Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CPU bottlenecking 8800GT?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 16, 2007 6:16:49 AM

Hey, just bought a BFG 8800gt oc2 and i was wondering if my cpu is causing a bottleneck in my system. I used fraps to count fps, and what i found was that in games such as arma and empire at war (havent tested the others i have) changing the screen resolution had little impact on my average fps. I have a Intel 2160, is that the most likely source? Here are my specs...

BFG nforce 650i Ultra
BFG Geforce 8800GT OC2
Intel 2160 1.8ghz (oc to 3.0)
3 gigs of RAM
Rosewill 550W psu
Western Digital 160Gb HD @ 7200rpm

Thanks
December 16, 2007 7:08:00 AM

well a faster cpu like an E6750 definitely does increase the performance.... although if you're oc'ing your E2160 to 3 gigs you should get good frame rates.... i suggest you test bigger games like COD4 and Crysis....you'll get your answer eventually.
December 16, 2007 7:25:35 AM

A 3GHz Core 2 Duo is the sweat spot for any of the 8800's.
Related resources
December 16, 2007 7:28:35 AM

Ye i am planning on an upgrade, but only if it will allow the 8800gt to perform to its potential. Is a lack of fps difference when changing resolution generally a cpu issue? Also i had a closer look at empire at war and found that in cinematic mode my fps was higher than when i was using the command interface. What do u guys think? Also mine is OC to 3 GHz on just a dual core, not core 2 duo. I think the e2160 is just a step above a Pentium 4, but i could be wrong
December 16, 2007 7:47:43 AM

might as well overlcock the crap out of that cpu and then buy another not a person in the wold will buy that...so just sell them a burnt out one...woord
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2007 8:01:34 AM

ryanthesav said:
might as well overlcock the crap out of that cpu and then buy another not a person in the wold will buy that...so just sell them a burnt out one...woord

I'd buy it if it was fully functional and for a good price.
December 16, 2007 8:25:23 AM

espguitarguy232 said:
Ye i am planning on an upgrade, but only if it will allow the 8800gt to perform to its potential. Is a lack of fps difference when changing resolution generally a cpu issue? Also i had a closer look at empire at war and found that in cinematic mode my fps was higher than when i was using the command interface. What do u guys think? Also mine is OC to 3 GHz on just a dual core, not core 2 duo. I think the e2160 is just a step above a Pentium 4, but i could be wrong


Pentium D processors are just a step above Pentium 4s.

The dual core pentium processors (e2xxx series) use the core architecture. It's just an Allendale instead of a Conroe. Much less cache, and slightly less performance. I'd say your processor overclocked to 3 Ghz is about the same as a regular Core 2 Duo at like 2.8

So your processor wouldn't really be holding you back that much, although it might a little as the 8800gt is a pretty powerful card.
December 16, 2007 8:39:16 AM

All i am afraid of is that if i try to run the newest games my CPU will limit the GPU considering how fast a 8800gt is. I have the most problems with Arma, but from what other people are saying even with higher end comps. they have trouble running it. I used www.systemrequirementslab.com to check out how my stuff would run crysis and COD4, in both cases the CPU was the one that fell behind the recommended setup. This site any accurate?
December 16, 2007 11:33:10 AM

That cpu wont be much of a bottleneck at all. IF at all. Your resolution is more dependant upon your cpu being a bottleneck than anything , other than your card. The higher the resolution, the greater the need for the gpu to fill a larger or denser screen, thus putting a greater demand on the gpu to reproduce all those textures, while a lessor resolution will cause a greater strain on your cpu, which while having less information to reproduce by the gpu, all the instructions are speeded up do to the lack of them with using a smaller res. The cpu then has to direct all this at a much higher rate, just like the lower the res, the higher the fps. As for sysreqlabs, theyre ok to use, if you dont mind being scanned. If youre running higher than 12x10 res, youll be ok, and even so, at 3GHZ, you wont see much if any bottlenecking. Even a far less cpu setup wouldnt show much of a bottleneck, as I always say, the single most important thing a gamer can do is to buy the best card he/she can afford when it comes to gaming, because a card will have the greatest impact, and you have a great card, so I wouldnt worry about a bottleneck from your cpu, as I dont think youll see much of one from it, crysis or no. The only game that REALLY requires a great cpu is flight sim
December 16, 2007 1:37:37 PM

mihirkula said:
well a faster cpu like an E6750 definitely does increase the performance.... although if you're oc'ing your E2160 to 3 gigs you should get good frame rates.... i suggest you test bigger games like COD4 and Crysis....you'll get your answer eventually.


