Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Does this system have a bottleneck?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 10, 2008 4:08:43 AM

Hi, I'm just about to order the parts to build my gaming PC, but just to make sure, I'm wondering if theres a bottleneck in this system. I realize almost all of you will say that none of this is good enough for 3 gtx 280s, but what I'm looking for is that nothing is severely bottlenecked. So, here it is:

EVGA 780i mobo
Quad Core Q9550 2.83 GHz, plan to OC it as much as I can
Triple GTX 280 XXX OC edition in tri-SLI
8GB DDR2-800 RAM
300GB 10k rpm Velociraptor HDD
1250w coolermaster real power PSU
All in a CMS 932 case with as much fans as I can possibly fit
Will be played on a 30" 305T samsung 2560x1600 monitor

So, any big bottlenecks you think are here? I'm not looking for everything to be just as good as the other (no QX or 15k rpm drives) but nothing that severely limits me. And if there is a bottleneck, please suggest something.

Thanks

More about : system bottleneck

a b à CPUs
October 10, 2008 4:29:22 AM

I just got an xfx gtx 260. The over clocked one with 192 sp. This card will play anything thrown at it and beats the tail off my 4870. Why would you want to throw so much money away on 3 of those cards ? Get 2 260's and call it a night.

DX11 cards coming next summer.
October 10, 2008 4:35:26 AM

Dont bother swifty. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum1.php?config=tom...|28*tomshardwareus|29*tomshardwareus|30*tomshardwareus|32*tomshardwareus|33*tomshardwareus|13*tomshardwareus|3*tomshardwareus|44*tomshardwareus|&orderSearch=0&recherches=1&resSearch=200&jour=0&mois=0&annee=0&titre=3&search=&pseud=UltimaSlayerVII&daterange=2&searchtype=1&searchall=1
Related resources
October 10, 2008 4:55:12 AM

Grab a second Velociraptor HD to throw into RAID 0, and maybe a third, big HD: 640Gb or so for storage since they're so cheap. But the first thing for sure.
a b à CPUs
October 10, 2008 8:07:07 AM

Check you'll have the space to keep 3 double slot GPUs cool...

Only major bottleneck I can see is the HDD, but that will always be the case.
October 10, 2008 8:45:17 AM

are you really asking a question or just showing off your new computer? :p 
a b à CPUs
October 10, 2008 9:48:07 AM

To be pedantic ALL systems have a bottleneck. It is defined as the component that is the slowest part of the system. You will find that an exact match in performance is never really possible. If you take the CPU to 5 Ghz then the bottleneck would be the GFX cards, regardless if there is no faster config available.

I feel that you are merely flaunting your system as to have chosen that as a system you have the knowledge already.

I still believe you would be better off with dual 4870x2's in CF. Check out the article on the three top-end gaming systems compared. They beat the GTX's on almost everything.
a b à CPUs
October 10, 2008 6:10:51 PM

Yes it has a bottleneck. It will always have a bottleneck.

As americanbrian said though, a pair of 4870x2's would be better. See this article, where the system with 4870x2's walks all over the GTX280 based systems in many game tests, including Crysis at high res. This also gives you the advantage of being able to use an X48, which are much better than nvidia chipsets IMHO.
October 10, 2008 8:30:06 PM

Don't try to persuade him to change video cards, because we've tried already, in the link spathotan posted. Every system is going to have a hard drive bottleneck, so I'd say get a second Velociraptor and put hem in raid 0.
a b à CPUs
October 10, 2008 8:51:03 PM

Oh, I know we've tried already. That article wasn't up then though, and it may be enough to show him the light. If not, it's his own money that he's wasting.
October 10, 2008 10:11:03 PM

mi1ez said:
Check you'll have the space to keep 3 double slot GPUs cool...

Only major bottleneck I can see is the HDD, but that will always be the case.


a 10k rpm VELOCIRAPTOR is a bottleneck?

Seriously?
a b à CPUs
October 10, 2008 10:25:47 PM

if you dont want peoples opinions, dont ask.

October 10, 2008 10:27:34 PM

Dont worry. Let him build his system, he will be seeing this in no time.
October 10, 2008 10:30:07 PM

Is my CPU RAM HDD or PSU bottlenecking me or not?
October 10, 2008 10:33:26 PM

ALL OF THEM ARE DUH!!!!!


