Will my 4400+ 2.3GHz bottleneck a 9800 gtx+?

Get a GT 240. You can play games on low - med. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... $40 after rebate and shipped.

I have a higher res and I played CoD BO on low and got great FPS with a GT 240. I use a hd6850 now though.

Thanks for the reponse. I would like a "Better" graphics card thats somewhere around the 5770 or the GTX's. I have a GT220 now and it is TERRIBLE!

The GT 240 is much, much better than the GT 220. I have played it on the GT 240, it runs well on low settings. Also, you will bottleneck with a better card.

You need a cpu upgrade more than you need a new card. At that speed I will honestly dare to say that it might be barely enough for a gt240/gt440 or at least overclock then get the 9800gtx+ which is a 55nm card. I have more respect for a g92 than I do for a G106/116 which it can trade blows with a gts 450 on the low in some games that favor a more powerful architecture.

Is a AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600 2.8GHz or a AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000 3.0GHz a HUGE upgrade from a 4400+ 2.3GHz?? I can only use those type of CPU's for my motherboard (MCP61PM-GM) which i'm not willing to upgrade. Thanks

^+1
My Athlon 64 x2 5000+ (400MHz faster than yours per CPU) bottlenecked a 96 stream processor 9600GSO by a decent amount. Go check out NVidia's website and compare how many stream processors (CUDA Cores) each card has to get a rough idea of performance.

The GT220 has 48SPs, GT240 has 96SPs, 9800GTX+ 128SPs, GTX 460 336SPs, GTX 580 512SPs.

And overclocking your CPU will only yield maybe 220MHz. Those just don't OC too well and you won't fix the problem. Look up your motherboard on the manufacturer website and see which AM3 CPUs it supports. If you could drop in an Athlon II x3 or better, then you'd be good to go.

How much is the 9800GTX+? How much are you willing to spend? One good thing about a 9800GTX+ is that it's easy to find used GTS 250's to SLI with it for under $50.

Depending on your power supply, you probably want to get a Radeon 5670. It can work on a weak PSU (300W) and is probably faster than you CPU can handle anyways.

A GT220 can still be useful as a PhysX card (GT 240 is optimal for PhysX) or more so as a very low-end media card (it loses badly to low-end Radeons in video quality) or 2nd machine for low-end home LAN gaming. Consider installing MSI Afterburner and Kombustor and overclocking the GT240. I have a feeling it'll give you close to all that CPU can handle anyways.

You compare g92 and Fermi cores directly, head to head g92 cores are much faster (as much 50%) than a fermi core. For example, a 128 core 9800GTX is about as quick as a 192 core GTS450.

And to asnwer your original question, it depends on the game. Games that are GPU optimized will be fine with the 9800GTX, CPU bound games (like WoW and many console ports) would be limited by your CPU.

Good point vilenjan. That's why I said roughly, but I didn't realize the G92/Fermi core performance was that different.

In that case, I guess, you should only count 2/3 of all 400 and 500 series CUDA cores if you want to compare them to other GPUs. But really, you should look at benchmarks because the core count thing is VERY ROUGH--but a handy card-to-card reference.

A Nvidia GPU isn't "better" at ANY specific resolution. It's worse at some (notably where the 2GB of high-end Radeons comes into play at 2560x1600 and other high resolutions.

A GTS 450 for $79 after rebates is a decent price for a GPU though. But since his Athlon x2 4400+ will be bottlenecked by a $50 9800GT (no rebates), I don't see any reason to recommend it.

OP, we've told you some options. What do you want to do?

If I'm going to get an 9800 GTX+, I know it will be bottlenecked but am I going to get the MAX fps I can pull with the GPU with this CPU?

where did that come from?Lol I never said anything about a 6950 O.o.

get a gt240 ddr5 version. its MUCH better than a gt220. your processor will even bottleneck a gt240 so there is REALLY no point getting anything better.

U WILL NOT bottleneck a 240GT and in some case, will not even bottleneck a 250GTS (for GPU intensive games).

Again it all depends on the game, if you are playing something older that was designed before the era of fully programmable sharers (like WoW), than yes, but most newer games are heavily GPU dependent.

IMO go with a 9800GTX or a 250GTS (same card for the msot part) or maybe even a radeon 5750. And with a 5750 you can always crossfire a pair down the road if you upgrade the CPU.

Thanks so much, so are you saying my CPU won't bottleneck the 9800 GTX+?

I think my CPU will bottleneck it so much and I cannot afford a 5770 at this moment.  

$80

Actually I found a used 5770 on eBay for a reasonable amount. I might grab it, but can you tell me how much % my CPU will bottleneck this card?

