Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How much will this CPU bottleneck this GPU?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 11, 2007 12:36:25 PM

hey guys, I am new to these forums and I thought I could come here for some advice. I am looking to build a new rig as it is time to upgrade...mostly because my current PC will not run vanguard SOH when it comes out.

My biggest concern is will an AMD Athlon 64 x2 5200+ bottleneck the 8800GTX 768 a GREAT amount? I don't really mind if it is a small amount of performance lost because I am not willing to pay 500+ for a CPU.

For about this price range does anyone have any suggestions? The new CPU I am building is:

AMD Athlon 64 x2 5200+
8800GTX 768
Corsair XMS DDR2 800 4GB
Asus M2N-E Socket AM2 nFornce 570 Ultra MB
630W Raidmax PSU
WD Raptor Drive 150MB

The rest of the gear is irrelevant to post on here...I want to stay under about 2 grand to spend, and this is what I have come up with.

Any suggestions? I am not looking for the best performance ever but I am looking to run vanguard flawlessly. That is my goal.

Anurok

More about : cpu bottleneck gpu

January 11, 2007 12:43:59 PM

:lol: 

There will be no bottleneck. Enjoy your kickass GPU.
January 11, 2007 12:48:24 PM

A C2D class CPU (E6600 and above) would be a better match with the 8800GTX. It's simply a better gaming CPU overall, and overclocks much better also.

But to answer your question, the 5200+ is still plenty fast for the vast majority of games out there (Flight Simulator X excluded) and should not hold back an 8800GTX too much at high resoltions and graphics detail.
Related resources
January 11, 2007 12:51:59 PM

Don't lie to the guy...the 5200+ is more than enough CPU power to run any game (and while Flight Simulator X is very CPU bound, enough to run even that) with settings maxed or nearly maxed at high resolutions thanks to the 8800. The GPU is far more important in most games than the CPU, and the 5200+ falls between the E6400 and E6600 in performance.

edit - FSX runs like crap on many of the highest end systems, too.

edit 2 - you haven't built it yet? While the rest of my post still stands, you can can get more bang for your buck by building a C2D-based system. And the 4GB of RAM might be overkill, but if you want to be REALLY Vista ready...I guess there is nothing wrong with it.
January 11, 2007 1:12:35 PM

To have the best gaming performance, grab a C2D CPU. E6400 is a lot faster for gaming then 5200+. The E6600 costs same as 5200+, but it wipes the floor with the X2 5200+ in every benchmark known to mankind. The greatest difference in performance between 5200+ and E6600 is in gaming.
C2D CPUs are cooler, more energy efficient, and most important much more overclockable.
January 11, 2007 1:58:14 PM

I would also suggest a C2D, but the system looks like it would be fine either way if you prefer AMD. I just ordered myself an Intel Xeon 3040, which I plan to take to 2.8 - 3ghz...cant wait. Also the C2D build will use a little less voltage, not much in your case since you are building AM2, but that is one reason for me building mine, so I can put alil less strain on my PSU for when I drop my DX10 card in there. Good luck and nice build
January 11, 2007 2:17:36 PM

Quote:
Don't lie to the guy...the 5200+ is more than enough CPU power to run any game (and while Flight Simulator X is very CPU bound, enough to run even that) with settings maxed or nearly maxed at high resolutions thanks to the 8800. The GPU is far more important in most games than the CPU, and the 5200+ falls between the E6400 and E6600 in performance.

edit - FSX runs like crap on many of the highest end systems, too.

edit 2 - you haven't built it yet? While the rest of my post still stands, you can can get more bang for your buck by building a C2D-based system. And the 4GB of RAM might be overkill, but if you want to be REALLY Vista ready...I guess there is nothing wrong with it.


Oh man, the AMD would cripple the 8800gtx. I'm running Flght Sim X on a 8800gtx sli system with core 2 extreme and 8888 dominator memory so I do have some actual experience in this.
January 11, 2007 2:22:44 PM

Man that 8800 system must really be crankin out some FPS if the 5200+ would cripple it as you say. Makes me glad that im getting my Xeon system.

Best,

3Ball
January 11, 2007 2:30:21 PM

I just checked Tom's Hardware CPU charts and I was right about the E6400 performance vs. 5200+. The E6400 is almost exactly matched to the 5000+ (there is no 5200+ on the charts). The only benchmarks that the E6400 would really shine above the 5200+ is heavy video encoding. In gaming, the 5200+ would be superior to the E6400. The E6600, however, beats them both.

