Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Minimum CPU to push the GTX 295

Tags:
  • Nvidia
  • Gtx
  • CPUs
  • Windows Vista
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 3, 2009 7:46:55 PM

Currently I have a e6850 w/10% OC is it going to be enough?
Vista 64 ult 8 gigs ram

More about : minimum cpu push gtx 295

January 3, 2009 10:13:33 PM

I would say an e8400 at stock speeds would be a minimum, so a 3.3ghz 6850 should be fine.
January 3, 2009 11:57:13 PM

Q6600 in the Quads.
Related resources
January 4, 2009 5:34:39 AM

Perhaps
a b Î Nvidia
a b à CPUs
January 4, 2009 9:17:44 AM

Last i heard you dont need much above a core 2 running at 2.4 to get the best from todays cards, just latly people have been saying that much over 3.0 isnt worth the bother as far as Overclocking goes as the performance returns are not worth the extra hastle. So i would say any Core2 above 2.4 is good to go.

Mactronix
January 4, 2009 2:12:16 PM

My Q6600 bottle necked my gtx260 at 2.4, so I would have to disagree with the above posts. I would say a quad with at least 3.2-3.4 to get the full benefits of the 295.
a b Î Nvidia
a b à CPUs
January 4, 2009 2:56:35 PM

^+1
I may be wrong here but any CPU upgrade/overclock will result in a performance increase. Thats not to say you had a bottleneck or more correctly a system restriction before.

Mactronix
January 4, 2009 4:18:20 PM

With my E8600 going from 3.3-4.3 gave me a noticable boost in framerates with my 4870 X2. Going from 4.3-5.2 watercooled did nothing so, there is a certain amount of truth to this. I think it comes down to the law of diminishing returns.
January 4, 2009 5:38:39 PM

mactronix said:
Last i heard you dont need much above a core 2 running at 2.4 to get the best from todays cards, just latly people have been saying that much over 3.0 isnt worth the bother as far as Overclocking goes as the performance returns are not worth the extra hastle. So i would say any Core2 above 2.4 is good to go.

Mactronix


hmmmmmmm i'd have to disagree with you and strangerstranger. Im on a 2mb cache core 2 (e6300) and ive noticed a boost every time i oc. gone in steps from stock to 2.1ghz, then to 2.4ghz, to 2.8ghz, and now finally on 3.0ghz. The last 200mhz oc I definetly felt in games and its a shame i cant go any further on my crappy ram. Ive got a 4870 and im sure as eggs are eggs thats its not operating at full potential for want of cpu power. Games want 2 fast cores much much more than 4 quick-ish cores btw, so a stock q6600 is not gonna cut it alongside say even a e6850. Crysis 1&2, farcry 2 and both stalkers love all the mhz you can throw at them. Besides gaming with fraps on and the odd not so infrequent jerkiness without the HD grinding away and neither the fps going under 25 is nailed-on cpu limitation, which I do experience. Cheers.
a b Î Nvidia
a b à CPUs
January 4, 2009 5:53:09 PM

This is one of the best explanations i have found to explain exactly what a bottleneck is. http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_detecting_windows_cpu_proce...
As i said in my post after the one you quoted. "I may be wrong here but any CPU upgrade/overclock will result in a performance increase. Thats not to say you had a bottleneck or more correctly a system restriction before."

Mactronix

January 4, 2009 6:57:45 PM

oh ok fair enough. Nice explanation for a cpu bottleneck btw!
January 4, 2009 9:16:07 PM

Your CPU is bottle necking your GPU until you stop receiving fps gains from the increased CPU speed. It's not rocket science. Take a game like Crysis which is more reliant on your GPU for performance. Lets say you get an average of 20 fps with a gtx260 with your Q6600 at 2.4. You then OC your CPU to 3.2 and gain an average of 10 fps. That means your CPU was preventing your GPU from performing as well as it could be aka a bottle neck.





