Beej
the motherboard i recommended is a low end motherboard. It doesnt require too much power, but i also said he will not be able to upgrade on the motherboard. This board only has 2 dimm slots, chipset doesnt allow to overclock, and feature wise its average.
Its a shame to put a fast cpu on this board... Again due to budget ristrictions, this setup will serve him well since he is a casual gamer. And trust me an i3 with a 560 is NOT a casual gamer's pc!
yasamoka
Beej wrote@ Ysamoka: Bottleneck is overrated, yes a quad core is better but not "needed". I am the best example of true bottleneck, runninga 460 @ 812mhz (almost same as the chosen 560) with a dual core e5400. Now thats bottlneck! Yes he will not have the full performance of his gpu, but he will lose what? 4-5 fps? And if a game utelizes 4 cores, his 2 fast cores will be enough to give him a smooth experience, instead of getting 100fps he gets 60-70 (still amazing), and am shooting very high numbers here.
4-5FPS? Are you kidding me? There are cases of 70% bottleneck! And also, don't forget that games that favor quad cores such as Battlefield do not just use the 4 cores because 2 cores processing power is not enough, but simply because they can spread their load and achieve better parallelization. They don't max out cores @ 100% like Unreal Tournament 3 does, for example. And about bottleneck too: I have tried previously to run a GTX 260 on a Pentium 4 while I was waiting for the rest of my rig, I used to get 18 - 20FPS in Unreal Tournament 3. Now I get MINIMUM 70-90 and usually 100-110FPS. Crysis, at High / Very High, 1024x768, ran 15-20FPS AVG sometimes touching 30 in forests or 60 indoors (I'm not even sure of that). So not all bottlenecks will lose you 4-5FPS. GTA IV on a dual core? Don't even think about it (and that uses a triple core). Third, I'm sure you've checked your GPU usage while running on a dual core. It can barely crank 50%-60% GPU usage. So essentially you have wasted processing power. If so, I recommend he scales down to a GTX550Ti or a GTS 450 IF and ONLY if price difference is substantial. Had he been overclocking his duallie Core i3 (which is on SB impossible), then it would have been good. But considering people ran GTX 260's and preferred Quad Cores at the time (we're talking about people running GTX 260 over Core 2 Duo @ 4.5GHz), this is a GTX 560Ti we're talking about, in a world where most games can now benefit from quads. And if not now, then very soon. BFBC2 can already use 16 cores. Metro 2033 stresses out 4-6 cores.
And about the PSU, well you're perfectly right. Consider such a system draws 350W TOPS, 350W / 450W = 77% which is great. But since the majority of available 450W PSUs tend to be cheap knockoffs, he'll have to be careful. If we were talking about Corsair 450W PSUs, then there's no problem. But even Thermaltake, I have my reservations about it. For a bit of breathing room, 500 - 550W is great. That way he'll be at 65-70% load of PSU, which makes it last longer. But it's not upgradeable except if replacing the Core i3 with an i5 or the graphics card with a similar mid-range model (GTX 660Ti, for example, when that becomes available, and if at same power draw). But then again at budget, upgrades aren't too feasible. Even at mid-range / high-end sometimes upgrades aren't feasible. Look what Intel did to LGA1366 and LGA1156.
@RAM: 2 x 2GB is only $7 more expensive than 1 x 4GB, and nets him double channel, and really helps if he runs out of VRAM and has to resort to system RAM. Now he has to decide whether he's going for 8GB eventually (get 1 x4GB now) or wants to stick to 4GB (get 2x2GB and be done with it).
rtp
is their much difference between GTS 450 and GTX 550Ti?
yasamoka
bluewolf wroteis their much difference between GTS 450 and GTX 550Ti?