In the end, though, for the budget you apparently have, the E6600 is the best choice, IMO. It has much more overclocking headroom than the 5200+, uses less power (there are more efficient X2's than the C2Ds at 90nm [lower end X2s] and midrange [65nm X2s], but there is not a 65nm 5200+ yet), and you would be able to upgrade to quad-core in the near future if you wanted to. By no means will the 5200+ system you have selected let you down, but you should know you can get more for your money.
January 11, 2007 2:34:13 PM

I don't have any experience with the flight sim mentiioned but I have to agree with the core 2 duo choice. a E6400 running at 400 mhz fsb with ddr2 800 memory on the gigabyte ds3 motherboard will wipe the floor with the processor you have chosen and provide a little future headroom at a lower total cost. Probably save you several hundred dollars. You can probably hit this on stock cooling but I'd get a aftermarket heatsink just to make sure for $30 or less "zalman" has served me well others would recommend a different brand.
January 11, 2007 3:32:37 PM

Quote:
To have the best gaming performance, grab a C2D CPU. E6400 is a lot faster for gaming then 5200+. The E6600 costs same as 5200+, but it wipes the floor with the X2 5200+ in every benchmark known to mankind. The greatest difference in performance between 5200+ and E6600 is in gaming.
C2D CPUs are cooler, more energy efficient, and most important much more overclockable.


From what I understand though...for the money...the amd would be a better choice simply because nothing can utilize the dual cores yet as far as gaming, let alone a quad core later on. Of course the upgradeability for the pentiums is nice and with the E6600 being faster and cheaper than the AMD that makes it a more effecient choice.

However, I have run my AMD and my Pentium on the same platform (MOBO and CPU on the AMD burned because of electrical issue on the MOBO and bought a P4 instead) and they both ran nearly the same while the AMD was 2GHZ and the P4 is 3.2Ghz with a radeon 9800pro...

So you all truly recommend an E6600 even though you can not utilize it yet? I don't really care for a flight sim x reference simply because I hate those simulators =D Except NFSU...

Oh, and yeah, I want to be vista ready, hence the 4GB of ram
January 11, 2007 4:25:24 PM

Flight Sim X does use dual core does it not? as do some other games and soon all will. Hell Crysis is going to require at least a dual core to my understanding? Dual Core is the way to go for sure, its just a matter of which one. Do not even consider single core as I am a heavy gamer and would never go back because my games run more consistently on my 3800+ X2 @ 2.4ghz than they did on my 3700+ Sandy @ 2.64ghz!

Best,

3Ball
January 11, 2007 5:10:44 PM

Well, the price difference from the 5200+ and the E6600 is about 30 bucks. I do love AMD but if the E6600 is faster for that much more with being able to upgrade to a quad-core (if the MOBO allows it)..does anyone have a recommendation of a good MOBO and E6600 combo for about 400?

thanks~

ANurok
January 11, 2007 5:19:42 PM

well not sure I could recommend something at that price point for a 6600, but for ~$450 the E6600 and Abit AB9 Pro arent a bad combo. I would Say just buy a Xeon 3040 or 3050 with an after market air cooler like Arctic Freezer 7 Pro and the AB9 Pro then OC anywhere from 2.6ghz - 3.2ghz! That is what I suggest. Building a custom computer for games and not OC'ing is very similar to buying a sports car, leaving it stock and then going and racing against other cars that have been ported to something greater than themselves...its basically just not fun. lol...just my 2 cents! take it for what you will...

Best,

3Ball
January 11, 2007 5:29:56 PM

Quote:
well not sure I could recommend something at that price point for a 6600, but for ~$450 the E6600 and Abit AB9 Pro arent a bad combo. I would Say just buy a Xeon 3040 or 3050 with an after market air cooler like Arctic Freezer 7 Pro and the AB9 Pro then OC anywhere from 2.6ghz - 3.2ghz! That is what I suggest. Building a custom computer for games and not OC'ing is very similar to buying a sports car, leaving it stock and then going and racing against other cars that have been ported to something greater than themselves...its basically just not fun. lol...just my 2 cents! take it for what you will...

Best,

3Ball


Heh, I have a modded Scion tC so I know what you mean...

However, is that combo better than the AMD combo for the extra 150 bucks? I mean if it is I do not mind spending the money. The Xeon is not expensive either. That one is cheaper than my AMD that I picked out.

