The Game Rundown: Finding CPU/GPU Bottlenecks, Part 2
Table of contents
- 1. 20 Games To Help Uncover Bottlenecks And Test Settings
- 2. Just Cause 2
- 3. Kane & Lynch 2
- 4. Left 4 Dead 2
- 5. Mass Effect 2
- 6. Metro 2033
- 7. Prince Of Persia: The Forgotten Sands
- 8. S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call Of Pripyat
We're back with Part 2 of our bottleneck exploration in a mainstream gaming PC equipped with a Core i5 and GeForce GTX 460, ready to dive into test results from ten additional games. All of the results are summarized and analyzed in our conclusion.
Let’s reiterate a few background points for this two-piece article. We decided to analyze many popular PC games across a range of hardware and settings in an effort to identify key bottlenecks you might encounter on a fairly mainstream gaming PC. Do you need more than two processor cores for immersive gaming? Will a powerful graphics card work well, even if the CPU is weak? How much CPU and GPU performance do you really need?
In Part 1 of this article, we looked at Alien vs. Predator, Alpha Protocol, Anno 1404, Avatar, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, Bioshock 2, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Divinity 2: Ego Draconics, Dragon Age: Origins, and GTA IV EFLC. All were tested on an LGA 1156-based system. The Core i5-750 processor was configured with one, two, and four active cores and a 3 GHz clock speed. Additionally, we tried out four cores overclocked to 4 GHz. For graphics, we used a GeForce GTX 460 card, which provides sufficient performance for a solid gaming experience, but we also added a AMD Radeon HD 5870 here and there to look at potential benefits when pursuing high-end graphics.
So far, the results make clear that two cores are usually enough for gaming, but many games have specific requirements and performance characteristics. Let’s now look at ten more games and summarize the findings.
| Nvidia and ATI Graphic Cards | |
|---|---|
| CPU | Intel Core i5-750 @ 4 GHz (21 x 190 MHz), Lynnfield design, 1.26875 V core voltage, 45 nm, LGA 1156 |
| Motherboard | Gigabyte P55A-UD7, PCIe 2.0, 3-Way SLI |
| Chipset | Intel P55 Express |
| Memory | OCZ3G2000LV4GK, PC3-16000 Golden Series, 2 x 2 GB DDR3, 2 x 570 MHz 7-7-7-19 Timings |
| Audio | Realtek ALC889 |
| LAN | 2 x RTL8111D |
| HDDs | SATA 3Gb/s, Western Digital Raptor WD300HLFS |
| DVD | Gigabyte GO-D1600C |
| Power Supply | Cooler Master RS-850-EMBA 850 W |
| Drivers & Configuration | |
| Graphics | ATI Catalyst 10.7, Geforce 258.96 |
| OS | Windows 7 Ultimate 32-Bit |
| DirectX | 9, 10, and 11 |
| Chipset | Intel 9.1.1 |
Related Stories :
- Does Memory Performance Bottleneck Your Games?
- Memory Scaling, AMD's Trinity APUs, And Game Performance
- Windows 8 Versus Windows 7: Game Performance, Benchmarked
- AMD FX Vs. Intel Core i3: Exploring Game Performance With Cheap GPUs
- AMD: DirectX Holding Back Game Performance
- StarCraft II Beta: Game Performance Analyzed
- Aliens Vs. Predator: DirectX 11 Game Performance Analyzed
- Star Trek Online: Game Performance Analyzed And Benchmarked
- DiRT 2: DirectX 11 Game Performance Compared And Analyzed
- Origin PC Eon11-S: Great Gaming Performance From A Tiny Notebook?
It's disappointing to see that devs still aren't taking advantage of multiple cores like they could.
Would there be any performance difference between windows 7 32bit and 64bit?
Assuming you use the same amount of RAM [4GB].
Great run down guys. I would of liked to see a three core benchmark thrown in there, but what can you expect from a dual core with HT.
@KingArcher Unless the program was designed for x64, you had more than 4GB of unused RAM that the game could use and could use more than 4GB I highly doubt whether or not your on x86 or x64 would matter.
@nativeson8803 What difference would it make on games that are still GPU limited at two cores? Even then, there were games limited by the GPU at four cores. Taking advantage of a CPU with four cores or more is going to be hard when you need more GPU to get more frame rates.