Model is HD577AZNFC

And I can not buy the GTS 450 because I'm on a strict budget and I need to order a PSU aswell.

Justs for the GPU. and I'm getting it for $84

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... $80 and would bot bottleneck you much. I vote the hd4850 or GT 240.

The 5770 actually consumes less power than a 9800 GTX, by a fair margin too, a 5750 is even thriftier, it barely needs its pci-e connector.

Plus both are "current" generation cards, build on a DX11 architecture and 40nm node.

Guys, the GTS 250 is just a rebranded 9800GTX+ with a slight overclock, why are you recommending the GT 240 when the two are basically equal with the 240 at a slight disadvantage?

OP, I don't know a heck of a lot about bottlenecking but it sounds like you're SOL no matter what card you get with your current CPU.

I say, buy with the intent to upgrade your mobo and CPU later when you can. Get a decent card (GTS 250 or 5770 works handily) and just plan to upgrade somewhere down the line.

If can, try and get the absolute best for your money. If one of the other cards suggested is within your price range, other than the GT 240, go for it.

@vilenjan, can you please provide some more information to back up this claim. New games are impacted heavily by your CPU. See here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Imagine how much a CPU half as fast as the bottom one on that list performs. Now there are some games it will do fine on--most notably, Source Engine games like Portal and Half Life 2.

@OP--you'll probably need a PSU upgrade for anything more than a GT 240 or Radeon 5670. The 5770 for $84 is a solid price, but the 5830 for $100 new on Newegg is much better, but might be out of your budget. You really will want a CPU upgrade soon, so I highly suggest that before you purchase anything, you focus on checking the upgradeability of your motherboard.

I really think you should give us a full list of your current parts, your objective (max gaming framerates), and your budget. See here for general questions to answer: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/261222-31-build-advic...

vilenjan is right. it is the game that will determine whether or not he is cpu bottlenecked. most games out there support enough eyecandy/aa/af to become gpu bottlenecked. If you can run your games smoothly at a VERY low res with no eyecandy with your existing gfx card, then getting a new gfx card will allow you to increase res and eyecandy withoug sacrificing performance.

your cpu will determine max framerate in a game, and your gpu will determine how much eyecandy you can display.

@sepayne21--please provide some evidence other than your opinion to back up that an Athlon x2 4400+ can handle modern games. I provided a link to show you how easily a CPU can impact gaming performance. Did you click it?

Now I'm not saying every game will be slow on an Athlon x2 4400+, but NEARLY ALL new games will be. Yes, the max framerate may be impacted by the CPU, but an Athlon x2 4400+ will not allow good framerates for most games. Also, the data that goes through the GPU interacts with the CPU.

If you don't believe that CPUs matter, put a GTX 460 1GB in a slow CPU machine (underclock your CPU to 0.8GHz or something to artificially create a bottleneck) then put a GTX 580 in. And see how much better the graphics benchmark gets. It'll be CPU bottlenecked.

I've used GTS 250's and 48 Stream Processor 9600GSOs with an Athlon x2 5000+ (faster than 4400+) and I get the same framerates in many games with the same settings.

What are your experiences that indicate an Athlon x2 4400+ is adequate for modern games?

@dalauder. Please re-read my statement. I clearly said that it is the game that determines whether or not the cpu will be the bottleneck. I was pointing out the misconception that it is the gpu that bottlenecks the cpu.

either way the cpu is too slow to play most recent games with good fps regardless of gpu. i got a huge boost with my 8800gts (equivelant to gt240) when i upgraded to my core 2 6600 over the old athlon 64 3500+. the 4400+ is similar but with an extra core and lower clock speed. trust me its a huge bottleneck and its slow in general, doesnt even meet the minimum requirements for many new games. now you go ant put a 5770 with that, and unless you plan to upgrad cpu in the very newar future its a total waste and may not work on old motherboards as its pcie 2.1

Hi

I have a 5000+ x2 and have just ordered a new CX430 wattter and a GTS450 DDR3 1Gb i am assuming i will see a significant performance increase over my old 8600gt 256mb ( i hope!! ) is there a rough guide to what level a cpu starts to limit a GPU ? and can it be a substantial ammount?

Cheers Kev  

you are still worried about potential bottlenecks, go for a 5670. It is bit faster than a 240 GT, almost as fast as a 9800GT, and does not required a PCI-e connector (very light power draw). Its also a tiny card, so it gives you easy installation.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

You can buy one for $60 after a rebate, should be enough to last you untill you upgrade your system.

You should be good, an 8600GT is about equivalent to a 220GT in modern terms, not much of a gaming card today, the 450GTS will run circles around it and the 430CX should be able to handle it just fine!

