8800 performance versus CPU speed

D

DusanV

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
209
Did anyone do any benchmarks of one of the 8800 versus CPU speed? All I see are Conroes at 3.0+ GHz and I don't have that. It'd be interesting to see how it behaves on slower (like 2.0 GHz Conroe or 2.4 GHz Athlon64s) versus faster CPUs and in real games, not 3Dmark.
 
YES Same here, im still running my 3500+ 1 gig ram and 6800gt, how much of a performance increase would i get just upgrading the video card?

im pretty sure there are still alot of people running similar configurations the 6800gt has held up like a champ for almost 2 years now but its really starting to show its age with these new games.
 
same here. These cards are very tempting, but im wondering if I should just buy a x1950 pro to upgrade a litte bit, and rebuild my system completely next year sometime.
 
It just means you can crank the resolution and you won't have any problems...

Of course more CPU means higher frame rates in lower resolutions... 8800gtx has plenty of bandwidth so it seems to be CPU limited by a bunch... Even the core 2 duo 2.93ghz doesn't feed enough juice...
 
Better performance and image quality than my 2 7900GTX SLi cards even though they were overclocked and I haven't even made a custom bios for my 8800GTX yet. :D :D that's how great. ;)
 
You are also running a 4400+ and the OP isn't. I'm running a 3700+ and an X1950XTX so the higher resolution you go the more GPU dependent the game becomes. So if you are gaming at 1920 or 2560 then an 8800GTX would be great despite a slightly slower CPU.
 
I dunno, if you're CPU limited in areas of games I don't see how increasing the resolution will fix that problem. Increasing the resolution can only cause your FPS to go down, not up.

Example: HOC FarCry Benchmark. The benches were taken at different times.
________________________________________________
System memory: 2.0 GB
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+
CPU speed: 2860 MHz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution: 1024×768
Ultra quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: River, demo: hocriver.tmd
Pixel shader: model 2.0b
Antialising: 4×
Anisotropic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 64.34 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 63.63 FPS (Run 2)
Average score = 63.98 FPS

RUN 2
_______________________________________________
System memory: 2.0 GB
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+
CPU speed: 2860 MHz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution: 1680 × 1050 (Custom)
Ultra quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: River, demo: hocriver.tmd
Pixel shader: model 2.0b
Antialising: 4×
Anisotropic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 64.48 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 63.97 FPS (Run 2)
Average score = 64.22 FPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, now if I got an 8800GTX would my CPU limitation problems be solved? Nope. Therefore, upgrading would be a waste of money. At least I'd have more AA~!
 
This has always been my gripe about VC evaluations. The hardware sites always use the fastest CPU available when reviewing. I know they have too to basically isolate the the video card and demonstrate maximum hardware capabilities of the card (if possible).

However, it sure would be nice if they would run even just one benchmark or in game evaluation with what could be considered a budget and then middleclass CPU so we could get some indication of scaling. Or maybe they could just underclock the CPU in use to a midrange and low frequency.
 
Related to the CPU issue, I've heard that a new motherboard may be required for the 8000 series. Could anyone shed some light on that?

I plunked down some good cash for an nForce 590 chipset, and now I'm hearing it might be obsolete already. :confused:

If so, it looks like we'll all be needing new CPUs anyway. :D
 
Guru3d.com has a G80 review that tests a bunch of Core Cpu's..

it looks like at 1600x1200 EVERY cpu becomes CPU limited.. Even a E6300 (1.86hz) vs X6900 (2.93ghz) (I think thats the model number) that are the same frame-rate.
 
Lord_Exodia said:
I get great performance on my rig with my 8800GTX. I game at 1680x1050.
Click to expand...


Nice to know that IIll get more or less the same performance.. I was worried about my cpu for a while
 
It would be great if Hardocp will do a 8800GTS/GTX review with various cpus. It's interesting how much I can lost with my X2 3800+ (2.5Ghz).
 
Matas said:
It would be great if Hardocp will do a 8800GTS/GTX review with various cpus. It's interesting how much I can lost with my X2 3800+ (2.5Ghz).
Click to expand...
i also have a cpu running at that speed does the x800xl agp live up to a x2 @2.5?
 
shoman24v said:
I dunno, if you're CPU limited in areas of games I don't see how increasing the resolution will fix that problem. Increasing the resolution can only cause your FPS to go down, not up.
Click to expand...
The issue here is that you're not always CPU limited. CPU dependency fluctuates constantly; far faster than the average frame rate.

