Well I was bored this morning so I decided to overclock my gpu, through the BIOS, to see if i could get a bit more performance with call of duty4 (trying to stay at constant 250 fps with my .cfg). So I oc'd the GPU to 625/1450/925 and my results with real time cod4 was rather disappointing- i actually lost 20-30 fps from my standard setup ( no gpu OC, cpu OC'd to 2.3ghz). So i thought it to be an error so i checked the gpu bios through nibitor and everything was correct, so I then ran crysis benchmark tool, and found that my cpu oc vs gpu oc was very cpu dependent (like cod4) at even native resolutions, crysis being 2-3 fps more on avg.
Why would my cpu oc benefit gaming more than a significant gpu oc? Is my c2d the bottleneck@ 2.0ghz and when OC'd to 2.3ghz (using setFSB) it removes the bottleneck? I used crysis (@ native res 1440x900, with xconfig very-high settings) and cod4 low settings (for competitive play) to see differences in gpu and cpu dependencies with both the same results - the cpu OC was by far more beneficial for gaming in both scenarios.....hmmm.
Any ideas?
-
Setfsb makes your entire system run faster, not just your cpu. Thats why people get such high increases compared to just overclocking the gpu.
-
-
Nm im dumb lol.
-
FPS games show an increase in physics realism and frames per second with a faster CPU. When you overclock the CPU through SetFSB, you're actually increasing the frequency of the FSB which in turn increases the frequency of all the components of the Northbridge (CPU, GPU and RAM).
-
-
I really just meant more like the gpu and chipset will run hotter. To easy to just undervolt the cpu
.
CPU vs GPU OC
Discussion in 'Sager and Clevo' started by naticus, Aug 18, 2008.