January 5, 2009 12:54:41 PM

Considering you're using the words 'noob' and 'newbs' I'll veer away from an intelligent response.
January 5, 2009 1:02:02 PM

Im a little confused with the article above. I think I must be missing something.
Quote" A sustained processor queue of less than two threads per processor is normally acceptable, depending upon the workload."

While in Task Man. I see where threads are listed but it cant be the queue.
How do I see the actual queue?
My threads are 739 on a dual core Amd at 3.2G while Im typing this.
I know that cant be right.
January 5, 2009 3:13:01 PM

SS+bottleneck explanations =oh oh
It all comes down to the definition of bottleneck. Too many people refer to restrictions as bottlenecks. Now, If I say a restriction is somewhat of a bottleneck? Each carries so much weight, with the term bottleneck is as SS said, not allowing for competant performance, whereas a restriction allows for acceptable performance, but has slowdowns/restrictions in certain areas regarding HW
January 5, 2009 3:15:18 PM

Somewhat of a bottleneck is akin to saying somewhat of a non performance, just to make this clear
January 5, 2009 8:52:32 PM

Yea, alot of people OEM, which eliminates ocing, some have older mobos, so its not just a drop in for a newer cpu, let alone the cost and some older mobos dont have bios support, so sometimes you have to work with what you have.
Wouls a quad help here? Sure. Would higher clocks? Up to a certain speed yes, but that shouldnt be the first thing out by anyone when in the OP, the OP asks minimum. Its NOT optimum, and credit to the OP for knowing that, but it should be fine
January 5, 2009 9:02:21 PM

So someone buying a Gtx295 is just going to be dropping it in their newly bought Bestbuy HP desktop?

I believe I was more on point with what this post was: Will an E6850 bottleneck a gtx295?

The answer is yes, to a certain degree, considering our definitions of 'bottleneck' vary a great deal as we've seen.

January 5, 2009 9:11:49 PM

A 3.2 kentsfield dual isnt that much of a slow down for any card. It will perform at highest in over 90% of all games, and the other 10%, the majority of those do better on a quad, but its still playable, just not optimal, even for those games. When getting to over 3Ghz on any modern cpu, youre not going to lose alot in gaming
January 5, 2009 9:24:27 PM

Quote:
Yes, but you cannot visualise your bottleneck nor prove it exists, so your kinda screwed there.



As I've mentioned before, I need not devalue your opinion, you do a transcendent job of it yourself.
January 5, 2009 9:35:30 PM

The point here is, the OP asked minimum, and the answers yes.
@ Liderc, no where did you mention this,, so in essence, youve only touted what we all know, even the OP, but never really answered his question
January 5, 2009 9:39:57 PM

Perfectly playable is also subjective as well as the definition of bottleneck.


Edit: He stated Minimum CPU to PUSH the gtx295, he never stated Minimum CPU to run a gtx295, you could run a gtx295 with a 10 year old CPU if you wished.
January 5, 2009 9:47:41 PM

sdnerf said:
Currently I have a e6850 w/10% OC is it going to be enough?
Vista 64 ult 8 gigs ram

Theres the OP. The answers yes
January 6, 2009 5:16:26 AM

Liderc said:

you could run a gtx295 with a 10 year old CPU if you wished.


I'm not sure, but I have to disagree with your statement. GTX295 will be on PCI-express and I don't think any motherboard with a socket fitting a 10 year old CPU have a PCI-express slot. You could also have issues with a 10 year old CPU running XP and Nvidia's drivers, I'm not sure if Nvidia will put out GTX 295 drivers for anything before XP. I'm not sure of these two issues, however, and I didn't look at Nvidia drivers or try to find socket 478 motherboards with PCI-e.

I'm not trying to be mean, but you rudely asserted your intelligence, and I find that annoying.
January 6, 2009 1:29:11 PM

My point was, almost any cpu in the last 10 years could run a gtx295, not that it would have the a pci-e slot on the motherboard from 10 years ago.

