Support NeoGAF

[Kosma]

12 Cores?

Fap fap fap

 

[NarcissisticJay]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125088

Fixing to order 2 for SLi any last thoughts, suggestions (these are G92 right? ) before I order?

Looooooking forwaard to the new rig

 

[eznark]

Unlink the ram and CPU. Set the multiplier. It's recommended to never go beyond 9x unless you know exactly what you are doing. Set your fsb. For 3.6ghz, it's 1600. 3.4 it's like 1515, 3.2, 1410, and so on. And have the voltage on auto. Overclocking for dummies. It's my first time and I got the hang of it pretty easily.

Yeah, that is how I got to 3.1 right now, but I don't want to go too far as I thought voltages might need to be adjusted accordingly. The Q6600 multiplier is actually maxed at 9x.

 

[TheGreatDave]

I just downloaded the Crysis demo, to see what my new PC is like. <20FPS on medium settings, yay!

I've got a Core 2 Duo E4600, 1GB 8600GT and 3GB of RAM. Which should I be blaming for the shitty performance? I obviously don't expect 60FPS or anything but on medium I don't expect things to literally be popping up right in front of me.

 

[VictimOfGrief]

I just downloaded the Crysis demo, to see what my new PC is like. <20FPS on medium settings, yay!

I've got a Core 2 Duo E4600, 1GB 8600GT and 3GB of RAM. Which should I be blaming for the shitty performance? I obviously don't expect 60FPS or anything but on medium I don't expect things to literally be popping up right in front of me.

2 things :


1) The demo

2) Crysis.

 

[eznark]

I just downloaded the Crysis demo, to see what my new PC is like. <20FPS on medium settings, yay!

I've got a Core 2 Duo E4600, 1GB 8600GT and 3GB of RAM. Which should I be blaming for the shitty performance? I obviously don't expect 60FPS or anything but on medium I don't expect things to literally be popping up right in front of me.

download one of the custom setting mods and it runs a lot better. Seriously though, buy the game, if it runs too shitty, sell it used for a $10-20 hit. It is f'ing worth it.

 

[VictimOfGrief]

download one of the custom setting mods and it runs a lot better. Seriously though, buy the game, if it runs too shitty, sell it used for a $10-20 hit. It is f'ing worth it.

Better yet. Buy it off Craigslist for 10-$20 bucks for the poor saps that have an old PIII that bought it and tried to play it. :lol

 

[bee]

I just downloaded the Crysis demo, to see what my new PC is like. <20FPS on medium settings, yay!

I've got a Core 2 Duo E4600, 1GB 8600GT and 3GB of RAM. Which should I be blaming for the shitty performance? I obviously don't expect 60FPS or anything but on medium I don't expect things to literally be popping up right in front of me.

8600gt was just a bad card the gts was also, you might find some people on here saying there not too bad but they really are, by the name you kinda figure there not too far behind the 8800 but nothing could be farther from the truth

 

[rabhw]

I just downloaded the Crysis demo, to see what my new PC is like. <20FPS on medium settings, yay!

I've got a Core 2 Duo E4600, 1GB 8600GT and 3GB of RAM. Which should I be blaming for the shitty performance? I obviously don't expect 60FPS or anything but on medium I don't expect things to literally be popping up right in front of me.

Yeah, it's the 8600GT that's severely holding you back. It's a decent little hard for mid-range gaming and some older stuff, but by no means is it made to handle some of the more intense beasts, and especially not Crysis.

 

[TheGreatDave]

8600gt was just a bad card the gts was also, you might find some people on here saying there not too bad but they really are, by the name you kinda figure there not too far behind the 8800 but nothing could be farther from the truth

I'm sure I'll upgrade the card in the near future. I bought a new PC and the main aim was "play TF:2 on PC". And I can do that happily. Still, I'm surprised at just how badly Crysis runs, compared to something in Steam. Thankfully I don't care too much about it, I still need to beat Eps 1 and 2.

