Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My secondary box has an opteron 165 oced to 2.7ghz. I currently have an 8800gt in that machine. Do you think the CPU will become a bottleneck on a 4870?
Hmm need to find a cheap c2d or AM2 bundle for the second box I think. Thank you for all the valuable input!
Depends 100% on the game.
Yeah, games like STALKER: SoC will run amazing on the opty, but TF2 will run like dog shit.
He could always just get the card anyways and see how it is then he can upgrade later. Not like hes required to upgrade to use it.
Yeah, games like STALKER: SoC will run amazing on the opty, but TF2 will run like dog shit.
In this particular case, its the cpu tech thats draggin you down. Quite a difference in the tech of a 100 series opty compared to a phenom or a c2d.
TF2 runs just fine on Socket 939 CPUs. I've posted charts to show it - I'm running MUCH lower clocks - just 2.4ghz - on a Socket 939 CPU, and have no problem keeping TF2 performance at 40-60fps.
And more GPU-intensive games (Silent Hunter 4, Mass Effect, Oblivion) obviously depend even more on the video card than the CPU.
I recently upgraded from a Radeon 3850 to a Radeon 4830, and saw improvements in every single game I play...with a socket 939 CPU, so please take these "ZOMG, it's worthless and will bottleneck EVERYTHING" comments with a grain of salt. Yeah, when running a timedemo of Quake III, maybe you'll be limited to 300fps instead of the 400-500fps a more modern CPU could give you...but so what?
I don't think that the 4200 is keeping up with the 4850. I don't have any benchmarks to back up my statements but I really think the 4200 is just too old of a CPU for most games and is holding you back. You would get much smoother gameplay with a new CPU I think.I agree with this poster. I also have a S939 4200 stock at 2.4Ghz & a 4850 and have no problems keeping up in the games I play.
I don't think that the 4200 is keeping up with the 4850. I don't have any benchmarks to back up my statements but I really think the 4200 is just too old of a CPU for most games and is holding you back. You would get much smoother gameplay with a new CPU I think.
Hey, just for kicks, totally tried this on an old Socket 939 system I have.
AMD Athlon64 X2 '4400+' @ 4800
Radeon HD 4830 (with 800sp and clocked at 4850 speeds)
2gb DDR500 CL3-3-2-8
Score: 6977
Average: 69.06 fps
1680x1050 4xAA with all in-game settings maxed.
SCORE: 11652
AVERAGE: 108.66FPS
1680x1050 0xAA.
I'd be interested in seeing those results, do you have a link? Source engine-based games can be very CPU-dependent.TF2 runs just fine on Socket 939 CPUs. I've posted charts to show it - I'm running MUCH lower clocks - just 2.4ghz - on a Socket 939 CPU, and have no problem keeping TF2 performance at 40-60fps.
See, here's the thing. It's exactly this position. 'I don't have any facts to back me up, but since I just bought a new system, I'm sure you have to, too'.
No. You really don't.
I just ran a test over here...
...which came out just fine. 70fps average. At 1680x1050, 4xAA, all in-game settings maxed, on Street Fighter IV. Would a more powerful CPU boost my scores? I dunno, maybe. Reading the rest of the thread, it doesn't look like it. And even if it did - so what? Isn't 70fps fast enough?
And, heck, another run with no AA:
Huh. More than 50% improvement in the framerate by turning AA off - a strictly video card setting. I guess the video card was the limiting factor on the first run? Well, it's a damn good thing I'm not running on a "CPU bottlenecked" system like an old 939 box! Except...oh, wait!
Except... oh wait, you are bottlenecked! You being bottlenecked isn't our opinion, it's a FACT. If you don't need any more performance then that's good for you. This message brought to you by someone who owned a 4200+/8800gt rig and upgraded to a Core2/8800gt rig and saw a dramatic increase of FPS in all games.
Very interesting. It looks like in TF2, with multi-rendering enabled, as long as you're dual core your system is more than sufficient. Thanks!
Like I said, it depends enteirly on the game:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687620/ArmA-2-tested-Benchmarks-with-18-CPUs/Practice/
Forgive me if I'm skeptical of a benchmark that concludes "ArmA 2 needs almost more CPU than GPU power" and freaking runs the test at 1280x1024 with no AA and merely medium in-game detail settings.
I think it's safe to assume that at that resolution and settings NO KIDDING the graphics card is less of a factor than the CPU. This is especially disingenuous when you look at this article. Note that, even when paired with a Core i7-920 @ 3.5ghz, at 'high/very high' settings, the fastest video card they have can hardly break 20fps.
On the flip side, how do you know that the "high/very high" settings don't also hinder the CPU as well? In general, I think this game will need a few patches to get performance up, but time will tell.Forgive me if I'm skeptical of a benchmark that concludes "ArmA 2 needs almost more CPU than GPU power" and freaking runs the test at 1280x1024 with no AA and merely medium in-game detail settings.
I think it's safe to assume that at that resolution and settings NO KIDDING the graphics card is less of a factor than the CPU. This is especially disingenuous when you look at this article. Note that, even when paired with a Core i7-920 @ 3.5ghz, at 'high/very high' settings, the fastest video card they have can hardly break 20fps.
On the flip side, how do you know that the "high/very high" settings don't also hinder the CPU as well? In general, I think this game will need a few patches to get performance up, but time will tell.
That is because they botched up. 1280x1024 @ 150% fillrate = 1.5 x 1280x1024 resolution...like supersampling...(you know like AA, rendering at a higher resolution than displayed), perhaps you should read up on the engine?
I have a i7 at 3.5GHz paired with a 285GTX and I get better FPS at 1600x1200...but with fillrate at 100%.
The enigne is futureproof.
You can make ANY multi-CPU/multi-core CPU e-peen rig to cry in ArmA2.
Just cranck up the res, set all settings at "VERY high", render distance at 10.000 meter and Fillrate at 200%....welcome to slideshow.
The saying that a faster(MHz) dualcore will beat a slower(Mhz) quadcore dosn't hold true in this game.
Very interesting (and exciting ). Not too get to far off topic, but it seems both the CPU and GPU have an equal share in rendering quality in this game, i.e. if you crank the view distance, your CPU will bottleneck your FPS where as if you crank fillrate, the GPU will. Thanks for the infoARMA was the same.
Patch 1.02 fixed Razor Two (Campaign) for me, by the time we reach patch 1.08 the game should be very solid..All I need now is for ECS to work on ArmA2
Very interesting (and exciting ). Not too get to far off topic, but it seems both the CPU and GPU have an equal share in rendering quality in this game, i.e. if you crank the view distance, your CPU will bottleneck your FPS where as if you crank fillrate, the GPU will. Thanks for the info
Yeah, games like STALKER: SoC will run amazing on the opty, but TF2 will run like dog shit.
Most recent games will be held back by the CPU.