However, I have never overclocked a PC before so I dunno how into that I will be depending on what I get. Hrm this is a hard decision seeing as how I am personally in favor of AMD over Intel but then again I am willing to switch depending on the cost to improvement ratio.
January 11, 2007 5:46:14 PM

In my opinion yes the cost justifies the increase, but if you get the 3050 Xeon and the AB9 Pro and shoot for 3.2ghz (400mhz FSB) and set the divider of you memory to 1:1 then you will have your mem @ 400mhz and should be fine. Read the overclocking guide in the CPU forum, it is a good guide for first timers. You will find that OC'ing is alot easier than it seems. But the cost of the 3050 and the AB9 Pro will be ~$380. I myself just ordered that same Mobo and the the 3040 to replace my current CPU and Mobo in my rig, which I can take to the speed of the 5200+, which would make my current rig and your future one similar. except for the vid card...lol, a general rule of thumb to follow for comparison of the Intel Core arch and the AMD K8 arch is for the 2mb Intels for AMD to be the same it needs 300 - 400mhz and for the 4mb Intels AMD needs 500 - 600mhz to compete. If that helps you see the scale alil better.

Best,

3Ball
January 11, 2007 5:48:59 PM

Quote:
Well, the price difference from the 5200+ and the E6600 is about 30 bucks. I do love AMD but if the E6600 is faster for that much more with being able to upgrade to a quad-core (if the MOBO allows it)..does anyone have a recommendation of a good MOBO and E6600 combo for about 400?

thanks~

ANurok

Core2 Duo E6600, $318
Gigabyte GA965P-DS3, $99
Total, $417
January 11, 2007 5:58:11 PM

Yeah...what about overclocking the 5200+? It will go beyond your 3040 set up but it will not surpass a E6600 over clock. I dunno I am thinking that I will go with the AMD simply because I just like it better as a product. If I need to upgrade later on It will not cost me nearly as much seeing as how I will have the 4GB of ram and the 8800GTX. If I feel I need more than the 5200+, which I dont think will be the case, I will upgrade I suppose...

What do you guys think?

Anurok
January 11, 2007 6:16:22 PM

Quote:
What do you guys think?

1. AMD is not a product.
2. Don't ask for advice if you allready have decided what to buy.
3. AMD Athlon64 X2 5200+ is a good product, but there are better.
Core2 Duo E6600 is faster, has better performance/price ratio, runs cooler, is more energy efficient and it overclocks much more.
There is no AMD CPU that overclocked(on watter, dryice or whatever) can match the performance of an aircooled overclocked E6600 for anything.
January 11, 2007 6:16:34 PM

asus p5b deluxe is good with an e6600, not sure whether thats your price range though.
January 11, 2007 6:20:56 PM

I don't really foresee too much of a bottleneck except at low resolutions. I think you will safely enjoy a framerate which is higher than what your monitor can display for quite a while. Also, there's nothing shabby about a 5200+.

Maximum PC's February issue has an kick-ass $1,500 system that only need an extra gig of RAM and realistic OS pricing. That would take you to $1,700 USD with an 8800 and an e6300.
January 11, 2007 6:27:13 PM

Listen to the guys on this. I had an AMD for 2 years and loved it. But when it comes down to performance and price, you really can't beat Intel at the moment. As long as you have an Intel 965 or Intel 975 chipset you should be fine. Be sure to check on motherboards with the Intel 975X chipsets though. Some do not support Core 2 Duo, nor Core 2 Quad. For me, I buy what performs best at the right price. So don't call me a fanboy of Intel or AMD. I like both, and do not favor one over the other, unless it comes to performance/price :tongue:

Might want to go with 2 gigs to begin with and than go to 4 gigs if you plan on using Windows XP.

My $.02
January 11, 2007 6:28:31 PM

I've been reading these forums for awhile but not responding. I thought I'd step in as the name implies. Check this article out.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/cpu-games2...

Cpu bottlenecking a Gpu is a general statement and won't apply to every scenario. The games you play will also be an important factor.
January 11, 2007 7:05:27 PM

Since Vanguard is an MMO, flawlessly might not happen right away.

But the 5200+ and an 8800GTX should be more than enough. Yes, with a C2D you might see a little better performance, but I don't think it will be much at all.

More than anything, your internet connection will probably be your biggest headache, especially with MMOs. That and the fact that Vanguard is a new MMO, and it probably doesn't have all the kinks worked out of it's server farms until they start doing load testing and such.

But again, your setup is more than enough for most games. MMOs are a whole different breed to expect to run flawlessly, though.
January 11, 2007 7:16:43 PM

Quote:
Cpu bottlenecking a Gpu is a general statement and won't apply to every scenario. The games you play will also be an important factor.


