![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
At what card will my CPU become a bottleneck?
- Thread starter capnstabn
- Start date
Hard and Confused
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,944
When I had my 8800GTS G92 I saw huge improvements OverClocking my 4850e from 2.5ghz to 3.2ghz which tells me these newer cards are too much for The old Athlon X2's reguardless of clock speed.
I'd recommend getting a new AM2+ mobo and at least an Athlon 2 250 regor chip and OverClocking it to the 3.5 - 4ghz range as even that chip should be close to C2D speeds clock for clock. The 250 is only $87 @ NewEgg and is 3ghz by default with 1mb L2 Cache per core and they hit 3.8ghz on average thus far.
Athlon 2 Regor 250 + JetWay 790GX mobo combo $157 shipped @ NewEgg Whats nice is this is thier mAtx Xfire board which is supposed to OC nicely and is crammed with features. Also for $2 more you can get a PII 710 and for $11 more a PII 720 BE
I'd recommend getting a new AM2+ mobo and at least an Athlon 2 250 regor chip and OverClocking it to the 3.5 - 4ghz range as even that chip should be close to C2D speeds clock for clock. The 250 is only $87 @ NewEgg and is 3ghz by default with 1mb L2 Cache per core and they hit 3.8ghz on average thus far.
Athlon 2 Regor 250 + JetWay 790GX mobo combo $157 shipped @ NewEgg Whats nice is this is thier mAtx Xfire board which is supposed to OC nicely and is crammed with features. Also for $2 more you can get a PII 710 and for $11 more a PII 720 BE
Last edited:
SixtyWattMan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,466
It will bottleneck that card. Switching from a 939 X2 with a 8800gt to a core2 with an 8800gt made that card come alive.
Go with the Phenom II based 250 or 550. It should be good value option.
SixtyWattMan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,466
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.
Hard and Confused
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,944
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.
The newer cpu with his 8800GT will go further than the CPU bottlenecked upgrade to an HD 4870 first.
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?
tazzmissionx
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 907
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.
Oh, I agree - I work with SQL databases day-to-day. HUGE difference in performance. In CPU-centered apps. Not even in the same league.
But...uhhh...well, there aren't many games that fall into that category. Some, sure. And it's not like it doesn't make a difference - of course, it does. But it's such a ridiculous trend on these forums that you must-have-the-latest-or-your-nothing. Very frustrating. For gaming, almost always, the VIDEO CARD is the key differentiator.
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
My old 8800GT would only get approx 70% of its max stock performance with a x2 @ 2.7GHz.
Clocking the card did nothing for games.
Moving to an E8400 made overclocking the card produce decent results such that I got a huge performance boost with the card clocked +20%.
Clocking the card did nothing for games.
Moving to an E8400 made overclocking the card produce decent results such that I got a huge performance boost with the card clocked +20%.
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.
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!
I'd be interested in seeing those results, do you have a link? Source engine-based games can be very CPU-dependent.
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
AA isnt free, it uses some CPU.
Check CPU usage when you use AA and no AA.
If you are already 90%+ CPU with no AA then with you are bound to see a large performance drop using AA.
If you get 90%+ CPU use with AA on, then you have become CPU limited.
As long as framerate is high enough and its not jerky, it doesnt matter.
If thats the only game you play, then obviously there is no need to buy new hardware.
Check CPU usage when you use AA and no AA.
If you are already 90%+ CPU with no AA then with you are bound to see a large performance drop using AA.
If you get 90%+ CPU use with AA on, then you have become CPU limited.
As long as framerate is high enough and its not jerky, it doesnt matter.
If thats the only game you play, then obviously there is no need to buy new hardware.
SixtyWattMan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,466
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.
This is a little over 3 minute run I pulled in a 'Payload Race' map when I was using the scout and getting right in the middle of the firefight:
(Click to embiggen)
i went from a g80 320mb and saw a big boost when i went from a 939 x2 at 2.5 to a stock c2q.
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!This is a little over 3 minute run I pulled in a 'Payload Race' map when I was using the scout and getting right in the middle of the firefight:
(Click to embiggen)
Last edited:
Like I said, it depends enteirly on the game:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687620/ArmA-2-tested-Benchmarks-with-18-CPUs/Practice/
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.
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.
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.
ARMA 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 excitingARMA 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
). 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 Very interesting (and exciting
This game can max out any i7...or any multi GPU setup yup
Soggy_Popcorn
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 14, 2009
- Messages
- 233
Quote1: yup, Source in general is heavily proc-dependent.
Quote2: nope. Most shooters (and even RPG's) are GPU-bound, and RTS's are even heading that way.