On slower systems, the 8800 is kind of a "might as well" sort of upgrade. Frame rates will increase regardless of the CPU, though the more limiting the CPU in the equation, the less benefit one will see from a frame rate perspective. However, when CPU dependency is a huge issue, you essentially begin to get certain visual features, like aniso and antialiasing, for "free".
 
That Guru3D review (thanks for that BTW) tells it all. Seems all games get GPU limited @1600x1200 and above with full AA/AF. At lower resolutions the drop due to a slower CPU is not appreciable (125 fps vs. 140). Kind of makes sense. So the 8800 is a good upgrade for older machines if you want to play at higher resolutions.
 
DusanV said:
That Guru3D review (thanks for that BTW) tells it all. Seems all games get GPU limited @1600x1200 and above with full AA/AF. At lower resolutions the drop due to a slower CPU is not appreciable (125 fps vs. 140). Kind of makes sense. So the 8800 is a good upgrade for older machines if you want to play at higher resolutions.
Click to expand...

^This is a relief. I'm waiting until the last minute to upgrade to a dual core - as I don't use my machine for anything (currently) except mp3's, the net, and quite a git of gaming. I run a stock Pentium 4 560J (3.6ghz) and it does precisely what I need it to do - but I also game @ 1680x1050 and would like some futureproofing and high/max settings out of a video card purchase. I'm still debating over the 8800GTS, but I'll be upgrading my cpu/mobo in the spring.

My x1800xt is only 256mb and hitch's like a mofo in HL2 and a few other games due to lacking 512mb v-ram.

If someone disagrees with that, I'd like some more input on the matter! :)
 
huh.. you would think that at 1600x1200 and up it becomes a considerably larger chore to get larger textures from the system to the card in a timely manner.. while managing all the other things a cpu does.. so I can see why that -could- cause some cpu bound performance issues.. but I guess not.. all the AA and AF stuff is on card computation.. so it would be GPU limited for sure.. anyways.. maybe the unified shader architecture is really shining and helping slower cpus perform well even at higher resulutions now.. cool stuff. :)
 
Good to hear. I've been thinking about upgrading my gpu before a cpu ram mobo combo. With a 3500+ @ 2.5, 2gb ram, and a 6800gt, I wasn't sure if i should bite the bullet and go whole upgrade or just gpu then later to a conroe. Looks like i'll be walking out of fry's this week with a 8800gts. Hopefully my asrock board won't take a crap, so far it's been solid but you never know, especially going from agp to pci-e.
 
I'm not sure that the asrock board is pcie x16 is it? I think x16 is a requirement for the 8800's. Might be wrong though.
 
Marvelous said:
It just means you can crank the resolution and you won't have any problems...

Of course more CPU means higher frame rates in lower resolutions... 8800gtx has plenty of bandwidth so it seems to be CPU limited by a bunch... Even the core 2 duo 2.93ghz doesn't feed enough juice...
Click to expand...

cpu limitation isnt quite like that. in any cpu intensive zone in the game, thats where your frame rates will drop.

humor me: 1600X1000 on WOW w/ 8800GTX & Conroe on PC1, and 8800GTX & Manchester (S939 X2) on PC2.

both will run you at max fps for the majority of the game. even in much more graphic intensive games, the FPS will be nearly identical, with the conroe winning out by a max of say 5%. but when you enter orgrimar (a CPU intensive zone), the CPU kicks in. it has to start networking, and start requisting all the character models, not to mention all the movement of all the characters (now thats a little sketchy, because the polygons moving themselves is done by the GPU, but the actual placement of the models the polygons are attached to (IE the characters) has to be handed over your RJ45 network and hence your CPU).

at lower resolutions, yes, the CPU limitations become apparent but for differant reasons. now its just the GPU can render every pixel of every frame in a fraction of time it needs to. but if the GPU has to request a texture, the CPU has to give it to the GPU. but honistly the speed at which is does it is going to be WAY faster then the max refreash rate on your monitor. Lower resolution testing can implicates a CPUs futureproof-ness. so in quake 4 i remember seeing a lower resolution test that stated conroe managed a whopping 30fps over a toledo (S939 X2). the thing is, the toledo was already managing 130Fps. so who cares about 150?
 