I might buy a new computer in the future but for now, I think I am going to upgrade to a 5770. I am only going to be playing Source engine games such as TF2, Gmod, CSS, etc.

I play on the resolution 1440x900. If I buy a 5770, will I get more fps than the gt220 I am using now? With my GT220, I can't even run TF2 on LOWEST settings without gettin less 60 frames per second in some open areas.

@iamthecrow--Thank you for agreeing with me that an Athlon x2 4400+ isn't enough for modern games. Everyone else here seems to be ignoring the obvious issue.

How can we be recommending a GPU/PSU upgrade before addressing the adequacy of his CPU?

OP, please give us your total budget. It'll help us give you the best upgrade. AND a 5770/GTS 450 will bottleneck with your CPU on most games.

EDIT: Do whatever you want. I've made my opinion clear and if no one wants to hear the truth that your CPU is too old, then I'll waste my time where people care to hear it.

Thanks for the help, I had no choice but to buy my 5770 now and upgrade my mobo and everything else in the future.

Heh, I'm not ignorant to that issue, but will argue it instead.

Already did my homework and went the "old CPU new GPU" way of doing things. It turned out very well. My old Athlon64 X2 4400+ @2.4Ghz (s939, Toledo, nF4 SLI) accepted a 4850 just fine, giving me a hell lot more FPS than the X1800XL i was replacing.

It think you guys are missing the bottom line with all the "CPU bottleneck" FAD around... If you play games at medium setting and when you crank up the detail the GPU dies and spits a nice photorama, you need a new GPU. Period. Will the CPU bottleneck it? If you're gonna spend 1k on a single card, well, maybe you might want to change the whole system instead, but if you wanna spend a little amount, it doesn't matter because the "penalty" won't be that much.

So, getting the 9800GTX or a GTS450 or a 5770 or a 6850 is actually a good idea IMO. Any of those cards will blow your current FPS out of the water.

I won't argue one thing though... CPU bottlenecks exist and they're even on the Core i7 980X, the important thing is to trade resolution vs cpu vs gpu power vs money. And keep the bottom line safe: play on the target res and wanted detail at a certain FPS amount.

Cheers!

you can't make the statement that the Athlon x2 4400+ "isn't enough for modern games" you need to make the statement "this cpu isn't enough for xxxx game" some games will be severely bottlenecked by that cpu, some will be able to play games smoothly at 60+ FPS with an adequate GPU.

I am a HUGE advocate of making sure the CPU is adequate, but the game is what determines that. The GPU will not cause nor will it prevent CPU bottlenecking. in the end, there is a reason why there are independant minimum specs for the CPU, GPU, and RAM.

Okay, but are you advocating that the OP should only purchase low CPU games? I was thinking of building a general gaming machine. For such a build, the CPU's average performance across a myriad of games should be considered. And for average performance, can you tell me an Athlon x2 4400+ will provide the same experience as an E6600 even?

If the OP says he only wants to play XXXX game that's not CPU dependent, then you're right, that CPU is fine.

But he wants to COD: Black Ops and his CPU is well below the minimum spec. He does meet source engine and WOW min specs though.

Either way, he'll be happy with the 5770 for $84.

he might be, if the 5770 works in his old motherboard. PCIE 2.1 cards have a tendancy not to work in old motherboards, particularly ATI cards.

The op never said, "I'll upgrade my cpu if I need to" If he was looking to upgrade his cpu/gfx/mobo/ram etc then yes, he is asking us for cpu recommendations. he was simply asking whether or not the cpu will bottleneck a 9800GTX, and the answer is... the game is what determines whether or not the cpu will be the bottleneck, not the videocard.

That's true and you answer his question.

But would you recommend a GTX 570 to someone who you tells you their PC came with a 285W power supply? Since we know he's trying to play Call of Duty: Black Ops, I think we should consider whether or not he'll be able to play it. Or we're not really helping out the OP, which is why we're here, right?

now you are talking apples and oranges. The video card has certain requirements for power consumption, and a 285W supply does not meet those requirements.

I'll quote from a previous post I made

"If you can run your games smoothly at a VERY low res with no eyecandy with your existing gfx card, then getting a new gfx card will allow you to increase res and eyecandy withoug sacrificing performance."

this is the determination on whether or not your cpu is the bottleneck, and it is game specific. if he can't do this, then no gfx card in the world will help him (unless of course his existing gfx card is something REALLY REALLY weak.

I bought a ASUS Radeon HD 5770, PCI-E 2.1. Hopefully it works on my motherboard which has these slots :

# Add-In Card Slots One PCI Express ×16
# Two PCI-E ×1
# One PCI Conventional

I also did buy a new PSU to run the card.