SLI question concerning cpu bottleneck

okay guys i'd like to increase graphic performance and am considering SLI with the current computer specs.
windows XP 64bit
antec 900 case
EVGA nforce4 sli mobo
cpu- S939 4600+ X2 oc'd to 2.6ghz sable (will not go higher, i am limited by my mobo not wanting to accept higher FSB than 217)
gpu- 9600 GT @ 700 core 1000 mem
psu- 700w OCZ gamextreme
ram- 2 gb ddr 400


i am currently gaming at 1440x900 max res. and i like to turn everything up that i can.
i would like some input about if SLI'd 9600s sill be bottlenecked very badly with my CPU

thank you.

It looks like you are badly bottlenecked by that 939, the good news is AMD products are in "Fire Sale" mode. So you can easily pick up a new MB, CPU, and RAM for about $300.

IE:

MB: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6813128339
$145 (GA-M750SLI-DS4)
CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819103254
$100 (Phenom 8450, tri-core)
RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6820220227
$53 (Patriot 2x2GB DDR2 800)($20 MIR)

Total: $298 + S&H, or you can get a core 2 system

MB: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6813131232
$150 (Asus P5N-D)
CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819115052
$120
RAM: same as above $53 (with $20 MIR)

Youll get some bottlenecking, but it wont be that bad, as your gpus wont see too much, and going sli will really improve your fps

I guess you'll have to get one

Dude, don't SLI those cards XD

The PCIe bridge of the nF4 will gut rip it out, remember it's PCIe 1.1 x8 when you get SLI working. Try getting a bigger card on the single PCIe, will hurt less IMO. Think about a 9800GTX+ or a 4850.

I got a 4850 and it's only bottlenecked on CPU demanding games (CPU physics mostly -> Crysis), but everything else is NOT bottlenecked over 1280x1024. Read my sig, my system is very close to yours.

Esop!

EDIT: Spelling XD

I would not recommend to you to SLI those cards with this CPU.

I had one a few months ago running a single 7800GTX. Life was great until some of the new games came out. Back then the 8800GT was the king of the hill (performance/money-wise) and I switched my 7800GTX by one of those.

It ran nice, but then I added another 8800GT. Boy, shouldn't have done that. Overall my performance increase was about 10-15% over single card setup.

Given that, I did a total overhaul on the system and went to a new 750i chipset with a E8400. Then I realized how my old X24600 was holding me back. The single 8800GT with the E8400 was faster than the SLI setup in the 4600.

Cutting it short, I would strongly advice you to upgrade the MB/Processor before moving forward. The socket 939 can still be very good for office/web/etc stuff, but for gaming is showing its age by now.

That may be true, as I didnt notice his board (my mistake). Got to remember tho, the 9600s are less powerful, lower BW I believe as well, so the falloff might not be as bad.

actually with 9600gt sli, i get some bottle from my stock q6600.

the 9600 is one of the best sli scaling cards out.

let alone on a stock q66, i saw increases up to 35-40% in the games i play.

and i got even more when i OC to 3.6

okay so basically i don't want to upgrade gfx cards at all, and i'll just stick with what i have already(yes or no??). if SLI'd 9600 GT's will be bottlenecked severely, then can i draw a conclusion that a more powerful card like a 4850 will too!?!?(yes, no?)

in GPU-z it is showing x16 PCI-express @x8....what is this about

In single card, maybe not that much, but i can tell you that you're not feeding your card at it's max right now.

Since you play at a low res, i can't tell you first hand that going to x16 will boost 100% more, but it will indeed boost a little more, maybe 10%-20% from your current scenario.

Give it a shot and tell us later, u'd be giving us a better look of how the Athlon64's handle that x8 to x16 in the old PCIe 1.x.

I'll keep an eye on this

Esop!

The only thing i can conclude is that 1440x900 doesn't require a lot of bandwith and/or your card is indeed being bottlenecked by the CPU alone.

Sorry for the crappy conclusion xP

Crank up the details and see how it goes. I'd say you should note a difference there.

Esop!

for what it is worth, i used to run a x2 4400 with dual x1900's at 8x8 pci-e and it ran just fine, was not bottlenecked at all. I seen damn good gains at times. true wasn't tested with that many new games but again, just because newer tech comes out, does not mean old tech can't keep up

oh and OP, did you do what i suggested in my first post in this thread?

if not, this whole discussion is pointless.

okay i'll test and get back

No, no... You have to test this: same detail, different resolutions; 1440x900@Max Detail, 1024x768@Max Detail, 800x600@Max Detail, etc... I don't know lower res on a wide, so use yours XD

If you go down on resolution and DON'T get higher FPS, then it's a clear bottleneck.

