Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Bottleneck

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 4, 2006 4:44:46 PM

Can anyone give me a general idea of how much FPS i will loose if i pair an X1900XT with my P4 prescott @ 3.4Ghz, against a better CPU?
I keep hearing that it would be a HUGE bottleneck, but to make my decision i need a number.. at least a general one.

Thank You!

More about : bottleneck

a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2006 6:34:30 PM

If you tweak the resolution/settings to stress your X1900XT, not as big a deal as some people would have you believe. Some games it would matter more than others.

This review was built for your question:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTAwMiwz...

Most CPU scaling is done at low res and/or detail levels. [H] doesn't give apples to apples, but at least shows real world playable settings with various cards/cpus.
November 4, 2006 6:58:34 PM

People blow "Bottlenecking" way out of proportion. Yes, a 3.4GHz Prescott will hold back some framerates, but not anything that will kill all the performance. Especially in gaming.

Quote:
can you guess where its choking?

Yup, the crappy OCZ :lol:  [/couldn't resist]
Related resources
November 4, 2006 7:36:34 PM

Quote:
People blow "Bottlenecking" way out of proportion. Yes, a 3.4GHz Prescott will hold back some framerates, but not anything that will kill all the performance. Especially in gaming.


Yeh! thats what i thought aswell. I mean if ur CPU matched the "reccomanded specs" then it should be fine. The CPU is just a middleman when it comes to rendering games, giving the commands to the RAM and the graphics card.

But then i saw the Core 2 Duo benchmarks. They show u a Pentium D @ 3.0Ghz running 50FPS and a Core 2 Duo @ 3.0Ghz running 100FPS!

That is totally crazy! How can the CPU affect performance THAT much?
November 4, 2006 7:42:06 PM

Quote:
If you tweak the resolution/settings to stress your X1900XT, not as big a deal as some people would have you believe. Some games it would matter more than others.

This review was built for your question:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTAwMiwz...

Most CPU scaling is done at low res and/or detail levels. [H] doesn't give apples to apples, but at least shows real world playable settings with various cards/cpus.


That review says that there IS a huge difference beetween CPUs!
2.8Ghz Single-core = 43FPS
3.4Ghz Dual-core = 50FPS

Such a small difference in speeds and such a big difference in FPS. Unless Dual-core matters that much, wich is unlikely since most games dont use more than one thread.
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2006 8:01:36 PM

Quote:
But then i saw the Core 2 Duo benchmarks. They show u a Pentium D @ 3.0Ghz running 50FPS and a Core 2 Duo @ 3.0Ghz running 100FPS!

Yeah, but those are useless lower res/detail benchmarks aimed at showing the power of the CPU. Look at [H]'s C2D review and they show the FX-62 completely keeping up at max playable settings despite getting cremed in the low res test settings in those other reviews.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwx...

Quote:
That review says that there IS a huge difference beetween CPUs!
2.8Ghz Single-core = 43FPS
3.4Ghz Dual-core = 50FPS

Yes the 2.8GHz does take a backseat causing them to lower settings a little bit. And they didn't show dual core as making a difference in those games.

But still, your 3.4GHz, should do a pretty decent job.
November 4, 2006 8:16:46 PM

Yea, at lower settings, and resolution, you will see a noticeable difference, but with A64s, and C2Ds, no one will play at such low settings.
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2006 8:29:36 PM

Yup. But those other tests are still worth looking at. It's a sign of things to come where someday my A64 4000+ will be a big bottleneck while your Conroe still struts it's stuff.
November 4, 2006 8:34:37 PM

Your 4000+ will be fine until you need a dual core.

Anyway, I was wondering, how's the OCZ treatin' ya? :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2006 9:37:04 PM

I love the OCZ. It's been running 2-3-2-5 and 1T timings without problems. I have this ram in 3 rigs.
November 4, 2006 10:02:38 PM

Nice.

I wish I could say that about the OCZ kit I had. Piece of crap to say the least.
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2006 10:04:44 PM

I have only used the OCZ Platinum PC3200, can't vouch for any of their others.
November 5, 2006 9:44:47 AM

Quote:
But then i saw the Core 2 Duo benchmarks. They show u a Pentium D @ 3.0Ghz running 50FPS and a Core 2 Duo @ 3.0Ghz running 100FPS!

Yeah, but those are useless lower res/detail benchmarks aimed at showing the power of the CPU. Look at [H]'s C2D review and they show the FX-62 completely keeping up at max playable settings despite getting cremed in the low res test settings in those other reviews.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwx...