I think I'll hold off for half a year or so before getting a new card. The 8800s are almost near what I'd be happy to pay, if I hold off I should be able to get a good card in 6-12 months or so for £90

 

[bee]

I think I'll hold off for half a year or so before getting a new card. The 8800s are almost near what I'd be happy to pay, if I hold off I should be able to get a good card in 6-12 months or so for £90

whilst i wouldn't recommend one , there certainly cheap and fast

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-086-OK&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=927

 

[Quazar]

So how often do you guys dust your PCs?

 

[SRG01]

Yeah, it's the 8600GT that's severely holding you back. It's a decent little hard for mid-range gaming and some older stuff, but by no means is it made to handle some of the more intense beasts, and especially not Crysis.

Not to mention that 1GB for the 8600GT is overkill. It probably won't even use the entire memory!


As for AMD being a serious competitor... I don't know about that. If they somehow adopted their Phenom technology to boost their X2 performance, then maybe, since they've shown that they can disable individual cores. On the other hand, Phenom even with the B3 fix isn't a serious quad-core competitor. Shanghai, however, is something else entirely.

 

[TheGreatDave]

whilst i wouldn't recommend one , there certainly cheap and fast

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-086-OK&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=927

Shit. That's quite a tempting offer.

I'm going to hold strong for now. Like I said, the only game I play (TF:2) is running as well as I demand.

 

[mr stroke]

2 things :


1) The demo

2) Crysis.

:lol
+1

so true, even the best card right now can't run it right...

 

[vumpler]

Wow I've been out of the building PC for fun hobby for far to long. My last build was Opteron 150, and 6800GT back in ~2003-2004.

It seems like just yesterday socket 939 was supposed to be the shit, now I can't even find a dual core processor for it :lol

----------------

Anyway I started playing WoW last week and it has a problem with my video card and Windows Vista x64. NVLDDMKM driver keeps crashing. Basically over the last year there hasn't been a fix for it.

------------------------

So I'm looking to buy a new video card / processor combo under $300 I'm assuming I can't use a socket 939 mobo anymore so I have to buy a new one too eh? Any suggestions? If I'm buying the same caliber video card thats fine, just don't want a downgrade and I want it to work.

 

[Kadey]

Intel will cut prices of its processors. There are some big price cuts for the old 65nm chips but the price action on the new 45nm processors are just really small:

High-end model that will get reduced in price is the Core 2 Quad Q9550 at 2.83GHz and 12MB cache and it will get 2 dollars cheaper from its current $527 to $525. These are, of course, the wholesale prices. The very popular Core 2 Quad Q9450 at 2.66GHz and 12MB cache will drop from $319 to $317. The Core 2 Quad Q9300 at 2.5GHz and 6MB cache will drop from $270 to $268.

Two older models, the Q6700 with a 2.66GHz clock speed and 8MB cache and a 1066MHz FSB speed will drop from the current $527 to $268. The ultra popular 65nm Kentsfield Q6600 with its 2.4GHz clock and 8MB cache will drop from $250 to $227.

All dual core 45nm E8x0 series Penryn based models will drop $2 and as of next week, the E8500 with 3.16GHz clock 6MB cache and FSB 1333 will drop to $266, the E8400 with a 3GHz clock and 6MB cache and FSB 1333 will drop to $187; and finally, the E8200 clocked at 2.66GHz with 6MB cache and FSB 1333 drops to $167.

The older 65nm E6850 at 3GHz and 4MB cache drops to $266, the E6750 at 2.66GHz and 4MB cache drops to $187, and the E6550 at 2.33GHz and 4MB cache drops to $167.

The 4-series of Core 2 Duo processors will drop slightly in price. Starting with the E4700 with 2.60GHz clock, 800MHz FSB speed and 2MB cache drops $2 to $137, the E4600 with 2.40GHz clock, 800MHz FSB speed and 2MB cache drops from $139 to $117 while the E4500 with 2.20GHz clock 800MHz FSB speed and 2MB cache drops $2 to $117.

