• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

GTX 480 benchmarking...by Physx

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

wingman99

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Just a comparision.... I averaged 52.3fps bf:bc2, with my c2q 9400 @ 3.6ghz, and guru3d managed 63 fps with their cpu ([FONT=verdana,geneva]Core i7 965 @ 3750 MHz) [/FONT]which is only less than 10fps more, also a note...they only testewd at 8x msaa, i tested at 32x msaa

which is not too bad, considering its new tech (the cpu) and closed higher
I would not worry about i7 gaming hype here with a single video card with dual GPUs against the penryn chip, there is a insignificant difference, it's not worth the upgrade, you don't have a cpu bottleneck. take a look at the link and see for your self.

Real World Gameplay CPU Scaling
Here is the link:http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/05/19/real_world_gameplay_cpu_scaling/

I would like to see the comparison with stock CPU speed like you were saying, I have not seen that before.

Good work.:thup:
 
Last edited:

deathman20

High Speed Premium Senior
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
I would not worry about i7 gaming hype here with a single video card with dual GPUs against the penryn chip, there is a insignificant difference, it's not worth the upgrade, you don't have a cpu bottleneck. take a look at the link and see for your self.

Real World Gameplay CPU Scaling
Here is the link:http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/05/19/real_world_gameplay_cpu_scaling/

I would like to see the comparison with stock CPU speed like you were saying, I have not seen that before.

Good work.:thup:

One problem with those results from Hardocp. While surely if getting an i7 its probably more for the HT at the time then anything unless you got it prior to the i5's coming out but...

They are showing results with HT enabled on the i7 920. Disable the HT and could very well see a higher FPS in general or more features turned on (since that is what they do). Sure it shows roughly the same as a Quad core in there but from my results with disabling HT could see a upto 10%+ increase in FPS. Think it was maybe upto 30-40% increase for a upper limit. So an i7 or i5 could give more improvement to those scores.
 

Red_LightRanger

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Would it be pointless to get one if I didnt have a quad? Right now im running an E8400 oc'd to 4.0ghz (rest in my sig). Am i gonna bottleneck like crazy?
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
I wouldnt think so... its the games that use the quads, not the GPU really...a dual should push that thing fine, especially at 4Ghz+.
 

deathman20

High Speed Premium Senior
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Would it be pointless to get one if I didnt have a quad? Right now im running an E8400 oc'd to 4.0ghz (rest in my sig). Am i gonna bottleneck like crazy?

I wouldn't see why not getting one. GPU's yes are somewhat dependent on CPU's but doesn't mean you can't crank the eye candy up since that is more so GPU dependent than CPU.

Trully a Dual to Quad, in most things yes I'd say there is zero difference. In others like me encoding and playing games at the same time, definatly a huge difference. As well having an extra 2Gigs of ram is nice in my system I can't complain :) Having 2 video cards or dual video card a quad can help out but that is mainly driver side driven with that, with having a spare core to help process the data.

I went from an E8400 @ 4Ghz to my Quad i7. Originally I had my clocked at 3.8Ghz with HT enabled til last summer think is when I started my tests, noticing that HT was causing a bottleneck for my system, causing it to slow down in games badly. Wrote a few things up on it and came back at 3.66Ghz doing higher FPS then when I was at 3.8Ghz at less voltage/heat. Just from the switch alone I noticed a performance increase. Sadly I couldn't test my E8400 against my i7 before hand as my motherboard fried, and needed a replacement as soon as I could. I had 2x 4850's in CF and I noticed a difference, though I didn't have benchmarks to back it up, shortly after I got my 285GTX, sold my 4850's and E8400.

Clock for clock yes the i5, i7's are faster, so yes it could help getting more FPS but the question is by how much and if its worth it to you. Though me, I like being on as cutting edge as I can, so I spent money for that, but as well sell the gear I have which helps drastically offset the cost of just buying a system out right. For now though the GPU could very well be a better purchase than a new Mobo, CPU and Ram.
 

wingman99

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
I would not worry about i7 gaming hype here with a single video card with dual GPUs against the penryn chip, there is a insignificant difference, it's not worth the upgrade, you don't have a cpu bottleneck. take a look at the link and see for your self.

Real World Gameplay CPU Scaling
Here is the link:http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/05/19/real_world_gameplay_cpu_scaling/

I would like to see the comparison with stock CPU speed like you were saying, I have not seen that before.

Good work.:thup:

One problem with those results from Hardocp. While surely if getting an i7 its probably more for the HT at the time then anything unless you got it prior to the i5's coming out but...

They are showing results with HT enabled on the i7 920. Disable the HT and could very well see a higher FPS in general or more features turned on (since that is what they do). Sure it shows roughly the same as a Quad core in there but from my results with disabling HT could see a upto 10%+ increase in FPS. Think it was maybe upto 30-40% increase for a upper limit. So an i7 or i5 could give more improvement to those scores.