Exactly. Different versions of Direct3D, for example, have different CPU requirements depending on how the game is interacting with the API. Some games are inherently more CPU-bound due to how they have made their 3D engine.
January 11, 2007 7:29:44 PM

I do appreciate all the help and input guys. I will build my computer and tell you all the results :twisted:

Anurok
January 11, 2007 8:28:08 PM

anurok, I totally agree with gOJDO. If you already made up your mind what to buy (AMD X2 5200+), go ahead and buy it but don't ask people what should I buy. Some people on this forum do it in a slightly different way. They say, OK this is what I bought, go ahead and criticize it. That's a completely different ball game.

Now back to your question. I think the 8800 GTX will be a little too powerfull for the 5200+ though, may be in the super-high resolution only, I don't know. Read this Tom's article

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/29/geforce_8800_nee...

To overclockability of the 5200+. It does not have a lot of head room as Intel C2D E6600. I have OC'd the 5200+ to 2.93GHz on the ASUS M2N-SLI Deluxe but no more. My E6600 is running 3.15 GHz easily on the Abit AB9 Pro with a lot of head room left for more.
January 11, 2007 8:35:43 PM

Quote:
hey guys, I am new to these forums and I thought I could come here for some advice. I am looking to build a new rig as it is time to upgrade...mostly because my current PC will not run vanguard SOH when it comes out.

My biggest concern is will an AMD Athlon 64 x2 5200+ bottleneck the 8800GTX 768 a GREAT amount? I don't really mind if it is a small amount of performance lost because I am not willing to pay 500+ for a CPU.

For about this price range does anyone have any suggestions? The new CPU I am building is:

AMD Athlon 64 x2 5200+
8800GTX 768
Corsair XMS DDR2 800 4GB
Asus M2N-E Socket AM2 nFornce 570 Ultra MB
630W Raidmax PSU
WD Raptor Drive 150MB

The rest of the gear is irrelevant to post on here...I want to stay under about 2 grand to spend, and this is what I have come up with.

Any suggestions? I am not looking for the best performance ever but I am looking to run vanguard flawlessly. That is my goal.

Anurok



I would say it depends on the resolution you run at. If you go to 2560x1536, it might but under 1900 you will be CPU bound more and it won't disappoint.
January 11, 2007 8:36:47 PM

Hey Baron, what about the QuadFX for this GPU? :tongue:
January 11, 2007 8:38:07 PM

You get your 5200+ and I will get my 3040, we will OC to the max that we can and then compare our results and benchmarks. $20 says I win!

Best,

3Ball
January 11, 2007 8:39:39 PM

Thx Nomans63!

Best,

3Ball
January 11, 2007 8:47:24 PM

After re-reading the 8800GTX article here on TH and going through all of the posts two or three times I have decided upon the E6600. I did some more research on it and I did find it at a good price of 320 as compared to the AMD at 290.

Thanks again for the advice. I did not even know the E6600 existed =/

I will also be getting a quad core compatible board just in case as well..


Anurok
January 11, 2007 9:01:29 PM

good stuff, and good luck with your build. Remember to read to OC guide if u want to OC and feel weiry about it.

Best,

3Ball
January 11, 2007 9:39:18 PM

Epsilon,

I have heard about Flight Sim X being CPU bound, but, do you have any benchmarks of this? I have visited forums and such, where people have made different claims but, I simply do not trust some random forum where I have no clue as to the intentions of the users.

Also, I know flight sim X is CPU bound at the moment, and that Core 2 might run it faster at 1600X1200, but, I am curious how much of this is the fault of MS? Not trying to take anything away from Core 2 and it's superior performance.... it's really justa question.

So, links please....

wes
January 11, 2007 9:50:38 PM

Quote:
Epsilon,

I have heard about Flight Sim X being CPU bound, but, do you have any benchmarks of this? I have visited forums and such, where people have made different claims but, I simply do not trust some random forum where I have no clue as to the intentions of the users.

Also, I know flight sim X is CPU bound at the moment, and that Core 2 might run it faster at 1600X1200, but, I am curious how much of this is the fault of MS? Not trying to take anything away from Core 2 and it's superior performance.... it's really justa question.

So, links please....

wes


Indeed I do, I will never claim something without having researched it myself. ;) 

http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_093a.html






Make no mistake, FS-X is *the* most CPU bound game to date. Turn the detail levels up and even an X6800 will be brought to its knees.

