As I prepped for a Crysis2-inspired upgrade I’ve come across something very unexpected. I changed my CPU from an Intel E4500 to and E8600 but the CPU benchmark was totally unchanged. Yes, the game loads much faster, but that’s it. For actual game play, Crysis software appears to ignore higher CPU capabilities and depend only on the system video card(s).

Background: I have seven (yes seven) Windows 32-bit OS’s on my PC - three XP, two Vista, and two 7. Three of the OS’s are dedicated for gaming only because it allows me to both optimize and evaluate game performance based on Windows OS without the clutter of work-related software on the drive). Before changing the CPU I did a lot of testing and what I am finding is that on XP, Vista, and Windows 7 the same this happens. NO change in FPS on the CPU benchmark! I was so shocked I even did full reinstalls to check.

Crysis is a GREAT game, but technically speaking the software writing (aka algorithms) do not seen to be very efficient. Coding focused on GPU only is as bad as coding focused on CPU only. Advancements in CPU and GPU performance are somewhat parallel and its too bad EA couldn’t take full advantage.

From what I’m finding don’t spend money on your CPU. It’s all GPU.

Has anyone else experimented with different CPUs but the same video card(s) on their system?

yea crysis 1 ignores alot of the power on your cpu but
crysis 2 would use the cpu they.
they learned from it

(i hope im right not sure)

That does seem odd. First, I wouldn't have expected the new CPU to make a difference to load times - that would be down to your hard disk speed and chipset mostly. Second I would have expected a slight increase in FPS during play and a noticeable increase in the CPU benchmark. I guess the E4500 was enough to get all the frames needed for the game. What was your CPU benchmark score?

As far as I'm concerned almost all modern games can run just fine on a decent Core Duo, very few games can put any stress on a Core i5/i7 system.

Yes, this is very unexpected.

E4500 8500/SLI, XP, 1920x1200, AA off, low settings, fullscreen CPU Benchmark: 28.55, 28.56, 28.56 (FPS average)
E8600 8500/SLI, XP, 1920x1200, AA off, low settings, fullscreen CPU Benchmark: 28.47, 28.47, 28.46 (FPS average)

Notes: Bios updated for CPU/chipset.

I ran a test with my system:

I am using an old Core Duo clocked to 2.8ghz. I ran the test at 1920x1080, no AA, High/VeryHigh settings and got avg 24.3 FPS.

I then ran the test again but lowered the resolution to 720p and got avg 26.8 FPS.

Cpu should only make a difference at low res unless its a really cpu heavy game and you basicaly did a side grade to another dual core so im not sure what you were expecting.

Crysis always ran the same on 2 cores to 4 and even 2 quads on skulltrail got same fps as dual cores, crysis is optimized for dual core cpus, todays games that are made with win 7 as its target os will see a bigger benefit for multi core cpus.

It will be faster if you're doing stuff with physics, the other stuff is handled by the card. Hoped that cleared it up a bit.

dude you went from dual to another dual core
bad buy
if you had bought a qaud woulda noticed a chance
obviously your cpu wasnt being the bottleneck of gpu

First off, running at a high resolution you won't notice much of a difference since the most stress will be on your video card.

Secondly, you sure as hell wont see any difference upgrading from a crappy cpu to a crappy cpu. Only once you upgrade to the i7 950 will you REALLY notice what a huge difference a real processor can make. And at that point your old video card will hold back your real power.

Tests I've seen show that the difference between Dual Cores & Quad Cores are very small for most games. Crysis doesn't really benefit much from moving from 2 to 4 cores. The CPU speed is more important and even then once you hit a certain speed any benefit on top of that will be small.

Crysis 2 will supposedly take advantage of multi-core systems, add in the effect of DX11 multi-core optimisations and there may actually be a reason to run a quad system. We'll find out on the 25th.

First off, running at a high resolution you won't notice much of a difference since the most stress will be on your video card.

Secondly, you sure as hell wont see any difference upgrading from a crappy cpu to a crappy cpu. Only once you upgrade to the i7 950 will you REALLY notice what a huge difference a real processor can make. And at that point your old video card will hold back your real power.

****. Games don't need Core i7 processors. If you run highly CPU dependant software - 3D modellers, Ray Tracers, Video Coders then an i7 is a good investment. If you mainly play games and surf the net then an i7 is a total waste of money.

“When you’re gaming and you’re running at resolutions of 1920 x 1200 or better, the Core 2 Duo is perfect for running all of today’s games. In real gaming, there’s no difference between a Core i7 and a Core 2 Duo” — even one that’s not the highest-end available. - Tom Peterson. Nvidia Technical Manager

>upgraded CPU
>Intel E4500 to and E8600
>2011

???

“When you’re gaming and you’re running at resolutions of 1920 x 1200 or better, the Core 2 Duo is perfect for running all of today’s games. In real gaming, there’s no difference between a Core i7 and a Core 2 Duo” — even one that’s not the highest-end available. - Tom Peterson. Nvidia Technical Manager

rolf, let me translate this for you, moron. "BUY MY GPU" 10/10 troll post tho. I mad

Lol. Funny how me upgrading from a E6750 to a X6 1075T actually increased my fps in many games by an astounding 50 fps - and its not even as powerful as some i7's.