Same shader processors, a GTX550Ti is an overclocked GTS450, but the 550Ti is really superior in memory performance. Of course, if there isn't much difference in price between the two, a GTX 550Ti is better. But then again if that gets too close in price to a GTX560Ti, then...well good luck :P
MrClass
Guys just want to ask a question about bottlenecked GPUs. I have a GTX280 and a fairly overclocked Q9550. Is my GPU bottlenecked? Is a Corei7 2500K or 2600K a worthy upgrade? Is it better to wait for next gen Intel CPUs? I am having trouble running Test Drive Unlimited 2, it is just unplayable at 1920x1080. Thanks.
yasamoka
MrClass wroteGuys just want to ask a question about bottlenecked GPUs. I have a GTX280 and a fairly overclocked Q9550. Is my GPU bottlenecked? Is a Corei7 2500K or 2600K a worthy upgrade? Is it better to wait for next gen Intel CPUs? I am having trouble running Test Drive Unlimited 2, it is just unplayable at 1920x1080. Thanks.
If you can run dual monitor, then run GPU-Z on the second monitor. Click on "Refresh when GPU-Z is in the background". Then run Test Drive Unlimited 2. Make sure Nvidia settings allow running a 3D application with both monitors turned on. If not, then try to run Test Drive Unlimited 2 in Windowed mode, yet at 1920 x 1080. If GPU usage is climbing to 90+ (99 is best), then no bottleneck. If it's not, then there is bottleneck.
Also, try downclocking the CPU to see if the framerate decreases:
1) if at all (no bottleneck, expect if core count is the issue (low core count), with a quad core definitely it's not)
2) proportionally (bottleneck)
3) more than proportionally (huge bottleneck, usually to do with overall / multiple system speeds, not only CPU)
Beej
@ Yasamoka: again with all the paranoia, P4s are NOTHING compared to i3! Cmon buddy we are talking SB here, with the upgraded IPC here. And the 560 is NON ti, its the oc-ed 460. Also he is a casual gamer! And obviously you didnt see the link i posted before, about i3 vs i7, imagine both of them @ stock clocks, the difference will be the same.
Bottleneck will always exist, there is no fast enough cpu that can sustain a gpu right now, gpus are much faster than cpus.
Also most games utelize 2 cores, few games support 4 cores (most upcoming games do support 4 and even HT wich btw this i3 has). In the games that are 2 cores he will not see significant decrease but 2-5fps. But when the game does support 4 cores he will loose 30-40%, but he will remain in the playable fps.
And also i have a dual core e5400,non overclocked, and i play games smoothly on 1680x1050 (the higher the res the lower the cpu dependency), and i do max out @ 99% in most games. the only game that suffers for me is BFBC2 and yet its still playable @ almost 30fps (i should be in the 50s as fps go).
My point is this, him and I have the same gpu and am running it on an outdated dual core, and am fine (even for a more "extreme" gamer). He is a casual gamer! Budget is indeed a problem. He said resolution doesnt matter, neither quality as long as the game runs fine. And trust me guys it will be more than enough. Core i3s are underrated due to the fact they are 2 cores, but they are indeed fast and are able to handle most gpus. And in most games (even the ones that needs 4 cores) they are faster than q9xxx series...
So please stop this paranoia about bottleneck, it exists, its not gonna go away, but it will not degrade or diminish his fps and make things unplayable. Just because you cant reach/see the full potential of your gpu doesnt mean its all that bad.
Beej
MrClass wroteGuys just want to ask a question about bottlenecked GPUs. I have a GTX280 and a fairly overclocked Q9550. Is my GPU bottlenecked? Is a Corei7 2500K or 2600K a worthy upgrade? Is it better to wait for next gen Intel CPUs? I am having trouble running Test Drive Unlimited 2, it is just unplayable at 1920x1080. Thanks.
No your not bottlenecked by a gtx 280. And test drive is a bad bad BAD port. Its not a good game to test for anything.
rolf
There is something I don't get. If the GPU is always faster then the CPU and there is always a bottleneck, then how can a 2x (or more) difference in CPU performance only result in 2-5 fps difference?
That could be true if the bottleneck was the CPU bus, not the CPU itself.
Beej
Exactly... You see we reached a wall, where intel and amd are both increasing the number of cores or speeds. Physical cores or virtual ones, it doesnt matter. All we know is that its not getting anywhere. An overclocked i7 920 is almost equal (still slower) than an overclocked 2500/2600 which is similar to 980/990x...
