 750 MB of graphics memory, which is almost as much as the GeForce GTX 460 makes available.[/citation]

Given that the 460 is a 768MB card with 16MB reserved for the RAMDAC for screen drawing purposes, I'd say about 750MB really is all it can make available.

Speaking of which, giving the amount of memory the GPU is using really is interesting, but isn't all that useful unless you put in a similar card (say a 460 1GB) and see if the value is different. For example, if you dropped a 512MB card in there you'd see memory usage drop to a value under 512, which is not that informative, but if you put a 2GB card in there and some games used all of it and some half, then you would learn something about how well that games utilizes graphics memory.

All in all, a good article with a fresh take on performance scaling.

 

[billiardicus]

Great read Toms. These articles are why I keep coming back to this site. I would like to see 2 core at 3ghz and 4 ghz as well. Just some constructive feedback. A lot of builders are considering 2 cores overclocked to ~4ghz (i3 for example).

 

[triclops41]

great article, this info is, in some ways, even more helpful than the gpu and cpu monthly comparisons. i think this because the question "what should i upgrade to?" is always preceeded by "will i get much of a benefit by upgrading?"
keep up the good work.

 

[geok1ng]

Excellent article. I wish that the troll that defends the Thubans for gaming posted something about the numbers.

Most games dont see 2 frames increasing by going from 2 cores to 4 cores or going from 3Ghz to 4Ghz, so massive OC or hexacores are useless at 1920x1200.

I kindly ask for 2560x1600 numbers, naturally with 5870+ graphics.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

This article should use different quad cores, triple cores, and dual cores instead of just disabling cores for the i5.

The i5 is a good deal faster than Core2, AthlonII, and PhenomII series in terms of clock-per-clock, so they're really not comparable.

So this article is only good for determining bottlenecks for people with the i3/i5/i7 series.

 

[the_laughing_man]

Why did you use the 32-bit version of Windows 7 instead of the more common 64-bit version of Windows 7.
Could the 32-bit version be putting a bottle neck on system memory usage and access.
Can you infer to any impact available system memory may have on some of these games i.e. 3MB vs. 4MB vs. 6MB vs. 8MB.
I would suspect little impact except maybe for caching, say for maps or textures, but would like to hear others chime in.

Still this shows me that pretty much all games do get a real boost from 4-core systems. Some more then others. I think it is safe to say that the days of single-core gaming are at an end.

 

[HavoCnMe]

Adonn78 +10
A lot of youngsters say you don't need over a Gig of video memory and obviously they never played GTA4.

 

[rohitbaran]

Please include crysis as well.

 

[bikermicefrmars]

Please Tom's it would be great if you include 1440x900 or to the very least 1600x900!

 

[cangelini]

[citation][nom]skora[/nom]This needs to be a staple and have a section in the charts! This is by far one of the most useful articles I've read in a long time and really get down to what matters based on title. Great job TK!!!!!!!!!!!!Chris, make a section in the charts for this and keep them updated please!!!!![/citation]

The games in here were actually used to create the 2010 charts suite, so in a way, it will be

 

[ekidhardt]

Good job. Yet you didn't answer the main objective of the article.

You asked the question,
"Should I invest my money in a better processor or faster graphics?"

Which is the most important question here. Yet, the question wasn't addressed.

The vast majority of people here have core2 duos. Those people simply aren't going to upgrade to a Core i5 dual core. For the same price they'll get the i5-760 quad core.

So why compare Core i5 dual core with Core i5 quad core? Sure, because you get to see how core-related the FPS actually are. But that's not the target of the article is it? It's helping decide what to BUY.

I have a core2duo e8500 with a Radeon 4890. How does this article help me make a decision on what to buy? I really think you should address that.

If I had a single core, sure, this article is fantastic--it tells every person with a single core CPU that they would get MAJOR benefits from going dual core. But wait, would it be more cost effective to go from a p4 to a cheap core2duo or core i5?.

Lets consider your audience, using Steam player data, 55.94% of the players already use dual core, 30% quad core, and 12% single core. Of that 30% on quad core, we can probably guess that half of them are Core2Quad--which means that 83% of the gamers out there, are people with Core 2 quad, core2duo, or single core.

The question you've answered is that CLEARLY, a single core CPU can be improved upon greatly with a dual core. That answers that for 12% of the gamers. What about the rest?

The vast majority of the readers here are Core2duo or Core2Quad and we want to know if we should upgrade our video or CPU, which hasn't been addressed.

Here's the main question:

If I have a core2duo (or quad), should I replace my CPU or GPU? (given X video card).

Cost associated with that answer is often more than "simply upgrade my cpu". For me, Core2Duo e8500, radeon 4890, -- an upgrade of a CPU means

1. New motherboard: ($85)
2. New PC3 memory: ($75)
3. New CPU: ($190+)

Total: $350 for a corei5 upgrade with the same video card.

Or video upgrade for the same price: You can get a Radeon 5870.

So..what wins? A core2duo with a 5870 or Core i5 with a 4890?

But then, if someone has a 4850..well, now it's a whole different ballgame. Or what if someone has a PCIE 8x? or 4x?.

So!

If you're asking the question, please address your true gaming audience, those with Core2Duo's and Quads. This article so far only says "1 core is terrible, 2 and 4 cores are marginally different". Which, while informative, isn't what most people want answered. They want to know if their current Core2Duo would be better suited for a GPU upgrade or CPU upgrade.

