Would an Athlon 64 x2 4800 bottleneck a 4870?

I was thinking about buying a system with:

ASUS 770 chipset
new 4850e 45W at 2.5ghz
4gb DDR2-800mhz dual-channel (4-4-4-12)

Message edited by urban_black_redneck on 11-01-2008 at 07:51:07 AM

Reply to urban_black_redneck

Does anybody even have a 5000x2/4870 combo that they can comment on?

I kinda think an ATI 4850 would be enough, but I also want to know if the 4870 would be feasible with the new platform I want to get.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to urban_black_redneck

I think it would be fine with a 4850, but would slightly bottleneck a 4870.

Message quoted 2 times

Reply to br3nd064

br3nd064 wrote :

I think it would be fine with a 4850, but would slightly bottleneck a 4870.

Damn :pfff:

1GB HIS IceQ 4850 to go!

Thanks for the reply!

Reply to urban_black_redneck

I have a Radeon HD 4850 and an Athlon X2 3800+ running on a Mobo with integrated GeForce 6 series graphics (in other words, old crap), and most of the games I'm running on my 24" Dell 2408WFP (1920 x 1200, 6 ms response, 60 Hz refresh, very nice colors) so far have been either at maximum settings (with 2 or 4x AA and as high AF as I can) or close to maximum, while getting > 40 FPS. World of Warcraft and Red Alert 3 run beautifully and I only have to turn down viewing distance on WoW to stay at > 40 FPS, but other than that smooth as silk. I'd probably run everything even better if I had a faster Athlon X2 or some kind of Core 2 Duo, but right now I don't need it that badly.

Reply to mathiasschnell

strangestranger wrote :

That didn't even make sense, how can it be a bottleneck with one and not the other, i would assume you are saying that games would run fine with a 4850 with that cpu but not with a 4870.

How the hell does that work?

If a CPU can't keep up with a GPU, than the GPU will be bottlenecked and that will result in games running slower than the GPU is capable of. The 4850 is like 20% or more slower than the 4870. I have heard of people successfully running Athlon x2 5000s and up with 4850s, but I can't find any input on that setup with a 4870.

Reply to urban_black_redneck

strangestranger wrote :

*claps hands*

Woohoo, that made no sense in itself, you can never get a balanced system and not for any length of time. You do not bottleneck components, that is a silly, impossible game to play.

Bottlenecks should be used IMO for the effect on a system and ultimately user experience. If you cannot get decent fps, then yes it is bottlenecking a system but if you are getting playable fps with a 4850 you will get playable fps with the 4870 so you cannot notice without fraps whioch invalidates you argument.

the only problem with getting a 4850 over a 4870 is that as more gpu intensive games come out and the balance shifts to gpu limited rather than cpu limited which is the usual trend you'll find that you are left with a 4850 instead of a 4870 so in fact, following your way of thinking of "bottlenecks" means you will be shortening the length of time between upgrades and costing yourself more in the long run.

A bottleneck must be measurable in the real world or it does not exist as like i say, there will always be a theoretical *bottleneck* if you want to call it that but it is more of a cap not bottleneck as that infers a severe restriction to flow which the difference between fps witha 4850 and 4870 is not.

If the 4870 doesn't allow the system to get many more FPS over what the 4850 can, then the 4870 would be a waste of money. If this is the result of the CPU being unable to feed enough data to the 4870, then it is the same as having a slower graphics card.

Newer games will be more intensive on all the components. How will that make the CPU any less of a bottleneck if it was one to begin with?

Message edited by urban_black_redneck on 11-02-2008 at 07:05:36 PM

Reply to urban_black_redneck

I had a lil discussion about this in the cpu forum. I showed a link that showed a Phenom at 3Ghz maxxing out a G280 in a few games. Obviously, the game was gpu limited. On the same game, using the game, the Phenom was left behind using a 4870x2, but still had higher fps, just not alot compared to the 3Ghz C2Q. My point is, youll get better response/fps with a better gpu no matter what

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening
Reply to JAYDEEJOHN

strangestranger wrote :

Traditionally, graphics have increased at a higher rate than cpu usage.

Most people turn down graphics options to increase performance, not things like physics.

It is always best to have more power than you need.

Power that you have is one thing. Sometimes power that you can USE is another.

Reply to urban_black_redneck

strangestranger wrote :

*claps hands*

Woohoo, that made no sense in itself, you can never get a balanced system and not for any length of time. You do not bottleneck components, that is a silly, impossible game to play.

