Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Does the processor affect the video card?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 18, 2006 6:18:26 AM

I was reading a review for a 512mb nvidia video card and the guy said you should have at least a 3500+ 64 speed processor or the videocard will have problems.

Is this true? I have a 3000+ AMD 64 processor, and I am looking for a top of the line video card to replace my highly out dated one.

I was thinking of this card

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

But I don't want to get it if the processor will hinder it.

My system is
1 gig RAM
Athlon 64 3000+
Radeon 9600XT

Would it be a good investment to purchase a top of the line video card? I am looking for at LEAST a 7800 quality card so that I can play Crysis on its recommended system specs.
June 18, 2006 6:56:18 AM

No. Dude's smoking crack.
June 18, 2006 7:50:18 AM

Um isnt your current system agp? The card you linked to was pci express
Related resources
June 18, 2006 8:31:34 AM

Go for the good card, there is definitely a difference between a 3000 and a 3500 but that sure as hell doesn't mean your cpu can't handle the card.

Whoever said that was probably trying to make a remark concerning bottlenecks, which don't matter as much when you have a top of the line graphics card, even though a new processor would significantly improve your systems performance.
June 18, 2006 8:35:25 AM

The guy is half right *sorta*
It makes no sense to buy a top of the line card if your processor is lacking.

You don't go around buying a Ferrari body/chassis and stick a engine from a Miata in it.

You gotta find a good balance between the two otherwise you kinda waste money. Look up "Law of diminishing returns" explains the concept really well. Theres nothing wrong at all with getting the best card..its just that the performace / price ratio starts dipping lower and lower.

Back to the sales guy...it will not make the card not work. It just will not really be used to its full potential without a fast processor thats on its level.
As far as what you are thinking of getting, can't really help on that. Don't know diddly about ATI's current vid card models.
June 18, 2006 8:56:55 AM

Nah, the computer will just be better geared towards running games with the more powerful and faster graphics card. The cpu is fairly decent, there won't be any problems with gaming , but if the op wants more power for other things (heavy multitasking, encoding, and other things that use the cpu primarily) it will need to be upgraded.
June 18, 2006 1:57:57 PM

Quote:
No. Dude's smoking crack.
:lol:  Or maybe he is on a trip.(if you know what i mean) :lol: 
June 18, 2006 2:47:50 PM

3000+ won't affect the card. There is only a 400MHz difference, which is practically nothing. Don't sweat it, you'll be fine.

Make sure your motherboard has a PCI-E slot. I would also recommend getting 2gb of RAM, since 1gb might hold you back in some cases.
June 18, 2006 3:11:42 PM

Quote:
I am looking for a top of the line video card to replace my highly out dated one.

I was thinking of this card

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

But I don't want to get it if the processor will hinder it.

My system is
1 gig RAM
Athlon 64 3000+
Radeon 9600XT

I am looking for at LEAST a 7800 quality card so that I can play Crysis on its recommended system specs.


Go for it. You can always get a better processor later, or overclock the one you have a bit. You'll really like the speed increase of this card.
June 18, 2006 3:20:38 PM

What motherboard are you getting so you can use that new card with :?:
a b U Graphics card
June 18, 2006 4:01:49 PM

There is no clear cut answer. In some games or even sections of a game, your CPU will be holding back the X1900XT. In other games the X1900XT would be the bottleneck. Of course this all depends on the resolution and eye candy you use. High resolution, HDR, FSAA, and HQAF will stress the GPU.

Looking at Anand's Oblivion CPU scaling tests, you can see that very often within Oblivion you will be cpu limited meaning and a cheaper X1800XT would perform just as well as the X1900XT. But in other areas of that game like out in the foliage, the X1900XT would still be able to shine.

