Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CPU bringing down 8800?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 7, 2007 3:33:49 AM

hey i just got a Evga 8800 gtx and i think that im not getting everything out of it. Everything high on cs, i run the video stress test and get about 86 fps! I have an amd 64 x2 4600, i know it not the best but could this me bringing down the performance so much?
other benchmarks (everything on high)-
3dmark06-5460!!! :( 
battlefield 2-avg-99fps
Half Life 2 lost coast- 164 fps

More about : cpu bringing 8800

May 7, 2007 8:43:11 AM

Why the heck does it matter??

As long as the CPU can give u 60 FPS ur fine.

You want worthless benchmark scores? Buy a Core 2 Quad and throw out ur radiator.
May 7, 2007 9:24:56 AM

Im wondering why mpilchfamiliy didnt asked that one:

What PSU do u use ? ?? ? :lol: 

I had problems with mine 8800 gts and thanks to mpilchfamily who helped me figuring the problem out ;) 
Related resources
May 7, 2007 9:44:27 AM

Quote:
battlefield 2-avg-99fps
Half Life 2 lost coast- 164 fps

These FPS are awesome! :twisted:
why are you unhappy?
3DMark?
Forget it, it's not something that you should worry about!
But as Armanox said, you should tell us your Power Supply spec?
May 7, 2007 10:01:34 AM

what resolution do you play at? low resolutions show cpu bottlenecks the most, as a graphics card like that woould be practically idling at 1024x768
May 7, 2007 12:33:52 PM

Quote:
Dont listen to Intel boy, All Cpus right now will hold back a GTX, especially at higher resolutions. Wait a little longer and go Socket AM2+ with Amd's new Quad series Phenoms. Keep your existing Mb and just add the new processor. Forget C2D its not all that! Also try a new branded Ps with more Amps per rail.


LOL this is my favorite Fanboy of all times :lol: 


I will ask you again soldier since you ignored me the past 20 times in regards to this question.

Tell me which is faster? your 6000+ at 3ghz or a E6400-E6600 at 3ghz? :lol:  :lol:  :lol: Well, the 6000+ would has higher thermals... :lol: 
May 7, 2007 12:56:41 PM

Quote:
Dont listen to Intel boy, All Cpus right now will hold back a GTX, especially at higher resolutions. Wait a little longer and go Socket AM2+ with Amd's new Quad series Phenoms. Keep your existing Mb and just add the new processor. Forget C2D its not all that! Also try a new branded Ps with more Amps per rail.


LOL this is my favorite Fanboy of all times :lol: 


I will ask you again soldier since you ignored me the past 20 times in regards to this question.

Tell me which is faster? your 6000+ at 3ghz or a E6400-E6600 at 3ghz? :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 



no doubt the x2 6000+ is much better than E6400
May 7, 2007 12:56:45 PM

Quote:
All Cpus right now will hold back a GTX, especially at higher resolutions.


LMFAO!!

And the stupidest statement in the world goes toooo.....

AN AMD FANBOY!!

Now what are the chances of that? :roll:
May 7, 2007 1:59:35 PM

Quote:
All Cpus right now will hold back a GTX, especially at higher resolutions.


LMFAO!!

And the stupidest statement in the world goes toooo.....

AN AMD FANBOY!!

Now what are the chances of that? :roll: :lol: 
May 7, 2007 2:37:43 PM

Quote:
Mine is more online with a 6700 so says some benches, so yours is all scrub!


Hmmmm, the AMD 6000+ at 3 GHz is weaker than the X6800 at 2.93 GHz, which in turn is weaker than the E6600 at 3 GHz. Sorry soldier... On the bright side, I hear the X2 6000+ is great in winter when the heating breaks down :lol: 

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=694&model2=430&chart=194
May 7, 2007 2:55:39 PM

Once again... compare apples, people. I'm not defending anyone, but Soldier SEEMS to be arguing STOCK speed benches, not OC'd c2d's. I love when people get into this argument.... always the same with the Intel people..."Yeah, *sniff*, but *sniffle* you didnt OVERCLOCK the cpu like I do!" Well, they dont OC the x2's either when they test them, so what's your point? Compare apples, guys. The STOCK speeds on the c2d's are stock for a reason. The chips just have more headroom and a higher thermal threshold to take the high overclocks. They aren't engineered to work at those higher speeds, because if they were, Intel would have set their clocks there to begin with. The added headroom is a bonus from the design of the chips and the smaller dies.

To all Intel fanboys: comparing an overclocked CPU to a stock one is not a comparison. Comparing overclocking potential of both chips would be, but since only .01% of all computer users overclock their computers, what good would that do for 99.99% of users? NONE

As a side note, before I get flamed for being an AMD fanboy, I bought my rig about a year ago before the c2d's were released. I didnt have a real choice in the matter.
May 7, 2007 3:06:02 PM

Yeah, I bought an AMD 5000+ myself last time, and it works very nicely. I guess AMD will be very successful if they can come up with a processor that costs $200 and beats Intel's $200 processors, without any overclocking on either side. That's where the big money is, not at the high end.