BC2 went from 20 fps to 70 fps and Black Ops also had huge increases in stability and framerate. ArmA II runs at a good 30 - 60 fps now.

These "minimal increases" you speak of, baffle me.

Yea that (Nvidia) guy talks sh!t there are benefits to be had from i7 especially with recent games on windows 7 and even more so with multi gpus.
Core 2 duo isnt great for todays games, even a console has more than 2 cores, try BC2 on a dual core and see if its a good as an i7 or maybe COD Crap Ops.

We will see all the whiners come release day saying, there dual core that can max out any game (CSS) cant run crysis 2 at good fps then will come the whole its badly optimized crap that they spew.

My advice would be to anyone who wants to continue to play the latest games at decent settings to upgrade to at least a quad core and if yuo are running 2 or more very high end gpus then an i7 or simlar is gonna be needed.

Most games now are multi platform and as the gpus in consoles are old and crap they have to code ther games to use the only half decent component in the console the cpu.

BC2 went from 20 fps to 70 fps and Black Ops also had huge increases in stability and framerate. ArmA II runs at a good 30 - 60 fps now.

These "minimal increases" you speak of, baffle me.

OK, I stand corrected. I just looked at some benchies and Black Ops does scale massively depending upon CPU.

First off, running at a high resolution you won't notice much of a difference since the most stress will be on your video card.

Secondly, you sure as hell wont see any difference upgrading from a crappy cpu to a crappy cpu. Only once you upgrade to the i7 950 will you REALLY notice what a huge difference a real processor can make. And at that point your old video card will hold back your real power.

Pretty much what Talon said. Even though there is a difference of 1.1GHz and 4MB of L2 Cache, by today's standard, that's not much. Also, did you recently buy the E8600? It costs 10$ more than an i7 950! Even though you're on an LGA 775 build, you should have gone the extra 40$ and gotten a nice Q9650.
(3Ghz quad-core with 12MB of L2) =/
When I upgraded my CPU from a 3.2GHz Q6600 to a stock i7 930, the difference was like night and day on some games. Not really on the Crysis side, since it's more GPU intensive, but for CPU-Heavy games such as GTA IV and Red Faction: Guerrilla, I got double the FPS and was able to max out the settings; whereas before I was running them at 1280x720 windowed! I can see what the NVIDIA rep was saying, and it probably would be like that in a perfect world (Seeing as most games only use 2-3 threads). I can't tell you what it is, or what causes it, but all I know is a Core i7 can make a big difference in performance on many games over a Core 2 Duo (And even my Core 2 Quad).

Thanks Eyeryone for your responses. In no particular order....

User: 70U1S "It will be faster if you're doing stuff with physics.."
Response: Thanks. I'll try some experimenting with settings.

User: urbanshaft "dude you went from dual to another dual core. bad buy.if you had bought a qaud woulda noticed a chance"
Response: Actually a very good buy. E8600 for $100. Very stable for overclocking Quad-core no advantage for gaminging yet.

"obviously your cpu wasnt being the bottleneck of gpu"
Response: Yep. That's next on my list

User: Talon95 "First off, running at a high resolution you won't notice much of a difference since the most stress will be on your video card."
Response: CPU benchmark testing should show differences. That's why there are separate benchmarks for CPU and GPU.

"Secondly, you sure as hell wont see any difference upgrading from a crappy cpu to a crappy cpu."
Response: E8600 is not a "crappy" CPU. Very stable for overclocking.

User: Jac " Tests I've seen show that the difference between Dual Cores & Quad Cores are very small for most... "
Response: That matches the information that I've seen. Optimizing programming for multi-core processors is not as straigtforward as most peoiple think.
"Crysis 2 will supposedly take advantage of multi-core systems.."
Response: That's what I'm hoping for...

User: R3APER ".. basicaly did a side grade to another dual core so im not sure what you were expecting"
Response: A E4500 to an E8600 is actually quite a CPU jump. EA included a separate CPU benkmark utility so I was expecting something to register. (GPU benchmark would stay the same of course.)

User: Miaku "... Also, did you recently buy the E8600? It costs 10$ more than an i7 950! ..."
Response: Not new build. Upgrading existing system & got used E8600 for $100. Saving money for investing in new video card.

By the way, here's my favorite screenshot from Crysis..

Attachments:

pushed through 2.JPG [ 115.76 KiB | Viewed 39 times ]

Try running Crysis at a lower resolution, it will take the stress of your video card, put it on the processor, and then you will notice the frame difference between the two processors. In your current case the video card is being overworked and the processor umderworked.

Also, the CryEngine 3 is optimized to utilize up to an octo-core processor, so you will notice the benefits of extra cores in Crysis 2 and especially as the years peogress.

@ SilentRunningPC

One last thing on this topic. I did another test, I increased my overclock from 2.8 to 3.2 on my Dual Core & the CPU benchmark went from 24.5 to 30.8. That's a significant improvement gained from just another .4 on the clock.

GPU bottleneck.
8500 SLI is pretty weak, especially for Crysis. Upgrading your CPU would do little to anything in performance.