Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Q8400 Bottleneck

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 13, 2010 3:13:41 PM

if i pair a nvidia gtx 480 and a intel core 2 quad q8400 will there be a bottleneck at higher resolutions?

More about : q8400 bottleneck

July 13, 2010 3:22:04 PM

nope......no games till now have that capacity....

your good to go...
a b U Graphics card
July 13, 2010 10:22:14 PM

If your Q8200 is at stock, yes there will be a bottleneck. Luckily, the Q8400 is very overclockable. Even if you overclock it, you'll still experience some bottlenecks since dual GTX480s are very powerful.

Make sure you have a 850-1000watt PSU in order to run two GTX480s.

But overall, I suggest just 1 GTX480s. (for two, you'll need something like an i7 quad or a PII x6).

Related resources
a b U Graphics card
July 14, 2010 2:36:06 AM

He is just getting 1 GTX 480, he means pairing the GTX 480 with the Q8400.
There will be a bottleneck depending on the game, but overall should be plenty.
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 14, 2010 8:52:28 AM

There might be a slight restriction but at higher resolutios there is less chance of this happening anyway. Its nothing your going to notice anyway.

Mactronix
July 15, 2010 10:19:45 AM

How about gtx480 with E7500?
July 15, 2010 12:30:06 PM

An E7500 with a gtx 480 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  lol....
July 15, 2010 1:00:58 PM

i have q8400 :sol: 

i thought i will experience bottleneck

this forum helped me too
July 20, 2010 10:05:27 AM

How about gtx460 with q8400?
July 20, 2010 10:40:09 AM

karthik_11 said:
How about gtx460 with q8400?



man use your brains a bit before posting...., if the gtx 480 dosent bottelnecks with q8400 then how come the gtx 460??
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 20, 2010 11:24:44 AM

raiyus13 said:
An E7500 with a gtx 480 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  lol....

I don't see what is so funny. On good air cooling that processor can get close to 4ghz. Most games still don't effectively use more than 2 cores.
July 20, 2010 11:56:20 AM

jyjjy said:
I don't see what is so funny. On good air cooling that processor can get close to 4ghz. Most games still don't effectively use more than 2 cores.


Im sorry :sarcastic:  ........but i just can't hold my laughter after seeing the weird combination of pairing a e7500 with a gtx480........btw...i had the c2d e7500 before with a gtx 260 but sorry to say i hardly get good fps in demanding games of this age.....the e8xxx series could cetainly be more than enough but not certainly the e7500 (keeping OC aside as not all are comfortable with it!)........
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 20, 2010 12:13:08 PM

You do know the E8xxx processors only differ from the E7000 chips in that they have more L2 cache right? They use the exact same core.
How does more L2 cache turn something you laugh at into "certainly more than enough"?
July 20, 2010 3:39:03 PM

jyjjy said:
You do know the E8xxx processors only differ from the E7000 chips in that they have more L2 cache right? They use the exact same core.
How does more L2 cache turn something you laugh at into "certainly more than enough"?



i certainly disagree from your point... yes it is true that the e7xxx has 3mb l2 where the e8xxx has 6mb l2 (double) but this is not all.....there lots of other differences that makes a huge difference in performance...

1). e7xxx has 3mb l2 where the e8xxx has 6mb l2 (as you said).

2). e7xxx runs on 1066 MHz fsb where the 8xxx runs on 1333 Mhz fsb.

3). no of Processing Die Transistors in e7xxx is 228 million where as it is 410 million in e8xxx.

4). and thats not all the die size also differ from each other ,the e8xxx has 107 mm where it is 82 mm in e7xxx which tells it has a lot of difference....

Now i hope that i am able to clear out the mis-conception from you and if not there is nothing more i can do about it........

and it is clear that it is not only the L2 that i laughed for.......
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 20, 2010 3:58:15 PM

So basically you looked them up on the Intel site and pointed out any difference despite not knowing what they mean or if they actually contradict what I said...
Let me repeat, they use the exact same wolfdale processor core. The only notable difference when it comes to performance is the amount of L2 cache. Yes, they do have a different default front side bus(and different multipliers.) This is relevant during the process of overclocking but if anything the lower front side bus and higher multiplier allows for easier overclocking.
July 20, 2010 4:20:34 PM

my appologies, but it is the only place from where people get to know about intel proccesors but i think you forgot to do this basic step before posting the only difference of L2........any way i think you want to say that transistors dont make any difference in proccesing prerformance, then i must admit you must be very week in electronics.......
July 20, 2010 4:34:02 PM

The difference between e7xxx and e8xxx definitely results in more performance. Just check it here and see. how about

e7500 and q8400.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2

Aside that i have a doubt. while browsing i came upon green power edition of xfx cards. for eg instead of 64 shaders

it has 48 shaders. does this affect the cards performance. by how much. The 9600 gt will be great for 1440*900 gaming

resolution for recent games. will the green power edition handle it.
July 20, 2010 4:40:41 PM

karthik_11 said:
The difference between e7xxx and e8xxx definitely results in more performance. Just check it here and see. how about

e7500 and q8400.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2

Aside that i have a doubt. while browsing i came upon green power edition of xfx cards. for eg instead of 64 shaders

it has 48 shaders. does this affect the cards performance. by how much. The 9600 gt will be great for 1440*900 gaming

resolution for recent games. will the green power edition handle it.



