Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

GTX 470 + Q8300 Bottleneck?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 25, 2010 5:00:28 PM

Hi, I received a GTX 470 and a Thermaltake 600 watt PSU for x-mas. I installed everythng in my system, but my performance in games isn't much improved over performance with my old 9800gt. I play 1280x1024 with a 17 inch monitor, could that be the case? Or, is my q8300 bottlenecking the card? My current mobo doesn't have cpu voltage control, so I can't OC too far, although I do have a mild OC on it now. Should I go and buy a new monitor for 1080p? Or should I buy another mobo and just overclock my CPU? OR should I buy a new cpu and mobo altogether? also, I put a V8 cooler on this cpu a month ago, so I could OC the cpu pretty far if I bought a new mobo. But, cash is tight, and I don't want to waste money buying a new mobo to OC if it won't fix my problem.

Best solution

a c 131 à CPUs
December 26, 2010 12:43:36 AM

baindramage said:
Hi, I received a GTX 470 and a Thermaltake 600 watt PSU for x-mas. I installed everythng in my system, but my performance in games isn't much improved over performance with my old 9800gt. I play 1280x1024 with a 17 inch monitor, could that be the case?

At that resolution, your CPU is bottlenecking your GPU. I recently upgraded from a 3.2GHz Athlon IIx4 to a 3.4 GHz Phenom IIx6 that turbos to 4.0GHz. At 720p, the minimum framerate in COD4 went from 55FPS to 75FPS. At 1080p, there was no difference. My video card is a radeon 4850.

However, I would still expect your framerate to be exceptional and more than playable in all current games. I would still expect a substantial FPS increase in all games, even at that resolution. What games do you play and at what settings? What program do you use to measure the FPS?

baindramage said:
Or, is my q8300 bottlenecking the card?

See last answer. The bottlenecking and resolution played at are tied together.


baindramage said:
My current mobo doesn't have cpu voltage control, so I can't OC too far, although I do have a mild OC on it now.

I'd expect to be able to get to at least 2.8GHz without a voltage increase.


baindramage said:
Should I go and buy a new monitor for 1080p?

That will eliminate the CPU as a bottleneck. It will also look nice. I'd recommend LG and Samsung as the top brands, but I am happy with my Asus.


baindramage said:
Or should I buy another mobo and just overclock my CPU?

I wouldn't expect substantial gains from the cost of a new socket 775 motherboard.


baindramage said:
OR should I buy a new cpu and mobo altogether?

If you have the money and are willing to spend it, why not? It will also eliminate the CPU bottleneck or at least reduce it.
Core i5 760 is my recommendation. And overclock it.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/89?vs=191


baindramage said:
also, I put a V8 cooler on this cpu a month ago, so I could OC the cpu pretty far if I bought a new mobo. But, cash is tight, and I don't want to waste money buying a new mobo to OC if it won't fix my problem.

Even though your CPU is definitely bottlenecking your GPU, I would not expect you to have framerates under 60FPS in most games today at that resolution. I would expect you to still be able to play all games at a definitely improved performance vs the 9800GT. At the very least in the less CPU intensive games.
Share
a b à CPUs
December 26, 2010 12:55:45 AM

You should have gotten a new monitor. A GTX470 wants 1650x1080 at least, but really 1920x1280.
At that low resolution the strain is all on your cpu which is too slow to keep up with that card.
m
0
l
Related resources
December 26, 2010 4:39:40 AM

Best answer selected by baindramage.
m
0
l
December 26, 2010 4:44:45 AM

Okay, tomorrow I'm going to Frys and buying a new monitor. It seems like that should fix most of the problem. Right now I only have money for a monitor, so I'll grab a good ASUS or Samsung that's 1080p. In January I should have enough money to order a new i5 760 and a good P55. *Hopefully* I can get this PS3 sold soon so I can boost my funds for that. Thanks for ALL the replies, they were truly helpful!
m
0
l
December 26, 2010 4:48:33 AM

And also, the games I play are Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, and Battlefield Bad Company 2. I didn't notice ANY difference in frames in Starcraft, a slight difference in WoW, and actually a pretty noticeable difference in BC2. In SC2 it runs pretty much exactly like it did when I had my OC'ed 9800gt. I honestly didn't get it all, because the 470 is thrice as good as a 9800gt. But, hopefully getting a new monitor will fix this!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 26, 2010 5:48:27 AM

SC2 is an example of a very cpu bound game your Q8300 must have been holding back the 9800gt even which is why the new graphics card didnt improve that game,

and just so you know, buying a new monitor won't "fix" the problem, you will just not lose much performance as still your cpu will hold you back at the same levels, its not like the cpu needs to work less at higher resolutions.

consider this , for example at 1280by1024 now you get lets say 40 fps in a certain game maxed out and if you had a better cpu to allow you to reach the gtx470s potential you would get 80fps.

but switching to a new monitor at 1920by1080, the graphics card since it is so powerfull can still pump out 60fps, but since your cpu is still holding you back at 40fps at the new resolution you will still get the same performance....until you increase the settings in the game enough like if you get some 2560by1200 res monitor or play metro2033 max or something you will be held back by your cpu,

what im trying to say is upgrading your monitor won't increase performance, it will just remain relatively the same whereas someone whos graphics card was a bottleneck upgraded their monitor would have lower performance.

bottom line: buying a new monitor is alright because whatever is playable now with your setup will remain playable with the new monitor, but it isnt fixing anything
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 26, 2010 5:54:51 AM

ps somebody let me know if I am completely wrong, but i think im not lol...
m
0
l
a c 131 à CPUs
December 26, 2010 2:15:53 PM

amirp said:
but switching to a new monitor at 1920by1080, the graphics card since it is so powerfull can still pump out 60fps, but since your cpu is still holding you back at 40fps at the new resolution you will still get the same performance...

