Best card without my CPU bottlenecking it?

F

feverlax

Limp Gawd
2FA
Joined
Mar 1, 2005
Messages
350
I currently have a AMD 3600+ running at 2.4 GHz with a 7600 GT. Now my rig can usually run most games on medium at 1024x768 with reasonable framerates. Now it may run fine now, but correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this will currently be able to run Bioshock, or Crysis or a lot of other future games at reasonable framerates, so I'm looking to upgrade my video card. Now I'm only running on a 17 inch crt, so 1024x768 is a fine resolution for me, and I don't need to be able to play with everything on super high, i just want to be able to run it on reasonable settings with reasonable framerates, so somewhere between medium and high at 30-60 fps is totally acceptable to me. That being said, what would be the best vid card that I can get that won't be bottlenecked by my cpu, if any? I prefer nVidia since I am used to using them, but ATi is fine by me too. Thanks
 
Anything coming out will be crippled by a single core CPU, so upgrade to a dual core and get back to us. :)
 
The phrase bottlenecking a videocard is the dumbest thing that has ever graced this forum.
The slowest processor will still see improvement with a graphics card upgrade.
 
Mr. Bluntman said:
Anything coming out will be crippled by a single core CPU, so upgrade to a dual core and get back to us. :)
Click to expand...

AMD X2 3600+(brisbane) @2.4 :rolleyes:

To the OP, I would go for an x1950XT or (if you have the cash) an 8800GTS. The 2900XT isn't a bad card either if you can find it on sale, but most people would prefer the 8800GTS.

Also, 2GB of RAM makes a world of difference for new games
 
I second the 8800GTS. You could probably get away with a 320 memory version but I'd just get the 640 version and be done with it.
 
That chip could feed two 8800 GTS 640's in SLI without bottlenecking. In other words, don't worry about it.
 
Thanks for you're help guys, I don't really know why I thought my CPU would be a huge problem to be honest, just wanted to make sure before I went out and bought a 200 dollar video card I guess.

Just so I make absolutely sure, I could probably get away with just about any video card? And one last thing, I've been looking at the x1950PRO 512mb version, or the 8800GTS 640mb, is it worth the price difference to spring for the 8800 or will the x1950 suit me fine. Just to reiterate, I don't neccessarily need the highest graphics possible. Oh and I should probably have noted that I am running Vista 32bit, how much would that effect my choice between nVidia or ATi, if at all?
 
Personally I would stick with a xt1950pro unless you want top of the line graphics which you stated you don't. Plus for $200 it'll be perfect.
 
even the 320 mb GTS is better than the x1950PRO? Is it better for my standards, or is it better for say everything max on some crazy high rez? The x1950PRO if I'm not mistaken, and considering that the 8800 is a first gen card, I'd rather buy a card that isnt too expensive, and will still fit my needs for the next 9-12 months until I can get a decent job and be able to pay for a higher end card, which hopefully by then will have the kinks worked out, and be of much better value to me.
 
feverlax said:
even the 320 mb GTS is better than the x1950PRO? Is it better for my standards, or is it better for say everything max on some crazy high rez? The x1950PRO if I'm not mistaken, and considering that the 8800 is a first gen card, I'd rather buy a card that isnt too expensive, and will still fit my needs for the next 9-12 months until I can get a decent job and be able to pay for a higher end card, which hopefully by then will have the kinks worked out, and be of much better value to me.
Click to expand...

The 8800 series is a huge generational leap, much like the 9700 Pro of the old days. It's well worth your $250, less if used. But considering the resolution you want to play at, even a 7950GT would be a big improvement.
 
cheapest 8800GTS 320 you can find that has HDCP. I think the MSI ones are lacking in that from what I read and some other one I forget. If i am incorrect then whatever, but I think I am correct.
 
My Sempron does fine with my 8600gt, It's the ram that I desperatley
need. I used to be using a Radeon 9250 so it's a big leap for me too.
 
lloose said:
The phrase bottlenecking a videocard is the dumbest thing that has ever graced this forum.
The slowest processor will still see improvement with a graphics card upgrade.
Click to expand...