Sphere said:
Running my opty @2585 with my GTX I received 9039 in '06 http://images1.filecloud.com/292349/Jomo3.bmp
Click to expand...

Thanks Sphere. You wouldn't happen to running watercooling on that card by chance? I ask because that would easily give you 50 more mhz on the core. Your post helps me understand where I would be with one of these in SLI. I estimate I would land between 12,600 to 13,400 in my system. I currently get 10,400 in 06 with my Opty 170 just at 3 ghz.

Mr Wizard: I couldn't agree w/you more about the zones. I have the same Idea.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
cpu limitation isnt quite like that. in any cpu intensive zone in the game, thats where your frame rates will drop.

humor me: 1600X1000 on WOW w/ 8800GTX & Conroe on PC1, and 8800GTX & Manchester (S939 X2) on PC2.

both will run you at max fps for the majority of the game. even in much more graphic intensive games, the FPS will be nearly identical, with the conroe winning out by a max of say 5%. but when you enter orgrimar (a CPU intensive zone), the CPU kicks in. it has to start networking, and start requisting all the character models, not to mention all the movement of all the characters (now thats a little sketchy, because the polygons moving themselves is done by the GPU, but the actual placement of the models the polygons are attached to (IE the characters) has to be handed over your RJ45 network and hence your CPU).

at lower resolutions, yes, the CPU limitations become apparent but for differant reasons. now its just the GPU can render every pixel of every frame in a fraction of time it needs to. but if the GPU has to request a texture, the CPU has to give it to the GPU. but honistly the speed at which is does it is going to be WAY faster then the max refreash rate on your monitor. Lower resolution testing can implicates a CPUs futureproof-ness. so in quake 4 i remember seeing a lower resolution test that stated conroe managed a whopping 30fps over a toledo (S939 X2). the thing is, the toledo was already managing 130Fps. so who cares about 150?
Click to expand...

^Great explanation. As long as I stay in the 50's and 60's in games @ 16x12, then I'm satisfied. If I buy now, I won't have to later (come cpu/mobo upgrade) and a GPU upgrade is more beneficial right now.

Awesome thread. Thanx!
 
I'm not sure that the asrock board is pcie x16 is it? I think x16 is a requirement for the 8800's. Might be wrong though.
Click to expand...

It is x16, I've checked it already in the manual and by asking on another site. I've also since confirmed that an 8800gtx and gs work great with the board.
 
If I may jump in here;

As you can see from these rather old benchmarks over at X-Bit Labs, the GPU bottleneck started coming in at around the CPU level of a 2.0Ghz Athlon 64. Those benchmarks were run on a 7800GT. Picture how much faster a 8800 is over a 7800, and its pretty clear that a 2.4Ghz Athlon 64 will have to be overclocked a 'lil to come on par with the performance of the 8800.

It would seem to be the same case with the C2D as a 2.0Ghz C2D ~ 2.4Ghz Athlon 64. Dual Core won't really help as the game is running on one core. But I don't think anyone really has to worry about such things as long as they overclock.
 
shoman24v said:
I dunno, if you're CPU limited in areas of games I don't see how increasing the resolution will fix that problem. Increasing the resolution can only cause your FPS to go down, not up.

Example: HOC FarCry Benchmark. The benches were taken at different times.
________________________________________________
System memory: 2.0 GB
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+
CPU speed: 2860 MHz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution: 1024×768
Ultra quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: River, demo: hocriver.tmd
Pixel shader: model 2.0b
Antialising: 4×
Anisotropic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 64.34 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 63.63 FPS (Run 2)
Average score = 63.98 FPS

RUN 2
_______________________________________________
System memory: 2.0 GB
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+
CPU speed: 2860 MHz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution: 1680 × 1050 (Custom)
Ultra quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: River, demo: hocriver.tmd
Pixel shader: model 2.0b
Antialising: 4×
Anisotropic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 64.48 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 63.97 FPS (Run 2)
Average score = 64.22 FPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, now if I got an 8800GTX would my CPU limitation problems be solved? Nope. Therefore, upgrading would be a waste of money. At least I'd have more AA~!
Click to expand...


I just tried this and got 71 in the 10x7, how did u get the widescreen res to work?/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top