I'm considering to upgrade mu CPU. Need advice

[Castout]

My specs are the following
Core 2 Duo E4400 2.0GHz 800MHz FSB
Matched to 8Gb DDR 2 800MHz(PC-6400)
Nvidia 9800GTX+ 512Mb DDR3
2 DVD ROM
1 HDD
Powered by 630Watt PSU

Running on Vista x64 OS.

For application that don't use dual core(I have many games that don't) will upgrading to higher clock speed help to increase performance? In fact I don't know any game which specifically claims that they are designed to be played with multi core CPU.

I've been researching and found if I want an optimum system by changing the CPU, I could only go as high as 2.6GHz. That is Core 2 Duo E4700 with a 800MT/s data transfer rate which is the optimum number for my 800MHz DDR2 memory. Will this help to improve performance in games that don't support dual core?

Or should I just neglect the FSB of the CPU and go for say E7400 2.8GHz core 2 duo with 1066MHz FSB speed? But considering that my memory can only calculate 800MHz data transfer so I would be wasting 266 MHz for nothing unless I want to upgrade my memory in some future time which I'm reluctant to do.

Plus everybody else in the other game forums always said that "you need at least 3GHz CPU if you want to run the game at high setting"- That is one guy at medieval 2 total war forum.

Core 2 duo only go as high as 3.3GHz. It doesn't make sense! Did they mean 3GHz single core? I don't get it either when people buy quad core to play games as most games don't even support dual core CPU including Medieval 2 Total War I think?!!

So if an upgrade is advisable should I go for E4700 2.6GHz Core 2 Duo with 800MHz FSB to match with my memory clock
or
should I just ignore the FSB and go for say E7400 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo with 1066MHz FSB?
or will upgrading result in minimum performance increase in games?

[Zachstar]

Most modern games support multiple cores. Usually divvying up threads for certain parts to different cores.

Also its not just about MHz its about transistors. A modern 45nm Single core will beat the heck out of my 90nm single core from 04

[Castout]

Somebody told me that Vista x64 is not very efficient to play games on.
something to do with Nvidia drivers not being optimized for Vista x64.

This casts a doubt whether I should upgrade my core 2 duo.

What do you mean modern games Zachstar? Is medieval 2 modern enough? I think it doesn't support dual core or mutli core CPU.

Still waiting for empire total war to hit the stores here. have left my numbers with the store. But have heard some gripes on performance and bugs in the empire game. Games these days are badly tested.

[Arclight]

Medieval 2 is not that modern, really. PC tech moves so fast it's ridiculous. But even the most modern games that are actually multi-threaded would likely run the same on a 3GHZ dual-core as on a 3GHZ quad-core. One core will always take most of the load, so speed of individual cores is IMO more important then more then 2 cores.

If you're looking to upgrade, E8400 or E8500 is a good choice (1333MHZ FSB though). Probably will be my next purchase when I move on from my E6750. ;)

[Castout]

Medieval 2 is not that modern, really. PC tech moves so fast it's ridiculous. But even the most modern games that are actually multi-threaded would likely run the same on a 3GHZ dual-core as on a 3GHZ quad-core. One core will always take most of the load, so speed of individual cores is IMO more important then more then 2 cores.

If you're looking to upgrade, E8400 or E8500 is a good choice (1333MHZ FSB though). Probably will be my next purchase when I move on from my E6750. ;)

Thanks but that high FSB speed will be useless since my memory is tagged at 800MHz. wouldn't that be a waste of money?
Yea since many application relies on a single core, it pays to have a high speed/clocked core.

I'm thinking to upgrade to
E4700 Core 2 Duo 2.6GHz with 800MHz FSB which is matched to my memory?
Or should I just abandon the idea of matching my parts and go for say E7400 Core 2 duo 2.8GHz with 1066FSB?

The price difference is not that much. . .

[Contact]

[quote=Castout;1075757]
Or should I just abandon the idea of matching my parts and go for say E7400 Core 2 duo 2.8GHz with 1066FSB? [quote]

This is what you want. Then swap your RAM's to 1066 MHz as well and you're done.

Choosing new parts you need to pay special attention to your mobo and cpu.

================================================== ====

I'm going to upgrade my system too. Waiting for these parts to be delivered now.

1 x Foxconn ATX-TSAA725-USB 2x2.0/Audio (silver/black) + FSP ATX400W 12cm fan silent V2.03 P4 PFC CE PSU (ATX-TLA725)
1 x ASUS S775 IP45 DDR2 SATA2 GBL 8-CH HD (P5Q SE/R)
1 x INTEL CORE2D E7400 2.8GHZ 1066/3M S775
1 x GF 9500GT MAGIC PCIE 512MB DDR2 DVI-I (EN9500GT MAGIC/DI/5)
2 x 1GB 1066MHZ DDR2 CL5 5-5-5-15 DIMM (KHX8500D2/1G)

[Arclight]

About matching the RAM & CPU: I've got my memory at 1066, CPU at 1333. I don't think a CPU at 1066 FSB would be better. Yes everything would be running in sync, but I sincerely doubt it would make up for it.