 

[TheGreatDave]

Last question, I swear.

I bought some new RAM. 2 1GB sticks. My motherboard has 2 sets of 2 channels; one set has a 2GB RAM stick and an empty channel, the other set has 1GB of RAM and an empty channel. If I add either of my new sticks of memory, the PC won't boot. I get 3 long beeps and it restarts.

Any setting in the BIOS I should be looking for? Do the channels both have to have the same capacity of RAM or something? I'm basically looking to have 5GB total.

 

[eznark]

:lol
+1

so true, even the best card right now can't run it right...

not even close to being accurate.

 

[zoku88]

12 Cores?

Fap fap fap

It's too bad that that many cores would be mostly useless for most people. Heck, 4 cores is mostly useless for most people

 

[SRG01]

Intel will cut prices of its processors. There are some big price cuts for the old 65nm chips but the price action on the new 45nm processors are just really small:

High-end model that will get reduced in price is the Core 2 Quad Q9550 at 2.83GHz and 12MB cache and it will get 2 dollars cheaper from its current $527 to $525. These are, of course, the wholesale prices. The very popular Core 2 Quad Q9450 at 2.66GHz and 12MB cache will drop from $319 to $317. The Core 2 Quad Q9300 at 2.5GHz and 6MB cache will drop from $270 to $268.

Two older models, the Q6700 with a 2.66GHz clock speed and 8MB cache and a 1066MHz FSB speed will drop from the current $527 to $268. The ultra popular 65nm Kentsfield Q6600 with its 2.4GHz clock and 8MB cache will drop from $250 to $227.

All dual core 45nm E8x0 series Penryn based models will drop $2 and as of next week, the E8500 with 3.16GHz clock 6MB cache and FSB 1333 will drop to $266, the E8400 with a 3GHz clock and 6MB cache and FSB 1333 will drop to $187; and finally, the E8200 clocked at 2.66GHz with 6MB cache and FSB 1333 drops to $167.

The older 65nm E6850 at 3GHz and 4MB cache drops to $266, the E6750 at 2.66GHz and 4MB cache drops to $187, and the E6550 at 2.33GHz and 4MB cache drops to $167.

The 4-series of Core 2 Duo processors will drop slightly in price. Starting with the E4700 with 2.60GHz clock, 800MHz FSB speed and 2MB cache drops $2 to $137, the E4600 with 2.40GHz clock, 800MHz FSB speed and 2MB cache drops from $139 to $117 while the E4500 with 2.20GHz clock 800MHz FSB speed and 2MB cache drops $2 to $117.

See, this is why I don't get AMD is doing so poorly. Dollar on dollar, AMD beats Intel by a fair margin. The ever popular X2 5000 is cheaper and outperforms many of the E4xxx series.

However, as long as Intel holds the market advantage, I don't think we'll see a major price drop anytime soon.

 

[M3d10n]

Last question, I swear.

I bought some new RAM. 2 1GB sticks. My motherboard has 2 sets of 2 channels; one set has a 2GB RAM stick and an empty channel, the other set has 1GB of RAM and an empty channel. If I add either of my new sticks of memory, the PC won't boot. I get 3 long beeps and it restarts.

Any setting in the BIOS I should be looking for? Do the channels both have to have the same capacity of RAM or something? I'm basically looking to have 5GB total.

Test each stick individually first, to confirm that they're all OK. Then try using only the new sticks in the same channel, and then try adding your old sticks to the other slots, testing one by one. If they have different frequencies, you can try going into the BIOS and force the RAM to use the same frequency as the slowest stick.

 

[Jacobi]

:lol
+1

so true, even the best card right now can't run it right...

Umm GTFO I've seen it running without any hick-ups on a 500-Euro-PC (the demo, everything on high)

 

[SRG01]

Crysis performance is highly dependent on resolution.

In other words, stop trying to play it on super-high 1080p-ish ones. It won't work.

