Bottlenecking

S

Scintir

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
475
I ordered a HD 4870 to replace my HD 3870. With 3Dmark06 on my 3870 got around 9000 points. I upgraded to the 4870 and now just hardly hit the 10k mark. I know the benchmark doesn't mean in game performance will follow the same example. To see about this I decided to go into some games to test it out.

I played multiple games and compared my results with the results of test online with the reviews of 4870 on numerous tech sites. I see that my system often falls a good amount short of what it states.

System specs:
MSI K9A2 Platinum
AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 (pretty old, I know)
2 X 2GB DDR2 800MHz RAM (cas lat of 5)
1 HD 4870 (accelero S1 rev 2 on with turbo module)
2 X 250GB HDD (RAID with OS on it and partitioned)
1 X 500GB HDD (disk used for just plain data)
1 DVD-RW (IDE)
1 DVD-RW (Sata)
1 DVD-ROM/CD-RW
750W PSU (Rosewill)

I know most of it isn't needed and I can provide more, but I just kind of listed what I wanted to for now ;).

Now my HD4870 is OCed with a core clock of 790MHz and the mem is overclocked to 1090MHz. My processor isn't OCed at all because as we all know or should, the FX series doesn't OC well at all. Cooling isn't a problem as well, both sit at good temps.

Anyways, I seem to get pretty far below average on most games with my frames. I look at the other systems and what I see is that they all use quad core systems, often running at 3.0GHz. I did research a while ago that stated that the CPU doesn't really provide much of a boost in performance as a graphics card does. In my case it seems my HD 3870 can get pretty close to the HD 4870, which is very strange. I assume that my choice in staying with a FX 62 for so long is starting to screw me but I want more opinions.

If I were to switch to a Phenom X4 and OC it to 3,0GHz, would it really boost performance that much? 2 extra cores is a nice boost, but who is to say that will be used properly, and the games are coded for it.

I would really like to get this figured out, or at least have my point reinforced enough to encourage me to save up for a nice new processor. I really believe that the bottleneck all falls upon the CPU, but I could possibly be wrong.
 
what games are you playing?

what resolution and settings are you running?

what is your FPS in those games?


An FX-62 isn't that bad of a processor and really shouldn't be holding you back that much.
 
I went FX some time ago, wanted to wait until Phenom hit 3.0GHz stock before I invested into Quad. As we see, AMD is taking forever on doing so and is far behind schedule :(.


Anyways, the resolution I usually set it at is 1024 X 768 or 1280 X 1024. Those resolutions seem to work fine with my monitor and system to produce a decent quality image.

I play all sorts of games. These range from StarCraft (Never gets old :) ), then it goes up to Crysis and Mass Effect.

The frames on Crysis with a resolution of 1280 X 1024 with high settings everywhere sits around the very low 40s and high 30s. It also often drops below the 32 FPS point in which the game gets pretty choppy. For Mass Effect I have everything turned up with Grain effect and motion blur turned off (Didn't care for the way it made this particular game look). The FPS on that sits around 50-60 on average, but can often drop below 30 for a little bit depending on area (understandable to a point).

Overall, on average I think I saw like a 1/3 decrease in FPS from what the models were showing for the 4870. I cannot remember this completely so I might be off, but it was something like that at some point in time.
 
Oh also, forgot to state I am running Vista Ultimate 32bit edition. That won't effect the FPS or score that much, but it doesn't hurt to mention.
 
the 4870 is a huge waste of money if all you are using 1024x768 and 1280x1024 especially with that cpu. you could bump the res to 1600 and not lose any performance.
 
I am afraid of the CPU's performance with the boost of res X_X. I had wished to get my res to something along the lines of 1600 X 1200 for my games but at this rate my CPU seems to hold me back significantly. I planned to get the CPU before the HD 4870, but AMD is just not releasing what I want yet.

I did some real game test with crysis on the following settings (with results):

1024 X 768, High settings, 4X AA - 21 FPS average
1600 X 1200, High settings, no AA - 24 FPS average
1600 X 1200, High Settings, 4X AA - ~16 (couldn't get a good result, really killed me on that so I couldn't get a good report).
 
Your CPU is the problem for sure.
You need a C2D around 3GHz to get near the top performance from a 4870 and often a faster CPU will push it a bit more.
Clocking the card and Intel CPU will give you a decent FPS boost.
Clocking the card with your current CPU wont be much use, clocking the CPU will help though.

To get the same gfx performance as a 3GHz C2D with an Athlon 64, the A64 would need to run around 4GHz.
Bear in mind that Intel CPUs clock quite high as well so there is a large performance difference.
 
