1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

CPU a question about cpu's effects on fps

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by j4mi3, 12 Nov 2011.

  1. j4mi3

    j4mi3 New Member

    Joined:
    28 Jun 2011
    Posts:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    17
    when i had my amd phenom II x4 965, at like 3.7ghz, i would be getting say 30fps in a random game, and now i have upgraded to a 2600k at 4.5ghz, im getting like 40fps

    this is to be expected

    but what i dont get is why. i look on task manager mid game, and the cpu usage of the amd chip was at like half way to 3/4 way up on all cores. now obviously the 2600k is a little lower,

    but what i dont get is why does the 2600k offer a fps boost when the amd chip wasnt even apparently working at full load in the first place

    the obvious explanation as to the better fps when upgrading cpus is that it is bottlenecking the gfx card. but i dont see how the 965 could have been (for a start i only have a 4870 and thats no gtx 590) and besides it wasnt even at full load.

    like; where has this extra fps come from?
     
  2. GeorgeK

    GeorgeK Swinging the banhammer Super Moderator

    Joined:
    18 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    8,639
    Likes Received:
    476
    From looking at mobo reviews on here it looks like the motherboard has an impact also, so that might be one reason...
     
  3. dave99

    dave99 New Member

    Joined:
    26 Jan 2011
    Posts:
    464
    Likes Received:
    5
    I would like to know the answer to that as well. I thought it was to do with bandwidth. Then I realised I didn't know what the hell I was talking about. :duh:
     
  4. .//TuNdRa

    .//TuNdRa Resident Bulldozer Guru

    Joined:
    12 Feb 2011
    Posts:
    4,042
    Likes Received:
    109
    The processor has a tiny segment of it's time portioned off for system tasks, part of that is stuff like PCI-E lane management (Along with the north and South bridges).

    The faster the processor; The larger the portion that's retasked (Usually done in singular cycles. And we're talking millions of cycles a second)

    Motherboards also have an Impact. PCI-E 1.0 was no faster than AGP (8x PCI-E is 8X AGP in terms of speed. At last check). Since then; all versions have doubled it. PCI-E 3.0, by extension, could theoretically support a PCI-E 1.0 card on a 1x socket and still hit near-full speed. In addition to that; the shorter the distance and the less stuff in the way on PCI-E lanes between them, the Northbridge and Processor; the lower the latency, thus; Higher the FPS. This is how Motherboards can have an impact on FPS. I think.

    At least that's my understanding on it.
     
  5. Bloody_Pete

    Bloody_Pete Technophile

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    7,499
    Likes Received:
    577
    Its probably the Instructions per Cycle, as on Intel chips it is way higher. This means it's kicking through data at a much higher rate, so although task manager reports the same CPU usage the Intel CPU is processing data at a much higher rate...
     
  6. karagiosis

    karagiosis Greed

    Joined:
    17 Jan 2011
    Posts:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    I assume your talking about average FPS. There are lots of things that come to my mind...

    The best bet is that your GPU could be waiting for some data from the processor to start working on the current frame. That means your processor would be fully stressed for a short while and then it would do another non critical tasks while the GPU does its work. You could see it as processing bursts. That would explain why higher IPC brings higher FPS and why you dont see your CPU usage at 100%....

    Weeelll, that's just my theory... :rolleyes:
     
  7. Deders

    Deders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    14 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    4,053
    Likes Received:
    106
    More often than not the CPU won't have to do half as much as the GPU. so an overclocked cutting edge CPU won't be stretched much beyond 50%, the graphics is generally more important, unless the CPU is too slow to support the card at a decent potential.
     
  8. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,978
    Likes Received:
    468
    It depends on the efficiency of the architecture, and we already know that the Sandy Bridge quad core CPUs kick serious AMD ass (not a fanboy statement; hard fact) where efficiency is concerned. That's why you got your performance boost without an apparent increase in CPU usage.

    Also memory has a part to play - a few years ago when 2GB-4GB of RAM was the norm for gamers, it was revealed that using 8GB significantly raised the min frame rate in graphics intensive games, which of course affects the average frame rate.

    Did you have 16GB in your AMD system? If not, I think you can safely assume that there are a number of factors involved in your improved frame rates besides "just" the CPU. :)
     
  9. GuilleAcoustic

    GuilleAcoustic Ook ? Ook !

    Joined:
    26 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    71
    It really depends on games. See battle field 3 review .... wether it was a dual core@2GHz or a Quad@3+GHz, the fps were still the same.

    Some games are more CPU dependant, like RTS for examples. Others are more GPU dependant.

    The motherboard is an important factor, as well as RAM speed.
     
  10. Blazza181

    Blazza181 SVM PLACENTA CASEI

    Joined:
    19 Apr 2011
    Posts:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    329
    Tom's Hardware did an article on something related to this - i.e. For gaming, is the maximum you need in terms of CPU is an Athlon x3?

    linky
     

Share This Page