Uhm... now that I think about it: true bus speed for Intel CPU at 800MHZ=200MHZ; FSB gets "quad-pumped" to 800

True speed for DDR2 at 800MHZ=400MHZ; it gets "double-pumped"

I think that if you go into the BIOS and look up the divider, you'll find it's set to "2", not "1" (which would be synced).

(all this is making my head hurt, and I'm not even 100% sure...)

In my case FSB is slightly overclocked at 355MHZ (initial 333). This gives 1420MHZ external bus for CPU, and 2.84GHZ clock speed.

For RAM it gives 533MHZ bus speed, 1066MHZ clockspeed. RAM ratio=3/2 (meaning RAM bus is at 150% of CPU bus).

(ouch)



In short; I don't think you're system is running synced as it is. The RAM is running on considerably higher bus speed, so moving to a CPU with higher bus speed will only do you good.

Please, if anyone has more insight in this feel free to correct any of this. It's hard to keep track of all this stuff. :dead:


*edit: if you want to check you can download CPU-Z (http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php); start the program and look under the "memory" tab and see what the FSB to RAM ratio is. It should read "1:1".

[CaptainHaplo]

These are actually simple ... FSB is simply how fast data gets moved from memory to execution by the cpu. If your cpu is the lower number - your cpu limited. If your memory is lower - your memory is the slowest component, and if the FSB has the slower numbers - its the slow beast of the pack.

Ultimately - think of it this way - a convoy is only going to go as fast as the slowest member....Same way here - the faster numbers will simply be "waiting" till the slow part of the equation does its job. Simple as that.

Edit - where it starts getting complicated is when you have multiple cores.....

[Arclight]

The question is wether or not a CPU at 800MHZ FSB is in sync with 800MHZ DDR2.

My guess is no, since the CPU gets quad-pumped and the memory is double-pumped. For CPU and RAM to run in sync you need a CPU at 1600MHZ FSB, not 800MHZ.

[FIREWALL]

This is all good info. :up: It has to be. It made my head hurt too ! :haha:

[Castout]

Quad pumped......errr ...I'll see what I can dig......

[Arclight]

Don't know if it's still relevant, but I pushed my system a bit to figure out the synced stuff:

CPU is now at 1600MHZ bus, with the memory at 800MHZ. CPU-Z reports ratio of 1:1, i.e. synced. Mystery solved. :D

[Castout]

Don't know if it's still relevant, but I pushed my system a bit to figure out the synced stuff:

CPU is now at 1600MHZ bus, with the memory at 800MHZ. CPU-Z reports ratio of 1:1, i.e. synced. Mystery solved. :D

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. Doh there is this website which taught me about syncing by looking at the FSB alone......it even showed a table listing matched component of CPU and RAM. You could give them an email :DL or perhaps I understand them wrong.

[Arclight]

I think it depends a lot on how recent that article is, and what they're comparing. This is with DDR2, I think with DDR3 you'ld need to run it at 1600MHZ: DDR3 at 1600MHZ effectively runs at the same bus speed (400MHZ) as DDR2 at 800MHZ effectively.

All this stuff changes and evolves so fast it's really difficult to keep the facts straight. :-?

* No, that's not right. Argh, I don't know. :doh:

All I know is that My FSB is at 400MHZ, external bus for CPU is 1600MHZ and CPU frequency is 3.2GHZ. DDR2 frequency is 800MHZ and all utilities report a ratio of 1:1 (synced).

** http://icrontic.com/articles/core2_fsb_explained/2

To provide an example: Intel boasts that their Core 2s with a 266MHz FSB actually have a “1066MHz FSB!” It’s not wrong, but it’s not totally truthful either. We have established that one megahertz is one million cycles, so a 266.66MHz FSB must have 266,660,000 cycles. If we were to double that frequency to derive the AGTL+ frequency, we would get 533.32MHz or 533,320,000 cycles. As the rise of the clock and fall of the clock can both perform a transfer, that means we must multiply the AGTL+ frequency by two (533.32m*2) to get our final number of transfers per second, which is 1,066,640,000T/s. If we divide that number by one million to get MT/s instead of T/s, we come to our final figure of 1066MT/s. Doesn’t that 1066 number look oddly familiar?


In the days of SDRAM, a single clock cycle yielded a single transfer. Multiplying the speed of the RAM by the width of the bus indicated the amount of memory bandwidth available to the system. How were manufacturers going to reconcile the notion that their DDR, with two transfers per cycle, did double the workload of SDR at the same frequency? Their decision was obtuse but effective: If SDR did 133MT/s at 133MHz, and DDR did 266MT/s at 133MHz, then DDR should be advertised according to how many megahertz would be required of SDRAM to achieve the same result. The notion of doubling the actual frequency of the module to give it its “DDR Speed” was born. This antiquated idea has been carried forward to both DDR2 and DDR3.

