Will a athlon 4600 bottle neck a 8800GT video card?
Like Evilonigiri said, it really depends on which resolution, and what game you're running. The rule of thumb is, the lower the resolution, the heavier it taxes on CPU. So if you run most of your game at 1280 x 1024 or above, your CPU will not be the bottleneck. However, if you run intensive graphic games (like Crysis) at 1024 x 768, then chances are your CPU will be a huge bottleneck.
Like Evilonigiri said, it really depends on which resolution, and what game you're running. The rule of thumb is, the lower the resolution, the heavier it taxes on CPU. So if you run most of your game at 1280 x 1024 or above, your CPU will not be the bottleneck. However, if you run intensive graphic games (like Crysis) at 1024 x 768, then chances are your CPU will be a huge bottleneck.
That's simply not true for all games. I game at 1680 x 1050 on a 8800GTS 320 (overclocked to 660C/1060M or ~8800GTX levels) and comparing my E4400 @ stock 2GHz (which is already equal to or faster than an X2 4600+) and 3.33GHz, certain games definitely showed higher performance. Although average framerates increase, it's the higher minimum framerates which are most noticeable and most important.
For example, in Need For Speed: Most Wanted @ 1680x1050 max details, at 2GHz I get around 30fps minimum, 55fps average. At 3.33GHz, this increases to 40fps minimum, 70fps average. Numbers aside, subjectively, the game certainly feels smoother at 3.33GHz, although to be fair even at 2GHz it is very playable, but a little 'laggy' when the min framerate drops down to around 30fps in tougher sections of the maps.
That's simply not true for all games. I game at 1680 x 1050 on a 8800GTS 320 (overclocked to 660C/1060M or ~8800GTX levels) and comparing my E4400 @ stock 2GHz (which is already equal to or faster than an X2 4600+) and 3.33GHz, certain games definitely showed higher performance. Although average framerates increase, it's the higher minimum framerates which are most noticeable and most important.
For example, in Need For Speed: Most Wanted @ 1680x1050 max details, at 2GHz I get around 30fps minimum, 55fps average. At 3.33GHz, this increases to 40fps minimum, 70fps average. Numbers aside, subjectively, the game certainly feels smoother at 3.33GHz, although to be fair even at 2GHz it is very playable, but a little 'laggy' when the min framerate drops down to around 30fps in tougher sections of the maps.
I guess it really depends on the game. Thanks for the correction.
A single core processor will not only bottleneck most games but the graphics card as well. Supreme Commander benifits from quad cores greatly over dual cores. Very few games are optimised for single cores now, dual cores is a must for any gaming system. With prices where they are now for Intel/AMD you could get a great deal.
---------------
Intel C2D E6600 @ 3.2GHz * Asus P5E * 2x1 GB Crucial Ballistix Tracers * Raptor X * EVGA Geforce 8800GTX 768MB 651MHz/1525MHz/2100MHz * X-FI Fatal1ty Pro * Enermax Infiniti 720W PSU * Creative THX5.1 * Tuniq Tower 120
Silverstone TJ09 * Windows XP
i was reading, and just wanted to thank the above posters for helping me decide if it really is worthwhile upgrading from my current s939 X2 3800+ @ 2.4, 2.5GB PC3200, thats also currently paired with an 8800GT 512... i had the dilemma of feeling like the 8800 wasnt much faster at all than my previous 7800GT, nomatter the resolution or details, drivers, or OS version... especially on games within the last few years... i only suspected the cpu might be handicapping games, after viewing ingame 3Dmark06 framerates... particularly the min fps, from ~10fps, increased to almost 20, in return to proxycon, with only so much as a slightly higher cpu OC (the other 06 benches were helped as well, but thats the one i remember most). probably also explains why OCing the gpu offered literally no improvement in performance, though thats not so suprising, given the above.
so looks like ill finally be making the move to my first intel cpu after not too much longer.. gonna have to learn how to OC one too... lol
again, thanks everyone
Message edited by choirbass on 02-16-2008 at 06:10:57 AM
My overclocked 8800GTX doesn't show up (extra performance) until my processor (E6600) is past 3GHz. I settled for 3.2GHz for the final OC, if I SLI two 8800GTx's in the next six months I have to OC to 3.6GHz which my processor can do.
