The usual question what CPU...

[EvilSponge]

As the topic states which cpu I video encode and do games such as UT3
Looks like the choice is either get a Dual core E8400 can clock it to 4Ghz or wait and get the Q9450. The dual core has 6M cache and the quad has 12M.

Questions will the extra 6M make a big difference? Since a new quad is coming Neihem that will require new hardware anyway is it better to go with the E8400? Keep my current hardware for awhile .

Any advise provided would be much appreciated

My current rig:
Abit IP35-E
Termalright Ultra 120 w/ yate loon 120mm fan
E2140 clocked to 3.2 Ghz
EVGA 8800GTX
Sound Blaster XFI Extreme Music
Samsung Spin point SATA 3G 500gigs
4 gigs of Crucal Ballistix PC6400
Logitech MX510 Mouse
Logitech Keyboard
Viewsonic VG2230wm
Lian-Li case

-Eric

 

[Tempered81]

You wanna know e8400 or q9450? MY vote is, of course, for the E8400. I'm not a fan of the quads, for the price. Maybe in a few years once the hardware technology adoption is widespread in games & programs. If the quad was cheaper, i'd say get the q9450. Plus, you can buy the e8400 now, and not the q9450. And given you have an ip35E + TRUE, 500fsb is considered lucky on the quad with a 8x multiplier, while the dual has a 9x multiplier for more options. However, The quad at 4.0g will likely still beat the dual at 4.5g when it comes to F@H, Crunching, Video Encoding, Supreme commander, etc. Considering I don't do those, except some video encoding/decoding, i prefer the e8400. I want the raw mhz for gaming in titles like crysis & cod4. A lot of people question the necessity of 4 cores in home PC's. I associate the q6600/q9xxx to having a diesel superduty F350 and only commuting by yourself down the freeway to an office job. Not saying that the e8400 is the Prius passing it by at 60mpg, but the Diesel superduty is much more useful when towing heavy shit through the mud out on the farm.

 

[KenAF]

Your current 3.2GHZ CPU is all you need for gaming [for the foreseeable future].

If you do a lot of video encoding, wait for the Q9450 [or Nehalem]. When overclocked to 3.0GHz, the Q9450 will double the encode performance of your existing setup. Nehalem should triple to quadruple the performance of your current setup with encoding.

 

[n7]

You've already got a decent C2D.

IOW, as awesome as the 8400/8500 is, it doesn't really make sense.

UE3 games DO take advantage of ALL four cores, which is why for anything other than shortterm, i like recommending quads.

Obviously, if you never play Unreal Engine 3 games or don't run applications like video work that utilize quads, then the benefits of a quad are smaller.

I'd suggest waiting.

I too see the 4+ GHz on the 8400/8500s & drool, but i'd prefer one of the new quads myself. Eventually.

 

[EvilSponge]

Hey guys thanks for the replys. I'm still a little torn about going penryn dual or quad. What is the video encoding performance of the e8400? Meaning if I'm encoding 30min of video to xvid? Are there benches available?
Yeah jaredpace I like your example. Do I need quad I guess it's like this for me if I can encode an episode of CSI to xvid with E8400 in 4 min and a Q9450 in 2min I might as well go e8400 but if it's like e8400 4min and q9450
in 1 min then I'd go quad.

-Eric

 

[EvilSponge]

Oh did not know the UT3 engine uses all four cores that changes things a bit

-Eric

 

[Tempered81]

depends, h264 on is 70-80% faster on a quad vs. dual when talking 45nm. xvid 1.12 is 15-18% faster. So it depends on if you use multi-threaded optimized encoders.

 

[covert24]

id say go for the 8400 if you absolutely need to upgrade. if not then just stick with what you have and save up for when Nehalem comes out

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: EvilSponge
Oh did not know the UT3 engine uses all four cores that changes things a bit

-Eric

This statement needs to be put in perspective.

From the Anandtech review which benchmarked Core2Duos vs. Core2Quads on UT3:

"The performance improvement from 2 to 4 cores isn't anywhere near as impressive [as the jump from 1 to 2 cores], but still reasonable. In our first two tests we see a 9% increase and the third one gives us a 20% boost, for an average 13% jump in performance."

