Hi, I'm pretty sure I have a CPU bottleneck in gaming, even though everyone says that, according to my specs it should be the GPU. Well, I'll post my specs here:
CPU: Athlon X2 6000 3.1ghz 512Kx2 L2 cache, 5200MT/s HyperTransport, disabled C'n'Q, nothing's overclocked.
RAM: 4GB DDR2 800 5-5-5-18
GPU: nvidia 9800 GT 512MB (1440x900 native resolution on my screen)
Chipset: nforce 520LE (430+geforce 6100), has PCIe version 1 @ 100mhz)
Mobo, gigabyte GA-M52L-S3 rev.2
Okay, straight to the Crysis 64 bit benchmarks:
40fps @ 1440x900 (avg.)
39fps @ 800x600 (avg.)
Conclusion: CPU is bottlenecking system.
36fps @ 1440x900 (avg.)
36fps @ 800x600 (avg.)
Conclusion: GPU is definitley not bottlenecking.
Final Conclusion: GPU is being held back by other component(s), probably the CPU.
So do you think that this data backs up my theory that it has to be the CPU, or at least definitely not the GPU, that's bottlenecking my system? Also, do you think that my CPU/GPU is running
Whatever it is, I'm going to upgrade to a Phenom II 940 quad core later this year, not just for gaming but other stuff like video rendering etc, plus running virus scans while gaming, and GTAIV which takes advantage of quad cores.
Though it may be bottlenecking, it may not be a big bottleneck. What I mean is that you may spend $200 in a quad core and get 45 instead of 40 FPS. That's just a rough number, you may or may not see a bigger improvement.
For gaming, I'd upgrade the CPU when you decide to upgrade your GPU too. But if you do other stuff, then the Ph II will be a smarter choice
The GT isnt so fast as to create a major cpu slowdown effect, it seems somewhat balanced with your cpu. OC the cpu, see what it brings. I agree, getting a faster cpu that costs alot wont give you too much from your gpu
What I have seen from benchmarks is that the cpu is heaver taxed with rendering at lower resolutions. Yes, you will have higher fps with a newer processor, but the gpu isnt being bottlenecked by the cpu.