 

[Kadey]

With the E8400 oced and stock 9800GX2, I can easily get around 30-40fps averaging in the low 30s, at 1080p dx10 very high. At 1680x1050, it's around 45-50fps.

 

[Kadey]

174.93 is out by the way.

 

[TheGreatDave]

Test each stick individually first, to confirm that they're all OK. Then try using only the new sticks in the same channel, and then try adding your old sticks to the other slots, testing one by one. If they have different frequencies, you can try going into the BIOS and force the RAM to use the same frequency as the slowest stick.

But there's no technical reason why I shouldn't be able to mix and match various size RAM sticks? They're all DDR2 or whatever.

Is there an application I can download to find out exactly what my current RAM is, other than just the size?

 

[godhandiscen]

not even close to being accurate.

Are you serious? Check Tom Hardware's revies. Crysis gives you <20fps once you enable AA with any freaking card. Including the 9800GX2

Umm GTFO I've seen it running without any hick-ups on a 500-Euro-PC (the demo, everything on high)

You were lied then. I have a damn 3870X2 4 Gigs of RM and 4 cores each one running at 2.9. And I cannot fucking get 30fps constant. The game will always go down to 20 fps every single time a massive firefight occurs. BTW, I use DX10 and 1280x800 res. Everything on High.

 

[Kadey]

You do not need AA at high resolutions so it doesn't matter.

 

[godhandiscen]

You do not need AA at high resolutions so it doesn't matter.

The framerate still drops below 25 in a lot on scenes like the beach, and in the snow levels. I tested it on a GX2 to confirm this, check my posts in this thread in a couple pages ago.

 

[SRG01]

Are you serious? Check Tom Hardware's revies. Crysis gives you <20fps once you enable AA with any freaking card. Including the 9800GX2

You were lied then. I have a damn 3870X2 4 Gigs of RM and 4 cores each one running at 2.9. And I cannot fucking get 30fps constant. The game will always go down to 20 fps every single time a massive firefight occurs. BTW, I use DX10 and 1280x800 res. Everything on High.

Um, I'd hate to say it, but you should be getting at least stable-ish 30FPS at that resolution for Crysis. Something might be misconfigured?

174.93 is out by the way.

Is this a stable one? I stopped updating my nVidia drivers a while back because a bunch of them kept glitching out on me.

 

[Kadey]

The framerate still drops below 25 in a lot on scenes like the beach, and in the snow levels. I tested it on a GX2 to confirm this, check my posts in this thread in a couple pages ago.

Aren't you the one with a Q6600? You do know the E8400 is way better for games right? And like I said, having the thing overclocked, to 4.0ghz and with a stock 9800GX2, will get you this.

Now it's possible to overclock the thing even more, up to 4.5ghz with an air cooler before it reaches the limit of the highest temp I would go. 3dmark scores are over 20k.
My GPU temps are pretty normal. I could overclock it as well and produce even better results.

 

[Kadey]

Is this a stable one? I stopped updating my nVidia drivers a while back because a bunch of them kept glitching out on me.

Well I can say it sucks for the GX2. It actually took away 20fps in certain games. :lol I can't speak for any other GPU. .85 beta drivers are out as well but I haven't and won't try it. .74 seems to be about right at the moment.

 

[SRG01]

Aren't you the one with a Q6600? You do know the E8400 is way better for games right? And like I said, having the thing overclocked, to 4.0ghz and with a stock 9800GX2, will get you this.

Now it's possible to overclock the thing even more, up to 4.5ghz with an air cooler before it reaches the limit of the highest temp I would go.
My GPU temps are pretty normal. I could overclock it as well and produce even better results.

Wow, that processor is an overclocking beast.

But on that note, I'm not sure whether you can actually clock it up to 4.5GHz without some physical propagation delay errors. It might clock that high, but I think it would start to get real unstable at that point.

 

[zoku88]

Aren't you the one with a Q6600? You do know the E8400 is way better for games right? And like I said, having the thing overclocked, to 4.0ghz and with a stock 9800GX2, will get you this.