Well one thing your not thinking about is the test was done at 3.6GHz scaling so it was cpu bottlenecked with both the penryn and i7 when using a dual GPU cards they scaled nearly identical, that throws your theory of a upper limit 30-40% in gaming out the window.

Also they improved the hyper threading with, deeper buffers also microfusion and macrofusion in the decoder were enhanced, Each common core supports two register sets to support SMT, these two register sets share the L2 and L1data caches and the out of order execution units I would say there is only a 5% loss in gaming with HT, unless all those HT architecture changes did not help in gaming.
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
Also they improved the hyper threading with, deeper buffers also microfusion and macrofusion in the decoder were enhanced, Each common core supports two register sets to support SMT, these two register sets share the L2 and L1data caches and the out of order execution units I would say there is only a 5% loss in gaming with HT, unless all those HT architecture changes did not help in gaming.
While this is all great technical info, read the benchmarks in post 23. It shows significant losses in 2 of the 3 games with HT enabled.... :shrug:
 

wingman99

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
While this is all great technical info, read the benchmarks in post 23. It shows significant losses in 2 of the 3 games with HT enabled.... :shrug:

Ok I took a carful look with HT off and clock for clock in gaming Core 2 Quad vs i7, thanks for showing me that chart, it further confirms what the other charts show that the i7 is a insignificant upgrade from the Core 2 quad in gaming. Also I wonder how much turbo boost overclocked the i7 chip in this bench test.

Left for dead you gain 144.47 FPS -156.7 FPS = +12.23 FPS i7

Crysis Warhead you giain 89.91 FPS -91.47 FPS = +1.56 FPS i7

World in conflict you gain 126 FPS - 105 FPS = + 21 FPS i7

Far cry 2 you gian 117.23 FPS -104.83 FPS = + 12.4 FPS i7
LINK:http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-975-950_7.html#sect0
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
re: turbo, I dont think it did. It listed the clockspeeds...

Maybe I missed it, but that link shows some significant difference between the FASTEST 45nm quad and the entire lineup... ahh a raging debate.......... :)
 

wingman99

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Ok I took a carful look with HT off and clock for clock in gaming Core 2 Quad vs i7, thanks for showing me that chart, it further confirms what the other charts show that the i7 is a insignificant upgrade from the Core 2 quad in gaming. Also I wonder how much turbo boost overclocked the i7 chip in this bench test.

Left for dead you gain 144.47 FPS -156.7 FPS = +12.23 FPS i7

Crysis Warhead you giain 89.91 FPS -91.47 FPS = +1.56 FPS i7

World in conflict you gain 126 FPS - 105 FPS = + 21 FPS i7

Far cry 2 you gian 117.23 FPS -104.83 FPS = + 12.4 FPS i7
LINK:http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-975-950_7.html#sect0

re: turbo, I dont think it did. It listed the clockspeeds...

Maybe I missed it, but that link shows some significant difference between the FASTEST 45nm quad and the entire lineup... ahh a raging debate.......... :)
You did miss it, were talking gaming and I posted the insignificant difference in speed, the only place the FASTEST i7 pulled in a insignificant lead over the core 2 quad is with no load FPS over 100, like that's helpful. On a demanding game like crysis you gain 1 fps with a i7 WoW. You actually need to compare the numbers, bar graphs are for advertizing:burn:
 
Last edited:

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
I guess what Im saying, and I believe deadly was saying was that test was with ht enabled which slows the fps down so that could account for how close it is. If ht was off, it would show more of a difference in some games, like the link i showed????????? Im tired. I will look more closely at it tomorrow. :)
 

wingman99

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
I guess what Im saying, and I believe deadly was saying was that test was with ht enabled which slows the fps down so that could account for how close it is. If ht was off, it would show more of a difference in some games, like the link i showed????????? Im tired. I will look more closely at it tomorrow. :)
I alread did the math, look below HT off clock for clock.

Ok I took a carful look with HT off and clock for clock in gaming Core 2 Quad vs i7, thanks for showing me that chart, it further confirms what the other charts show that the i7 is a insignificant upgrade from the Core 2 quad in gaming. Also I wonder how much turbo boost overclocked the i7 chip in this bench test.

Left for dead you gain 144.47 FPS -156.7 FPS = +12.23 FPS i7

Crysis Warhead you giain 89.91 FPS -91.47 FPS = +1.56 FPS i7

World in conflict you gain 105 FPS- 126 FPS = + 21 FPS i7

Far cry 2 you gian 104.83 FPS - 117.23 FPS = + 12.4 FPS i7
LINK:http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-975-950_7.html#sect0

were talking gaming and I posted the insignificant difference in speed, the only place the FASTEST i7 pulled in a insignificant lead over the core 2 quad is with no load FPS over 100, like that's helpful. On a demanding game like crysis you gain 1 fps with a i7 WoW. You actually need to compare the numbers, bar graphs are for advertizing:burn:
 
Last edited: