Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Bottlenecking - CPU or Graphics?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 13, 2011 9:04:39 PM

I wasn't sure whether to post this in the CPU forum or here, so my apologies if it's in the wrong spot.
CPU - AMD Phenom II x4 @3.0GHz AM2
GPU - EVGTA Nvidia GTX 460 Superclocked Edition

My question is, is there any bottlenecking going on? It's hard to find a balance, and I'm not sure if I have achieved that yet. I've overclocked the GTX 460 by 10% but haven't really seen any sort of increase in FPS with games.
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 9:35:56 PM

Not really but you could push you cpu a little harder.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 9:41:59 PM

That's what I figured, I just wanted to be sure. I was thinking about buying a water cooling kit for overclocking purposes if the CPU was a problem.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 10:49:53 PM

water cooling helps, but not for your kind of ghz, it's rather unnecessary. I'd go with a nice, reliable CPU fan.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 10:54:24 PM

Yah if anything it would be the CPU bottlenecking.Try getting another 400mhz out of it and you should be fine.
As WindowsDOS stated a watercooling setup isn't needed.On those chips you will hit a threshold limitation long before heat is problem.Just get a Hyper 212+.It's a single air cooler but it's very good at cooling.

Hyper 212+ Evo

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 10:57:45 PM

It depends on the games you are playing. Are you tracking your CPU and GPU usage? It's pretty easy to tell where your bottleneck lies if you do.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 11:05:01 PM

Well I am going to be doing a mass upgrade in a few months that water cooling will greatly benefit, so I figure I might as well get that now instead of getting a decent fan that I won't be using later on.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 11:13:25 PM

In that case then yes it seems like a better idea.

What are you upgrading to?
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 11:36:05 PM

I'm going AM3+ with possibly a hexcore Phenom II.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 11:49:06 PM

Negative on the hexacore Phenom II, that's old tech and Zambezi is out now! You could get an FX-6100 and net an increase in processing power, the 6-core Phenom II will only disappoint.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 11:49:19 PM

Yah then watercooling will be a better choice in the long run.It seems that most of the 8 core and 6 core's are topping out at 4.7ghz on air.So that means you should get to 5ghz+ very easily.And remember that these are only B2 revisions.There should be new revisions out in the next couple months which should yield better results.

EDIT: I'm sort of lost after rereading your post.Your going with a AM3+ Phenom ii 6 core? I figured you meant the FX 6 core which use's the AM3+ socket.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 11:53:48 PM

the Hexcore phenom's dont offer much at all in performance above a quad core for gaming.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 11:54:51 PM

I'm not quite sure why I said Phenom, I meant FX. My apologies.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2011 12:29:22 AM

Honestly if you're going to upgrade motherboards then I think you might as well go intel. Not to start another bulldozer bashing session but if gaming is your use, you're better off with a faster quad core. If you do in fact have a use for the 6th core, go for the Zambezi yea
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 12:37:47 AM

Yeah, the i5-2500k is the way to go. Best value for the money around, especially for gaming, and it overclocks a huge amount.
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 12:42:40 AM

with games already spreading themselves out over 8 "cores" (2600) it's hard to recommend a quad anymore. But if I were going to go for a quad I'd wait for the FX4100 to see what it would do before getting a 2500. IMO, buying a quad right now is like someone telling a quad over a dual core is not needed and having them say that 6 month's ago.

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2011 12:46:26 AM

swifty_morgan said:
with games already spreading themselves out over 8 "cores" (2600) it's hard to recommend a quad anymore. But if I were going to go for a quad I'd wait for the FX4100 to see what it would do before getting a 2500. IMO, buying a quad right now is like someone telling a quad over a dual core is not needed and having them say that 6 month's ago.