---------------
Intel C2D E6600 @ 3.2GHz * Asus P5E * 2x1 GB Crucial Ballistix Tracers * Raptor X * EVGA Geforce 8800GTX 768MB 651MHz/1525MHz/2100MHz * X-FI Fatal1ty Pro * Enermax Infiniti 720W PSU * Creative THX5.1 * Tuniq Tower 120
Silverstone TJ09 * Windows XP
I'll be playing The Witcher and LOTR Online at 1024 x 768 for a month with an X2 4600+ and a 3870x2. That will probably be a bottleneck. Next month, I'll be getting at least a 20" LCD.
What I recall reading in one of the 3870x2 reviews is that the test system, with a Q6600 was still bottlenecked at 1680 x 1050! That was hard to believe. Is the only way to avoid a bottleneck to get a 24" LCD at 1920 x 1200? If a quad core bottlenecks at most standard resolutions today, then most gamers are hampered with low minimum framerates.
Since my Antec 550 didn't have a 6+2 PCIe connector, I ordered an Antec Neo 650 from Newegg, along with an Antec Nine Hundred case (my old case barely had room when I tried the factory overclocked card with just the 6 pin PCIe.) Can't wait for Tuesday!
I might try overclocking the CPU, but it's a 65 watt Windsor on a 690V motherboard, so I don't know what headroom it has. What I've been waiting for is a higher clocked B3 Phenom and a 780G board with power saving.
What I recall reading in one of the 3870x2 reviews is that the test system, with a Q6600 was still bottlenecked at 1680 x 1050! That was hard to believe. Is the only way to avoid a bottleneck to get a 24" LCD at 1920 x 1200? If a quad core bottlenecks at most standard resolutions today, then most gamers are hampered with low minimum framerates.
Not really, it's not like your framerates are going to increase as you up the resolution to remove the bottleneck. It just means that your maximum possible framerate is capped at whatever the CPU will allow, meaning if you run at 800x600 your framerates will be roughly the same as at 1680x1050. Now if you go to say 2560x1600 you will probably remove that bottleneck, but that doesn't mean your framerates are suddenly going to go up, it means they are going to go DOWN because your card is feeling the pressure. Removing bottlnecks by overclocking or getting faster hardware simply shifts the bottleneck somewhere else, and the result is always the same, your maximum possible framerate is capped (which will always happen since your framerates can't be infinite). Obviously where that cap lies depends on the game. If you play Quake 3 you can expect it to be quite high, but you will be extremely (no Phenom-enally ) CPU bottlenecked, so only by getting a faster CPU or overclocking will shift that bottleneck.
I'll be playing The Witcher and LOTR Online at 1024 x 768 for a month with an X2 4600+ and a 3870x2. That will probably be a bottleneck. Next month, I'll be getting at least a 20" LCD.
What I recall reading in one of the 3870x2 reviews is that the test system, with a Q6600 was still bottlenecked at 1680 x 1050! That was hard to believe. Is the only way to avoid a bottleneck to get a 24" LCD at 1920 x 1200? If a quad core bottlenecks at most standard resolutions today, then most gamers are hampered with low minimum framerates.
Since my Antec 550 didn't have a 6+2 PCIe connector, I ordered an Antec Neo 650 from Newegg, along with an Antec Nine Hundred case (my old case barely had room when I tried the factory overclocked card with just the 6 pin PCIe.) Can't wait for Tuesday!
I might try overclocking the CPU, but it's a 65 watt Windsor on a 690V motherboard, so I don't know what headroom it has. What I've been waiting for is a higher clocked B3 Phenom and a 780G board with power saving.
Yeah, you'll definitely be bottlenecked at that resolution, in fact it probably wouldn't be much faster than a single 3870 at all. I know you're anti Intel but you really do need a faster CPU to make the most of your beasty GPU(s), whether by means of overclocking or getting a higher clocked X2.
1680x1050 is not that high a resolution, it's the most common widescreen resolution today. I game at this resolution, and I have provided an example of where my current CPU (E4400) can bottleneck my 8800GTS if left at stock speeds. Your 3870X2 is much more powerful, yet your CPU is even weaker than mine. It's not exactly a match made in heaven.
Btw, a stock Q6600 isn't any better than an E6600 in the vast majority of games. Hardly any games can take advantage of quad cores at this point, in which case a 2.4GHz QC is basically no faster than a 2.4GHz DC.
Message edited by epsilon84 on 02-16-2008 at 12:45:46 PM
Was the Q6600 at stock speed? I highly doubt there is any bottle neck if it is OC to over 3.2ghz. Also minimum frame rates above your screen refresh rates have no impact on visible gaming performance.
) CPU bottlenecked, so only by getting a faster CPU or overclocking will shift that bottleneck.