Nenu said:
Your CPU is the problem for sure.
You need a C2D around 3GHz to get near the top performance from a 4870 and often a faster CPU will push it a bit more.
Clocking the card and Intel CPU will give you a decent FPS boost.
Clocking the card with your current CPU wont be much use, clocking the CPU will help though.

To get the same gfx performance as a 3GHz C2D with an Athlon 64, the A64 would need to run around 4GHz.
Bear in mind that Intel CPUs clock quite high as well so there is a large performance difference.
Click to expand...

wow really? >.> I want a 4870 in the near future so thisll be good refrence im trying to hold out to find a nice used intel Quad but if not ill have to go with the 8400. and Yes AMD is taking way too much time as much as i hated to go intel i decided to, even a friend had a quad which he eventually sold because the boards were taking too long. tough love amd:(
 
I smell an Intel fanboy ;).

I plan on upgrading my CPU soon, but I am sticking with AMD. I know Intel is the best choice for gaming and has lowered many of its prices recently to really make a great deal, but I have an AM2+ board and have an entire AMD setup. I will end up getting a Phenom X4, I just want to wait for a 3.0GHz 45nm Phenom x4 from AMD (3.0 GHz stock, not OC).

Thank you for the comments everyone. I just wanted absolutely no doubts when it comes to what is holding my system back.
 
<<<not intel fanboy! i wanted to stick with amd till they started focusing on mobile crap and then u need the new better boards to OC their phenoms LAME! super lame go intel :p ill go back to AMD when they get their head straight
 
Meh, if I could return my motherboard, I probably would go Intel. AMD looked promising then just got shot :mad:. Also, I really like my motherboard X_X. MANY people that have my board can OC Phenoms just fine. Sure the new southbridge should help, but I imagine it isn't really worth it if you have a 790X or FX.

If I were to switch to Intel, what would you suggest in terms of a good board to crossfire with and run quad. I was going to look into Intel one of these days and get an estimate but I got lazy.
 
Scintir said:
I smell an Intel fanboy ;).

I plan on upgrading my CPU soon, but I am sticking with AMD. I know Intel is the best choice for gaming and has lowered many of its prices recently to really make a great deal, but I have an AM2+ board and have an entire AMD setup. I will end up getting a Phenom X4, I just want to wait for a 3.0GHz 45nm Phenom x4 from AMD (3.0 GHz stock, not OC).

Thank you for the comments everyone. I just wanted absolutely no doubts when it comes to what is holding my system back.
Click to expand...

lol here 2 days and making fanboy quips :)
Careful you might lose some support in the future.
My CPU's for the last 3 or so years have been AMD, hence the need to move to a C2D :p
 
Hmm, as long as people know I am joking I should be fine. Once that line isn't so clear and people believe I am serious about insults is probably when I will get into big trouble ;).

I have stayed with AMD ever since my first build. The main idea was because back then they were competitive. Then it just became a money issue. Today I still stick with AMD because I am still poor :eek:.

If I had the cash, I would seriously consider Intel. With the prices on Intel stuff (boards and processors), it really scares me away still.

I now sit here with a very nice board, graphics, and pretty good RAM along with a nice HDD set up. My only problem now is just the processor. If AMD can get their act together with the AM2+ platform before moving to AM3, I should be set. The only problem is time, which is killing me because I want my 4870 at its full power.
 
Well glad to see that im not alone when it comes to the AMD Boat...

X4cores will be night and Day..

ATI 8.7beta Catdriver and used same Crummy Mobo for Both Chips :D

X2 @ 3.5ghz and 3870x2 = 13700 with Oc on Graphics( 3Dmark06)
X4 @ 3.4ghz and 3870x2 = 16800+ stock Graphics(3Dmark06)

ALL Games, Programs , you name it , become more than smooth...Ive played on 4.0ghz Intel sytems before( yes they have high Oc but still arnt smooth) . Thats the One thing that always hooked me with the X2 and new phenoms, I like the AMD gaming smoothnes using Nvidia or ATI graphics...SLI/Xfire/Crossfire all have thier own problems. But for Single Card macnines AMD has good bang for Buck ...What :eek:thats so wrong Q9550 2.8ghz = $550 and a Q6850 3.0ghz = $1029!!!!!!

I like my 9950 Phenom BE:D @ 3.45ghz and Only $235 :p

sandrabandwidth.jpg


sandralatency.jpg


P.S my Ram not tweaked ,but still have decent latency....Performance on the Dollar counts for a lot of people . I do not Dislike/like INTEL/AMD more than another...They both have good things for different fields and peoples budgets period.

I am leaning toward AMD ATM and hope to see even more big changes....Looks like the Two ChipCo's will become more competitive Once Again:D(leapfrogging) makes things better for us in the Long run.

