Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Am I Gonna Bottleneck My 4850?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 24, 2008 10:25:39 PM

AMD Athlon X2 5000+ BE (OC'd to 3.2GHz)
MSI K9A2 Platinum 790FX
Corsair HX520W
4GB OCZ SLI-Edition DDR2 800

I've already seen a post where someone commented that an AMD Athlon X2 5400+ would be a bottleneck. So I was like..."Oh snap!"

1) How can you tell if a processor will be the bottleneck?
2) Will my OC'd 5000+ bottleneck?
3) If my 5000+ bottlenecks, there aren't many options to upgrade to. I mean, the X4 only OC's to 3.2-3.4. The only other option would be a 6000+ or a 6400+, but I've already OC'd past their stock settings. So where would I go without having to turn to the Evil Empire?

More about : gonna bottleneck 4850

June 24, 2008 10:27:32 PM

Simple answer: For a single 4850, no. For 2 in cf, yes.
June 24, 2008 10:31:27 PM

Okay, so then lets talk CF for a moment then. What are my AMD options to avoid a bottleneck in CF?

And how do you tell if the processor will bottleneck or not?
Related resources
June 24, 2008 10:36:47 PM

stabgotham said:
Okay, so then lets talk CF for a moment then. What are my AMD options to avoid a bottleneck in CF?

And how do you tell if the processor will bottleneck or not?

On typical games, that cpu wouldn't be a major bottleneck. CPU intensive or quad optimized games, such as Supreme Commander, would be among the only handful of exceptions. X2 5000+ is still quite fast.

Your motherboard pcie bandwidth in cf mode may be more of a problem. Performance comparsion between p45(PCIE2.0x8 each) and X38/48(PCIE2.0x16 each):
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1472/7/page_7_benchma...
June 24, 2008 10:39:25 PM

Buy a phenom BE if your worried, and don't want to run Intel.
June 24, 2008 10:42:21 PM

Interesting point. So if I end up getting a second for CF, an upgrade to an X4 may be a good decision.

That was very interesting news about the differences between the P45 and X48, but I have a 790FX. No benchies of that lying around anywhere. Although I do know this, my motherboard has 2.0. I can either go 16x+16x or quad-8x. So hopefully my motherboard will not be as much of an issue as with the P45.
June 24, 2008 10:51:27 PM

If you're going to get a new CPU, you might as well spend the few extra bucks for a new board and get an Intel platform. Anything AMD has will bottleneck 4850 crossfire.
June 24, 2008 10:53:42 PM

jt001 said:
If you're going to get a new CPU, you might as well spend the few extra bucks for a new board and get an Intel platform.


Not an option, currently. I prefer AMD and I have been really happy with them for years. If I do get a new CPU, I'll just get an X4 9850BE. The goal, however, was to wait it out until the new Phenom FX processor get released.
June 24, 2008 10:58:56 PM

I doubt your CPU would be a bottleneck, especially OC'd to 3.2Ghz. And your 790FX board does dual 16x CF anyway so your PCI-E bus won't be a problem. I mean, if you're running a game with 2 4850's cf'ed and your CPU is 100% while you're running the game, then obviously your CPU might be bottlenecking... Except for the few games that are quad core optimized, I don't think you'll have to worry. Also, I don't think you'll need to CF two 4850's if you're still playing on a 17" monitor. If you upgrade to 24" or so, then CF'ed 4850's will be in your interest.

The one thing you could think about doing is if you OC'd your 5000+ by just raising the multiplier, then lower your multiplier and OC by raising your FSB as high as your CPU or RAM will let you. With a faster FSB, you'll get better performance than just OC'ing your CPU with the multiplier.

Either way you overclock, I say you get a bigger monitor and then 2 4850's and crossfire the living $h!t out of them and you enjoy every damn bit of it.
June 24, 2008 10:59:06 PM

if you only have a 17" monitor, why even bother with crossfire? at lower resolutions you're more cpu bottlenecked anyway.
June 24, 2008 11:34:47 PM

jt001 you do realize that the phenomx4 9850BE is right there with the Q6600 from intel in many benchmarks and is only slightly behind in all others.It actually even beats it in a couple of benchmarks.To say everything AMD has to offer would bottleneck that card is ludicrous.I happen to have said phenom with 2 hd3870's in crossfire with the same board as the OP and this system flies through anything that can be thrown at it.the chip runs perfectly OC'd to 2.9ghz on air and i've hit 15212 in 3DMark06 without breaking a sweat.
June 24, 2008 11:36:59 PM

lambofgode3x said:
if you only have a 17" monitor, why even bother with crossfire? at lower resolutions you're more cpu bottlenecked anyway.


