FX-55 CPU usage 100%

[openchut82]

A8N5X, FX-55, eVGA 7900GS, 2 X 512 Patriot, 2 X 512 Samsung running single channel, Antec TP II 480 watt, NEC 3500, 2 X WD 80GB in raid 0. New build so just installed Windows XP SP2. No overclocking at the moment.

When playing BF2, by using control, alt, delete, my CPU usage shows running at 100%. FPS in game according to FRAPS is 90 to 100. Seems like 100% CPU usage is kinda high to me. Could this be right?

 

[miahallen]

No, that's perfectly normal.

 

[shinigamiX]

A8N5X, FX-55, eVGA 7900GS, 2 X 512 Patriot, 2 X 512 Samsung running single channel, Antec TP II 480 watt, NEC 3500, 2 X WD 80GB in raid 0. New build so just installed Windows XP SP2. No overclocking at the moment.

When playing BF2, by using control, alt, delete, my CPU usage shows running at 100%. FPS in game according to FRAPS is 90 to 100. Seems like 100% CPU usage is kinda high to me. Could this be right?

Most developers aim to utilise 100% of the CPU during gameplay. No need to worry.

 

[openchut82]

Ok, thanks guys. Just wasnt sure.

 

[BaronMatrix]

A8N5X, FX-55, eVGA 7900GS, 2 X 512 Patriot, 2 X 512 Samsung running single channel, Antec TP II 480 watt, NEC 3500, 2 X WD 80GB in raid 0. New build so just installed Windows XP SP2. No overclocking at the moment.

When playing BF2, by using control, alt, delete, my CPU usage shows running at 100%. FPS in game according to FRAPS is 90 to 100. Seems like 100% CPU usage is kinda high to me. Could this be right?

Sounds like it's time to get an FX60. They're pretty cheap right now. I was thinking about it just so my PC is worth more when I get rid of it.

 

[ls]

A8N5X, FX-55, eVGA 7900GS, 2 X 512 Patriot, 2 X 512 Samsung running single channel, Antec TP II 480 watt, NEC 3500, 2 X WD 80GB in raid 0. New build so just installed Windows XP SP2. No overclocking at the moment.

When playing BF2, by using control, alt, delete, my CPU usage shows running at 100%. FPS in game according to FRAPS is 90 to 100. Seems like 100% CPU usage is kinda high to me. Could this be right?

Sounds like it's time to get an FX60. They're pretty cheap right now. I was thinking about it just so my PC is worth more when I get rid of it.

Sure it is time to get a new processor. 90 to 100 fps is so slow.

 

[ajfink]

Haha, yeah, this guy clearly doesn't need a new processor.

 

[tekzor]

If your 55 does its job fine, then why get a new processor? you got the money? As long as the cpu usage isnt 100% during surfing the net then your ok.

 

[BaronMatrix]

A8N5X, FX-55, eVGA 7900GS, 2 X 512 Patriot, 2 X 512 Samsung running single channel, Antec TP II 480 watt, NEC 3500, 2 X WD 80GB in raid 0. New build so just installed Windows XP SP2. No overclocking at the moment.

When playing BF2, by using control, alt, delete, my CPU usage shows running at 100%. FPS in game according to FRAPS is 90 to 100. Seems like 100% CPU usage is kinda high to me. Could this be right?

Sounds like it's time to get an FX60. They're pretty cheap right now. I was thinking about it just so my PC is worth more when I get rid of it.

Sure it is time to get a new processor. 90 to 100 fps is so slow.

Funny that if Core 2 is mentioned, that wouldn't be enough. I went from a 2.2GHz single core to a 2.2 dual and the difference was amazing. If he wants to get his CPU usage down he could go to an FX60.

I assumed he posted to see if he could get it down.

 

[ragemonkey]

Is the system bogging down at all? If not I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

A8N5X, FX-55, eVGA 7900GS, 2 X 512 Patriot, 2 X 512 Samsung running single channel, Antec TP II 480 watt, NEC 3500, 2 X WD 80GB in raid 0. New build so just installed Windows XP SP2. No overclocking at the moment.

When playing BF2, by using control, alt, delete, my CPU usage shows running at 100%. FPS in game according to FRAPS is 90 to 100. Seems like 100% CPU usage is kinda high to me. Could this be right?

Sounds like it's time to get an FX60. They're pretty cheap right now. I was thinking about it just so my PC is worth more when I get rid of it.

Battlefield 2 is not multi-threaded. An FX-55 is fine for now. Many games, including most I play, use 100% of a core. If you want to spend money spend it on a GeForce 8800. However, your 7900 should be more than sufficient for all of today's games, my 7800 GT is.