E2160 at 3.0 Ghz > E6750 at 2.66 Ghz
December 16, 2007 2:56:30 PM

dude ur fine. a OC 2160e is amazing.

I have a single core AMD 3500+ !!! and a 8800GT!!! im only getting like....50% performance if that....I do plan on my upgrades soon tho...
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2007 3:18:13 PM

qmalik said:
dude ur fine. a OC 2160e is amazing.

I have a single core AMD 3500+ !!! and a 8800GT!!! im only getting like....50% performance if that....I do plan on my upgrades soon tho...


Dude, don't think you are in that bad of shape. Your AMD 3500+ may becoming a little dated, but it certainly is not bottlenecking your 8800GT by 50%.
10%-15% would be much more like it. And, with a little overclocking, you could to could run any single-threaded game right along with rest of the "big-dogs".
Now if you are talking about Cyrsis, that is another matter all together and nobody is running at high settings, high resolution with blistering speed....no matter what you have.
December 16, 2007 4:41:08 PM

Quote:
Why would you upgrade a brand new processor? At 3ghz you should have no problem hanging with the best of them. Theres no bottleneck if your running at 3ghz. High resolution fps has more to do with gpu horsepower and gpu memory. The higher the resolution, the more buffer memory you need. I only run at 1280x1024 so I picked up the 256mb 8800GT, and its smoking fast.
The 2160 is no C2D, but its certainly no P4. Its just a bit slower than a C2D due to the lower fsb and the lower cache.



The slower cache and fsb does concern me with higher end games, but it sounds like i should wait for somethin like the quad cores to come down in price.
December 16, 2007 7:50:29 PM

All of this talk of the CPU so called 'bottleneck' is a big myth. Most of us (people who post/read in the forums) are running our games at or above 12X10. The CPU almost is not a factor when it comes to higher resolutions. Case in point, my bro is running COD 4 with a Athlon 3200, he is still getting 60FPS, because his graphics card can handle it. Same here I ran a Athlon 3000 for years before recently upgrading to an X2, and I am still using a 939 mobo.
December 17, 2007 2:04:45 AM

I also found that my E6600 @ 2.4 GHz was bottlenecking my 8800GTX OC @ 651MHz core, 1525MHz Shader and 2006MHZ Memory. But when I overclock my processer to 3GHz beon that point I saw no more increase in performance. My OC'ed 8800GTX didn't show any performance gain with my E6600 @ 2.4GHz, but at 3GHz is where my card came to life with 15 extra FPS on Crysis plus a much higher average FPS.
December 17, 2007 4:37:27 AM

systemlord said:
I also found that my E6600 @ 2.4 GHz was bottlenecking my 8800GTX OC @ 651MHz core, 1525MHz Shader and 2006MHZ Memory. But when I overclock my processer to 3GHz beon that point I saw no more increase in performance. My OC'ed 8800GTX didn't show any performance gain with my E6600 @ 2.4GHz, but at 3GHz is where my card came to life with 15 extra FPS on Crysis plus a much higher average FPS.


That makes sense to me that u would see a performance gain. The thing i have to deal with is if i get a 1333 FSB CPU i have to update my BFG 650i ultra mobo's BIOS to P03 (with current bios only supporting 1066), which I am not sure how to do. But having the ability to get 1333 would be nice
December 17, 2007 7:52:44 AM

espguitarguy232 said:
That makes sense to me that u would see a performance gain. The thing i have to deal with is if i get a 1333 FSB CPU i have to update my BFG 650i ultra mobo's BIOS to P03 (with current bios only supporting 1066), which I am not sure how to do. But having the ability to get 1333 would be nice


In my last two computers I haven't updated the Bios not once, if it performs well with my hardware with no hick-ups I leave it be. You will only see a 3% difference between the 1066, 1333 MHz FSB processers. The 1333MHz FSB processers do OC better than the old B2 stepping, but if your not interested in overclocking then you don't need a 1333MHz FSB processer.