How much is this the fault of MS? I'd say a lot, since it's not even multithreaded! MS really should have made FS-X multithreaded considering how CPU bottlenecked it is.

'Insane' graphical details are simply unplayable on current hardware, and will likely remain so for many years unless FS-X becomes multithreaded in a future patch or something. Even then, looking at the single digit framerates on 'Insane' indicates that, even if multithreaded, it would take a quad core CPU to make it playable.
January 11, 2007 10:24:54 PM

Well,

Good benchmarks, but, at the same settings it seems the difference might not be noticable between the cpu's. For instance, 1600x1200 high settings, the Fx 62 achieves 27FPS(avg I assume) while the E6700 only gets a higher 5fps higher AVG. I imagine all three cpu's experience drops below what we consider playable performance.

Basically, the higher the settings, the closer the difference. And the lower the settings, the larger the difference. But, when the differences are larger, the FPS are high enough, that 10fps probably won't be seen. Or 84 to 115 probably won't been seen either.

I agree though, this game does require a powerful CPU, but, from the way I interpret these benchmarks, a 2.6 to 2.8ghz AMD cpu should yield close enough performance to the Core 2 counterparts that you won't see the FPS difference in the game in question.

I want to give you credit on being able to find the benchmarks, I looked for benchmarks on this for a while and I was unable to find them. Thanks for the benchmarks, I am going to bookmark that site.

wes
January 11, 2007 10:39:31 PM

Quote:
Well,

Good benchmarks, but, at the same settings it seems the difference might not be noticable between the cpu's. For instance, 1600x1200 high settings, the Fx 62 achieves 27FPS(avg I assume) while the E6700 only gets a higher 5fps higher AVG. I imagine all three cpu's experience drops below what we consider playable performance.

Basically, the higher the settings, the closer the difference. And the lower the settings, the larger the difference. But, when the differences are larger, the FPS are high enough, that 10fps probably won't be seen. Or 84 to 115 probably won't been seen either.

I agree though, this game does require a powerful CPU, but, from the way I interpret these benchmarks, a 2.6 to 2.8ghz AMD cpu should yield close enough performance to the Core 2 counterparts that you won't see the FPS difference in the game in question.

I want to give you credit on being able to find the benchmarks, I looked for benchmarks on this for a while and I was unable to find them. Thanks for the benchmarks, I am going to bookmark that site.

wes


The differences are enough to be noticeable, especially below the 30fps mark. I guarantee you will notice the difference between the FX-62 @ 27fps and X6800 @ 35fps in 'high' settings. Generally, anything below 30fps is very 'stuttery' for most people (not all, everyone has different tolerance levels of course).

As it stands, an X6800 is able to go one notch higher on the details (Ultra High) and obtain a similar framerate to the FX-62 on 'High' detail.

I don't believe the framerate in FS-X fluctuates too much, at least compared to most 3D games. Generally, all flight simulators do is the constant rendering of terrain all the way out to the horizon. Any framerate differences will be gradual. You won't find sudden framerate 'spikes' or 'stutters' due to a sudden influx of enemies and resulting gunfights like you will find in 3D shoot em ups, for example.
January 11, 2007 10:45:23 PM

Do you know of any benchmarks that run this game with an 8800 series card? That is something I have been unable to find. If it is bottlenecked completely at the CPU, the framerate shouldn't increase at all with a faster video card right? So, have you found any with the 8800 yet?

wes

Edit: from what i have read, alot of people find that game playable between 20-30fps. I have not seen the game running, but, I was assuming it might be a slower paced game, which would make the minimum barrier a little lower. Just a thought.
January 11, 2007 10:54:29 PM

Unfortunately, I haven't found anything testing FS-X with an 8800GTX. FS-X was released a few months before the 8800GTX, which may be a reason why it is so difficult to find a comparison using one.

I did find this article from TheINQ (*gasp* ;)  ) who had a first hand gaming session on a QX6700 / 8800GTS, and they had similar findings to the SimHQ article.

http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36643

"There has been several fixes to improve the performance, but seeing the game running in low-20s on a Kentie+8800GTS in 1024, 1280, 1600 and 1920x1200(yep, no resolution scaling) only speaks that Microsoft should really release a Service Pack for the game and significantly increase performance..."
January 12, 2007 1:01:40 AM

Good choice IMO 8)

For motherboards, hmm... I think all Intel 965 chipsets will work as well as all nVidia 600 series. The Intel 975X chipsets are a bit tricky. Some are quad core compatable and others are not. Just ask us here if you have any doubts.