In order in games Sandybridge>bloomfield>nehalem. But the difference is just a few fps. Even if you have an i7 cpu its a waste to upgrade to SB-E (socket 2011)...
yasamoka
@ Beej: yes I checked the link after I posted by a bit...well yes majority don't bottleneck, but some get half framerate. Can someone live with that? Considering quad core is getting more adopted, and dual core soon going out of the window, that will probably grant 1 year max before a core i3, that now doesn't bottleneck, will become a bottleneck.
And about the P4, I was giving an example dude! Of course the difference is huge between the P4 and i3!
And also, yes a i3 2100 is definitely faster than a Core 2 Quad stock for stock, but that's exactly why I talked about distributing load over more cores. Battlefield Bad Company 2 doesn't simply max out a dual core, it just distributes its load over 4 cores better.
And about always having a bottleneck. A bottleneck, according to my definition, is when the CPU doesn't allow the GPU to render ahead because calculations being run on the CPU do not allow for more FPS. As in, if GPU can render x FPS and CPU can only calculate for y FPS where y < x, then there is a bottleneck. The better a graphics card gets, the more calculations required on the CPU (since also higher settings). Hence the bottleneck issue.
A GPU is faster than CPU is some calculations, but slower in others. You can't simply compare two things which are still very different. Yes, a GPU may have 3 billion transistors, and a CPU may max out at a billion, but a GPU is not simply 3 times faster than a CPU.
Also, if bottleneck always exists, then why do we always run into a point where more frequency, cores, processors, simply do not affect FPS in the slightest? If there was always a bottleneck until CPU = GPU, I mean we would need to run dual Xeons so as not to bottleneck a single GTX580.
As for an overclocked i7 920, it's almost equal to a overclocked 2500K/2600K?? Why did many switch from X58 to P67 then? An OC i7 920 may be equal to a stock 2500K/2600K, but it's by no means equal to an OC'ed one. Architecture alone grabs almost 50% boost in performance clock-for-clock. That's how Intel usually is.
Intel / AMD have adopted a strategy that started with GPUs. Pixel / Vertex Shaders, then Unified Shaders, which is what we now have. A GPU is unmatched in parallelism since it has multiple units that can perform operations, rather than a single-threaded unit. CPUs are heading this way, and GPUs are heading the way of CPUs with programmability and flexibility. Whether they'll meet, or be separated yet combined for calculations, is not a conclusion we can make now.
Beej
Yasamoka your over exaggerating on every point i make.
Your definition of bottleneck is correct, gpu is giving more than what the cpu can muster, hence its being bottlenecked by the cpu.
Also when you increase setting and resolution, the game is actually getting more gpu bound rather than cpu, hence you will see minor difference between phenoms and different intel cpus.
Also intel themselves addmitted that current gpus are indeed faster than cpus, but a cpu is "smarter" and ofcourse can make calclatons a gpu will never reach, but thats a different story. And am sure you know, nvidia is pushing for gpgpu which is indeed the future. But still a cpu is needed, but you will only need a basic cpu.
And about bottleneck always exist, am implying at the highest end gpus,aka gtx 580/6970, coupled with highest end cpus. As long as overclocking your cpu nets you higher fps, means that the gpu is still faster. And it exist mostly in games like crysis, metro..etc
And if i had an x58 and switched to p67 then i am a dumb person ;). Remember peole follow trends, and we all know that intel themselves are not replacing the x58 with p67, x79 is the true replacement for x58. And even that, in games is not worth it. SB truly shines in multi-gpu scenarios, not single gpu.
The jump from Core 2 generation o nehalem was indeed big, but intel now is adding few new instructions and speeding things up. IPC difference between sb and nehalim isnt that big, and wrt bloomfield its almost the same.
Ill say again, we got paranoid and we strayed from the original point... BUDGET
This pc will let him play games comfortably enough for time to come, he doesnt care about settings/quality/resolution. And am most definite he will not download fraps and start checking his fps numbers.
yasamoka
LOL now we agree at every single point! For me, I wouldn't replace X58 with P67, but many people did. People who wanted the newest, the shiniest. Not that I have not thought about it though. P67 is a fantastic mid-range chipset. It's probably one of Intel's best jobs to date.