*not trying to be sassy I'm quite serious* Can you point us to a game that significantly benefits from >4 cores?
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 12:51:58 AM

actually I just came across this while looking for something else. you'll notice 1 older game and 1 newer game spread out over 8 "cores"..... ie: the 2600........... now I'm disappointed with AMD for their lack of speed over Intel last gen architecture.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-an...
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 12:58:55 AM

swifty_morgan said:
IMO, buying a quad right now is like someone telling a quad over a dual core is not needed and having them say that 6 month's ago.

IMO this is overstating things to the point of being absurd.
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 1:04:06 AM

people like you and I can build a new system a month all year long. Most people build machines to last 3-5 years. Why retard your system right off the bat ?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2011 1:13:09 AM

jyjjy said:
IMO this is overstating things to the point of being absurd.

Agreed

swifty_morgan said:
people like you and I can build a new system a month all year long. Most people build machines to last 3-5 years. Why retard your system right off the bat ?

You don't think a 2500k or the equivalent will last 3 years, is that what you're saying?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2011 1:18:59 AM

I actually think he might be capped by the Hyper Transport on the mobo. AM2 boards had 1000GHz HT link, AM2+ and AM3 boards use 2000GHZ link. Now 2k was overkill for the x4s (about right for the x6s though), but 1k might be too little bandwidth for a 3ghz quad core. You might want a mobo transplant, the Your cpu will drop right in into a AM3 or a AM3+ mobo.
m
0
l
October 14, 2011 1:20:07 AM

I actually do have an AM2+ board.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 1:27:46 AM

What CPU do you have exactly?

I'm pretty sure it is one of the very first Phenom ii's which used the AM2+ socket.So i'm not sure if it even will fully utilize a 2ghz HT.
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 1:27:52 AM

Chrisco90 said:
I actually do have an AM2+ board.


actually your architecture is going to hold you back. You won't get a lot out of your system even if you do over clock. Is a few extra FPS worth the extra strain ?
m
0
l
October 14, 2011 1:46:27 AM

I'm honestly not sure if it's AM2 or 2+, I got it from a friend who thought that and his old motherboard were bad, even though the CPU was fine.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 2:03:56 AM

You should check because now i'm thinking it might even be a first gen phenom because your at 3ghz which makes more sense with the socket.

Download CPU-Z and post screen shot of the CPU,RAM and Mobo.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2011 2:16:35 AM

with a Bios update, some AM2 baords can take in AM3 processors like Phenom IIs. I flashed a friends old Asus AM2 board and he is happy with his new Athlon II X2. Am2 boards were never designed to house quad cores, they can physically, and on some you can get it to work, but the internal bandwidth (HT) will be too little.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 2:33:51 AM

Look at the mainboard section
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 3:00:10 AM

So from that it looks like it's an AM2+ board but it's using a 6xx series northbridge which doesn't make much sense.So it might be AM2 more than AM2+.

Is it a ECS mobo? What's the make?
m
0
l
October 14, 2011 3:06:07 AM

Yeah, it's ECS. A740GM-M
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 214 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 3:28:17 AM

So after reading the specs I've come to the conclusion that you are definitly hampering the abilites of the GTX460.Mostly because of chipsets and the RAM.

I think you should just get a cheap mobo and some new RAM.Even a cheap 990 series well be worlds better than that.
Share
a b U Graphics card
a c 83 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 3:32:25 AM

Chrisco90 said:
I wasn't sure whether to post this in the CPU forum or here, so my apologies if it's in the wrong spot.
CPU - AMD Phenom II x4 @3.0GHz AM2
GPU - EVGTA Nvidia GTX 460 Superclocked Edition

My question is, is there any bottlenecking going on? It's hard to find a balance, and I'm not sure if I have achieved that yet. I've overclocked the GTX 460 by 10% but haven't really seen any sort of increase in FPS with games.



What resolution is your monitor ?

and are you getting more than 60 FPS
m
0
l
October 14, 2011 3:35:18 AM

Thanks, I've been looking at motherboards lately, so I have somewhat of an idea. Do you have any specific suggestions?

EDIT: My resolution is 1920x1080. Just picked up a 23" LED.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 3:36:45 AM

Depends.What is your budget?