I think it's more than 1 in 10000 computer users who overclock but your point is well taken.

BTW, I read an article recently where Microsoft developers were complaining that Windows crashes a lot because CPUs are overclocked :roll: :lol:  I'try to use that excuse for my own programs...
May 7, 2007 3:19:18 PM

I just ran the stress test on cs running at 1920 x 1200 resolution and everything else max and got 245 fps

specs
e6700 @ 3.66
XFX 8800GTX

So you are right to be a little concerned about getting 89 fps, damn I know I would be, why the hell would anyone be happy with 60fps when they should get well over 200.[/quote]
May 7, 2007 3:55:34 PM

Quote:
I just ran the stress test on cs running at 1920 x 1200 resolution and everything else max and got 245 fps

specs
e6700 @ 3.66
XFX 8800GTX

So you are right to be a little concerned about getting 89 fps, damn I know I would be, why the hell would anyone be happy with 60fps when they should get well over 200.
[/quote]

Because they have an LCD monitor that only shows 60 frames anyway? That's what refresh rate 60 Hz means, and it's pretty frequent these days. Also, I believe most people can't really see a difference between 60 fps and 200 fps, that's the theory anyway.
May 7, 2007 4:32:39 PM

Quote:
Why the heck does it matter??

As long as the CPU can give u 60 FPS ur fine.

You want worthless benchmark scores? Buy a Core 2 Quad and throw out ur radiator.



i think it matters pretty much, its about 45% less what the card should perform..
May 7, 2007 4:39:34 PM

so what do you guys think, should i return it or new power supply?
May 7, 2007 4:41:59 PM

well something is wrong thats for sure.. i dunno how much money u have but u could try a new PSU.. or if u got a friend who has one
May 7, 2007 4:45:04 PM

I don't think a new PSU will solve his low FPS problem.
May 7, 2007 4:53:11 PM

Quote:
Microsoft developers were complaining that Windows crashes a lot because CPUs are overclocked


I know this is off topic, I just found it funny. MS tends to blame everyone but themselves for everything like Balmer blaming piracy in Asia for the slow sales even though they made record profits.

Here is a great PSU and only $125 after MIR
Check this out
May 7, 2007 5:03:29 PM

Quote:
I don't think a new PSU will solve his low FPS problem.


I agree although I don't think he has the best PSU and could benefit from something else I don't think that's the reason. All the FPS look good the only problem is the 3DMark score. 3DMark has CPU tests which combined with the others gives you an overall score. I think it might be these tests that are dragging your overall down but at those frame rates your games are perfectly playable.
May 7, 2007 5:09:52 PM

Quote:
I just ran the stress test on cs running at 1920 x 1200 resolution and everything else max and got 245 fps

specs
e6700 @ 3.66
XFX 8800GTX

So you are right to be a little concerned about getting 89 fps, damn I know I would be, why the hell would anyone be happy with 60fps when they should get well over 200.


Because they have an LCD monitor that only shows 60 frames anyway? That's what refresh rate 60 Hz means, and it's pretty frequent these days. Also, I believe most people can't really see a difference between 60 fps and 200 fps, that's the theory anyway.[/quote]

IN terms of HZ ....what is the maximum for LCD monitors nowadays?
Must suck to have such a high end card and only have 60 HZ refresh rate.
May 7, 2007 5:12:29 PM

Mine gets 75hz.


Did you check and make sure the FPS limiter in CS:S wasn't on?
May 7, 2007 9:44:27 PM

how much ram do you have? Also, like the others have said as long as your fps is higher then your refresh rate it doesnt matter.
May 7, 2007 10:56:17 PM

You don't happen to have all the settings in the nV control panel hard coded to max do you? 16X AA might run a little slow...

Sounds silly, but I've made this mistake myself when I wondered why some stuff ran slower than it should.
Anonymous
May 7, 2007 11:30:17 PM

dude as long as you get 60 framerates your fine. max framerate you can see depends upon your refresh rate of your monitor. like i have lcd which has 75 herts. so if my 8800 gives more framerate then that doesn't matter moniter can't display it.
Anonymous
May 7, 2007 11:58:41 PM

read my post again.
May 8, 2007 12:35:41 AM

Good evening RobsX2 8)
May 8, 2007 12:58:45 AM

:D  just installed beta drivers and ran same cs stress test and got 143 fps- ITS GETTING THERE!

bf2- 140-150 range
May 8, 2007 9:01:41 AM

i get 140 fps in stress test in css on everything on max with a 3500+ and a X850xt on 1280x1050 .. but ur BF2 sounds about right i suppose? i guess its just driver issues then
May 8, 2007 10:28:16 AM

after a few more times on the stress test and playing around with the whole thing i hit a 179 in the stress test

i love how my fps go up when fire starts. :lol: 
May 8, 2007 6:01:24 PM

Quote:
read my post again.


