When is your next computer?

**Imisnew2** · 09-08-12, 12:27 PM

I thought the Ivy Bridges were still suffering from massive heat output, causing them to have about the same performance as an over-clocked Sandy Bridge for a higher cost. Has that changed?

**kibner** · 09-08-12, 01:36 PM

Games are actually held back by an i7 920 now at 1080p? Whenever I check task manager, it appears that I still have overhead. I guess it is time for me to do some research since I am currently running an Nvidia 670.

Still, this i7 920 has last me quite a while without me noticing any performance issues with it.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

**gehn** · 09-08-12, 06:54 PM

Yeah I have a very hard time believing his 920 is holding him back as well. I get great frame rates in all the games I play on it.

**HeavyG** · 09-08-12, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by gehn

Yeah I have a very hard time believing his 920 is holding him back as well. I get great frame rates in all the games I play on it.

Well hang on...

He wasnt getting the desired boost from his 2nd GTX 570 in BF3 MULTIPLAYER. It is known that big gains can be seen in BF3 by upping your clock to 3.5 GHz or higher if your CPU seems to be bottlenecking your frame rates.

He was still getting over 60 FPS with his cards, but was not seeing the scaling in BF3 MULTIPLAYER compared to what he saw with other games. The recommendation was to overclock, but heat concers caused him to start looking elsewhere.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

**HeavyG** · 09-08-12, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by Imisnew2

I thought the Ivy Bridges were still suffering from massive heat output, causing them to have about the same performance as an over-clocked Sandy Bridge for a higher cost. Has that changed?

While this is true, Ivy at 4.3GHz is equivalent to Sandy at 4.6GHz. The need to OC is less with Ivy.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

**kibner** · 09-08-12, 11:29 PM

^^ oh, I didn't see any mention of a second gpu in rhys's post. I'll probably still do some digging to see if my 920 is holding me back from getting 60 fps.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

**gehn** · 09-08-12, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by HeavyG

He was still getting over 60 FPS with his cards

Exactly, I said great framerates.

Whats the point of getting any more if you are already silky smooth? That is what I don't get. I know people like getting as many FPS as they possibly can for games but I'll never see the point in getting above an average of 60.

**HeavyG** · 09-09-12, 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by gehn

Exactly, I said great framerates.

Whats the point of getting any more if you are already silky smooth? That is what I don't get. I know people like getting as many FPS as they possibly can for games but I'll never see the point in getting above an average of 60.

I believe he is running a 120Hz monitor, so ideally, his monitor is refreshing faster than his GPU(s) were able to draw frames. That is the toss-up for getting a 120Hz monitor as you could have something you are not taking advantage of. Similar to that of those with 60Hz monitors that run 120 FPS in most of their games... it is a bit overkill as the monitor cannot refresh as fast as your GPU is drawing frames. Either way, you have some sort of waste.

Personally, 60 FPS is NOT silky smooth in BF3. I prefer 90 FPS or higher. Below 90 FPS, I start to notice some "jitter", if that is even a word, as I play at 2560x1440 on Ultra settings, which sometimes is a lot for the GPU to draw with all of the AA effects maxed out. AA is a frame rate killer in BF3, more so than any other recent titles.

**RhysJD3** · 09-09-12, 01:24 AM

So, now that I have the i5 3570K installed, here's what I can tell you.

Also, games weren't completely smooth. Especially Diablo 3. I'd drop into almost single digit numbers with mobs. However, I'd be up at 130+ FPS when there wasn't anything really going on.

1. Single player games doesn't seem to matter at all between CPU's
2. Diablo 3. With the 920, my GPU would often be at 80% or lower. Often in mobs I'd see the GPU at 20-45%. The CPU with 8 cores (4xhyper) would show only 25% usage. Switch to the new CPU and now my video card is almost always at 95-99% usage. Game is MUCH smoother than before. Substantial difference. I'm now hitting 90 -130 FPS much more consistently and not dropping below 60-70 unless it's completely crazy. Before, I'd be dropping below 70 FPS all the time and sometimes into the teens with larger mobs.
3. BF3. 920 would be pretty consistent at 25%-40% if I recall. Now it's at 80% with newer CPU. Game seems a bit snappier but I'm actually wondering if the 920 may have been better than the new CPU. Haven't played it in a while so it's a bit harder to tell. FPS seem a bit lower but average seems higher. May have to do more tweeking.

This is all with a single 570. I have no doubt that I'm better with the 3570K for SLI than the 920 for multiplayer games with heavy CPU requirements.

Linking a benchmark site. Shogun Total war seems to task both the CPU and GPU and seems to be a much better benchmark than the single player benchmarks done from other games. Seems to be closer to the multiplayer experience...
Intel Core i5-3570K Gaming Performance | bit-tech.net