Here is a quote from their conclusion: "If you're using an older Athlon 64 3000+ or 3200+ with anything around the speed of a Radeon X1800 XT or faster, you'll want to look at upgrading (or overclocking, naturally) your CPU; otherwise, you'll be leaving a decent amount of GPU performance on the table.As we've continually seen during the past couple of years, AMD's Athlon 64 and X2 processors are the best of the best, but even within the family you'll still want to opt for something faster than an Athlon 64 3500+ in order to make good use of any high end GPU."


I somewhat disagree with them for single cards. The thing to remember is that you can increase the gpu stressful settings more with the better card. So While this test shows the X1800XT and X1900XT performing equal on a 1.8GHz A64, what happens if FSAA is enabled along with HDR (which is how many X1800XT and X1900XT owners play the game). Then I would think the X1900XT would outpace the X1800XT. If they had tuned their settings to the max playable for a X1900XT than even with a 1.8GHz A64 I think the X1800XT would struggle to be playable at those exact settings.

Anyway, long way of saying although your cpu will hold back the X1900Xt at times, there are pleny of other times where the X1900XT would shine. So if you have the money go for it. otherwise a $225 256MB X1800XT is a great bargain too. With a slow cpu I'd say X1900XT is a waste. But Once you hit A64's, you have enough cpu power. I would not go crossfire though unless having a much higher end CPU, but a single card is different. Anyway, your 3000+ should be good for at least 2.2GHz if you end up wanting to OC for more cpu performance.
June 18, 2006 7:03:19 PM

Nah, if that where the case he'd say "don't install that floppy drive, it won't let the cpu work" :lol: 

Pauldh,

The question was impact the ability of the card to "work" not so much the performace. So the answer is a difinitive NO it won't breat anything. But your info is great. Unreal for example will not work as well since it is cpu intesive, where as quake 4 will run better than a slower vid card and faster processor as it relies more on the vid card.
June 18, 2006 9:30:07 PM

Wow thanks guys!

Here is the card that I actually want and the review about it that caught my eye.

http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E1681...

Pros: It pwns your box. best card i've ever owned. scoring 13000+ in 3dmark 05, after overclocking. fan isnt half as loud as everyone claims.

Cons: does tend to get a little warm, nothing that isnt expected though.

Other Thoughts: you might want to make sure you have at the very least an a64 3500+ cpu. anything lower fails to deliver instruction sets at a sufficient rate.


I think I am going to get that card, and even though my processor won't be as "top of the line", I will get a new processor when I can afford one.

I actually am having problems picking a mother board. I most likely will not go crossfire or SLI... I just want a quality motherboard that will run an athlon 64 and it must have a PCI express X16 slot.

Will this motherboard work with the X1900?
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E1681...

It is cheap and it has gotten GREAT reviews.
June 18, 2006 9:33:15 PM

Don't trust newegg reviews, ever, ever, ever. Get it? NEVER!

That boad is probably fine, but I'd go with an msi, asus, epok, or abit, should only cost a bit more.

Biostar isn't exactly a top-of-the-line brand, they are more for cheap or office machines.
June 18, 2006 10:23:25 PM

Quote:
Don't trust newegg reviews, ever, ever, ever. Get it? NEVER!

That boad is probably fine, but I'd go with an msi, asus, epok, or abit, should only cost a bit more.

Biostar isn't exactly a top-of-the-line brand, they are more for cheap or office machines.


*cosigns*

My picks in order of personal preference:
DFI , Abit , Asus , MSI , Gigabyte
June 18, 2006 11:09:25 PM

actually i think the processor does effect the vid card.

if u got an old processor lets say.....Pentium 4 2ghz skt 478 400mhz fsb. and u pair that with a 7900GTX or an X1900XT ur gonna be bottlenecked by the processor.


so yes in a way it does affect the vid card.


anyways


the mobo. i would steer clear of biostar. they are an "ok" company.

if ur gettin socket 939 look at the DFI's
June 18, 2006 11:13:48 PM

Quote:
actually i think the processor does effect the vid card.

if u got an old processor lets say.....Pentium 4 2ghz skt 478 400mhz fsb. and u pair that with a 7900GTX or an X1900XT ur gonna be bottlenecked by the processor.


so yes in a way it does affect the vid card.