That 13% sounds good, but you have to recognize the fact that the dual-core CPU was already running the game at 150 FPS - roughly 5x the framerate needed for smooth gameplay. For that matter, a single-core CPU ran the game at 95FPS or more - still 3x more than the 30FPS which is considered the cutoff for smooth gameplay.

Edit: By the way, even a Core2Duo clocked at 1.8GHz (that's right, less than 2.0GHz) managed around 100FPS in the UT3 benchmark. Dual-cores perform well enough (and will for the foreseeable future of the heavily graphics-card-dependent gaming industry) that quad cores don't produce actual tangible gaming benefit in most cases.

 

[n7]

Yes, i am well aware fps will be similar with a dual core right now, but what about future UE3 games that will become more & more demanding?

Also, if you actually have UT3 or Bioshock, etc, & a secondary monitor, you can watch the task manager & see just how well designed the UE3 is for running on multiple cores.

You'd notice that it not only utilizes all four cores, it actually somehow BALANCES the load over them!

E6600 @ 3.6 GHz = 100% usage on each core for UT3.
Q6700 @ 3.5 GHz = ~ 50% usage on each core for UT3.

Same goes for all the UE3 titles i've run.

I'm not saying there will be a huge difference today, but i can only imagine the benefits down the road when you consider how well the engine scales.

Also, you mentioned you do video encoding, which is definitely another aspect where a quad could be beneficial.

Truth be told, till i got UT3 & saw how it runs on all available cores, i wasn't really sold on quads.
But as soon as i realized how well it utilizes each core, i was sold.

The other problem with the CPU gaming reviews done is that they're done at low resolutions, not the ones we tend to run.
I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes (likely not too much), but again, being able to have a ~50% load over four cores is going to scale a lot better than already being @ 100% over two for the down the road.

Another issue with the CPU reviews for UE3 games, especially the UT3 ones is that the results aren't remotely realistic.

In actual multiplayer, due to the game being extremely CPU bound (like 2k4 was), you see big dips in fps with a lower end CPU.
Of course, most reviews don't show this, since they're running bot matches (or even more useless, flybys), which don't come near what a full Warfare server does to your system.
If you believe the reviews, everyone's semi decent PC can run UT3 easily.
In reality, not many people have smooth fps constantly without lowering some settings, since there are large variations in fps, huge (90 to 25 fps drops on my quad) in some maps like Avalanche.

Anyway, obviously a dual core is adequate for games these days, but as i mentioned, at least for that particular engine, quads are no doubt the way to go IMHO.

 

[Rhoxed]

I would wait and pick up the quad. Within a year most programs should be able to utilize more than 2 cores. I have been waiting 6 months for a quad i want to spend money on, untill then my 3800 x2 will work.

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: n7
The other problem with the CPU gaming reviews done is that they're done at low resolutions, not the ones we tend to run.

Actually, CPU tests are supposed to be done at low resolutions. This is to minimize the importance of the GPU. Increasing the resolution you're playing at doesn't stress the CPU, it stresses the GPU. That's why CPU tests are done at low resolutions.

 

[imported_Iketh]

Originally posted by: n7
In reality, not many people have smooth fps constantly without lowering some settings, since there are large variations in fps, huge (90 to 25 fps drops on my quad) in some maps like Avalanche.

that's ur GPU being the bottleneck, not ur CPU

 

[EvilSponge]

Great stuff guys and it is much appreciated. After digesting all the info here I think I'm going to wait for Q9450 then not have to upgrade for awhile. I won't be an early adopter of Nehalem though I understand the advantage of a built in memory controller. If indeed the UT3 engine uses all the cores balanced then it's worth it to me as I can see this will be the future direction for years to come. All the best

-Eric

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: EvilSponge
uses all the cores balanced then it's worth it to me as I can see this will be the future direction for years to come.

yes thats right, but not the current situation. by the time 4 cores is a significant performance increase across the board in games & apps, i will be upgrading my e8400

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Iketh

Originally posted by: n7
In reality, not many people have smooth fps constantly without lowering some settings, since there are large variations in fps, huge (90 to 25 fps drops on my quad) in some maps like Avalanche.

that's ur GPU being the bottleneck, not ur CPU

Possibly.
I assume you aren't too familiar with UT3.