You are right and wrong. A slow CPU will benifit from a GPU upgrade.
But utilizing the full benefits of the GPU will be put on the CPU. 8800GTs and GTX will be bottlenecked by his CPU. This is something the OP has to weight in and from his post, surely wants to make sure he gets the most balance out of his system. Personal preference of course.
 
Get the 320 mb 8800 gts I would recommend the Evga i think they offer a lifetime warrenty, so later when you upgrade your processor you can hang on to your card for a while. It would of been nice if the 8600 gt or gts would of had a 256 mb interface. nvidia left a big gap going from 128 mb interface cards to 320 mb interface cards. I love my 7900 Gs (with 256 interface) card but with no hdcp compliance or direct 10 support had to upgrade.
personally i wouldn't use an ATI card if it were free
 
Ok, thanks for your help guys, I think I may just wait a little while longer and spring for the 8800gts w/640mb because I do have plans to buy a new LCD(probably 21-22 inch widescreen) soon because my CRT is making all these weird screeching noises. Or maybe by the time I get around to buying the card, the new G92(or is it G90? w.e) will be out and I'll spring for one of those depending on the reviews. Thanks again, you guys rock!
 
You want to know whether the cpu will bottleneck or not? Run your favorite game @ max settings @ 320x240 and no aa/af. If the framerates are playable, then the cpu will not bottleneck. It is the job of the video card to run @ higher resolutions with aa/af.
 
l0x said:
You are right and wrong. A slow CPU will benifit from a GPU upgrade.
But utilizing the full benefits of the GPU will be put on the CPU. 8800GTs and GTX will be bottlenecked by his CPU. This is something the OP has to weight in and from his post, surely wants to make sure he gets the most balance out of his system. Personal preference of course.
Click to expand...

An Athlon X2 clocked at 2.4GHz will not bottleneck a single 8800 (GTS or GTX) in any way.
 
Being that he's probably using the 939 in his system then he may want to consider a new CPU while they still have them on the market. Their really cheep, faster than what he has now, and would do good to go with a new 8800 card. If your looking for the best bang for the buck then get the Opti 165 or the 185, about a $100 price diff between the two but both have masive overclocking abilities.
 
Do you guys have signatures turned off or something? :rolleyes:

Brisbane is AM2 only, as ins DDR2, therefore it is NOT 939. It is a dual-core part that the OP is running overclocked to 2.4GHz.

Signature said:
AMD X2 3600+(brisbane) @2.4
1 gig (2x 512) DDR2
Gigabyte M55SLI-S4
eVGA nVidia 256 mb 7600 GT @ stock
80 GB HDD
Click to expand...
 
at low resolutions, a drop from 200fps to 100fps is not considered a bottleneck, as both fps are equally playable.
at higher resolutions, where the video card starts choking, u will see close results between the 2 cpus.
 
l0x said:
Show me some info/proof and I will show you mine.
Click to expand...

Seeing as how an FX-62 running @ 2.8GHz just barely starts to restrict 2 8800GTX's in SLI (as shown here), I have a hard time believing that his chip (which has roughly 85% of the processing power of an FX-62) will choke ANY single card for at least another year.

You were saying?
 
which wins? a 3800+/1gb/8800gtx or a e6600/2gb/8800gts?
look at this review by tomshardware.

bottomline: at low resolutions the e6600 build gets higher fps, but since both are getting well over 60 fps, i can say that both are equally playable.
at higher resolutions the 3800+ build runs circles around the e6600.
 
The Real-World Gaming CPU Comparison with 8800 GTX SLI is a great article. This is the reason why I come here; Real-World Comparisons are what I consider the "my true" benchmarks and reviews. The editors even stated they changed the way they benchmarked because they feel it first it hits home more with what we want (I totaly agree). Kyle and Team still get a lot of request to run a High end GPU with a lower end CPU. The world Playable is a key word.