I wouldn't say way better since most games are as CPU dependent, so it shouldn't make THAT much of a difference.

 

[M3d10n]

But there's no technical reason why I shouldn't be able to mix and match various size RAM sticks? They're all DDR2 or whatever.

Is there an application I can download to find out exactly what my current RAM is, other than just the size?

DDR2 memory comes in different max frequencies (533, 667 and 800 MHz). It's usually printed on the sticks themselves. Sometimes some mobos get confused when trying to autodetect frequencies of different sticks (brands and sizes) or try to enable dual-channel when it obviously won't work.

And you can use CPUZ (http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php) to get detailed on your RAM sticks (frequency, manufacturer name, etc).

 

[SRG01]

Well I can say it sucks for the GX2. It actually took away 20fps in certain games. :lol I can't speak for any other GPU. .85 beta drivers are out as well but I haven't and won't try it. .74 seems to be about right at the moment.

I'm gaming on a notebook (don't hurt me!) without OC, so I typically just use LV2G-modified desktop drivers. Many of the 17x.xx drivers seriously messed up some stuff (low framerate, lots of glitching), so I've been sticking to the old 169.xx ones for a while now.

I'm still thinking of making a desktop system with some spare cash I have, but my notebook is enough for moderate gaming at the moment! :lol

I wouldn't say way better since most games are as CPU dependent, so it shouldn't make THAT much of a difference.

The CPU frequently becomes the bottleneck in most systems at higher resolutions if paired with a good graphics card. To the best of my knowledge.

 

[Kadey]

Overall it is way better. If you're purely having a processor for gaming, it'll be pretty ignorant to get the Q6600 over the E8400. Crysis itself is best with duo core.

 

[TheGreatDave]

DDR2 memory comes in different max frequencies (533, 667 and 800 MHz). It's usually printed on the sticks themselves. Sometimes some mobos get confused when trying to autodetect frequencies of different sticks (brands and sizes) or try to enable dual-channel when it obviously won't work.

And you can use CPUZ (http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php) to get detailed on your RAM sticks (frequency, manufacturer name, etc).

I just messed around with it; I forced it to 667 (the new sticks are 800) and sent 0.2v extra (the new sticks require it) and all I get is various states of non complience. Either I get no video out and the computer keeps running, the system restarts at the checking memory bit (which only ever detects the two old ones, and thus 3GB of memory) or I get 3 long beeps as soon as I switch it on and nothing happens.

I'm just gonna send this RAM back and get the exact duplicates of the stuff I have already. I can't be bothered with all this stuff, and I don't need more than 3GB right now, so I can take my time.

 

[Pachinko]

:lol
+1

so true, even the best card right now can't run it right...

I'm inclined to disagree with that statement after today. Once I found the scaler options to display a 4:3 window box on my 16:9 monitor I was able to run the crysis demo at 1280X1024 on high with very little hiccups / stuttering. Given that the full game with patches is apparently more stable and optimized and also given the workarounds available to push the games details even further up it's very reasonable that a fairly middle range machine can run this game.

2005 built computer
3.2 ghz HT Pentium 4
800 mhz FSB
2 gigs of ram
8800 GT 512 mb
windows xp sp2

You can build something like this for under 500 dollars if you ignore the videocard and even with the 8800 gt it's only gonna cost 6 or 700.

 

[SRG01]

I just messed around with it; I forced it to 667 (the new sticks are 800) and sent 0.2v extra (the new sticks require it) and all I get is various states of non complience. Either I get no video out and the computer keeps running, the system restarts at the checking memory bit (which only ever detects the two old ones, and thus 3GB of memory) or I get 3 long beeps as soon as I switch it on and nothing happens.

I'm just gonna send this RAM back and get the exact duplicates of the stuff I have already. I can't be bothered with all this stuff, and I don't need more than 3GB right now, so I can take my time.

Hey, what's your motherboard?