Yes, normally fps drops are due to the GPU, but at least in UT3, this is not always the case.

You'll find other people with the same experiences on forums, especially ones dedicated to Unreal discussion, but as i mentioned, UT3 is very CPU-bound, like it's predecessor, UT2k4.

When i first got UT3 (the demo) going, my main system was out of commission, so i was running it on my secondary system.

Specs: Opteron 165 @ OCed to 2.6 GHz.
2 GB DDR
8800 GTX
LCD capable of 2560x1600

Obviously, a bit of a mismatch in some ways, but what could i do, my P5B-D was being RMAed.

Now i could run many of the maps @ full 2560x1600 maxed with usually decent fps.
But in some sections in certain maps, things were simply not smooth.

Naturally, i assumed the same thing...obviously a GPU bottleneck right...i mean after all, i was running @ 2560x1600.
So i tried 1600x1200. Same problems, still huge fps dips making it unplayable for MP online in those areas.
Then i tried even lower, 1280x800, & even lower 640x480 since by then i was getting really pissed off.

There were some small improvements, but certain areas like shock in ShangriLa, & parts of Suspense still always dropped to low fps.
It was quite infuriating, but there wasn't much i could do, since it WASN'T a GPU limitation, it was a CPU limitation, & no amount of lowering settings & resolution fixed it.

Now as soon as i got my P5B-D back from repair, i was running an E6600 @ 3.5+ GHz, & all those fps issues disappeared.

So while in most games, the CPU isn't a big deal, it's a very big deal in others, UT3 & other UE3 games being the best examples of this.


Here are some pics of task manager usage on my Q6700 underclocked to 2.4 GHz (wasn't intentional, accidentally loaded defaults on 9x multi & haven't rebooted, anyway):
Yes, even the menu is multithreaded :Q
Floodgates action
Chillin' atop a node

 

[lopri]

Those Task Manager shots actually tell me that the game is utilizing 2 cores heavily? (instead of 4) Task Manager tends to show evenly distributed load on all available cores unless you manually assign affinities. So 50% spread evenly on 2 cores = 100% usage on a single core. 50% spread evenly on 4 cores = 100% usage on two cores. Granted 4 cores would certainly help with the other 2 taking care of other overheads (especially since you're running multi-monitors), so the usage is more like 60%. Under full-screen mode I'd think the usage will be slightly lower, closer to 50%.

Anyway, I'd agree with N7 when it comes to Unreal 3 based games. But for OP - I'm guessing that you're just having an itch. I give the same advice that I give every time:

- Get the game first and try playing it. If you're unhappy with the performance, then you trouble-shoot the bottleneck. And if CPU is the culprit, then buy a new CPU.
- If you want to toy with a brand new CPU, just go ahead and buy it. You can always sell it for small loss if you don't like it. Why need an approval from others for your entertainment?

 

[EvilSponge]

Hey N7 thanks for the screen shots I have been playing UT since 2003 and just bought the full version UT3 I also encode allot of my tivo stuff to xvid for viewing on my HTPC so I think in the long run I'll be better served with the Q9450 I can wait until April? I think thats the release date? thanks to all those who took the time to reply.

-Eric

 

[n7]

In the long run, absolutely a quad is the best for you.
It's the best for all of us.

But if you want something to clock sky high for now, i can't argue against an E8400/E8500.

Even a Q6600 isn't a bad deal per say, since for what you're doing, a quad may very well likely end up a better option than a quad anyway, especially since you mess with video alot.

As for UT3 lopri, it most definitely does utilize more than just two cores if you have more.
Epic has stated that, reviews have shown it, but best of all, my own usage very clearly shows it.

As i mentioned, when i ran either my Opty 165 @ 2.6 GHz or my E6600 at ~3.5 GHz, both cores get completely pegged at 100%.

That doesn't happen with my quad.

Just for you lopri, or anyone else doubting multicore usage, here are pics to show what happens when you set affinity off cores 2 & 4 in the task manager.

Affinity set on core 0 + 1 - note how the both cores are running 100%
Affinity set back to all four cores - note how the load has now dropped on core 0 + 1, & jumped on 2 + 3
All four cores in action, just a bit later...not completely balanced, no, but remarkably spread across nonetheless