/ Sign-up
Your question

What bottlenecks a 4870 @ 1680x1050?

  • Graphics Cards
  • Bottleneck
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics Cards
November 8, 2008 5:34:33 PM

Hello Toms, I tried to search and the board gave me the finger :( 

Can anyone tell me offhand where the CPU starts to limit the performance of a 4870? I'm currently looking at an E5200, E7200, and E8400. Obviously the less I spend the better, but I want to have the CPU umph to make it all even out. I know the 4850 will give enough power for my resolution, but I only build about once every 5 years, so I'd like to buy as top end as I can afford for extended survivability. (But that's beside the point of the thread...)

The machine will likely run:

4GB DDR2 800
1x 4870




Thanks in advance for opinions and other valuable tidbits!

More about : bottlenecks 4870 1680x1050

November 8, 2008 5:50:35 PM

e8400 should do a little better for games, and should overclock great... you speak of upgrading in 5 years, do yourself a favor and get the e8400, you might even wanna look at quads...
November 8, 2008 5:51:22 PM

any one of those CPUs under 3 Ghz will bottle neck a little. Aim for 3.5.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
November 8, 2008 6:08:03 PM

go for a quad DEFINITELY if you want to keep your computer for that long

get a q9550 ... i know its about twice as much as the e8400... but you'll get much better performance in the long run with a quad vs a dual... and they can overclock really well too... i have mine at 3.85 ghz
a b U Graphics card
November 8, 2008 6:27:39 PM

^ Gotta go with thogrom. If you are planning on running it for that long before another build, get a fast quad. It is more money, but in the long run you won't regret it.
And the standard right now that everyone generally agrees on, is 3.0ghz (Intel) is fast enough. More is always better, but at that speed, you are in great shape.
November 8, 2008 7:12:29 PM

you can get a q6600 and oc it, but i doubt you'll be able to reach 4ghz without encountering overheating issues... try a q9550, seeing a q9450 is nowhere to be found now
November 8, 2008 8:20:32 PM

eklipz330 said:
you can get a q6600 and oc it, but i doubt you'll be able to reach 4ghz without encountering overheating issues... try a q9550, seeing a q9450 is nowhere to be found now

I haven't had heat issues at 4ghz. With a decent air cooler, it should be fine.

Q9550 certainly runs cooler. But the highest of OP's original choices is e8400 at $165. Q6600 is only $15 more. The q9550, at $320, might be too big of a cost increase.
November 9, 2008 10:58:46 PM

Thanks all, I'll soak all of that info up before I make a decision, but it's looking like E8400 after some holiday price drops.
November 9, 2008 11:31:32 PM

Definitely go quad if you intend to keep that rig for 5 years, but I don't recommend OC'ing it. OC'ing significantly decreases the lifespan of the chip (from what I've seen and heard, often times, over half), so there's a chance a heavily oc'd chip will not last 5+ years. You're choice though.

I did a test on bottlenecking with my system. I underclocked my E8400 all the way down to 1200Mhz (lol), and there was some serious bottlenecking there. However, anything above 2400Mhz+ had very little bottlenecking... so even the E5200 should be fine (though it doesnt have much cache)
November 9, 2008 11:56:48 PM

An overclocked chip wil not decrease the "usual" lifespan of the chip. Chips are designed to live for decades, closer to a century. Overclocking takes a few years off. A chip only surviving five years is rediculous unless you overvolt the hell out of it.
November 10, 2008 12:12:45 AM

^+1. The only time life of the processor comes into effect is if youre doing extreme overclocking, requiring LN2 and massive voltage, like the systems K1ngp1n and what not use at the OC torunaments. Those PC's cant even be turned on for more than a few minutes.