Will this CPU bottleneck this Video card?

Will a athlon 4600 bottle neck a 8800GT video card?

Depends. What settings what game?

On a lot of modern games, yes.

I'd advise overclocking the CPU as high as you can to minimise bottlenecking.

I'm sure the OP will see a decent fps gain if he OCs his cpu.

No, your mobo won't bottleneck the 8800GT, only the CPU will.

No, don't worry about it.

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.

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

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.

I would assume a stock Q6600.

Minimum framerates above refresh rates would generally mean 60fps+. I can assure you not many of the latest DX10 games will have such high minimum framerates, even on a CF or SLI setup. Well, unless you play at 800x600 or something.

I was wrong about the CPU, Anandtech used a Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 @ 3.00GHz and Tom's used a QX6850 @ 3.0. It was the Tom's article that identified the processor as a limiting factor.

I'm not anti Intel regarding technology and my gaming jones is starting to argue with my social conscience! I keep waiting for decent Phenom's and they keep getting pushed back.

I could get a new CPU and motherboard next month; and I'm really tempted to get a 3.0 Wolfdale. I don't overclock so that wouldn't be a problem (ie the reported core temp issue). I'd have to go budget motherboard, maybe even look every Friday for a bundle at Fry's.

That would mean holding off on the LCD a month (2 months of low res gaming?). I think I'm better of sticking with the X2 4600+ until the tax rebate and then see what Wolfdale's are out in the woods. That way, I could still get the LCD. How far away are Wolfdale core quads? How far away is Nehalem?

Ideally, I'd wanted a quad core for futureproofing, and Crossfire X might be nice down the line with two 3870x2's or a 3870x2 and a similarly clocked next generation ATI. The R700's supposed to be 50% faster than a 3870, which is where the 3870x2 is today, so they'd not limit each other in CrossfireX.

Maybe I should just let the regulators handle Intel? AMD was late with 690G, so I went with a barebones I didn't want because I needed to replace a P4, now they're late with 780G and won't have power saving at launch. They're late with good Phenom's too.

Maybe I should just put AMD's desktop fate in the hands of Emachines, Walmart and Best Buy and actually go with the tech I need this year? Once I get our two 2008 builds done, then I would prefer an Phenom 1.8, 780G notebook for light gaming on vacation.

The only game I'll start playing next week that's DX10 is LOTR online with the patch. The Witcher is DX9, plus I want to get Morrowind and Oblivion benches just for fun.

I prefer single player CRPGs, and LOTR online will be my first MMORPG. Probably the first DX10 single player CRPG will be Fallout 3. World in Conflict and Spore look interesting, but I doubt I'd want to even tackle Supreme Commander until I get a quad core.

I wouldn't worry about bottlenecking too much. Yes it probably will bottleneck it a tad, but a 4600+ is still a decent processor. (Meaning, don't get a new processor, go ahead and get the 8800GT.) And as others have said it does depend on resolution and the game you're playing.

Well, I ran games at 1024 x 768 and was really bottlenecked, so I said the heck with 85hz refresh, I'd run games at 1280 x 1024 and I'm still bottlenecked. Could have gotten a new 22" LCD last weekend but decided to wait and save up the $200 difference for a 24" for 1920 x 1200.

If an 8800gt is only a bit faster than a single 3870, then his CPU might not bottleneck it at 1280 x 1024, but he's gaming at 1680 x 1050, then the GPU takes over more of the work. He does have the same CPU I have.

It depends on the resolution. Most bottlenecks occur at or below 1280 x 1024, with some bottlenecks reported on a few games at 1680 x 1050 with average CPU's and very good GPU's. When I was giving a friend advice on a monitor at Fry's, I saw an HP gaming PC demoing Quake Wars on a 24" HP LCD. The rig had a Q6600 and an 8800gt and was getting a consistent 30 fps. If that had been a 20" monitor @ 1680 x 1050, then I would have considered it a bottleneck.

Forgotten I'd posted already in this thread. Sorry if I'm repeating myself. Yes, The Witcher benefits from Crossfire, but LOTR online does not. Guess what I learned from others? LOTR online, despite being an Nvidia oriented TWIMTBP game, does not benefit from SLI.

I can get 40 fps outdoors fighting monsters, but when I finally left the Shire and went to Bree on a Sunday afternoon with a huge number of player characters wandering through, it became a 1 fps slideshow in the town square right by the north gate. I switched to first person view to get enough fps to leave the city. Then it was back to normal.