Quote:
That review says that there IS a huge difference beetween CPUs!
2.8Ghz Single-core = 43FPS
3.4Ghz Dual-core = 50FPS

Yes the 2.8GHz does take a backseat causing them to lower settings a little bit. And they didn't show dual core as making a difference in those games.

But still, your 3.4GHz, should do a pretty decent job.


So ur saying that if i run at LOW settings, the CPU DOES matter?? How can that be? If it dosent matter in the most INTENSIVE settings, how can it matter in the lowest settings?

So ur saying the 2.8Ghz DID take a back seat. So there IS a huge difference??? I thought u said it was still playable. Damn it!

And BTW, the review did not compare a Core 2 Duo and a P4, so i dont know what kind of FPS i could be getting with an E6300 compared to a P4!
November 5, 2006 9:48:36 AM

And that review just makes me feel worse abt the performance of my P4.
X6800 and E6700 are the same at 60, but the FX-62 is only at 55!

So that means my P4 is like 30 or something.

Isnt there a comparison beetween an old CPU, like a P4 and a new one like the Core 2 Duo or FX-62??
November 5, 2006 11:40:22 AM

Click Here!
The CPU Charts have some game benchmarks you can look at.

You do see quite big differences between FX62, and a 3.4 Prescott, however, you can't tell the difference while playing. They seem to use 1024x768 or 1280x920 with maxed out settings.

Gives you the idea.

Also, at lower setting the GPU doesn't work as much, so the CPU does the work. Kind of like the CPU tests in 3DMark, the resolution, and quality are very low.
November 5, 2006 2:48:23 PM

Can't tell the difference?? The FX-62 gives u 30 FPS more.
So this means that my CPU WILL bottleneck the GPU, damn it!
November 5, 2006 5:25:13 PM

You will see a big difference on paper, but your eyes won't notice any change, the framerates are high, thus you cannot notice the difference while playing.

You don't notice a difference between 100fps and 70fps.
November 6, 2006 11:40:17 AM

Quote:
You will see a big difference on paper, but your eyes won't notice any change, the framerates are high, thus you cannot notice the difference while playing.

You don't notice a difference between 100fps and 70fps.


Thats a 30 FPS decrease!
You may not see it because u play at 60 FPS locked.

But what if the 30 FPS was the difference beetween 20 FPS and 50 FPS?
That would be a HUGE difference!
So it makes sence why ppl buy a CPU for 500$ and not 200$.
November 6, 2006 6:25:06 PM

IMO I think you're making a bigger deal out of this than it really is. If I had the same option as you, I'd have no qualms about pairing an X1900XT with that CPU. Unfortunately for the time being, I'm stuck with a 2600+, and an X800XL AGP, which BTW I'm still quite content with...for now. 8)
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2006 6:39:56 PM

Quote:
So ur saying that if i run at LOW settings, the CPU DOES matter?? How can that be? If it dosent matter in the most INTENSIVE settings, how can it matter in the lowest settings?

So ur saying the 2.8Ghz DID take a back seat. So there IS a huge difference??? I thought u said it was still playable. Damn it!

And BTW, the review did not compare a Core 2 Duo and a P4, so i dont know what kind of FPS i could be getting with an E6300 compared to a P4!


Playing a low setting is a way to remove the GPu from the equation. Since it's not under stress, only the CPU is understress so its a good way to show a CPU strenght even though nobody sane will buy a Top of the line card to run in 640X480
November 6, 2006 7:06:34 PM

Quote:
So ur saying that if i run at LOW settings, the CPU DOES matter?? How can that be? If it dosent matter in the most INTENSIVE settings, how can it matter in the lowest settings?

So ur saying the 2.8Ghz DID take a back seat. So there IS a huge difference??? I thought u said it was still playable. Damn it!

And BTW, the review did not compare a Core 2 Duo and a P4, so i dont know what kind of FPS i could be getting with an E6300 compared to a P4!


Playing a low setting is a way to remove the GPu from the equation. Since it's not under stress, only the CPU is understress so its a good way to show a CPU strenght even though nobody sane will buy a Top of the line card to run in 640X480

That makes NO sense, but whatever.

What abt at high settings? A Pentium 4 would score 10 FPS less than a Core 2 Duo at a high resolution according to the benchmarks.
November 6, 2006 7:24:29 PM

Quote:
Thats a 30 FPS decrease!
You may not see it because u play at 60 FPS locked.

But what if the 30 FPS was the difference beetween 20 FPS and 50 FPS?
That would be a HUGE difference!
So it makes sence why ppl buy a CPU for 500$ and not 200$.

I don't lock my fps. No one can see more than about 35fps.

Now, because you see an average (or even max) difference, it doesn't mean it'll always be a 30 fps difference.