I read your stupid post, maybe you should try reading mine. :roll:


As I stated before while I will agree that anything above 60fps cannot really be detected with the human eye you still cant overlook the fact that if his system should be pushing out 100+fps for a certain game but is only getting around half of that then there is obviously an underlined issue somewhere with his system which should not be ignored.



Once more demanding titles come along that will push his system even harder it would suck to be stuck at 30fps when he could be at 60fps if his system was running properly.

Get it? :roll:

Not being able to see past 60fps is an old and busted theory.

Everyone is different, but many people can see flicker on old CRTs at 60Hz and can tell the difference when you go up to 72.

I know I can tell the difference between 72 and 85Hz.

Don't believe me? Just try it. Hell, I can see fluorescent lights flicker, I'm sure lots of people can.

Try running 3Dmark2001 on a bunch of different machines with a CRT. You will see a difference between how smooth 150fps and 500fps is - even though the monitor cant draw that fast. Human beings are amazing creatures.
May 8, 2007 6:10:53 PM

Quote:
read my post again.


I read your stupid post, maybe you should try reading mine. :roll:


As I stated before while I will agree that anything above 60fps cannot really be detected with the human eye you still cant overlook the fact that if his system should be pushing out 100+fps for a certain game but is only getting around half of that then there is obviously an underlined issue somewhere with his system which should not be ignored.



Once more demanding titles come along that will push his system even harder it would suck to be stuck at 30fps when he could be at 60fps if his system was running properly.

Get it? :roll:

Not being able to see past 60fps is an old and busted theory.

Everyone is different, but many people can see flicker on old CRTs at 60Hz and can tell the difference when you go up to 72.

I know I can tell the difference between 72 and 85Hz.

Don't believe me? Just try it. Hell, I can see fluorescent lights flicker, I'm sure lots of people can.

Try running 3Dmark2001 on a bunch of different machines with a CRT. You will see a difference between how smooth 150fps and 500fps is - even though the monitor cant draw that fast. Human beings are amazing creatures.

Off topic I know, but I had to chime in. SLINROB is absolutely right. Flourescent light=instant migraine for me. As do refresh rates below 85Hz.
May 8, 2007 6:29:07 PM

That was meh posting :) 

I get migraines from the same thing too. Why I piped up as well :D 
May 8, 2007 6:30:40 PM

My bad :lol:  Ill blame it on poor refresh rates at work.
May 8, 2007 6:40:03 PM

Quote:
My bad :lol:  Ill blame it on poor refresh rates at work.


LOL. You must be superhuman :lol: 
May 8, 2007 7:53:18 PM

Quote:
Tell me which is faster? your 6000+ at 3ghz or a E6400-E6600 at 3ghz?


Dude your way off base. How can you compare a stock clock processor with one thats waaay overclocked? You cant fanboy!

Whats faster, a 302ci mustang, or a 302ci mustang with NOS? Right....
now your getting it...

??

Why can't you compare the two?

I bought an Opty 170 (2.0GHz) for $240 CAN. Same price as a C2D 6400 at the time. (2.13GHz)

I also have an X2 4400+ (2.2GHz)

At stock clocks, the 6400 is much faster than both my chips.

I run my Opty at 2.9GHz. The same 6400 at 2.998GHz destroys it again.

Same price, same speeds.

Sure prices have changed since, but in the end I'm sure the point was at the same clock, the C2D is faster. Hell I'd prefer a 6600 at stock than my Opty at 2.9.

The only reason I bought an Opty is I had a spare 939 nForce 4 SLI board and 3gigs of DDR 400 lying around collecting dust.
May 8, 2007 10:23:18 PM

Quote:
Tell me which is faster? your 6000+ at 3ghz or a E6400-E6600 at 3ghz?


Dude your way off base. How can you compare a stock clock processor with one thats waaay overclocked? You cant fanboy!

Whats faster, a 302ci mustang, or a 302ci mustang with NOS? Right....
now your getting it...

??

Why can't you compare the two?

I bought an Opty 170 (2.0GHz) for $240 CAN. Same price as a C2D 6400 at the time. (2.13GHz)

I also have an X2 4400+ (2.2GHz)

At stock clocks, the 6400 is much faster than both my chips.

I run my Opty at 2.9GHz. The same 6400 at 2.998GHz destroys it again.

Same price, same speeds.

Sure prices have changed since, but in the end I'm sure the point was at the same clock, the C2D is faster. Hell I'd prefer a 6600 at stock than my Opty at 2.9.

The only reason I bought an Opty is I had a spare 939 nForce 4 SLI board and 3gigs of DDR 400 lying around collecting dust.


LOL MrsBytch owned again as usual :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 


Thought the analogy was poor too. The X2 and C2D are not the same motor.

Better analogy would be:

AMD X2 = 4.6L Ford 2 Valve Engine (2004 Mustang Data)
260HP @ 5250 RPM
302 (lb-ft) @ 4000 RPM

C2D = 5.7L Chev OHV Engine (2002 Camaro Data)
325 HP @ 5200 RPM
350 (lb-ft) @ 4000 RPM

Same engine speeds, different power :wink:
!