Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is my processor the bottleneck here? Advice please...

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 5, 2006 11:27:49 AM

Ok

So my bonus has come through and I'm thinking about upgrading to a new PCI graphics card and I will probably splash out on the new DX10 GTX cards which means I'll probably plump for the Crosshair mobo too (I currently hace AGP). Together with some respectable RAM this will be as far as my budget will stretch. However this means sticking with my existing Athlon 64 4000+ processor. Will this processor be any kind of bottleneck for this system? I really want to hold off on the processor front the way AMD and Intel are going at the moment and upgrade that later.

Oh, and I only have a CTR monitor maximum 1600 x 1200 but its great!

cheers dudes! :lol: 
December 5, 2006 12:26:45 PM

YES! It certainly will be a bottleneck. If you buy a high end Dx10 card then your cpu is obsolete. Midrange card is still a bottleneck for your cpu. My advice is twofold:

1) Overclock the cpu as much as possible(very risky)
2) Buy the best Athlon cpu that is availible(too expensive) and overclock it too!
Related resources
December 5, 2006 1:52:29 PM

What the hell are you talking about?

The 4000+ will be fine with an 8800 GTX. Bottlenecking isn't worth mentioning.

Framerates between a 3800+ and 5000+ are MAXIMUM within 10% if they're using the same videocard. At higher reslutions, we're looking at less than 5%. That's pretty damn close.

Pay attention to those graphs! The videocard is the major bottleneck. All the lowest framerates will be with the slowest videocard.

The 4000+ is still a fine CPU, even for the 8800 GTX.
December 5, 2006 1:55:17 PM

OK I exaggerated a bit. My mistake.
December 5, 2006 5:25:59 PM

Quote:
What the hell are you talking about?

The 4000+ will be fine with an 8800 GTX. Bottlenecking isn't worth mentioning.

Framerates between a 3800+ and 5000+ are MAXIMUM within 10% if they're using the same videocard. At higher reslutions, we're looking at less than 5%. That's pretty damn close.

Pay attention to those graphs! The videocard is the major bottleneck. All the lowest framerates will be with the slowest videocard.

The 4000+ is still a fine CPU, even for the 8800 GTX.


Ummm... Not sure what you mean, Cleeve. If he is getting 8800GTX and what you say is true, then what should I make of THIS ARTICLE?

I quote: "To bridge the way for future reviews, we chose to run the same set of tests on a new Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 based system. We knew that the results would be night and day different, and so decided that a separate review of the advantages of moving the platform from AMD to Intel would be worthwhile. You should conclude from the results the same thing we did: you need an Extreme CPU to run next generation graphics."

EDIT: Isn't it now universally accepted that AMD has totally lost to C2D? Isn't it clear that C2D will provide (all else equal) a huge improvement over any AMD? In this sense, his CPU will be a bottleneck since only a top of the line C2D Extreme allows current nV 8800 series DX10 cards to demonstrate their full power.

Or there is something I am missing here(?)
December 5, 2006 5:50:19 PM

Quote:
Or there is something I am missing here(?)


I think you're missing the impact of the bottleneck. The graphs in those reviews are misleading because they pull the eye toward the highest bars, which are 1024x768. Who buys an 8800 GTX to game at 1024x768?

Will a core2 E6600 get better framerates than an Athlon64 4000+?
Sure it will! But the higher the resoulution, the smaller the effect of the processor will be. Check those charts you linked to... at 1280x1024 and higher the processor bottleneck is really quite minimal.

Just looking at Doom3, 4xAA 8xAF, 1600x1200:
AMD gets 108 FPS
Intel gets 123 fps

At higher resolutions the difference is even smaller. Is that a huge bottleneck? Not in my books.

Let's look at the same game, same settings comparing videocards:
Intel 8800 GTX gets 123 FPS
Intel 8800 GTS gets 87 fps

So what's more of a bottleneck... the card or the CPU?
And once again, the difference between CPUs is minimized the higher the resolution. Like I said, who buys an 8800 GTX to play at 1024x768?

Of course if you're putting out the cash for a new system Intel is the way to go. But AMD losing to C2D is more important to benchmark scoring than it is to playability, and this guy already has a 4000+. Pair that with an 8800 GTX and it is a damned fine gaming machine.

If we all gamed these $600 cards at 1024x768, maybe I'd agree with that review's conclusion... and even then; all the low res framerates are so high, does it matter which CPU you're running? At 1024x768 do I care that I'm only getting 114 fps when I could be getting 175? It's irrelevant.

Give me an A64 4000+ and a GTX over a Core2 E6600 and GTS any day of the week. At 1600x res or higher the 4000+ and GTX will beat it more often than not.
December 5, 2006 6:09:31 PM

Quote:
What the hell are you talking about?

The 4000+ will be fine with an 8800 GTX. Bottlenecking isn't worth mentioning.

Framerates between a 3800+ and 5000+ are MAXIMUM within 10% if they're using the same videocard. At higher reslutions, we're looking at less than 5%. That's pretty damn close.

Pay attention to those graphs! The videocard is the major bottleneck. All the lowest framerates will be with the slowest videocard.

The 4000+ is still a fine CPU, even for the 8800 GTX.

Agree with you again.

The amount of framerates you gain from a "better" CPU is not worth the pay.

Even a X6800 is a bottleneck for video cards, hard to imagine that even though it's the best CPU out there.
December 5, 2006 6:20:58 PM

Quote:
What the hell are you talking about?

The 4000+ will be fine with an 8800 GTX. Bottlenecking isn't worth mentioning.

Framerates between a 3800+ and 5000+ are MAXIMUM within 10% if they're using the same videocard. At higher reslutions, we're looking at less than 5%. That's pretty damn close.

Pay attention to those graphs! The videocard is the major bottleneck. All the lowest framerates will be with the slowest videocard.

The 4000+ is still a fine CPU, even for the 8800 GTX.

Agree with you again.

The amount of framerates you gain from a "better" CPU is not worth the pay.

Even a X6800 is a bottleneck for video cards, hard to imagine that even though it's the best CPU out there.
The thought of the X6800 being a bottleneck makes ppl think... I have had people say a 3200+ is a bottleneck for anything over 7600GT... haha
December 5, 2006 6:41:04 PM

Quote:
I have had people say a 3200+ is a bottleneck for anything over 7600GT... haha


*cringe*

Everybody's a hardware expert... wether they know anything or not. :p 

I'll put my X1900 XTX and measly 3400+ against an E6800 and 7900GS/X1950 PRO any day of the week. :) 
December 5, 2006 7:24:32 PM

what games do you play with that system? and what is your average FPS :)  as for the OC you did on your CPU ... it must be really paying off :) 
December 5, 2006 7:38:48 PM

my OC'd 3400+ and X1900 XTX eats Oblivion for breakfast. :D 
December 5, 2006 7:48:13 PM

Cool :) ....
December 5, 2006 7:58:54 PM

Damn, Cleeve threw the smack down!

Just relax. Breathe in, breathe out, breathe in, breathe out.
December 5, 2006 8:51:26 PM

My biggest worry would be the minimum FPS and how it preforms throughout the heaviest times playing a game.
December 5, 2006 9:43:38 PM

hey guys thanks a lot.

Some great advise here. Special consideration to Cleeve though - definitely puts things into perspective! Looks like I'm going to treat myself to an early christmas present.... :D  :o  :lol:  :wink:

So any ideas what brand 8800 GTX model then?...
December 6, 2006 5:47:33 PM

Quote:
Special consideration to Cleeve though


Cleeve's da man. Really. I second the "thank you" post.
!