The E6300 costs about $200, and in no way, shape, or form it's bottlenecking anything.
November 6, 2006 7:27:05 PM

Quote:
Playing a low setting is a way to remove the GPu from the equation. Since it's not under stress, only the CPU is understress so its a good way to show a CPU strenght even though nobody sane will buy a Top of the line card to run in 640X480


That makes NO sense, but whatever.

Huh? Makes perfect sense. Just like this does...

Quote:
Also, at lower setting the GPU doesn't work as much, so the CPU does the work. Kind of like the CPU tests in 3DMark, the resolution, and quality are very low.


They're just trying to help, so at least TRY to understand...I still think you're making too big a deal of this. :wink:
November 6, 2006 8:09:04 PM

I'm buying a 600$ card, and i have never spent that much on a PC part in my life, and everyones telling its going to cause a bottleneck!

This isnt the first time ive asked this question on this forum. Its actually the 4th time now, and everyone has always told that there WILL be a bottleneck wtih my P4.
November 6, 2006 8:43:45 PM

Quote:
People blow "Bottlenecking" way out of proportion. Yes, a 3.4GHz Prescott will hold back some framerates, but not anything that will kill all the performance. Especially in gaming.


Like he said... it's not about whether it will or will not, but how much. In your case, not enough for you to really notice. That CPU will pair just fine with that card. That being said... where do live!? $600 is WAY too much to pay for an X1900XT. If you're willing to pay that, I've got a 9800pro I'll sell you. I bought it for $300, I'll give to you for $250...you gotta pay shipping though... :roll:
November 7, 2006 1:56:35 PM

250$ is abt the price for the 9800 Pro over here..
I currently am living in Israel.

When i say it will "kill" my performance, i dont mean a 50 FPS decrease, but more along the lines of 10-15 FPS wich u can really notice if the framerate is under 50. That WOULD be a pretty big loss - one that u can difenitely see.
November 7, 2006 2:56:07 PM

Ouch, that's expensive. If you're really that concerned about not bottlenecking your card, you could go for a 7600GT, but you're not going to get close to the performance you'd get with an X1900XT. That being said, you might want to look at getting an X1950pro instead. Either way, I see buyers remorse in your future.
November 7, 2006 3:11:00 PM

Quote:
People blow "Bottlenecking" way out of proportion. Yes, a 3.4GHz Prescott will hold back some framerates, but not anything that will kill all the performance. Especially in gaming.


Like he said... it's not about whether it will or will not, but how much. In your case, not enough for you to really notice. That CPU will pair just fine with that card. That being said... where do live!? $600 is WAY too much to pay for an X1900XT. If you're willing to pay that, I've got a 9800pro I'll sell you. I bought it for $300, I'll give to you for $250...you gotta pay shipping though... :roll:

9800 pro cost about $30 here in U.S. btw.

even better, I'll sell you my x800 for $100 , you pay shipping though :) 
November 7, 2006 3:51:44 PM

I was joking... :roll:
November 7, 2006 8:35:15 PM

"Buyer's Remorse", why??

No, i actually want to PLAY game, not watch a slide show, so im going to need a high-end card. (i hate aliasing)

Gee guys, id love to, but u know.. we dont live in the same country right now.
And u should see how lucky u are from my example.
November 7, 2006 10:08:05 PM

You most certainly will not get a slide show from either the x1950pro, or the x1900xt, so take your pick. I say "buyers remorse," because you're worried about loosing a few FPS with arguably one of the most powerful cards you can currently put in your system. So, if you feel you are losing some FPS because of your CPU, you won't be happy, but if you don't buy it, you'll wish you had, because you know you could have gotten more (FPS) from it...See where I'm going with this?

I'd have no problem with pairing that card with that CPU, but then again, X1900XT's don't cost $600 here in the U.S.. You could always consider something cheaper to hold you off until you can afford a new rig.
November 8, 2006 7:56:08 AM

Well, as u can hopefully tell, i havnt lived here all my life.
When one of my friends comes to visit me from the states, ill ask him to buy it for me.

Look, the whole of this thread is to make me feel better, by either telling me that i wont loose much FPS, or by telling me that i will, thus making it so that i wont buy that card.
I suppose i would be sad if i couldnt buy that card, but its better than wasting money on it for nothing. But since that is not the case, im happy in any case.

When u think abt it.. i could actually buy a new CPU and the X1900XT for the same price it would cost here. And im talking abt an E6600.
Only problem is i would need new RAM and ive just bought a new motherboard for THIS CPU.
Well, ill raise the money by the time i finish High-School.

Thnx again!
!