 

[neoverdugo]

This proves one thing: Ditch the single core and the less than 1GB graphic cards out of your system and your thoughts!!! Even a dual core has its setbacks. Obviously if a hardcore gamer wants to have a decent machine, its better to get a tri-core processor and a 1GB graphics card under the hood as the MINIMUM gamer starter specs, cause anything below that will force the desktop to overload and possibly reduce it's lifespan. I want to play these power hogging games but i can't because i don't have the enough cash to ditch my 5 year old desktop junkie (yet).

 

[Guest]

SCALABILITY !! My favorite article.
More practical and useful to help judge whether to upgrade or not.
And yes, it suppose to be based on what titles going to be played, not based on some synthetic benchmarks.
Look forward reading another scalability tests.

 

[godnodog]

I have an AMD X2 4600+ (2.4Ghz) + 8800GT 512MB + 3GB DDR Dual Channel + 1 X-FI + 24" Screen 1920*1080, obviously I had to play at low settings, but I had no lag/choppy frames with GTA IV, althought low frames per second but still acceptable for good gameplay, so I found Tom´s conclusion somewhat susprising regarding GTA.

Can any1 tell me if a 2nd 8800 in SLI will be very bottlenecked by my old CPU?
I know it´s time to upgrade, but no money available at this moment...

 

[lemlo]

I'd really like to see cpu utilizations on an amd 6 core for gta. Getting a second gpu on most machines looks like a pointless venture on this game.

 

[oneblackened]

I would REALLY like to see something on CPU/GPU/whatever else bottlenecks on something that isn't games. I'm a fairly usual user of DAWs like Cakewalk SONAR and I'd like to see whether more cores affect the speed at which these render audio or open plugins or w/e.

 

[Avro Arrow]

For a game to use that level of hardware resources, this game must have pretty shoddy coding. The original Crysis had the same problem. That's why Crysis Warhead had equal or better performance with no reduction in graphics quality. For a game to actually be able to push 2x5870's, that's just ridiculous, especially considering that it's also using a Quad-Core processor. Maybe the game should be tested with 3x5870's or 2x5970's coupled with a Phenom II X6 1055T and 1090T. I'd be interested to see it compared to Microsoft Flight Simulator X in terms of resource-hogging.

 

[Avro Arrow]

[citation][nom]ekidhardt[/nom]For me, Core2Duo e8500, radeon 4890, -- an upgrade of a CPU means1. New motherboard: ($85)2. New PC3 memory: ($75)3. New CPU: ($190+)Total: $350 for a corei5 upgrade with the same video card.[/citation]
Well you just made a VERY strong case for taking the AMD upgrade route because for me, upgrading my Phenom II X4 940 to a Phenom II X6 1055T or 1090T only involves the cost of the CPU itself. This is especially relevant when since my mobo is an MSI K9A2 Platinum with Quad-CrossfireX. The other route that you might consider if you were really dumb (but you're obviously not because you talked about the LGA 1156 motherboard for the i5) is to upgrade to a Core2Quad Q9550 which probably won't be any less expensive but it will involve far less labour. I swear, Intel users get screwed every time they do a processor upgrade. I ought to know, I was an Intel user from the original 8088 in an IBM PC to my Core2Duo 1.8GHz in my old gaming rig. I'm so damn glad I went AMD!

 

[RPinney]

Can't wait for part 2!!

 

[czarmurphy]

Wow, that is one of the most useful articles from Tom's I've read in a while. Great to see the performance increase between cores, and also personally somewhat comforting to see that massive overclocks don't affect gaming as much I had feared.

And it's also nice, as you said, to see a game like GTAIV be able to utilize both CPU and GPU so equally and still significantly benefit from upgrades.

 

[neoverdugo]

[citation][nom]godnodog[/nom]I have an AMD X2 4600+ (2.4Ghz) + 8800GT 512MB + 3GB DDR Dual Channel + 1 X-FI + 24" Screen 1920*1080, obviously I had to play at low settings, but I had no lag/choppy frames with GTA IV, although low frames per second but still acceptable for good game-play, so I found Tom´s conclusion somewhat surprising regarding GTA.Can any1 tell me if a 2nd 8800 in SLI will be very bottle-necked by my old CPU?I know it´s time to upgrade, but no money available at this moment...[/citation]
With today's advances with gaming performance an pc hardware? Most likely. Even with a tri-sli configuration may still cause a bottleneck if you haven't changed the processor. I know that cash-flow is a bit low for you right now, but it's best that you upgrade your rig now if you intend to play GTA 4 at higher settings. That means: ditch your AMD X2 4600+, 3GB DDR Dual Channel and the MB that fits all that. You're 8800GT could still be useful, but you'll eventually have to ditch it also cuz the 512 MB of memory won't cut it if you planning to acquire heavy games.

 

[im_thelumberjack]

I think the article would work better if it tested more cpu (2.0-4.0ghz) speeds along with cores. It isn't terribly surprising that an i5 running at stock and overclocked would not bottleneck a 460gtx. With lower clock speeds it could also then be useful to people running older architectures (core 2 series, phenoms) as they could compare there CPU's more easily to the underclocked architecture .

 

[kureme]

Great article, but I would have liked to see the GTX 460 1GB instead of the GTX 460 768MB.

People really only settle for the 768MB version when their budget restricts them to that but they aim for the 1GB version whenever possible. After all, the 768MB one is only $30 more than the HD 5770 whereas the 1GB one is $80 more.

 

[firegate_13]

************************************************
* *
* You 've got to TEST F1 2010 *
* You 've got to TEST F1 2010 *
* You 've got to TEST F1 2010 *
* *
************************************************