I don't plan to CF as of today. I was asking the question to try and figure out what it would even take. Obviously, at some point a monitor upgrade is in order. I'd love me some 30"!
June 24, 2008 11:37:33 PM

BTW.I run at 1920x1200 on a 24" Acer.
June 24, 2008 11:46:15 PM

Phin said:
BTW.I run at 1920x1200 on a 24" Acer.


You my friend are a god amongst men...may I please have your home address to send you a thank you card for placing my mind at ease? J/K

Good show, old man...good show.
June 25, 2008 12:16:41 AM

Phin said:
jt001 you do realize that the phenomx4 9850BE is right there with the Q6600 from intel in many benchmarks and is only slightly behind in all others.It actually even beats it in a couple of benchmarks.To say everything AMD has to offer would bottleneck that card is ludicrous.I happen to have said phenom with 2 hd3870's in crossfire with the same board as the OP and this system flies through anything that can be thrown at it.the chip runs perfectly OC'd to 2.9ghz on air and i've hit 15212 in 3DMark06 without breaking a sweat.

The problem is it's comparing a 2.6ghz 9850BE to 2.4ghz Q6600, and the 9850 is still behind, as it does less work per ghz. Q6600 is the first and oldest Intel quads in existance. Newer models do even more work per ghz. Not to mention q6600 easily overclock from 2.4ghz to 3.6ghz, that's a 50% increase in speed. Many people, including myself, were able to oc it to 4ghz prime95 stable on air. I tuned it back down to 3.6ghz for daily running so it can last longer, and since that high clock isn't necessary. Phenom, "black edition" or not, just doesn't compare to even the oldest and slowest of Intel quads.
June 25, 2008 12:37:12 AM

AMD's best quad can compare to Intel's slowest? I guess you proved me wrong.

I am an AMD fan myself, but at some point you have to not let fanboyism get in the way, and realize Intel is dominating the consumer desktop market in every way. There's simply no reason to buy AMD for a mid-range or high end system at the moment, sad as it is.
June 25, 2008 1:22:16 AM

In this day and age, the term "GHz" really has no place as it really is not a measure of performance. To get technical, "GHz" really only describes the speed at which the voltage to the processor changes, not the work it can do. There really is no way to determine the "power" of a computer. The closest comparison is FLOPS. To say that AMD is not top of the line because their 2.5 "GHz" processor is about the same as Intel's 2.6 "GHz" processor is BS.

So my wall outlet runs at 60 Hz. Does that mean it sucks? No, it has enough power to kill you and your super-duper gaming computer. But it only is 60 Hz you say? It doesn't matter, as Hz/GHz is not a measure of performance

Yes, in general a computer performs faster when the GHz is higher: That is because the voltages switch faster. Honestly, if AMD's 2.5 GHz can take on Intel's 2.6 GHz, well, AMD is in good condition because their processor has a lower GHz value.

I am a little bit of an AMD fanboi as I am running one myself. But the point is that AMD is not as far behind as most people think. AMD's market is not high-end gaming computers, but rather AFFORDABLE low- to mid-range computers for the general public. If AMD released a processor that cost $1500 and easily outperformed the Skulltrail platform, sure, many people would buy, because the price/performance ratio is justifiable.

ATM, Intel owns the high end market, because that is not where AMD's focus is. They are focusing on server and low- to mid-range computers. There was an article here on Tom's that said most of the top supercomputers for F1 racing are AMD based. That is AMD's market.

When people say "AMD's best quad is the 9850 BE", it sadly is true. But take into account that AMD has been working on new technology. As for the silicon in the processors, AMD's processor is actually 4 cores, where as Intel's is 2 Dual Cores sandwiched together. If Intel used the brains that they probably have, they could make a processor that would be untouchable by AMD in the innovation stand-point.

With that all out:
No, your processor will not bottleneck a 4850, and will not bottleneck CF'ed 4850's. If it does, go out an buy the $115 6000+, OC it, and have fun playing games.
June 25, 2008 3:45:27 PM

well said
June 25, 2008 3:56:56 PM

Normally, a graphics card "bottleneck" means it runs at 80FPS rather than 160FPS. Since the human eye can't tell the difference, who cares. It will perform a lot better tan your old card, though maybe not as fast as you of the review sites with 4GHz quads.
June 25, 2008 4:38:03 PM