[Castout]

Oh I see I know nothing about the new DDR3. :DL

[Arclight]

Comes down to:
SDRAM > 1 transfer per clock
DDR > 2 transfers per clock
DDR2 > 4 transfer per clock
DDR3 > 8 transfers per clock

With each new "tech level", bandwith is doubled. Memory is about 2 things: bandwith and latency. Bandwith refers to how much data can be tranfered in a given timeframe (exampl: 1GB per second). Latency refers to how long it takes for a command to be completed. (example: data is requested by something and 80 nanoseconds later it gets it).

If a lot of small things are requested from memory, scathered over a lot of different adresses, latency is more important. If a large, continues block of data is requested, bandwith is more important. As far as I know, latency has a bigger impact on gaming performance.

CAS 4 DDR2 and CAS 8 DDR3 offer practicaly the same latency, but DDR3 offers double the bandwith (at same bus-speed). DDR3 is also more energy efficient, leading to reduced temps. DDR3 prices are now at the same level as DDR2 was at the time I bought my memory.

[Castout]

Hey thanks you make it easy to understand.

Doh now I want DDR3...but wait my mobo doesn't support it arrrghhhh:D

[Arclight]

I have the same problem. :yep:

If you're interrested in new memory, just get low latency DDR2 and you should be fine. ;)

[Konovalov]

I have the same problem. :yep:

If you're interrested in new memory, just get low latency DDR2 and you should be fine. ;)
And DDR2 memory is so cheap now thanks to DDR3. You can pickup high performance 4gb (2 x 2gb) kits for £50 and even less here in the UK. Never been a better time to increase your memory if you so need. :up:

[AVGWarhawk]

Somebody told me that Vista x64 is not very efficient to play games on.
something to do with Nvidia drivers not being optimized for Vista x64.



I have no issues with Nvida and Vista 64. Games play very nicely. Kick in 8 gig of RAM and your hard drive is never accessed to act like RAM.

The only thing I have heard concerning Nvidia and 64 is sometimes upon boot the screen will be black. There has to be some tweaks made for the Nvidia driver to start with boot. This problem has been out there for quite a few months but I believe Nvidia has handled it. Every once in a while this black screen happens to me(maybe 3 times in the last 5 months) but I just reboot and it works. I have not made any tweaks. Just loaded up the current driver and set my card up for games.

[Arclight]

I had that same black screen on XP 32-bit every once in a while. :o

Knew it was Nvidia driver related. Never happened on Win7 though. Weird. :doh:

[AVGWarhawk]

I had that same black screen on XP 32-bit every once in a while. :o

Knew it was Nvidia driver related. Never happened on Win7 though. Weird. :doh:

I believe Nvidia has it sorted now. This problem was happening quite a bit a year ago and even with XP. Sometimes though getting the 64 bit driver for your monitor and not using the windows driver for the monitor took care of the issue for some. Others just needed some Vista updates and the current Nvidia driver to over come this issue.

[Arclight]

Happened with 182.06 on XP, using those same drivers now on Win7 (well, Win7 install, obviously).

Drivers for my monitor? You mean for this ancient CRT beast?! No such thing mate. :rotfl:

I never went looking for a solution, just figured it was because of graphics drivers. Nice to see it confirmed. :smug:

[AVGWarhawk]

I discovered my Samsung 22 inch has in fact a 64 bit driver at the Samsung site. Getting more common these day. :yeah:

[Arclight]

Yeah, for a Samsung, but they actually make good monitors (IMHO the best). I have some old Packard Bell from god knows where that I managed to save before it landed at the scrap heap. No luck finding a driver for that one. :down:

Even the PB site doesn't recognize the model number. :rotfl:

[Castout]

I have no issues with Nvida and Vista 64. Games play very nicely. Kick in 8 gig of RAM and your hard drive is never accessed to act like RAM.

The only thing I have heard concerning Nvidia and 64 is sometimes upon boot the screen will be black. There has to be some tweaks made for the Nvidia driver to start with boot. This problem has been out there for quite a few months but I believe Nvidia has handled it. Every once in a while this black screen happens to me(maybe 3 times in the last 5 months) but I just reboot and it works. I have not made any tweaks. Just loaded up the current driver and set my card up for games.

Umm my Steel Beasts Pro PE runs slower in Vista than in XP. larger battles in Vista is unplayable. Decreasing graphical settings didn't help at all. But so far it's the only game which is having problem with Vista. I do hope MS send me a replacement disc.

I've already emailed them and gave them pictures of the damaged disc. The problem is the retail shop delivered me the OEM system builder Vista case.