@Slayvus almost true. The difference would be @2 GB of available memory. NT x86 kernel only allows an application to access 2GB of address space with the other 2GB reserved for kernel use. In NT x86 world each application can only access 2GB of memory, with the application getting rather unstable once it goes over 1.8 GB. This limitation also applies to the NT x64 kernel running a 32-bit problem through WOW64. Its something left over from the NT 4.0 / 5.0 world.
Just keep in mind that these result are relevant in the context of using the GTX 460 768 MB, which is the real bottleneck here. Better GPUs and/or multi GPU setups would shift the bottleneck towards the CPU.
In the end, it's all about finding the perfect balance in hardware. If you want my advice, pair the GTX 460 768 MB with a fast dual core, but get a good quad with higher end model GPUs.
This methodology should be used to new cpu/gpus/games reviews.
I'd like to see them test the first Supreme Commander.
It still taxes the most powerful systems
They should have used Phenom II X6 and test with 1/2/3/4/6 cores enabled. This made me want more of this because there aren't any 6-core benchmarks.
Make a Part 3.
+1 deisu
Just keep in mind that these result are relevant in the context of using the GTX 460 768 MB, which is the real bottleneck here. Better GPUs and/or multi GPU setups would shift the bottleneck towards the CPU.In the end, it's all about finding the perfect balance in hardware. If you want my advice, pair the GTX 460 768 MB with a fast dual core, but get a good quad with higher end model GPUs.
I totally agree with archange. I understand that you're trying to go for the "norm", but if you're looking for bottlenecks, you need to remove said bottlenecks to see where it truly lays. Start with a quad core clocked at ~3.5ghz and swap out gfx from there. Push and push to see where it truly lays instead of going for a baseline. Although you can use that baseline to see what the "average" person might use. If the article is truly about the bottleneck, use something beefier than the 460.
They should have used Phenom II X6 and test with 1/2/3/4/6 cores enabled. This made me want more of this because there aren't any 6-core benchmarks.Make a Part 3.
And overclock the crap out of the 1055, 1075, 1090/whatever you use.
They should have used Phenom II X6 and test with 1/2/3/4/6 cores enabled. This made me want more of this because there aren't any 6-core benchmarks.Make a Part 3.
Was thinking the same thing
Lets see GTA4 with a dual-socket 6-core CPU in SLI with dual GTX 280s
EDIT: 480s
Yes, but for such a setup, TH should first get one of those compact, autonomous Nuclear Reactors... And a lifetime supply of depleted Uranium. xD
in BFBC2 i doubled my frames going from E8400 to Q9550 with a HD4870 1gig crossifre setup
"Mass Effect 2 needs at least four cores."
"With this game, you should grab a quad-core chip [...]"
With 63.7 fps on a single core there's absolutely ZERO reason to buy anything more expensive for this game.
Just keep in mind that these result are relevant in the context of using the GTX 460 768 MB, which is the real bottleneck here. Better GPUs and/or multi GPU setups would shift the bottleneck towards the CPU.In the end, it's all about finding the perfect balance in hardware. If you want my advice, pair the GTX 460 768 MB with a fast dual core, but get a good quad with higher end model GPUs.
THEN WHY THE HELL DID THEY NOT USE A 480 GTX 4way sli to rule out gpu bottlenecks ?
Again, this is a bad test. You're testing for CPU usage...using max graphical settings. As such, you're seeing the result of a GPU bottlenecking teh system.
Set everything to low, THEN test the CPU. This type of test reveals nothing except that the GPU is more often then not the primary limiting factor in gaming.
I like the fact that power usage at the wall never cracked 300W. That tells me my SG-650 should be adequate essentially forever.
The points I take from this are:
1. Any [new] GPU bought for serious gaming at high resolutions should have 1GB.
2. As a requirement for gaming performance, overclocking is unnecessary. This means that massive coolers and lots of noisy fans are also unnecessary.
3. Data loading issues that show the benefit of additional cores would undoubtedly show a benefit from a SSD, e.g. less stuttering.
4. A hugely expensive edong is not required to get decent performance in most games.
It would be a lot of extra work and involve arbitrary choices, but it would be interesting to see the effects of reducing settings, even a little. At high resolutions, I'm not sure my eyes are even good enough to notice whether or not AA is on. How much does a reduction in settings shift the bottleneck off the GPU?