Christopher. There are quite a few AMD fans here,so who exactly was your fanboi remark directed at? Without AMD fans you wouldn't be able to afford your computer. And yes,you got it. I buy AMD because the underdog needs my money. AMD's performance,dollar for dollar,is right there with Intel so I would GLADLY give up a few fps to make sure we have good ol' fashioned competition in the processor market.
June 25, 2008 6:17:09 PM

i wasnt writing as a fanboi. i use AMD processors. i was writing about the technical aspects of the two processors, and how politically incorrect to say that AMD sucks as a company because their "TOP PROCESSOR" only matches Intel's slowest. If you took a look at AMD's upcoming processors/press releases, it would be made known that AMD is not creating the upper class of processors because they were running at a 140 watt ATP. This was a smart move for AMD because they didn't want to lose anymore money. Instead they are focusing on new technology. And did you also see that AMD's 9850 is still working on the 65nm process yet they can crank out the processors for 235, and at a 125 Watt TDP? What does this mean? It means that AMD knows for a fact that 125 Watts is by no mean "BAD" in thermal standards. Most of today's top-of-the-line aftermarket CPU coolers can dissipate upwards of 250 Watts of heat. This basically means that if a processor is running a 125 W TDP vs. a 95 W TDP, it really doesnt matter because the cooler is capable of dissipating that heat very effectively.

Do you know why Intel can sell the Q6600 processors so cheap? Its because it is old technology for them, and they have created a better version of the old technology. Honestly, Intel is probably just selling the Q6600's to get them off their shelves so they can make room for newer procesors. Cant teach an old dog new tricks.

And on to FPS in games. As EXT64 said, a few FPS doesnt really matter, especially once you have already surpassed the FPS rating on your monitor. The human eye could care less that your computer is running 160 FPS, because on your monitor, you will only see the 60-70-72-75 that the monitor is running at. So with the top of the line Intel processors you still cant bust 30 FPS in Crysis? Save $1000, buy something a little more flashy to get a better chick, because probability says that the chick is not going to care that you get 30 FPS in Crysis. All shes going to care about is you f***ing up the electric bill and heating up half the house.

AMD is not a power house company. They area a SMART company. (Haha, they're German.) They could care less if the top gamers buy Intel processors, because they are making a mint off of people who need the fastest servers.

And "GHz" still is not a measure of performance.
And if anyone here actually looked at the technical side of life, they'd realize that I'm making sense and am right.(Don't quote me on that.)
June 25, 2008 10:25:50 PM

the last resort said:
In this day and age, the term "GHz" really has no place as it really is not a measure of performance. To get technical, "GHz" really only describes the speed at which the voltage to the processor changes, not the work it can do. There really is no way to determine the "power" of a computer. The closest comparison is FLOPS. To say that AMD is not top of the line because their 2.5 "GHz" processor is about the same as Intel's 2.6 "GHz" processor is BS.

So my wall outlet runs at 60 Hz. Does that mean it sucks? No, it has enough power to kill you and your super-duper gaming computer. But it only is 60 Hz you say? It doesn't matter, as Hz/GHz is not a measure of performance

Yes, in general a computer performs faster when the GHz is higher: That is because the voltages switch faster. Honestly, if AMD's 2.5 GHz can take on Intel's 2.6 GHz, well, AMD is in good condition because their processor has a lower GHz value.



You do realize that 9850 is the one that runs at the higher stock clock of 2.6ghz, while 6600 runs at the lower 2.4ghz stock, right? 6600@2.4ghz outperforms 9850@2.6ghz.

I mentioned that in the post right above yours. Some people would open their mouth rather than their eyes. Seriously, you're embarassing yourself. :na: 
June 25, 2008 11:13:54 PM

ok, so the intel runs at 2.4 GHz, and the AMD runs at 2.5 GHz. My points are still highly valid. And I'm not embarassing myself, I'm one of the few people who are willing to open their mouth about such controversial topics than get thrown around by Intel fanboi's.
June 25, 2008 11:18:34 PM

the last resort said:
ok, so the intel runs at 2.4 GHz, and the AMD runs at 2.5 GHz. My points are still highly valid. And I'm not embarassing myself, I'm one of the few people who are willing to open their mouth about such controversial topics than get thrown around by Intel fanboi's.



9850 is 2.6ghz, not 2.5. And of course, your point on performance per cycle is perfectly valid, it's just... like shooting yourself in the foot, which could've been avoided, if you'd read through my first flame-bait post. :D 

I admire your bravery though. :na: 
June 25, 2008 11:43:10 PM

9850BE is stock 2.5ghz
June 25, 2008 11:53:42 PM

Phin said:
9850BE is stock 2.5ghz

Opps, you're right. The benchmark I saw already had the 9850 overclocked. :p 
June 26, 2008 12:20:21 AM

agreed
July 1, 2008 5:31:37 PM

Haha, I very much enjoyed reading this because I as well knew it was a rhetorical and figurative situation when I read "2.6 ghz" So, it was funny to see his own accusations promptly convicting himself.
!