I will use your comparison.
I have to reiterate that this is a The Real-World Gaming CPU Comparison w/ 8000GTX SLI

Min-FPS - Max FPS - AVG-FPS

The Intel (more consistent) got the most Avg-FPS and Min-FPS than the AMD. Not always the highest Max-FPS but it had the power to keep them from falling below AMDs. I agree with the article that both no matter what is still Playable. Still that dosen't mean that the AMD SLI config did not suffer to a stronger Intel CPU SLI config. No matter how little the difference is. There was some bottle necking that didn't allow the GPUs to match or exceed the the Intel CPU. If they threw a Athlon X2 2.4Ghz against the X6800 I am more than sure you would see a larger margin in performance SLI or not.

So going back to what the OP is asking, yes your CPU will bottleneck the 8000GTS and 8800GTX. But that shouldn't ever really be a major determining factor in purchasing a GPU with your current CPU, cause Playable is what you want really. You will have benefits from detail, higher resolutions and support for certain technologies.
 
Yeah, maybe bottleneck was a bad word to describe it lol, I don't care if I get the 100% performance that I would with a better cpu, by bottleneck, I meant making the games unplayable, and it seems from what you guys have been talking about, they will definately be playable.
 
l0x said:
The Real-World Gaming CPU Comparison with 8800 GTX SLI is a great article. This is the reason why I come here; Real-World Comparisons are what I consider the "my true" benchmarks and reviews. The editors even stated they changed the way they benchmarked because they feel it first it hits home more with what we want (I totaly agree). Kyle and Team still get a lot of request to run a High end GPU with a lower end CPU. The world Playable is a key word.

I will use your comparison.
I have to reiterate that this is a The Real-World Gaming CPU Comparison w/ 8000GTX SLI

Min-FPS - Max FPS - AVG-FPS

The Intel (more consistent) got the most Avg-FPS and Min-FPS than the AMD. Not always the highest Max-FPS but it had the power to keep them from falling below AMDs. I agree with the article that both no matter what is still Playable. Still that dosen't mean that the AMD SLI config did not suffer to a stronger Intel CPU SLI config. No matter how little the difference is. There was some bottle necking that didn't allow the GPUs to match or exceed the the Intel CPU. If they threw a Athlon X2 2.4Ghz against the X6800 I am more than sure you would see a larger margin in performance SLI or not.

So going back to what the OP is asking, yes your CPU will bottleneck the 8000GTS and 8800GTX. But that shouldn't ever really be a major determining factor in purchasing a GPU with your current CPU, cause Playable is what you want really. You will have benefits from detail, higher resolutions and support for certain technologies.
Click to expand...

The FX-62 barely bottlenecks the 8800's, that is not in dispute. However, if you cut GPU power by 50% while only cutting CPU power by 15%, the weak spot (if you can call it that) becomes the graphics hardware.
 
Everyone without a 3+Ghz Core 2 is "bottlenecking" any recent card. Hell my processor does it with my older 1950xt in some games. Do I worry about? Hell no, and I'm not about to spend 500 for a new proc, MB and Ram so I can get 200 frames instead of 150 or get 4000 more 3dmarks, thats just fucking stupid(although some people do it, go read the futuremark forums for a good laugh)

Buy what you can afford, or what you need. You're running 1024x768, I would bet since you haven't made a significant investment in a nice display, you are fine with 60ish fps, and most eyecandy on. A 7950GT, 8600GTS or 1950Pro/XT would be plenty for you until you feel like spending big bucks on a new system.
 
No matter how minuit in performance differance there is a bottle neck.
Again its still playable. Saying there is no bottle neck would be a lie.
 
Here let me give you a idea of my setup last year :

AMD 3000+ single core overclocked to 2.7ghz socket 939
1 gig of PC-3200 ram (corsair)
geforce 7800gt (which smokes the x1950 big time)


Now when the 8800 gts 640 meg card came out I bought it and tried it on that system , it was a HUGE upgrade and as far as I could tell it didn't really bottleneck my system much at all. A very worthwhile upgrade. Now my current system is :

Q6600 overclocked to 3.0ghz
2 gigs of ram
8800 GTX overclocked to Ultra speeds


Dont be worried that the 8800 gts 320 will bottleneck your system, infact you will find it really runs well on a range of single core solutions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top