Back when I was a system assembler a few years back, we used to get RAM mixing problems with dual channel all the time with certain boards. There's no easy way to fix it and the only way to get around it is to either a) get matching sticks/brands/etc or b) get a better motherboard.

 

[zoku88]

The CPU frequently becomes the bottleneck in most systems at higher resolutions if paired with a good graphics card. To the best of my knowledge.

I'm almost 100% sure that this is false. You see much more of a difference between CPUs at lower resolutions (where the game is no longer GPU bottlenecked) than at higher resolutions (where the effectiveness of your CPU is lowered due to the GPU being the bottleneck.)

EDIT:That can be seen in almost any benchmark test concerning CPUs and gaming. Anandtech for example.

Overall it is way better. If you're purely having a processor for gaming, it'll be pretty ignorant to get the Q6600 over the E8400. Crysis itself is best with duo core.

Sure, the 8400 is better for games (and is cheaper,) but I still wouldn't say WAY better. I think at high resolutions, the difference is fairly minute.

And I think your last statement is misleading, since Crysis only uses two cores, it would have the same performance of dual-core and quad-core of the same speed.

 

[Kadey]

Next year is going to be crazy though.

Recently someone had two Quads, the absolute best, in a skulltrail board, all 8 cores overclocked to 6.0ghz making that a total of 48ghz of yikes.

 

[SRG01]

I'm almost 100% sure that this is false. You see much more of a difference between CPUs at lower resolutions (where the game is no longer GPU bottlenecked) than at higher resolutions (where the effectiveness of your CPU is lowered due to the GPU being the bottleneck.)

*gears work inside his head*

Ah, hell. I shouldn't be doing inverse/direct relationships in my head before my third cup of coffee in the day! :lol

 

[teh_pwn]

So what's Intel's plan for next year? I was looking at processors, and they've seem to hit another wall: Power. At load, quad core Core 2s use 200+ watts...

Yorksfield doesn't seem to outperform Kentsfield that much. Only the ultra-expensive Yorksfields seem to clearly and significantly perform better.

So, 16 Atom based Cores or something?

 

[zoku88]

So what's Intel's plan for next year? I was looking at processors, and they've seem to hit another wall: Power. At load, quad core Core 2s use 200+ watts...

Yorksfield doesn't seem to outperform Kentsfield that much. Only the ultra-expensive Yorksfields seem to clearly and significantly perform better.

So, 16 Atom based Cores or something?

Hmm? You know they're making a whole new architecture right? It's releasing at the end of the year. Nahalem? Integrated memory controller (DDR3) and 4 cores on one die.

Atom is only for low power things, like MIDs and the eeePC, I think.

 

[Andokuky]

I rushed into my PC build and bought a mobo with only 1 PCI Express x16 slot. If I eventually want to utilize SLI, can you do it with two cards using two different types of PCI slots? Do they have to be the exact same two cards?

 

[Kadey]

Sure, the 8400 is better for games (and is cheaper,) but I still wouldn't say WAY better. I think at high resolutions, the difference is fairly minute.

And I think your last statement is misleading, since Crysis only uses two cores, it would have the same performance of dual-core and quad-core of the same speed.

Yes, true. But the thing is, one is stocked at 2.4 and another 3.0 but it being 45mm means it being slightly faster core by core. That's the difference. I'll still maintain it being "way better for games" unless someone rids my memory of all the benchmarks that state it and comments seen from owners. Hell the E6850 is better than the Q66 for games, the E8400 stomps the E6850.

 

[Kosma]

It's too bad that that many cores would be mostly useless for most people. Heck, 4 cores is mostly useless for most people

I still don't wholly understand which games use multiple cores and which don't.

I'm under the assumptions that a faster clocked dual core > slow quad. For games at least.

 

[teh_pwn]

I still don't wholly understand which games use multiple cores and which don't.

I'm under the assumptions that a faster clocked dual core > slow quad. For games at least.

That depends on how well the programmer distributes threads among cores and how shared resources are distributed in the CPU's cache.