Hold out for that 45nm stuff, if you can, i just like to tweak stuff (AMD
 
Scintir said:
Hmm, as long as people know I am joking I should be fine. Once that line isn't so clear and people believe I am serious about insults is probably when I will get into big trouble ;).

I have stayed with AMD ever since my first build. The main idea was because back then they were competitive. Then it just became a money issue. Today I still stick with AMD because I am still poor :eek:.

If I had the cash, I would seriously consider Intel. With the prices on Intel stuff (boards and processors), it really scares me away still.

I now sit here with a very nice board, graphics, and pretty good RAM along with a nice HDD set up. My only problem now is just the processor. If AMD can get their act together with the AM2+ platform before moving to AM3, I should be set. The only problem is time, which is killing me because I want my 4870 at its full power.
Click to expand...

You can get an E8400 and a DS3L for a bit over $250 and have all the power you need to run that 4870 nicely. Then pawn that FX and AM2 board on the FS/FT forum and recover 2/3 of your money back. :D
 
Don't know if that would be worth it. I could just run and get the Phenom X4 9950 and OC that to 3.0GHz and have a quad system. Also, the 45nm AMD phenoms should be coming out...eventually. I am unsure if it would be wise to sit there with a high end dual when I could get a good quad and just OC that. I have done research and it seems that most duals only beat the quads because the speed difference is there, since a decent amount of things cannot use the 2 extra cores well. In the long run it seems that the quad would be best. Sticking with dual while AMD plans to get 12 core procs out by 2012 seems to be a bit of a bad decision. I am not criticizing your suggestion though, I honestly have never really used a Intel dual core that is that powerful, so I am not too sure what I am missing. Sadly enough being poor means I can only really look online to find out the performance of items instead of doing my own real world test.
 
Scintir said:
Don't know if that would be worth it. I could just run and get the Phenom X4 9950 and OC that to 3.0GHz and have a quad system. Also, the 45nm AMD phenoms should be coming out...eventually. I am unsure if it would be wise to sit there with a high end dual when I could get a good quad and just OC that. I have done research and it seems that most duals only beat the quads because the speed difference is there, since a decent amount of things cannot use the 2 extra cores well. In the long run it seems that the quad would be best. Sticking with dual while AMD plans to get 12 core procs out by 2012 seems to be a bit of a bad decision. I am not criticizing your suggestion though, I honestly have never really used a Intel dual core that is that powerful, so I am not too sure what I am missing. Sadly enough being poor means I can only really look online to find out the performance of items instead of doing my own real world test.
Click to expand...

If dual-core isn't where you want to be, you can get a Q6600 for $35 more than the E8400. Price-performance really is in Intel's favor at this time. And there's no telling when AMD will pull their collective heads from their nether-regions and do something about it. 2012 is a long time away in the computer world, and what plans made now can and do change considerably when it comes to these companies. Intel talked about hitting 10GHz by 2005, but when it was said and done, Netburst failed to reach that goal. Intel also plans on having 8 core systems in 2009-2010 I think. Hell dual core system have been out now for three years and games are barely scratching the surface of what can be done with them.

In the end it's entirely up to you. You're the one that has to be comfortable with whatever you decide to buy.
 
Obviously a cpu bottleneck depends on the game/settings but here is one example from my system of how easy these cards spank a cpu.

My e6600 is overclocked to 3.0 from 2.4. When benching Crysis with the settings on high at 1280x1024 I will take a significant fps hit when I lower my OC to stock. Doing the same bench with Crysis set to "Very High" and I have no change in fps. This shows two things; one, the games and settings will change whether the cpu-wall or gpu-wall is hit first, and two, if an e6600 at stock is holding back a 4850 you can bet your ass that cpu is crippling your 4870.
 
*cries* my poor wittle 4870 *tries to care for it to bring it back to its self*.

I tried to OC my processor to see if it was the CPU problem and OC my GPU to make sure. I could OC my GPU and get very little performance difference. Now while OCing my CPU I got no where. The FX cores are really really horrible on OCing in my mind along with many others. I can hardly even break 3.0GHz while it is stocked at 2.8 -_-.
 
Scintir said:
*cries* my poor wittle 4870 *tries to care for it to bring it back to its self*.

I tried to OC my processor to see if it was the CPU problem and OC my GPU to make sure. I could OC my GPU and get very little performance difference. Now while OCing my CPU I got no where. The FX cores are really really horrible on OCing in my mind along with many others. I can hardly even break 3.0GHz while it is stocked at 2.8 -_-.
Click to expand...
It is sad :(
 
Hehe, I am glad I got so many replies.

Yes, it is sad. I feel really really bad :(.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top