Also note: Intel 975X Chipset support Crossfire. nForce 600 series support SLI. Intel 965 needs modified drivers to run dual graphics (sorry, don't remember if it was SLI or Crossfire).
January 12, 2007 1:17:16 AM

Quote:
Edit: from what i have read, alot of people find that game playable between 20-30fps. I have not seen the game running, but, I was assuming it might be a slower paced game, which would make the minimum barrier a little lower. Just a thought.


Yeah, I assume FS-X does not need as high a framerate as fast reflex games such as FPS and racing games in order to be playable, especially if you're the type that flies at high altitudes, as the ground below will be updating very slowly from your POV.

A ground hugger/daredevil flying at low altitudes would probably find 20 - 30fps slightly disconcerting as the ground terrain tends to 'chug' along instead of rushing past, if you know what I mean. ;) 
January 12, 2007 1:23:03 AM

I think I found a 965 Intel Mobo for about 120ish on newegg...However now that I am running a 8800 I may want to get the Nvidia chipset for possible future SLI. Is the Nvidia as easy to overclock with as the intel board?

I read the reviews on the overclocking of the E6300 with the 965 Intel board (or maybe it was gigabyte?) and it was smooth in the over clocking process
January 12, 2007 1:27:13 AM

SLI is only necessary if you game at max resolutions (1600x1200 and beyond). Otherwise, IMO, it's a waste of money and just adds more power usage to your computer as well as heat.

The P965s are nice though.
January 12, 2007 1:27:45 AM

Quote:
Flight Sim X does use dual core does it not? as do some other games and soon all will. Hell Crysis is going to require at least a dual core to my understanding? Dual Core is the way to go for sure, its just a matter of which one. Do not even consider single core as I am a heavy gamer and would never go back because my games run more consistently on my 3800+ X2 @ 2.4ghz than they did on my 3700+ Sandy @ 2.64ghz!

Best,

3Ball


crysis doesnt require a dualcore, but a dualcore is better.
January 12, 2007 1:30:28 AM

Quote:
Edit: from what i have read, alot of people find that game playable between 20-30fps. I have not seen the game running, but, I was assuming it might be a slower paced game, which would make the minimum barrier a little lower. Just a thought.


Yeah, I assume FS-X does not need as high a framerate as fast reflex games such as FPS and racing games in order to be playable, especially if you're the type that flies at high altitudes, as the ground below will be updating very slowly from your POV.

A ground hugger/daredevil flying at low altitudes would probably find 20 - 30fps slightly disconcerting as the ground terrain tends to 'chug' along instead of rushing past, if you know what I mean. ;) 


yeah the (loopy larry) in f.s.x. is cool but hard.
January 12, 2007 1:49:34 AM

Epsilon,

A quick question for you. In all other CPU benchmarks in games, they generally turn the game settings down all the way to keep it from being CPU bound in any way. So, since at medium settings this game is more than playable, but the higher settings it isn't, wouldn't that mean that the GPU is the culprit.

I don't want anyone in here to flame me, I am not advocating K8 is better than Core 2, I just don't quite understand how the low frame rate at the highest settings means the CPU is the culprit. It would seem to me if you plugged an 8800GTX into this test setup, at every setting the frame rate would increase.

I could be completely off base with my assumptions, which is why I would like a little clarification. Thanks in advance for clearing this up if you can.

wes
January 12, 2007 2:04:27 AM

Quote:
The 5200+ will give you a great gaming experience, but you would save money by going with a GTS and get the same basic quality game play.


i agree i dont think a gtx is worth the price over a gts at this time.
January 12, 2007 2:07:33 AM

Jack,

I am pretty sure we all agree with you that if you are building a new system, as this guy is, his best bet is to go with a Core2 based setup.

That being said, could you explain what it is in flight sims that cause it to be CPU bound? I hav eread many places where people say it is, and I know the data might be consistent with that. But, with flight sim X, when you raise the settings, it takes a big hit. However, at lower eye candy, the top AMD cpu's, and probably all Core 2 based cpu's do fine.

Maybe I am just used to seeing the cpu gaming benchmarks done at lowest settings to take the GPU out of the picture.

I understand that it probably is CPU bound, my question is why....

wes
January 12, 2007 2:10:40 AM

f.s. has always been cpu bound.

even from fs2000 and up.

the reason why its more cpu bound is that it is a simulator
and not really a game.

it calculates realworld flying as opposed to graphics.
!