The Game Rundown: Finding CPU/GPU Bottlenecks, Part 2
-
Page 1:20 Games To Help Uncover Bottlenecks And Test Settings
-
Page 2:Just Cause 2
-
Page 3:Kane & Lynch 2
-
Page 4:Left 4 Dead 2
-
Page 5:Mass Effect 2
-
Page 6:Metro 2033
-
Page 7:Prince Of Persia: The Forgotten Sands
-
Page 8:S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call Of Pripyat
-
Page 9:StarCraft II
-
Page 10:Supreme Commander 2
-
Page 11:Wolfenstein
-
Page 12:Total Utilization Analysis
-
Page 13:Power Consumption
-
Page 14:Game Loading Times
-
Page 15:Minimum Frame Rates
-
Page 16:Conclusion: A Trend Toward 3+ Cores
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 |
- 20 Games To Help Uncover Bottlenecks And Test Settings
- Just Cause 2
- Kane & Lynch 2
- Left 4 Dead 2
- Mass Effect 2
- Metro 2033
- Prince Of Persia: The Forgotten Sands
- S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call Of Pripyat
- StarCraft II
- Supreme Commander 2
- Wolfenstein
- Total Utilization Analysis
- Power Consumption
- Game Loading Times
- Minimum Frame Rates
- Conclusion: A Trend Toward 3+ Cores
Make a Part 3.
Assuming you use the same amount of RAM [4GB].
@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.
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.
It still taxes the most powerful systems
Make a Part 3.
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.
And overclock the crap out of the 1055, 1075, 1090/whatever you use.
Was thinking the same thing
Lets see GTA4 with a dual-socket 6-core CPU in SLI with dual GTX 280s
"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.
THEN WHY THE HELL DID THEY NOT USE A 480 GTX 4way sli to rule out gpu bottlenecks ?
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.
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?
I also believe if the tests where done with a better graphics card (eg a 1GB VRAM Radeon 5770) you could run 80-90% of the games with a 3GHz 2core CPU.