 

[dasickninja]

Its not usual that I say this but I agree with Baron on this one. Going dual core now, as AMD has lowered the price for Socket 939, and as the supply of 939 shrinks rapidly, would be the most economical and smart choice. Even if he won't use dual core now, everyone makes a point of talking about future proofing and to be frank, the FX 60 isn't a gaming slouch.

 

[BaronMatrix]

A8N5X, FX-55, eVGA 7900GS, 2 X 512 Patriot, 2 X 512 Samsung running single channel, Antec TP II 480 watt, NEC 3500, 2 X WD 80GB in raid 0. New build so just installed Windows XP SP2. No overclocking at the moment.

When playing BF2, by using control, alt, delete, my CPU usage shows running at 100%. FPS in game according to FRAPS is 90 to 100. Seems like 100% CPU usage is kinda high to me. Could this be right?

Sounds like it's time to get an FX60. They're pretty cheap right now. I was thinking about it just so my PC is worth more when I get rid of it.

Battlefield 2 is not multi-threaded. An FX-55 is fine for now. Many games, including most I play, use 100% of a core. If you want to spend money spend it on a GeForce 8800. However, your 7900 should be more than sufficient for all of today's games, my 7800 GT is.


My dual core system is MUCH snappier than my single core was. The only reason I suggested FX60 was because it's so cheap and will be even better for Vista.

I also have a 7800GT OC (factory) and it plays everything at 1280. I would still consider the upgrade though. I'm not implying that he "has to." My 4400+ is still chugging along.

 

[openchut82]

It only uses 100% during BF2. I dont do much of anything else but play BF2 and surf the web a little. Just purchased the FX55 a few weeks ago (remember when they were on sale pretty cheap). I do not multi-task much at all and do not need a dual core, and probably wont for a long long time. Upgraded from a AMD 3200 (socket 754) Clawhammer to the FX 55, and 1GB ram to 2GB. From eVGA 6800 to the eVGA 7900GS. Pretty descent upgrade for the price. By the way, I got the Asus motherboard for free. My son had it but it was not working, so I RMAed it to Newegg and received a brand new one, with all new parts. He had already purchaed a new motherboard for himself. I think I am set for a couple of years.

 

[Heyyou27]

A8N5X, FX-55, eVGA 7900GS, 2 X 512 Patriot, 2 X 512 Samsung running single channel, Antec TP II 480 watt, NEC 3500, 2 X WD 80GB in raid 0. New build so just installed Windows XP SP2. No overclocking at the moment.

When playing BF2, by using control, alt, delete, my CPU usage shows running at 100%. FPS in game according to FRAPS is 90 to 100. Seems like 100% CPU usage is kinda high to me. Could this be right?

Sounds like it's time to get an FX60. They're pretty cheap right now. I was thinking about it just so my PC is worth more when I get rid of it.

Battlefield 2 is not multi-threaded. An FX-55 is fine for now. Many games, including most I play, use 100% of a core. If you want to spend money spend it on a GeForce 8800. However, your 7900 should be more than sufficient for all of today's games, my 7800 GT is.


My dual core system is MUCH snappier than my single core was. The only reason I suggested FX60 was because it's so cheap and will be even better for Vista.

I also have a 7800GT OC (factory) and it plays everything at 1280. I would still consider the upgrade though. I'm not implying that he "has to." My 4400+ is still chugging along.The E6600 is more than $100 cheaper than the FX60, and is faster as well, yet you don't mention how cheap it is?

Personally, I think he'd be best off with an X2 4200 or some other lower end dual core 939 chip.

 

[BaronMatrix]

It only uses 100% during BF2. I dont do much of anything else but play BF2 and surf the web a little. Just purchased the FX55 a few weeks ago (remember when they were on sale pretty cheap). I do not multi-task much at all and do not need a dual core, and probably wont for a long long time. Upgraded from a AMD 3200 (socket 754) Clawhammer to the FX 55, and 1GB ram to 2GB. From eVGA 6800 to the eVGA 7900GS. Pretty descent upgrade for the price. By the way, I got the Asus motherboard for free. My son had it but it was not working, so I RMAed it to Newegg and received a brand new one, with all new parts. He had already purchaed a new motherboard for himself. I think I am set for a couple of years.

Considering that you just got it, by all means don't upgrade. The FX57 is the fastest single core chip you can get basically. I'd say that in about 6 months you could probably go dual core for $300.

My whole point was you can ALWAYS use the extra core whether you think so or not.