Esop!

That was on Max detail, right? AAx4, AFx8 and things like that?

Then your Video Card is not being bottlenecked by the Athlon, wich doesn't surprise me XD

Then getting another 9600GT shouldn't be held back CPU wise. But i'm still wondering about bandwith wise

I still say: sell that 9600GT and get a 9800GTX/4850 instead of the second 9600GT if you can. It still won't be hard bottlenecked and it will have the x16 PCIe for it self (instead of sharing the x8 (x4 PCIe 2.0) in SLI).

Esop!

If you can't then, get the second 9600GT.

I hope i'm dead wrong for your own benefit =/

GL mate!

Esop!

About scaling... I was telling you i wasn't sure if 2 of those will actually give you a "big boost" like you'd hope for.

Esop! XD

But if you lower the graphical details, you're not using the CPU also... Less textures to load, less memory allocation, less bandwith used.

You must pick up a certain detail level and run it on different resolutions and see if there's a noticeable difference (this case) or just no difference at all (bottleneck). I agree (now that i think about it a little deeper) that using max detail is kinda dumb, but keeping a certain lvl of detail above lowest, is indeed needed.

Esop!

No damage here, dude XD

Anyway, it's been on my mind this little topic... And i've come to the conclusion that both serve to different things: fixed res and variable details is more CPU benchie; and on the other hand, fixed detail and variable resolution is a mixture of CPU and overall system benchie.

I went there cause of how most ppl OC:

On almost all platforms there's the FSB thingy, commonly affecting RAM and CPU => bandwith + raw processing. Unless the board has a differente FSB ratio and all... But my typical scenario is that. People see a lot of improvements with the mixed FSB ratio on games when the bandwith is saturated, even if the CPU can keep up actually (DDR2-533 vs DDR2-1333 for example).

I remembered my own experience with the X1800XL, it wasn't being bottlenecked by anything on my PC. I OC'ed it and almost no change in FPS, but with the 4850, if i underclock, or just go back to stock, there is a noticeable FPS drop.

I hope TGGA comes and tells us "u're so friggin wrong" and show us the truth, lol.

Esop! XD

Weve all seen benches that show the first 2 or 3 res at almost the same fps, but as you go up, the fps drop, or thus, a cpu "bottleneck". Think of it the other way around now. There is no up. All are the same fps or close. Thats also a cpu "bottleneck", as all res max out fps. The first one I mentioned "bottlenecks " the cpu because the res is so small the gpu has no work to do to keep up, and everything is dependent on the cpu. The secong one, or where all fps seems the same at all res, is where the gpu is too powerful for the cpu at all res, BUT, if you oc your cpu and the fps goes up, then theres your proof, and the higher your cpu oc is, the higher the fps are. Its the other way around in a way, and it hasnt happened really in the past, it just now is starting to happen

Fast is relative, as youve explained. Fast means doing something within accepted time. But faster, now theres the thing. When one component is "faster" than the other, all it means is, its finished with its work before the other component has. Thus, a slowdown, or "bottleneck". Like you inferred, some games require more from your cpu than others. Of course, the majority of a games work relies upon the gpu. But think like AI or phisics rely on the cpu, tho physics is now being implemented on the gpu as well. If we see at all resolutions a common fps, we can usually determine the rig is cpu "bottlenecked", just like at low res, you see no improvements, except this time, no matter how high the resolution, the gpu isnt pushed enough to do more, and had to wait on the slower cpu, but as we crank the oc on the cpu up, we start to see fps increases across all resolutions. Its just in the past, weve always had higher resolutions to go to that weve seen the bottleneck, but with todays cards, its getting to the point where even at 19x12 in alot of games, cpu are the slowdowns in your rig with a top card, and even some 25x16 games we see it.

Let us know how it goes. My old opty 185 is slowin its age (no typo
offended)

okay guys, interesting thread and all, but from other research i've done on the "net"and my own tests. i have found that the 2-x8 lanes aren't going to be the slowdown if i go to SLI w/ 9600gt but the CPU may be. i would appreciate a final concensus on if i will be bottlenecked by the cpu based on my earlier posts of my avg. fps using bioshock as the benchmark. and if so how much of a bottleneck, based on opinion of course, big or little or if any. thanks in advance to your replies.