Heres my benchies, have a look at the minumum/average FPS. Its not just about the extra FPS its the fact that the whole game runs much smoother when you pan left to right. Updating my mobo's Bios is as simple as plugging in a USB flash drive, I don't know how your mobo updates its Bios. Updating Bios's isn't one of my things I'm good at because I have never needed to update the Bios.


By systemlord at 2007-12-07


By systemlord at 2007-12-11
December 17, 2007 3:40:38 PM

What game are you using for those FPS readings? The CPU's I am considering are E6600, E6750, and E6850. The last 2 being at 1333, which is why I would need the bios update. I have some experience overclocking, but it depends what chip i get as far as how much overclocking i will do
December 17, 2007 7:54:22 PM

espguitarguy232 said:
What game are you using for those FPS readings? The CPU's I am considering are E6600, E6750, and E6850. The last 2 being at 1333, which is why I would need the bios update. I have some experience overclocking, but it depends what chip i get as far as how much overclocking i will do


In the Crysis Bin32 folder the GPU and a CPU benchmark that the Crytek's Dev. was kind to include, its in the demo as well. The E6750 and E6850 are going to overclock better than a E6600, I couldn't believe the other day at NewEgg I saw the E6600 going for $234.99 while the E6750 is going for $189.99 and the E6850 for $279.99. More people are buying the E6750 and overclocking it, the difference between the E6750 and the E6850 is 400MHz which you can very easy OC.

What type of cooling are you considering air or water cooling? If air cooling I recommend the Tuniq Tower 120. It will fit most standard ATX cases just fine.

Tuniq Tower : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835154001&Tpk=tuniq%2btower%2b120




By systemlord at 2007-11-13



By systemlord at 2007-11-13

December 17, 2007 8:00:23 PM

that beast is not better then the ultra-120
December 17, 2007 8:13:51 PM

dragonsprayer said:
that beast is not better then the ultra-120


The ultra 120 has problems with machine marks on the base and doesn't even come with a fan, and with all the base problems that you can read at NewEgg and all the reviews. The reviews clearly show which one is better. So if you want round swirl marks on the base get the Ultra 120, because I had one and not only was it marked up badly, but the base was slanted.

Tuniq Tower 120 reviews : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835154001&Tpk=tuniq%2btower%2b120

Ultra 120 Extreme reviews : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835109140


December 17, 2007 8:54:58 PM

I actually already have a aftermarket cooling fan, the stock cooler never made it out of the box. It is a ARCTIC COOLING Freezer 7 Pro 92mm. It keeps my E2160 @ 27C when the fan is at 73% idle, in game it doesnt go past 35C. Regardless I have to call BFG and have them walk me through this bios update, which will be a hassle. I might as well get a 1333 fsb chip because id rather get the best i can get for under 300 so i dont have to do this again anytime soon
December 17, 2007 9:13:12 PM

I have to ask a bit of a stupidly obvious question.

It's not staying on the same FPS because you have vertical sync on, and you're constantly getting 60fps is it?

Sorry if that just insults your intelligence. I just thought it is a bit odd that the FPS doesn't change at least somewhat between resolutions, even if the CPU is bottle necking.

December 17, 2007 9:27:26 PM

pernicious said:
I have to ask a bit of a stupidly obvious question.

It's not staying on the same FPS because you have vertical sync on, and you're constantly getting 60fps is it?

Sorry if that just insults your intelligence. I just thought it is a bit odd that the FPS doesn't change at least somewhat between resolutions, even if the CPU is bottle necking.



I'm sorry but I don't understand your question.
a b à CPUs
December 17, 2007 10:10:47 PM

Translation: "Vertical sync is not capping your framerate is it?"
December 17, 2007 10:31:37 PM

No i have it forced off in Ntune. I play empire at war and arma at 1680x1060 and when i put it down to 1280x960 there is a very small difference, maybe 5 fps at most, between the 2 resolutions. I have ddr2 800 ram, could it be the brand im using? I have 2 1G sticks of OCZ vista upgrade(although i use xp) and 2 512mb sticks of kingston valueram for a total of 3G of ram (but xp is only showing 2.75 with no dead sticks or ports, weird).
December 17, 2007 11:30:36 PM

randomizer said:
Translation: "Vertical sync is not capping your framerate is it?"