sorry but you checked the q8400 check the e8500 and the e7500 and see their difference............

yes shaders will affect,but the difference is not noticable....the 9600 will be good at mid settings

but a gts 250 or a hd 4850 will be enough....
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 20, 2010 4:44:17 PM

The product page for the processor certainly is not the only way to learn about these chips and assuming other people are ignorant because you don't understand what the things list on that page actually mean is a mistake.
July 20, 2010 4:50:02 PM

jyjjy said:
The product page for the processor certainly is not the only way to learn about these chips and assuming other people are ignorant because you don't understand what the things list on that page actually mean is a mistake.


im extremly sorry for being rude.......

but what do you mean?
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 20, 2010 4:52:43 PM

karthik_11 said:
The difference between e7xxx and e8xxx definitely results in more performance. Just check it here and see. how about

e7500 and q8400.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2

Aside that i have a doubt. while browsing i came upon green power edition of xfx cards. for eg instead of 64 shaders

it has 48 shaders. does this affect the cards performance. by how much. The 9600 gt will be great for 1440*900 gaming

resolution for recent games. will the green power edition handle it.

Yes, the difference in performance is due to the different cache sizes. Here is the actual comparison page between those 2 processors;
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/87?vs=56
As you can see the average difference in performance is approximately 10%.
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 20, 2010 4:53:40 PM

raiyus13 said:
im extremly sorry for being rude.......

but what do you mean?

What I mean is that you are doing the most basic research possible and then assuming you know more than the person you are talking to.
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 20, 2010 4:57:02 PM

karthik_11 said:
while browsing i came upon green power edition of xfx cards. for eg instead of 64 shaders

it has 48 shaders. does this affect the cards performance. by how much. The 9600 gt will be great for 1440*900 gaming

resolution for recent games. will the green power edition handle it.

All 9600GTs have 64 shader cores. Are you sure you aren't looking at a 9600GSO? They come in two varieties, one with 96 cores and the other with 48 cores.
July 20, 2010 4:59:05 PM

jyjjy said:
What I mean is that you are doing the most basic research possible and then assuming you know more than the person you are talking to.


yes, i admit you are more experienced because im only 16......but that dosent mean that im wrong or the transistor amount they mentioned is wrong.
July 21, 2010 9:50:53 AM

The performance of a processor depends on its architecture. for eg check the e8600 and i3 530. this lower end i3 chip

performs equal to e8600 (higher end dual core) due to its l3 cache and new architecture.

regarding the 9600 gt if i overclock and set the core,shader and memory to the default specs in nvidia site the bandwidth

are exactly same. so is it a 9600 gt or 9600gso.

default core-600;shader-1500;memory-700;

overclocked-650;shader-1625;memory-900;

will this reduce the cards life when running a gpu intensive game such as just cause2 say for 3 hours.

also will this give any questinable benefit. remember the green power so no pci 6 connector and 48 shaders.
July 21, 2010 11:23:30 AM

I just want to know the performance of this card(9600 gt) which i have in a other system. The gtx480 is for my new rig.
July 21, 2010 11:34:42 AM

You should have opened a different thread for the 9600....

The lifespan of a gpu depends on what temperature it is running, higher the temps lesser the lifespan and viseversa......

July 21, 2010 11:44:20 AM

how about idle@55 and load 62-66
July 21, 2010 11:47:20 AM

its normal...
July 21, 2010 11:55:47 AM

then how about overclocking from 600/700/1500 to 650/900/1625 with 48 shaders and any performance gain in latest

games at 1600*900 resolution.also i need another opinion .i plan to buy samsung b2030 myst eco.

is it good or lg w2043t. these are my two options. Frankly i must have created a new thread for graphics as well as

monitor, i did it and nobody seems to help me. i live in chennai. so please give me your opinions.
July 21, 2010 12:02:52 PM

well im in kolkata hehe :lol:  ...........it dosent matters mate.

well it varies from cards to cards.......but seeing from above there will be a minute gain in performance.........

go for the samsung though both are same its just lg stuffs dont have good lifespan.
July 21, 2010 12:14:06 PM

thanks,lol. I have a doubt. In the Forum section i cannot see SELECT AS BEST ANSWER in my threads why is it.
July 21, 2010 12:23:32 PM

yes, there might be some page error ,sometimes it shows up, sometimes it dosent. dont know why....
July 21, 2010 1:16:10 PM

IS i3-530 better than q8400. 2physical cores and 2 virtual cores better than 4

physical cores. you have helped me a lot raiyus13 please tell me this
July 21, 2010 2:24:31 PM

karthik_11 said:
IS i3-530 better than q8400. 2physical cores and 2 virtual cores better than 4

physical cores. you have helped me a lot raiyus13 please tell me this



sure im happy to help,ask me as many questions you want...... :) 

the q8400 will be way better....