EDIT: about the gaming rig, well if he's not caring about resolution, quality, etc...isn't getting a GTS560 a bit too much? I mean if he's going to start running things at medium later on due to bottleneck, then 7aram! I mean if he's getting a GTX560, the part about caring for FPS automatically comes along! :P
shant
mrclass, i think you need more graphic power,my Q6600 @ 3.44 does a great job at games, the only bottleneck i have is starcraft 2 and thats because it only uses 2 cores, try overclocking a bit more and see if you have performance boost, but mainly i think its your graphic card
and for the upgrade, its would be better to wait for bulldozer and sandybridge-e or if you don't want to wait get a 2700k (as i heard it intel is choosing the best cores for the 2700k cpu)
Beej
@ Shant: The i72700k is indeed better than 2600k and can hit 5ghs with low voltages, the later needs 1.4ishv or 1.5. But the i7 2700k is NOT a replacement as intel usually does, so it will be priced higher.
Now buldozer or SB-E is a different story, depends on what he needs. SB-e isnt that very far from SB interms of overall performance in gaes, but in apps that require cores/bandwidth its way ahead. BD is yet to show up, but its slower than sb on stock clocks, still we dont know what it does when oc-ed. And AMD platform oc is diffrent than intel, NB frequency is very important. It doesnt matter if the cpu is @ 5ghz when the NB is still 2400mhz!. Becarful of what sites you read reviews from.
And socket 2011 willbe $ive :(. Big bad boards :P, with big bad cpu.
MrClass
Yup I read that the X79 chipset is going to be more expensive than X58, so the overall cost of the board might be more expensive. I think TDU2 is just a shitty game cause other games of the same generation work just fine at HD resolutions. That good ole' GTX280 still kicks a$$, will wait for Nvidia's 600 or 700 series.
yasamoka
MrClass wroteThat good ole' GTX280 still kicks a$$, will wait for Nvidia's 600 or 700 series.
You, sir, have read my mind...I have a GTX260 OCed to respectable levels with excellent temps, and yes it kicks ass too, but I'm probably going for 600 series since I care for power efficiency per performance, as I run folding 24/7.
@Beej: the last review I checked, BD 4C was outperforming SB 2600K clock for clock. Can you post reviews? I will post mine. But maybe mine is a bit outdated.
Don't let us forget that if 4C is indeed the 4 core BD (as AMD refused to make any confusions between cores and modules and seems to refer to 4C as 4 cores and 8C as 8 cores), then what will 8C BD do to SB-E???
Beej
I dont care waht amd thinks :P they might call it 8 cores :P but ill call it 8 coe module :P. All we have seen/read is just rumors. I dont care if its slower than sb, all i car is this: The gap between AMD and intel is finally shrunken. Maybe to a point where ocing the cpus to the max could net similar performance. Even if SB still has an edge, its platform costs more than AM3+. Compare prices here in lebanon if u want between crosshair V formula and maximus 4 extreme.
Anywhoooo, yasamoka wait within couple of weeks to month and ill post some benchies (6).
And all we saw was rumors nothing more, you could ceck passmark's main page and see "8 core amd", its higher than 2500k and lower than 2600k by 100pts, on stock.
And i also know is that they improved multi gpu, as you know when you sli/xfire on Phenom, compared to intel you loose alot of fps. Its unacceptable for a consumer to buy the highest phenom and see that he is loosing 30 fps @ HD and up resolution, compared to cheaper/similar intel platfrom.
shant
i think waiting for both bulldozer and sb-e is the best choice, see the reviews, take your time
and most probably sandybridge(lga1155) prices will go down,its the smartest thing you can do to save money and get good performance
btw don't forget sb-e has pci-e 3.0 and other features!
Beej
Sadly, socket 2011 itself is ready for PCI-e 3.0, not the cpus. ALso z68 supports pci-e 3.0, alot of vendors are including pci-e 3.0 (msi,gigabyte,asrock,asus). But sandybridge's integrated pci-e lanes are 2.0. Let it be SB or SB-E they both DONOT support pci-e 3.0. Ivy brifge is the cpu that supports pci-e 3.0. And since z68 and x79 will support future IB cpus, they are being built to be ready for next gen cards, which we still not sure if they will be pci-e 3.0.
