Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Socket 939 blues..or..How bioshock is hurting me...

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 3, 2007 10:10:44 PM

I am currently gaming with an s939 4000+@2.7ghz on an Asus A8N-SLi, 2gb ocz, 2x 7600GT @600/800 and a 75gb raptor..

BioShock hurts my eyes and makes me nauseous because of frame lag. All settings OFF at native resolution(1680x1050 on a 22" 5ms). This setup can rock 2142, but BioShock literally gives me a headache. People in another post seem to think the rig is fine, just upgrade the vidcard. Would an 8800GTS 320mb help me out, or is it that s939 is too old for this game? Is a 8800gts 640mb really that much better than a 320?
__________________
Asus A8N-SLi | AMD San Diego 4000+ | 2gb OCZ Plat. ddr400 |
2x eVGA 7600GT | 500gb WD Caviar | 75gb WD Raptor | X-Fi Xtreme Gamer
September 3, 2007 10:25:52 PM

You're running a single core CPU and from my experience Bioshock benefits from being able to use two cores.
September 3, 2007 10:56:32 PM

What does it play like if you drop the resolution a tad? Might be able to get an idea if it is the graphics or cpu that is the bottleneck.

Karl
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
September 3, 2007 11:18:04 PM

womble said:
What does it play like if you drop the resolution a tad? Might be able to get an idea if it is the graphics or cpu that is the bottleneck.

Karl


I'm playing at native res(1680x1050) with everything off.

I've been looking at the 4200x2. Looks like I'm gonna have to drop around $400 now for vid and proc combo, and wait to upgrade complete rig when ddr3 is out
September 3, 2007 11:34:53 PM

I was just suggesting lowering the resolution to see if you could get an idea where the choking is happening. If you drop the resolution down to 1024x768 and it is still sluggish it would suggest that the cpu is bottlenecking - if it suddenly flies...well I dare say there is a bit of a balancing act. Nice to prioritise the update for max effect.

It might be worth looking at the VGA charts here. There are a bunch of benchmarks at different resolutions including sli numbers, might give you an idea.

Karl
September 3, 2007 11:40:35 PM

womble said:
I was just suggesting lowering the resolution to see if you could get an idea where the choking is happening. If you drop the resolution down to 1024x768 and it is still sluggish it would suggest that the cpu is bottlenecking - if it suddenly flies...well I dare say there is a bit of a balancing act. Nice to prioritise the update for max effect.


I have dropped it to 800x600 and it plays somewhat better but still hurts my eyes.
September 4, 2007 12:00:13 AM

Looks like it's time to get yourself a dual core ;) 

I tried running the demo at work :whistle:  on a dell precision 550. The thing had a quadro in it, but the game was plodding along at around 23fps :??:  (had fraps on :) ). I needn't mention the lack of sound, totally different thread for that.
September 4, 2007 12:00:35 AM

I have same CPU but at stock 2.4Ghz and similar/lil better 7800gtx. I just ordered 8800GTS 640Mb hoping it will help with new games. I didnt try Bioshock yet nor other new releases. Im gonna after i install new card in few days. Im sure single core sucks for us now but more Video memory in new card should help too.
Think about that resolution in LCD. I run CRT so i hope my lag will be less visible.
September 4, 2007 12:39:08 AM

If you upgrade your computer, you will have to re-activate BioShock and lose one of your installs. :( 
September 4, 2007 1:45:58 AM

Go for upgrading your video card. I have a 939 4000+, 2 gigs ram, and an 8800gtx running on XP Pro and I can play Bioshock perfectly at max settings.
September 4, 2007 2:16:21 AM

Just grab a 640, if you bump into a good dual core deal, pref. a S939 Opteron, grab it as they are getting rare. 320 won't have enough texture memory in the near future, I play Oblivion on max with 50% grass and it is great. Wouldn't touch anything less than 512MB anymore, especially not to save 80$
September 4, 2007 2:36:09 AM

While it probably is not your CPU bottlenecking you (esp at the res you were running it at) I would say that you should go ahead and grab a 4200X2 anyway because it will extend the usable life of that computer by at least another year and they're $ cheap $. Using a stock heat sink with the X2 is fine so don't worry about an after market heat sink unless you want to OC heavily. That way you can get a nice vid card and really get some use out of it and you won't have to build a new system when DDR3 comes out for AMD and instead it will be at your option. There is a sizable difference between dual and single core even though you have a fast single. (my friend has that CPU and its a screamer).
September 4, 2007 7:33:37 AM

i personally dont see any advantage that the 640mb has over the 320mb variaties of the 8800gts.even up to 1600*1200 the cards are neck and neck.the 320 actually beats the 640 in quite few games at 1280*1050.

one of the games the 320 beats the 640 in is bioshock!!check out these bench marks.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6177688/p-6.html

the 320 beats the 640 by 7-8 fps at 1600*1200 and also at 2048*1536.

there are a very few amount of games which the 320 does worse than the 640.also,it is not cut out for dx10 gaming,but dx9 is gona be around for a long time still,so i say get the 320 and use the cash saved for buying a proper dx10 card next year
September 4, 2007 5:51:05 PM

goldenboy said:
i personally dont see any advantage that the 640mb has over the 320mb variaties of the 8800gts.


The 640 will show huge gains in games that have a 512mb texture set, when that ultra-high quality texture option is selected. The 320MB card will have to swap out textures and that'll cause alot of lag in that scenario.

The 640 is also a better selection for larger monitors, say 1900x1200 resolutions and whatnot.

Still, the 320MB version is a great card...
!