Dude, IMO you'd be much happier spending a little extra money and buying an XBOX 360. I will not go into the pros of making such a purchase. Its just my opinion, and the opinion of many others here, you'd be much more satisfied with it over the graphics card.

I read a post here the other day that said Asus' QA was getting crappy with regards to AMD motherboards. I can attest. I have an Asus motherboard and I am currently having HT issues. It was my first venture with AMD setups and probably my last. With Asus, I have always had an Intel processor and I was 99.99999% satisfied. The high power usage of Intel was the cause of the 0.000001% disatisfaction. But with Conroe, I should be 100% satisfied. I don't buy high-powered graphic cards, even though their GPUs do handle large loads, I prefer to let the CPU handle it. With this setup I benefit three ways. One, I can still play intensive games because I have a extremely strong processor; two, when I need to encode/transcode a video that's the CPU's job, the GPU can't handle that task; and three, I didn't have to make a cash outlay for two items, I just have to buy one, the CPU.

In spite of all this, I stopped buying computer components after I found out commercial, Hollywood DVD ripping is an illegal activity. So I nolonger have a reason to buy powerful computer components (I will fall victim to Intel's Conroe, though). This was my justification getting my game on with the XBOX 360 (and soon to be PS3, when it is released).
June 18, 2006 11:32:43 PM

Nah, I don't like console gaming. PC gaming is what I love.
June 18, 2006 11:50:02 PM

Quote:
Other Thoughts: you might want to make sure you have at the very least an a64 3500+ cpu. anything lower fails to deliver instruction sets at a sufficient rate.

3000+ and 3500+ are basically same thing, the 3500+ has only higher clock speeds. In gaming (especially with a X1900XT), the difference might be 0.5 framerates. Newegg reviews can give some neat ideas, and advice, but for the most part, those are n00bs writing a review.

Quote:
Dude, IMO you'd be much happier spending a little extra money and buying an XBOX 360.

I know this is your opinion, and you have the right to it. But I will diss up your opinion. I'll give you an example. I played CoD2 on 360, and it looked like CoD2 with minimum settings and low res on a PC. Game consoles are for toys for little boys (or girls :p  ), PC are for mature players. Also, you can do way more on a PC. Gaming systems are not worth it.
June 19, 2006 1:12:42 AM

Stick it to 'em prozac, 360 is a waste of money. Sunangel if you think it's better that's cause you put money into a cpu and not a video card. You're backwards! Every game today does better with a fast video card and slower cpu than the other way around. Go back to your 360 and tea parties.
June 19, 2006 2:13:57 AM

It will hold it back a little bit........but by going to the better card (the 512MB card you're refering to), you should see huge improvements!!!

There are tests with people that run 7800GTX in SLI with a A64 3000+ where the scores are essentially very very close at different resolutions.

By changing the CPU to a A64 3500+ and above, the scores begin to show differences.............

Its a case where the GPU is sending too much data for the CPU to handle.........
June 19, 2006 10:57:36 AM

Quote:
It will hold it back a little bit........but by going to the better card (the 512MB card you're refering to), you should see huge improvements!!!

There are tests with people that run 7800GTX in SLI with a A64 3000+ where the scores are essentially very very close at different resolutions.

By changing the CPU to a A64 3500+ and above, the scores begin to show differences.............

Its a case where the GPU is sending too much data for the CPU to handle.........

With a X1900XT, you can play at max settings easily, in this case, the CPU won't be the factor that affects framerates. If you're talking about 3DMark scores, then it's a waste getting a new CPU.
June 25, 2006 3:32:50 PM

consoles are for people who cant afford to modify/build their own rigs, they have some 40 year old lacky from microsoft doing the work for them.

AMD 3000 Vs 7900GTX = Thumbs up, like prozac said 400MHz isnt a jump at all.
!