Bottlenecks should be used IMO for the effect on a system and ultimately user experience. If you cannot get decent fps, then yes it is bottlenecking a system but if you are getting playable fps with a 4850 you will get playable fps with the 4870 so you cannot notice without fraps whioch invalidates you argument.

the only problem with getting a 4850 over a 4870 is that as more gpu intensive games come out and the balance shifts to gpu limited rather than cpu limited which is the usual trend you'll find that you are left with a 4850 instead of a 4870 so in fact, following your way of thinking of "bottlenecks" means you will be shortening the length of time between upgrades and costing yourself more in the long run.

A bottleneck must be measurable in the real world or it does not exist as like i say, there will always be a theoretical *bottleneck* if you want to call it that but it is more of a cap not bottleneck as that infers a severe restriction to flow which the difference between fps witha 4850 and 4870 is not.

+1, Finally someone shedding some light in this "bottlenecking" business that has been blown WAY out of proportion. I don't understand why some people continue to get lesser GPUs just because their CPU isn't OC'd to 3.6Ghz. Graphics requirements increase almost exponentially, while CPU requirements increase gradually over time.

In games where you will be CPU bound like Source based games, either GPU will do, but you will be at over 100fps either way so it won't really matter. However, what you have to consider are graphically demanding games where the GPU will be the bottleneck more often than not (which is were it actually matter, because a lesser GPU becomes detrimental on your ability to enjoy a fluid game), think games based on the CryEngine 2, Scimitar Engine, and even some rather demanding/poorly coded Unreal Engine 3 games.

With this I'm not saying that you shouldn't get an HD 4850, because I have one and it's amazing, but if you were planning to get a better GPU don't let something like "bottlenecking" stop you, because there will ALWAYS be a bottleneck, be the CPU, the GPU, otherwise you'd be running games at never-changing fps.

Message edited by emp on 11-02-2008 at 08:19:24 PM

------------------------------ Anxiously awaiting the Hydra 100 and the Hydra Engine...
www.lucidlogix.com
Reply to emp

JAYDEEJOHN wrote :

I had a lil discussion about this in the cpu forum. I showed a link that showed a Phenom at 3Ghz maxxing out a G280 in a few games. Obviously, the game was gpu limited. On the same game, using the game, the Phenom was left behind using a 4870x2, but still had higher fps, just not alot compared to the 3Ghz C2Q. My point is, youll get better response/fps with a better gpu no matter what

The Phenom at 3GHZ is A LOT faster than an Athlon dual core at 2.5GHZ...

I just read on another forum that someone had a 4870 that was being held beck by their Intel E5200 until they bought a E7200, which boosted their performance in games.

I take everything I hear with a grain of salt, but it makes sense that pairing a fast GPU with a slow CPU is not a very cost effective solution.

Message edited by urban_black_redneck on 11-02-2008 at 09:04:19 PM

Reply to urban_black_redneck

strangestranger wrote :

*claps hands*

Woohoo, that made no sense in itself, you can never get a balanced system and not for any length of time. You do not bottleneck components, that is a silly, impossible game to play.

Bottlenecks should be used IMO for the effect on a system and ultimately user experience. If you cannot get decent fps, then yes it is bottlenecking a system but if you are getting playable fps with a 4850 you will get playable fps with the 4870 so you cannot notice without fraps whioch invalidates you argument.

the only problem with getting a 4850 over a 4870 is that as more gpu intensive games come out and the balance shifts to gpu limited rather than cpu limited which is the usual trend you'll find that you are left with a 4850 instead of a 4870 so in fact, following your way of thinking of "bottlenecks" means you will be shortening the length of time between upgrades and costing yourself more in the long run.

A bottleneck must be measurable in the real world or it does not exist as like i say, there will always be a theoretical *bottleneck* if you want to call it that but it is more of a cap not bottleneck as that infers a severe restriction to flow which the difference between fps witha 4850 and 4870 is not.

good information by strangestranger, get the 4870 you will be able to max out all the eye candy and keep ur card for longer

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to rangers

rangers wrote :

good information by strangestranger, get the 4870 you will be able to max out all the eye candy and keep ur card for longer

His information looks closer to a hypothesis than a conclusion.

Reply to urban_black_redneck

Lets just put it this way. The gpu is the most important thing you can get when it comes to gaming. One thing you didnt mention was your res. If its larger, then a gpu is maybe the ONLY thing thatll help you, as your cpu gets taken out of the picture completely at higher res, as the games will depend sooo much on your gpu. Ive always maintained that the single best upgrade a gamer can make is a gpu, and thats a fact. If you gpu wont give you playable fps in a game, it doesnt matter what cpu you have. The only difference would be this, if in a certain game, having a killer cpu oceed at 3.6 barely gives you playable fps, then yes, the cpu will matter, but thats rare.