 

[BaronMatrix]

A8N5X, FX-55, eVGA 7900GS, 2 X 512 Patriot, 2 X 512 Samsung running single channel, Antec TP II 480 watt, NEC 3500, 2 X WD 80GB in raid 0. New build so just installed Windows XP SP2. No overclocking at the moment.

When playing BF2, by using control, alt, delete, my CPU usage shows running at 100%. FPS in game according to FRAPS is 90 to 100. Seems like 100% CPU usage is kinda high to me. Could this be right?

Sounds like it's time to get an FX60. They're pretty cheap right now. I was thinking about it just so my PC is worth more when I get rid of it.

Battlefield 2 is not multi-threaded. An FX-55 is fine for now. Many games, including most I play, use 100% of a core. If you want to spend money spend it on a GeForce 8800. However, your 7900 should be more than sufficient for all of today's games, my 7800 GT is.


My dual core system is MUCH snappier than my single core was. The only reason I suggested FX60 was because it's so cheap and will be even better for Vista.

I also have a 7800GT OC (factory) and it plays everything at 1280. I would still consider the upgrade though. I'm not implying that he "has to." My 4400+ is still chugging along.The E6600 is more than $100 cheaper than the FX60, and is faster as well, yet you don't mention how cheap it is?

Personally, I think he'd be best off with an X2 4200 or some other lower end dual core 939 chip.


Going from an FX57 to anything but an FX60 is a waste of money. They are both clocked at 2.6GHz.

 

[openchut82]

Ok, getting off topic here now. I never mentioned needing a new processor. I just asked about 100% CPU usage while playing BF2. I do not need a new processor. As you all should know my FX 55 and 7900GS has no problem playing BF2.

Anyway, correct my if I am wrong. The X2 or the dual core will not be much if any improvement in playing BF2?????? Like I mentioned in my second post. I am not a multi-tasker and see no need for it in the near future.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Ok, getting off topic here now. I never mentioned needing a new processor. I just asked about 100% CPU usage while playing BF2. I do not need a new processor. As you all should know my FX 55 and 7900GS has no problem playing BF2.

Anyway, correct my if I am wrong. The X2 or the dual core will not be much if any improvement in playing BF2?????? Like I mentioned in my second post. I am not a multi-tasker and see no need for it in the near future.

I didn't mean to imply that an FX57 wasn't good enough. It definitely is. The advantage that FX60 would give you is that all those systray items and kernel functions do use CPU sometimes.

I went to dual core after I realized that leaving Flash windows open in IE or FF caused stuttering. At 90 fps you don't HAVE to upgrade, but anyone will tell you that you will actually see a difference using dual core.

Remember with the complexity of XP EVERYONE is a multi-tasker even if you don't start the additional processes.

 

[openchut82]

I guess I can kinda agree with that. Just didnt think that dual processors were used much unless doing something really intensive or lots of multi-tasking. Like video editing or with games that have been coded for dual core.

 

[BaronMatrix]

I guess I can kinda agree with that. Just didnt think that dual processors were used much unless doing something really intensive or lots of multi-tasking. Like video editing or with games that have been coded for dual core.

Yeah, but when you already have Office, IE, etc open the game can start on a separate core. A lot of games now have patches for dual core, Q4, D3, etc. and it does provide an improvement. Next year nearly every game that comes out will support at least dual core.

 

[bunkgoats]

I echo your multitasking comments and would add that the user is playing a multiplayer game, and probably using messenger or AIM or teamspeak to talk to his friends. Those take a chunk of cycles and would be well served by a second core.

 

[niz]

Battlefield 2 is not multi-threaded. An FX-55 is fine for now. Many games, including most I play, use 100% of a core. If you want to spend money spend it on a GeForce 8800. However, your 7900 should be more than sufficient for all of today's games, my 7800 GT is.

Nope, the 8800 wouldn't add anything as it would be totally bottlenecked by his ghetto AMD.

 

[battousai831]

A8N5X, FX-55, eVGA 7900GS, 2 X 512 Patriot, 2 X 512 Samsung running single channel, Antec TP II 480 watt, NEC 3500, 2 X WD 80GB in raid 0. New build so just installed Windows XP SP2. No overclocking at the moment.

When playing BF2, by using control, alt, delete, my CPU usage shows running at 100%. FPS in game according to FRAPS is 90 to 100. Seems like 100% CPU usage is kinda high to me. Could this be right?

starcraft broodwar will use 100%... don't believe me? try it. its just how its programed even though thouse cycles are not really "being used" some times (for starcraft probably all the time)

 

[openchut82]

Nope, the 8800 wouldn't add anything as it would be totally bottlenecked by his ghetto AMD.

Ghetto AMD. How funny you are.