Take things a little less literal next time.
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2009 2:39:11 PM

pat mcgroin said:
Im a little confused with the article above. I think I must be missing something.
Quote" A sustained processor queue of less than two threads per processor is normally acceptable, depending upon the workload."

While in Task Man. I see where threads are listed but it cant be the queue.
How do I see the actual queue?
My threads are 739 on a dual core Amd at 3.2G while Im typing this.
I know that cant be right.




The linked article is defining an acceptable queue in the context of an Oracle Database - Meaning, for each processor in your server, there should be 2 threads at a time in the queue awaiting a response (or less) - in sustained operation. So unless you have an Oracle database running on your PC, it's safe to ignore this specification.

Also, you are looking at the total number of processes running on your computer - Not how many happen to have transactions awaiting a response from a database that you don't have... ;) 


As far as the rest of the discussion here... Without defining a context, even in as minimal a fashion as setting a screen resolution, any discussion is essentially meaningless. - (The amount of Processor power needed to max this card at 1024x768 is very different from what's needed to achieve the same result at 1920x1200) - And doubly so since nobody can actually buy one of these cards yet. Therefore, it's probably also safe to ignore everything posted on the topic, too.
January 7, 2009 2:47:09 PM

Scott thanks for clearing that up for me.
I knew I wasnt catching something.
I saw it was under a Oracle page but I guess I didnt give it enough brain power while trying to learn something.
I RIP a lot of movies and do some gaming and I thought it could possibly be relevent towards helping to know when a new processor is required.

As a side note its rather sad to see this post turn into a flame war.
If the person wants to get the card it will run fine for him well into the future
and give him the ability to upgrade other components as money and needs may require.
As stated somewhere above not everyone has bottomless pockets so a systematic approach to system performance with an eye towards the future is all the rest of us could ever possibly hope for.

January 7, 2009 6:09:46 PM

Thanks for all the info and the article was informative as well. Im going to order the card as soon as its available and I'll post FPS results based on the my current system and with the switch to the gtx295. I will use the crysis demo, 3d05, 3d06. Thx again.
January 11, 2009 8:42:24 PM

Liderc said:
As I've mentioned before, I need not devalue your opinion, you do an transcendent job of it yourself.

Not trying to be mean or Rude. But, just a Quick Question.

What kind of Accent do you have?

I have seen The English use "an" when referring to a "Hospital" or a "Helicopter" or a "Home". but, To date, I have not seen an "an" placed in front of words like "Transcendent".

OK I forgive you ;)  if it was just a Typo and or missed in Spell check. I am not the perfect speller myself and my grammar leaves a lot to be improved upon.

Bryce
January 12, 2009 3:32:40 AM

BGRing said:
Not trying to be mean or Rude. But, just a Quick Question.

What kind of Accent do you have?

I have seen The English use "an" when referring to a "Hospital" or a "Helicopter" or a "Home". but, To date, I have not seen an "an" placed in front of words like "Transcendent".

OK I forgive you ;)  if it was just a Typo and or missed in Spell check. I am not the perfect speller myself and my grammar leaves a lot to be improved upon.

Bryce


Sorry=P Was actually going to use a different word which required an*, ended up using transcendent and forgot to change it, fixed for ya.
January 12, 2009 5:13:15 AM

Liderc said:
Sorry=P Was actually going to use a different word which required an*, ended up using transcendent and forgot to change it, fixed for ya.


I have Been there and done that. not long ago either. and I will probably be there again soon ;) 

I was actually stuck for about 3 minutes trying to say Transcendent with an A or an E or an I or an O or an "a" or an "i" etc etc etc... But then I thought Hmmm. what kind of accent is that :D 

NE Way.

No Prob Bob.

Bryce.

PS
Feel free to pick my grammar or spelling at any time ;) 
!