and the answer for your question "2physical cores and 2 virtual cores better than 4" is NO. 4 physical cores will be a lot better than the 2physical cores and 2 virtual cores......

you must have heard of the term called "hyper-threading", now in this technology we can split 1 phisical core (which actually exist) into 2 virtual cores (which exist virtually).so, basically we are dividing 1 core into 2 cores (or 2 threads)(but in real it is only 1 core).now there is a processor having 2 physical cores without hyper-threading.now if the processor having 1core with hyper-threading competes with the processor having 2cores ,it is obvious that the processor having 2cores wins......and hence in your question the 4 physical cores wins....

hyper-threading is implimented just to increase the efficiency of multi-tasking...
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 21, 2010 10:25:23 PM

As I said earlier all 9600GTs have 64 shaders. If your card does not have 64 shaders then it is not a 9600GT. The only cards of that series with 48 shaders were the 9600 GSO 512 and the 9600 GS which was an OEM card. OCing your card will always increase performance but it is unlikely to make it equal to a card with more shaders.
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 21, 2010 10:26:36 PM

raiyus13 said:
the q8400 will be way better....
Not necessarily. It will be better in applications that actually use all of the cores. It will be worse in those that don't;
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/118?vs=89
July 22, 2010 1:08:55 AM

ehen i overclock and bring the 9600gt specs to the exact default specs in nvidia website. i get the exact bandwidth of

9600 gt and not 9600 gso. that means this is a 9600 gt with 16 shaders disabled.
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 22, 2010 1:27:40 AM

There are no 9600GTs with shaders disabled and overclocking to the default speed of the 9600GT will not give you the processing power of those shaders.
There are two versions of the 9600GSO. One is based on the same processor as the 9800GT but it is underclocked, has 16 shaders disabled and has a 192-bit bus and 384mb(or 768mb) of memory. The other is based on the processor in the 9600GT except it is underclocked and has 16 shaders disabled. Both the memory bandwidth and amount of this card is the same as the 9600GT. It is most likely what you have.
Also I would recommend OCing the card as much as it can handle and run stably. There's no reason to stop at the 9600GTs stock settings.
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 22, 2010 6:24:25 AM

Was XFX really selling gimped 9600GTs? That is pretty shady. What was the model number of that card?
July 22, 2010 10:51:05 AM

@dipankar2007ind how was the performance of the card in latest games. how about 1600*900 resolution.

did you overclock the card? When did you buy the card? take your time and answer .
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 22, 2010 11:29:24 AM

Turns out you are right. XFX was/is selling 9600 GSOs as "low power" 9600GTs. That's pretty messed up really. Lowers my opinion of them as a manufacturer if they flat out lie to their customers about what they are buying.
Anyway, yeah, just overclock the card as much as you can. There's not much you can do about it at this point unless you purchased it recently enough to return it.
July 22, 2010 11:56:06 AM

i had a lot of geforce 9series cards (9400GT,9600GT,9800GT) and i know their performance thoroughly...

Latest games on 1600x900 resolution will be quite a lot heavy for it now.it is mearly an entry-level card.

it is good at 1280x720 resolution (you can play most of the games a max settings) ,but a reso like 1600x900 would be too heavy for it..

i had 64 shaders though in my 9600gt....
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 22, 2010 12:06:11 PM

Games will be playable at 1600x900 but most current games will likely require medium to low settings.
July 22, 2010 1:53:29 PM

Raiyus how about mid settings at 1400*900 resolution Eg Just cause 2
July 22, 2010 2:16:12 PM

yes you will get a pretty decent performance.

For just cause 2 :

just lower down the shadow and objects details and
turn off SSAO and point light specular,others set to high.

and you will get avg fps arround 30-35.
a b U Graphics card
July 22, 2010 10:57:33 PM

jyjjy said:
So basically you looked them up on the Intel site and pointed out any difference despite not knowing what they mean or if they actually contradict what I said...
Let me repeat, they use the exact same wolfdale processor core. The only notable difference when it comes to performance is the amount of L2 cache. Yes, they do have a different default front side bus(and different multipliers.) This is relevant during the process of overclocking but if anything the lower front side bus and higher multiplier allows for easier overclocking.


I could not help it but i have to.
You said"Let me repeat, they use the exact same wolfdale processor core." when "Processing Die Transistors in e7xxx is 228 million where as it is 410 million in e8xxx"..that's not the same, is it? :) 
EDIT: if this is off topic, sorry.
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 22, 2010 11:18:40 PM

ionut19 said:
I could not help it but i have to.
You said"Let me repeat, they use the exact same wolfdale processor core." when "Processing Die Transistors in e7xxx is 228 million where as it is 410 million in e8xxx"..that's not the same, is it? :) 
EDIT: if this is off topic, sorry.

:pfff: 
They are different, they have a different amount of cache, as has been said repeatedly. But yes, the actual processing cores are exactly the same. The same core is also used in wolfdale E5000s, E6000s and even also Yorkfield processors except those have 4 cores.
On the AMD side it is similar. A Phenom II is EXACTLY the same as an Athlon II apart from the Phenom IIs having L3 cache.
!