As SS said, almost all the time, the difference will be only in games where your fps are so high anyways it wont matter about your cpu. Everyone wants balance in their rigs, but if youre going to err in a unbalanced gaming rig, the wise move is to err on the side of a better gpu

------------------------------ If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening
Reply to JAYDEEJOHN

Cant believe it took so long for someone to ask about resolution, you cant even start to have a reasoned discussion about the suitability of a GPU unless you know this basic info.
SS really has a thing about this whole bottleneck issue, the thing is though whats being said is right. The only reasons not to get a higher spec GPU are 1 you cant afford it on your budget or 2 its that much overkill that it will start to effect the CPU. The first is obvious and the second is unlikely these days with dual core CPU's but try putting a 4870 with a P4 and the extra GPU power wont make a bit of difference, in fact it will probably be worse as the CPU que causes it to miss out cycles.

Mactronix

Reply to mactronix

I am shooting for 1440x900 and maybe 1680x1050.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to urban_black_redneck

urban_black_redneck wrote :

I am shooting for 1440x900 and maybe 1680x1050.

The things i think that need to be considered are.

Is this a system you plan to upgrade in the future, or will you buy a new system when needs dictate ?
If you do want upgradeability then i would sugest a system based on an Intel CPU as even a relativly cheap Motherboard will suport virtually the full range of Core 2 processors. This is a good link to see performance differances. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/c [...] html#sect0

If you are on a tight budget then the 4850 will easily handle 1440x900 and most games at 1680x 1050 at reasonable level of detail.

On the flipside if you can afford it and plan to keep the system for a reasonable while 2 years + then the 4870 will help you run the latest and greatest games for longer. You will also be able to use more/better detail/quality settings from the start.

A lot of it depends on how long you want to keep it for as GPU tech moves on very fast. Trying to buy a card that may be usefull at a later date is ok but new GPU's keep being released that use less power and perform better for less cost. (3 series VS 4 series) so personally i would only buy what was needed at the time. At the resolutions of 1440x900 and maybe 1680x1050 thats the 4850.

Mactronix

Reply to mactronix

Thanks for the discussion everybody. I am going to build a system with a Phenom 9950 because I do not know how to OC and out of the box the benchmarks show it has better gaming performance than an Intel Q6600.

A 1GB 4870 is a done deal. I went to Frys and to make a little price quote for myself:

Antec Earthwatts 650w PSU $100
Antec 300 case $60
ASUS 790GX board $150
9950 $185
Western 500GB 16MB cache $100
Kingston DDR2 1066 4GB $90
Diamond 1GB 4870 $300
Ideazon gaming pack $50

Samsung T190 19" from Circuit City $260
Windows Vista 64 Home for system builders from Newegg $100

Total $1395 +tax

Reply to urban_black_redneck

urban_black_redneck wrote :

Does anybody even have a 5000x2/4870 combo that they can comment on?

I kinda think an ATI 4850 would be enough, but I also want to know if the 4870 would be feasible with the new platform I want to get.

Ive got a wheezy old e6300 oc'd to 3ghz, with 2gb ram running win xp, and i really feel cpu limited on my 4870.

Its a hell of a card, i'd definetly recommend it, but your cpu will hold it back a bit.

Reply to spoonboy

If I were you, I'd wait for Deneb then. It's going to be faster both clock-by-clock and clockspeeds (sources indicate a 3Ghz stock deneb). It should be out by december.

------------------------------ Anxiously awaiting the Hydra 100 and the Hydra Engine...
www.lucidlogix.com
Reply to emp

If you are going to spend that much and not OC, just buy a Gateway FX6800-01e with the new Core i7 920/HD4850 and another open PCI-3 2.0 x16 for the same or less money (possibly <$1300) incl Vista Home Premium 64bit OS. Normally, I would say build your own but the Phenom system is a waste of money for a new build. You can always add another HD4850 in xfire if you find you need more graphics power but a HD 4850 is more than adequate for 1680x1050 or below.
http://www.slashgear.com/gateway-f [...] g-0221147/

Message edited by Craxbax on 11-06-2008 at 06:26:17 PM

Reply to Craxbax

I decided that I will pay like $700 on a system with the 4670 and AMD 5400, that will be compatible with a Deneb.

It looks like I can't buy a computer till around December/January, so I might end up buying a Deneb system from the start.

I am satisfied now. Thanks for the advice.

Reply to urban_black_redneck

Right good choice, however I'd get at least the HD 4830 if I were you.

------------------------------ Anxiously awaiting the Hydra 100 and the Hydra Engine...
www.lucidlogix.com
Reply to emp

Forum Graphics & Displays : AMD Radeon Would an Athlon 64 x2 4800 bottleneck a 4870?

Graphics Cards

TV Tuner Cards

AMD Radeon

Diamond Multimedia

Matrox

Nvidia

Palit

PowerColor

Please mind