Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is it bottleneck or not ?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 22, 2010 2:21:30 PM

this is my specs :
-AMD Athlon II x2 240 Overclocked @3.12 ghz
-Biostar TA790GXB with 790GXB Chipset
-3x1gb Adata memory @ 800Mhz DDR2
-nVidia GF GTS 250 OC 512MB Twin Frozr (760/1835/1150)
-PSU Seasonic M-12 Modular 600W
-WDC Caviar Blue 320 GB 32mb cache
-Windows XP 32-bit

I tested it with 3dmark o6, and it's scored 13058 with default settings and 10280x1024 resolution...

my question is : my computer bottleneck or not..?? what's the solution..??

More about : bottleneck

a c 189 U Graphics card
September 22, 2010 2:29:43 PM

Well, i'm pretty sure you can maxed out Almost every games with your system, since your resolution is just 1280x1024. :) 
a b U Graphics card
September 22, 2010 2:57:21 PM

3x1gb, so no dual?
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
September 22, 2010 3:24:53 PM

Very Slightly, and i mean VERY if at all.

I would go for 2x 2GB ram Stick = 4GB Ram. That seems to be the "Norm" or "Optimal"
a c 271 U Graphics card
September 22, 2010 3:27:16 PM

XP 32 can only use 3.25GB of RAM or thereabouts so the OP would probably be better off just running 2GB in dual channel mode.
September 23, 2010 12:21:23 PM

dalta centauri said:
3x1gb, so no dual?



nope... because xp 32-bit only support 3.25 gb ram..
so, i used 3x1gb...
September 23, 2010 12:38:03 PM

reccy said:
Very Slightly, and i mean VERY if at all.

I would go for 2x 2GB ram Stick = 4GB Ram. That seems to be the "Norm" or "Optimal"



if i used 2x2gb ram, is it increasing my GPU...??


but, i had another rig in my room (for gaming)... specs :
-AMD Athlon II x4 635 OC @ 3.7 ghz + Xigmatek Dark knight + Zalman thermal Paste
-MSI 770-G45 (AM3)
-G-Skill PC 12800 Cl 9 2gb kit DDR3
-MSI GF GTS 250 OC 1gb twin frozr
-FSP Everest 700W Modulat 88+
-WDC Black Series 1TB
-Windows XP-32bit

but the score 3dMark 06 with default settings 15723 (1440x900).. 19"

the score is too far from my gaming rig...!!
whether I should change the processor..??
September 23, 2010 12:40:55 PM

wa1 said:
Well, i'm pretty sure you can maxed out Almost every games with your system, since your resolution is just 1280x1024. :) 



but that rig is not for gaming... it's for working...
i had another rig (for gaming)...
you're hardcore gamer...??
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2010 5:49:29 PM

If it's not for gaming, I don't see much of a problem with any component other than the RAM not being dual channel.
a c 235 U Graphics card
September 23, 2010 6:03:15 PM

fahmee said:
nope... because xp 32-bit only support 3.25 gb ram..
so, i used 3x1gb...


mousemonkey is correct, plus your video card takes up 512mb of that 3.25GB anyways
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2010 6:12:46 PM

Even though Windows 32Bit uses 3.25GB, i would still personally prefer the 4GB in the system..
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2010 6:19:51 PM

Quote:
exactly what I said too...
so i officially concur.


Sorry mate, didnt see it. But yeah +1 to you dude.
a c 235 U Graphics card
September 23, 2010 6:28:04 PM

:pfff: 

the 512mb takes away from the 3.25GB not 4GB and every gaming benchmark done proved there was no difference between 2GB and 3GB+ in win XP 32bit. this discussion has been talked to death the past few years and its continoully been proven the opnions you stated are wrong
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2010 6:28:29 PM

^ I guess I missed that battle.

The price difference for 800MHz RAM between 2GB and 4GB isn't substantial anyway. Go for the 4GB to cover up the extra 750mb'ish of RAM usage left that 32-bit allows.

Oh, and I guess if he does upgrade to 64-bit, having the 4GB wouldn't hurt.
a c 271 U Graphics card
September 23, 2010 6:29:33 PM

Quote:
i agree with the video card eating some of the 4GB to 3.25GB along with the other components.
but, I do not agree with you and mm with the 2GB.
even if the RAM is in dual mode it still is only 2GB, I would personally have 3GB if my only other option was 2GB total.
more RAM is more RAM no matter how you look at it.
a system with 3GB will run more stable than a system with 2GB, especially with multiple apps running.

I've tried it on my 32bit system and there is no performance gain at all from 2GB to 4GB but if you want to run 4GB or 6GB or 24GB then go for it, I just know from experience that there is nothing to be gained either from the OS or apps run.
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2010 6:31:02 PM

Might be NO difference in performance from 2GB to 4GB, but sure as hell damit i'd rather have the 4GB in my PC anyways for the extra boost when it needs it IF it ever did need it :) 
a c 235 U Graphics card
September 23, 2010 6:36:42 PM

Quote:
you know what bro. i feel like an ass..
this entire time i thought he was also upgrading to Win7..
this is my off day and I'm still on the pc...
toke break. :ange: 


no worries
a c 235 U Graphics card
September 23, 2010 6:37:45 PM

reccy said:
Might be NO difference in performance from 2GB to 4GB, but sure as hell damit i'd rather have the 4GB in my PC anyways for the extra boost when it needs it IF it ever did need it :) 


agreed unless he plans to buy/build a new PC soon since going with DDR3 would make more sense then spending money on more DDR2 RAM
a c 235 U Graphics card
September 23, 2010 6:39:33 PM

Mousemonkey said:
I've tried it on my 32bit system and there is no performance gain at all from 2GB to 4GB but if you want to run 4GB or 6GB or 24GB then go for it, I just know from experience that there is nothing to be gained either from the OS or apps run.


ran the exact same test back in the day with FEAR in Win XP, no FPS increase from 2GB to 3GB.
a b U Graphics card
September 24, 2010 1:36:03 AM

I don't know, loading time seemed the biggest difference from 2gb to 4gb when I had windows xp media.
Of course, switching from integrated to a dedicated gpu (8600gt) games like FEAR loaded quicker rather than just the ram.
September 24, 2010 9:13:50 AM

ok ok thx all....
September 24, 2010 9:16:27 AM

what if i change my processor to phenom II x2...?? and only using 2gb RAM..?? it will be more stable...?? and not bottlenecking my GPU...??
a b U Graphics card
September 24, 2010 12:32:31 PM

Maybe he doesnt want to spend 150$ on a new os yet?
He may have a small 'bottleneck' with that processor though, and upgrading to a phenom IIx2 wouldnt be worth it yet.
September 25, 2010 9:06:24 AM

Quote:
why haven't you made the move to Win7.?
just curious, I liked XP back in the day and ran it until the first vista service pack. then after running vista for a few months I jumped to 7.
and with that being said, jump to Win7 your hardware is optimized for 7, XP x32 will not utilize all your units potential.
add the RAM, decide if you want Win7 Pro or Ultimate so you can have the XP mode to run what might not run in 7.
x32 or x64 bit version is what you need to decide. both versions have the positives and negatives to each..
keep the AMD and maybe look into a triple or quad core, either athlon ii x3 or x4 or phenom ii x3 or x4 (phenom is better);
and roll out.!!



windows 7 = EXPENSIVE...!!! i rather choose upgrade my processor to phenom II x4....
September 25, 2010 2:14:57 PM

oky doky...
!