And are you sure you want to go with a FX CPU?They look bad now but I'm thinking they will get much better with the revision in a couple months.
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 3:37:45 AM

somebody mentioned something about hyper threading....... but the processor is a 940, another "stumbling block".
m
0
l
October 14, 2011 3:39:11 AM

I'm not positive what I'll be doing upgrade-wise, now that I'm thinking about it. If I can see a decent performance increase just by swapping out for a better mobo, I might hold off for a while on the mass upgrades. I don't really have much of a budget, if it seems worth it to me I'll get it.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 3:40:37 AM

swifty_morgan said:
somebody mentioned something about hyper threading....... but the processor is a 940, another "stumbling block".


No I think it was HyperTransport.You might of got mixed up.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a c 83 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 3:40:43 AM

Chrisco90 said:
Thanks, I've been looking at motherboards lately, so I have somewhat of an idea. Do you have any specific suggestions?

EDIT: My resolution is 1920x1080. Just picked up a 23" LED.



At that resolution you do NOT need a stronger processor . What you need is a stronger graphics card .
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 3:44:44 AM

purple stank said:
No I think it was HyperTransport.You might of got mixed up.


Roger that........ OP, you're better off leaving things be until you can do a "proper upgrade. What you have will do for now.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 3:45:45 AM

Well you might as well get a new mobo now.Because it's a 900 series mobo you can upgrade to an AM3+ CPU whenever you like.

ASRock 970 Extreme $110 + $8 Shipping

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


G.SKILL DDR3 1333mhz RAM $46 + Free Shipping

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

Total would come out to be around $165.

That mobo supports up to 2100mhz RAM but you have to enter the timings manually beyond 1333mhz.If you know how to I suggest getting some.
m
0
l
October 14, 2011 3:47:02 AM

Outlander_04 said:
At that resolution you do NOT need a stronger processor . What you need is a stronger graphics card .


You may be right, but here's a few things:

I get a constant 30 FPS in, for example, Starcraft 2. I was getting this frame rate on my 20" monitor at 1600x900. After further overclocking the card, I didn't see any jump in performance either. I just feel like something is holding the system back, and I'm going to guess it's the motherboard.

Another thought, would the processor possibly not be getting sufficient power?
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 3:47:32 AM

Outlander_04 said:
At that resolution you do NOT need a stronger processor . What you need is a stronger graphics card .


A stronger GPU would be better but you can only go so far with a low teir CPU.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 3:49:04 AM

Chrisco90 said:
You may be right, but here's a few things:

I get a constant 30 FPS in, for example, Starcraft 2. I was getting this frame rate on my 20" monitor at 1600x900. After further overclocking the card, I didn't see any jump in performance either. I just feel like something is holding the system back, and I'm going to guess it's the motherboard.

Another thought, would the processor possibly not be getting sufficient power?



That really seems like a CPU bottleneck.I suggest getting a new mobo so you can O.C. further.A GTX460 should be getting much better FPS than that in SC2.I manage 100 fps with my 6870 and it's only a little faster than the GTX460.
m
0
l
October 14, 2011 3:54:44 AM

I've tried doing some searches to find this out, but with your suggestion, I would think the answer is yes: Is an AM2+ processor compatible with an AM3/AM3+ socket?
m
0
l
October 14, 2011 4:20:13 AM

I have a Phenom II 965 BE OC'ed to 4 Ghz with 2 Geforce 460 GTX's in SLI and I can tell you from all of my testing your processor at 3ghz is the bottleneck.

Easiest way to tell is to use MSI Afterburner, run a game and after 10/15 minutes exit out and check the stats, you'll see that the card isn't hitting near 100% useage. Another clue is that you say you OC your card and your FPS in games (Starcraft 2) did not go up a bit. That means OC'ing the card is just a waste as your processor at the moment can not feed it enough at the cards default speeds.

Good luck to you bud.
m
0
l
!