More than you know! :wahoo:  In Crysis when I'm running at 1280x1024 @ 75Hz refresh rate with Vsync on I am capped = to my refresh rate, meaning I won't see anymore than 75 FPS. With Vsync off I see my FPS go as high as 25+ more than I would get with it on, but then I have to deal with image tearing. Yes Crysis runs a lot smoother with Vsync off but I can't stand the image tearing.

I can't wait till Nvidia starts to enable tripple buffering for Direct 3D games instead of only enabling it for open GL games like Doom3, Quake War and Prey. I would love it if I could find a good 20" monitor that has a max refresh rate of 85Hz or more. I know 60 is all we need but having a higher refresh rate makes the game look and feel smoother.
a b à CPUs
December 18, 2007 3:12:41 AM

The only reason i could think of for you to get a new cpu would be to overlock it to as high as it will go. With your already overclocked cpu at 3ghz that aint bad at all. A 6550 or 6750 would perform a tad lower then your current set up, but those will also overclock higher then 3ghz. I dont know how much if any it will help in getting your fps up though.
December 18, 2007 5:22:58 AM

So the higher cache and fsb will have no effect? I am most interested by a E6850, which is already at 3ghz, probably could get more out of that too
December 18, 2007 5:55:27 AM

espguitarguy232 said:
So the higher cache and fsb will have no effect? I am most interested by a E6850, which is already at 3ghz, probably could get more out of that too


What you want is 3.6GHz or maybe even 4GHz, don't yeah?
December 18, 2007 7:26:28 AM

Yes the more the better, which i dont think i can get out of my current CPU, well at least stable.
December 18, 2007 8:09:18 AM

espguitarguy232 said:
Yes the more the better, which i dont think i can get out of my current CPU, well at least stable.


If I really wanted to I could run my E6600 @ 3.7GHz, but would required at least 1.55 "Actual Vcore" and not what you set it to in Bios. This heats up the mobo and processer, I just recovered from a dead mobo and now I have my new one. I don't want to screw this one up either, sort of like a wake-up call. If I had water cooling then yes I would because with water cooling you can run a 1.6Vcore safely and still get great cooling.

As far as running high temps plus a high 1.55 Vcore will kill this mobo fast. The smart way to do it with air cooling is no more than 1.45 Vcore and maybe 1.50.
December 18, 2007 8:27:26 AM

Ye i would rather not fry my board or cpu, soon i can pretty much afford a new processor without the buyer's remorse, but I can do without things burning out
December 18, 2007 10:50:02 AM

These days its the CPU that becomes the bottleneck because newer graphics cards come out more often than a CPU. Graphics cards improve in performance by a much larger margin than processers do.
a b à CPUs
December 18, 2007 11:15:27 PM

Except in crysis, where even 3-way SLI performs like poop.
December 18, 2007 11:39:25 PM

Did some more tests, arma has a 1-2 average fps difference between 1280x960 and 1680x1050 resolutions. This has to be from the AI and other processes slowing the CPU down, therefore a bottleneck
December 19, 2007 1:14:22 AM

systemlord said:
A 3GHz Core 2 Duo is the sweat spot for any of the 8800's.


Yes it is indeed. I have it coupled with my C2D E6850 which is OC'd from 3.0gHz to 3.6gHz (Air) and it works great !
:D  :bounce:  :D 
December 19, 2007 6:02:20 AM

randomizer said:
Except in crysis, where even 3-way SLI performs like poop.


This is because of a driver issue and that Crytek needs to better optimise the coding of the game. The new patch is supposed to improve single graphics card performance also.
December 20, 2007 9:02:06 PM

Ok so what about a E6850 vs. a Q6600. They are both about the same price on newegg. Which one will i get more out of my gpu/games?
December 21, 2007 2:23:11 AM

espguitarguy232 said:
Ok so what about a E6850 vs. a Q6600. They are both about the same price on newegg. Which one will i get more out of my gpu/games?


Well you can OC the Q6600 to 3GHz to match the stock clock of the E6850, but programs and almost all games only still use two cores at best. The E6850 will have the ability to OC past the Q6600, maybe 4GHz for the E6850. If I were to buy either one I would go with the E6850 becase by the time Quads are using all four cores it will be time to upgrade already. Thats my take on it.
!