U need at least 2kwt of power for those cards....
a b à CPUs
October 10, 2008 10:33:30 PM

cjl said:
Yes it has a bottleneck. It will always have a bottleneck.

As americanbrian said though, a pair of 4870x2's would be better. See this article, where the system with 4870x2's walks all over the GTX280 based systems in many game tests, including Crysis at high res. This also gives you the advantage of being able to use an X48, which are much better than nvidia chipsets IMHO.


Reported :lol: 

Quote:
Look you ****, for the last motherfucking time I'm going with 3 gtx 280s I dont give a **** what you think, every god damn thread you need to troll. I dont give a **** about your gay 4870X2s triple gtx 280 is the absolute best gpu combo on the planet right now and all you jealous **** with your 8800GTs know it.

Now shut the **** up and go cry




Quote:
Dont worry. Let him build his system, he will be seeing this in no time


LMAO! :lol: 
a b à CPUs
October 10, 2008 10:34:27 PM

After your little rude rant, you still expect help?
October 10, 2008 10:36:04 PM

HAHA u should see the post in Overclocking about cooling he does the same thing

Ultima No animal should bite the hand of its feeder
a b à CPUs
October 10, 2008 10:42:57 PM

especially a noob of only 20 days.
October 10, 2008 10:43:34 PM

*ahem*

All the **** stirring aside, its a pretty balanced system. Obviously the CPU will become a bottleneck (even overclocked to 4GHz) with 3 x 280GTXs but theres not much you can do there, a 4GHz C2Q is pretty much top of the line nowadays short of a QX @ 4.5GHz...
a b à CPUs
October 10, 2008 10:45:09 PM

reported
October 10, 2008 11:03:14 PM

Guess there isnt enough water in this pond for you son. Best go to bigger waters
October 10, 2008 11:37:21 PM

Quote:
DELETED


Yup, at about 12fps at your monitor's native rez. I hope you like slideshows.

Oh and btw, your biggest bottleneck is TRI SLI scaling.

Just out of curiosity, once you put the system together, you mind posting some benchies?
October 10, 2008 11:59:50 PM

Hard to post benches from the imagination.
October 11, 2008 1:59:33 AM

Quote:
**** no, you call this **** help? Give me your **** address and I'll show you fail you motherfucking pussy.

And yea, your title is right. resident jerk. **** yea you are **** troll, **** you dumbass bitches. QQ moar, and hug your weak ass GPUs. Least I'll be running a photorealistic game at max settings.

1) Yep i am the resident jerk, U see that vid?!?! It should be titled UltimaSlayer :D 

2) moar i believe u mean "more" learn how to spell :lol:  :lol: 

3) A 9800GX2 is perfectly fast, i run CoD4 max at 250fps which is all Promod allows (if u actually scrim), and w/ my special graphic config, i max 1000 fps. If i recall the eye only sees about 28fps. Anything above isnt needed but ppl like it

4) Well the best graphic game i kno of atm is Crysis, I play it max w/ an average of 50 fps outside and 60-100 inside. I think im set
October 11, 2008 2:30:32 AM

The bottleneck is the user.

End of discussion.
a b à CPUs
October 11, 2008 2:33:15 AM

Quote:
Post deleted

You're absolutely right. That's why the Vigor Gaming Colossus, with 3 GTX 280's and a pair of QX9775's @ 4GHz flattens the Falcon Northwest Mach 5, with a Q9650 @ 4GHz and a pair of 4870x2's in Crysis at 2560x1600, 4xAA. Right?




Right?

Hmm, that's odd. Last I checked, 22FPS > 4fps (the Blackbird in this comparison has a pair of GTX 280's and a QX9770 @ 3.60, and it manages 9FPS, which is still WAY under 22FPS last time I checked).


Now, to drop the sarcasm, note that the green line, the only one even close to playable at 2560x1600, 4xAA, is a system with a pair of 4870x2's.
October 11, 2008 2:35:59 AM

Yea i made a mistake and changed it. Forgot the dark environment but the post is fixed.

I just thought of 28fps of movies lol :lol: 
October 11, 2008 2:44:48 AM

Fair enough.