But since switching the monitor would eliminate the bottleneck, that logic doesn't work.

*does quick test with cod4 on minimum settings. reduces clockspeed of phenom II to 1000MHz. plays on 1920x1080 and 1280x720 one after the other. radeon 4850.*
720p: minimum framerate observed: 38FPS
1080p: minimum framerate observed: 50FPS

Obviously there isn't much of a CPU bottleneck, if any, until we hit these settings but modern games may be more CPU bound. I know SCII and BFBCII are definitely pretty CPU bound.

I suppose, since you do overclock, you could do a definitive test yourself. Use fraps to record FPS for a sequence you set up for the games. Underclock your CPU, then overclock your CPU to what you have it at now. Is there a noticeable FPS improvement?
m
0
l
December 26, 2010 2:34:28 PM

Uhm, I could be wrong, but I don't think Starcraft 2 is as CPU-bound as you think. I used to play with SC2 with an AMD athlon 6000+ dual-core on 3.4 ghz, with a 9800gt, and the performance was great. I then switched to a Q8300 quad,(with the same GPU) and OC'ed to 2.6, and the performance was EXACTLY the same as when I had the dual-core. However, I did notice an INCREDIBLE difference in Battlefield, which comes to show that it's a very CPU-heavy game. I believe Enzo is right, and I'm picking up an ASUS 23" 1080p monitor today. And if he's wrong, No big whoop. I still get a kick-ass monitor, and all I have to do is wait a week or two and I'll buy a i5 760 and whatever bottlenecking issue I may be having after getting the new monitor should be completely eliminated.

I'm buying the 760 regardless, I've had my eyes set on it since November. I just had this shitty monitor, and wanted to know if I could replace it first, before I did the CPU, and fix these issues I'm having since getting the 470.

m
0
l
December 26, 2010 2:45:48 PM

Also, on the topic of SC2, I decided to do a little experiment. What I did, was turned down ALL of the graphic settings except for the resolution. My fps doubled, and instead of getting 60 constant, I got fps in the 100s. But, my GPU usage was EXACTLY the same as it was before when running on ultra. After that, I turned everything back on, and I lowered the resolution to the lowest it would possibly go. My GPU usage dropped from avg 40% to 28%. I also observed NO fps increase by doing so when using fraps to record fps.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 30, 2010 4:36:23 AM

Enzo, your results cannot be correct, re-do the tests and use an in game benchmark something set, how can you lower resolution and obtain decrease in performance, am I missing something?
(I know at lower resolutions a greater percentage of the load is on the cpu .... but that load is proportionally less at a lower resolution so the only thing lowering resolution would do is it would increase performance more for people with strong cpu's but increase only slightly for people with weaker cpu's , it should never become worse.

I also have a weak cpu matched with a strong graphic card. Lowering resolution always either increases performance or most of the time it remains the same because my cpu has been the bottlneck at all resolutions. For example in starcraft 2 if I lower the settings to minimum graphics or max it out I have almost the same performance, which shows my cpu is the bottleneck.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 30, 2010 4:55:24 AM

baindramage said:
Also, on the topic of SC2, I decided to do a little experiment. What I did, was turned down ALL of the graphic settings except for the resolution. My fps doubled, and instead of getting 60 constant, I got fps in the 100s. But, my GPU usage was EXACTLY the same as it was before when running on ultra. After that, I turned everything back on, and I lowered the resolution to the lowest it would possibly go. My GPU usage dropped from avg 40% to 28%. I also observed NO fps increase by doing so when using fraps to record fps.



Ok as for your first test, lowering the details increased performance but GPU usage was the same. This is simple in showing that if the gpu usage remains the same at a lower detail settings it can pump out more fps.

And as for your second test, it shows that lowering resolution had no effect on performance so your graphic card could handle both resolutions and could work less at the lower one to obtain the same performance. This shows that increasing or lowering resolution (so any change in resolution ie. buying the monitor) will not affect your performance because your graphic card has enough memory to handle different performance levels.

I am confident in saying that Enzo is incorrect in saying that increasing your resolution with a new monitor will increase your performance. I am pretty sure that in less gpu intense games at the higher resolution your graphic card will be ok and performance will remain relatively the same at your cpu's max, but in gpu intense games like metro2033 at the higher resolution your graphic card will now hold your system back and you will have lower performance. There is no case where performance will increase.

But even though I say all of this , getting a new monitor is not a bad idea at all, your system is more than capable of handling smooth frame rates at full 1080p, your cpu although holding your fps back, it still allows you to have playable performance.
m
0
l
a c 131 à CPUs
December 31, 2010 5:17:24 PM

amirp said:
Enzo, your results cannot be correct, re-do the tests and use an in game benchmark something set, how can you lower resolution and obtain decrease in performance, am I missing something?
(I know at lower resolutions a greater percentage of the load is on the cpu .... but that load is proportionally less at a lower resolution so the only thing lowering resolution would do is it would increase performance more for people with strong cpu's but increase only slightly for people with weaker cpu's , it should never become worse.

I also have a weak cpu matched with a strong graphic card. Lowering resolution always either increases performance or most of the time it remains the same because my cpu has been the bottlneck at all resolutions. For example in starcraft 2 if I lower the settings to minimum graphics or max it out I have almost the same performance, which shows my cpu is the bottleneck.

My test is an extreme case. The CPU has been lowered to 1GHz.
m
0
l
!