I'm curious though, what did you do to make COD run at such a high framerate? And what resolution do you run, with both COD and Crysis.
October 11, 2008 2:50:48 AM

only a 19" dont need anything bigger for me. I mean its right in front of me so any bigger is silly. It fluctuates on max between 190-250 (w/ max fps at 250 cause promod PB kicks you). My Scrim profile has textures on all low and SM 2.0 cause its a lot easier to see ppl. On that kit w/ max fps at 1000 it goes from 400-1000 averaging 700. But in scrim maxfps 250, i get it straight
October 11, 2008 2:58:15 AM

So, 1280x1024?

Just asking because i get 60-90 with max settings, no mods. With an 8800gts 512, at a resolution of 1680x1050 Although i just tested, it plays and looks noticeably smoother when vsync is on.

Is there a reason you set it up for such a high frame rate? Or is it just by chance the frame rate is that high? I ask because you monitor won't be displaying any higher then it's refresh rate.
October 11, 2008 3:01:34 AM

what a high frame rate in CoD?? cause Crysis is maxed
Its all low on CoD cause i scrim etc. and the low graphics makes it easier to see the enemies :D 
October 11, 2008 3:04:52 AM

Oh ok.
October 11, 2008 3:05:45 AM

When i Pub on a regular server i use my other profile which is all looks :sol: 

MODERATORS y u delete his posts i got great lolz from it :lol: 
October 11, 2008 5:47:40 AM

cjl said:
You're absolutely right. That's why the Vigor Gaming Colossus, with 3 GTX 280's and a pair of QX9775's @ 4GHz flattens the Falcon Northwest Mach 5, with a Q9650 @ 4GHz and a pair of 4870x2's in Crysis at 2560x1600, 4xAA. Right?


http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/I/160614/original/3-way-gaming_02.png

Right?

Hmm, that's odd. Last I checked, 22FPS > 4fps (the Blackbird in this comparison has a pair of GTX 280's and a QX9770 @ 3.60, and it manages 9FPS, which is still WAY under 22FPS last time I checked).


Now, to drop the sarcasm, note that the green line, the only one even close to playable at 2560x1600, 4xAA, is a system with a pair of 4870x2's.


You mean you actually trust tomshardware benchmarks?

If you even google anything about tomshardware you will see everybody saying how retardedly inaccurate they are, how **** up their benchmarks are compared to everyone else(3dguru,pcstats,hardwarecanucks,hardpc, i could go on.) and how terrible their forums are. Oh hey, thats you ****!
a b à CPUs
October 11, 2008 6:22:55 AM

When they make sense, yes. ATI has had better scaling in multi-GPU for quite a while, and not only that, there is absolutely no reason for the quadfire 4870s to not walk all over the GTX 280's. They have substantially more raw processing power, just as much memory, comparable bandwidth, and better anti aliasing.

Oh, and if these forums are so terrible, why are you the one constantly getting angry, spouting profanities, etc?
October 11, 2008 6:59:59 AM

UltimaSlayerVII said:
You mean you actually trust tomshardware benchmarks?

If you even google anything about tomshardware you will see everybody saying how retardedly inaccurate they are, how **** up their benchmarks are compared to everyone else(3dguru,pcstats,hardwarecanucks,hardpc, i could go on.) and how terrible their forums are. Oh hey, thats you ****!


OK, let's see.

Guru3D : Tested with old drivers. Catalyst 8.5 at the time, and only tested Crysis 2560x1600 on MEDIUM.

PCStats : Didn't test as high as 2560x1600, so it's usless info for this arguement.

Hardware Canucks : Didn't test the 4870x2 in CF.

HardPC : Sorry can't read it, it's not English.

Seeing as how Toms Hardware was the only one, to my knowledge, that has tested both the 4870x2 in CF, and the GTX280 in TRI SLI you can either take the info or leave it. Personally seeing the X2 in CF perform that much better then the TRI SLI i wouldn't even think twice about getting them over the GTXs. Even if they had the exact same performace, the two X2s are cheaper then the three GTXs. Why pay more for the same performance?

I'm not sure what else to say.
a b à CPUs
October 11, 2008 7:05:37 AM

One thing to note: that Tom's Hardware test that I showed was 64 bit everything (including Crysis, which apparently includes a 64 bit version). In 32 bit, all setups failed at that resolution with AA, delivering either abysmal performance or not running at all. Of course, with the listed setup (8GB RAM?), I would think 64 bit would be the clear choice anyways. AFAIK, all other 2560x1600 crysis benches have been on 32 bit, which means that the performance would be abysmal regardless of setup (possibly explaining the lack of benchmarks).
!