x800 XT and CPU Bottleneck...

M

|MaguS|

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
1,934
I was wondering which CPU's would release alot of the bottleneck from the card. Im currently running an AMD64 3200 and was planning on upgrading to the AMD64 3800. Would the AMD64 3200 be good for the time being before the upgrade and will I see a more noticable improvement when I get the AMD64 3800? I mean I know it will be faster but would it releave alot of the bottleneck?
 
|MaguS| said:
Would the AMD64 3200 be good for the time being
Click to expand...

well of course it would be. thats quite a beefy chip you have there.
 
|MaguS| said:
I was wondering which CPU's would release alot of the bottleneck from the card. Im currently running an AMD64 3200 and was planning on upgrading to the AMD64 3800. Would the AMD64 3200 be good for the time being before the upgrade and will I see a more noticable improvement when I get the AMD64 3800? I mean I know it will be faster but would it releave alot of the bottleneck?
Click to expand...

You're going to have to get a new mobo to support the socket 939 3800+. Be sure to factor in that extra cost before you get dead set on upgrading.
 
My bad, I ment the 3700+, hehe. Does anyone know if the new 754 socket CPU's will work on older motherboards, I contacted Biostar but they are still testing.

I hope they have a bios update for it, would be awsome if I can just upgrade my CPU insted of needing to get a new Motherboard...
 
The price of the high end Athlon 64's are just too extreme for me. my Athlon 64 3200+ is certainly fast enough for now.

It feeds my new video card just fine. :p
 
Get a mobile 2600. They are cheap and setup properly they can run with the big boys. Mine does. And then wait for the 939 prices to drop and more choices to become available.
 
My mobile 2600 is running 215x12.5 thats 2.65mhz. Temp is 44 under load. I believe that the 64 3200 runs at 2.0! Sandra benches show it outperforms the fx53 and p4 3.0 all for 99 dollars. I wouldnt downgrade as you call it, but I wouldnt purchase a several hundred dollar processor until the prices come down.
 
SIK_L_CELL said:
My mobile 2600 is running 215x12.5 thats 2.65mhz. Temp is 44 under load. I believe that the 64 3200 runs at 2.0! Sandra benches show it outperforms the fx53 and p4 3.0 all for 99 dollars. I wouldnt downgrade as you call it, but I wouldnt purchase a several hundred dollar processor until the prices come down.
Click to expand...

Stop now before it's to late :p
 
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/x800_pro_athlon_xp/

Read the above mentioned article

There is an obvious bottleneck with the x800pro which means there will be with the x800xt

fc1600.gif
 
SIK_L_CELL said:
My mobile 2600 is running 215x12.5 thats 2.65mhz. Temp is 44 under load. I believe that the 64 3200 runs at 2.0! Sandra benches show it outperforms the fx53 and p4 3.0 all for 99 dollars. I wouldnt downgrade as you call it, but I wouldnt purchase a several hundred dollar processor until the prices come down.
Click to expand...

You should purchase whatever processor you can afford and are willing to spend money on. I personally would spend the money on a 3.4GHz Northwood if I had the cash. Maybe or maybe not the Pentium 4 3.4EE because of it's insane price.

Some people are perfectly comfortable paying top dollar for the top end processors. This is ok. Not everyone wants to overclock. Also remember that the higher end processors overclock too. And it's less work to get them to be faster than a lower end chip most of the time. Also since OC'ing is luck of the draw as much as technical innovation, I'd say your safer getting a higher end CPU to start with.

If he wants to spend top dollar on a top end chip, then let him. If people had enough money to buy any processor they wanted at any given time, everyone would likely go for the top dawg everytime and we wouldn't have lower end CPU's. IF he's comfortable with spending it than so be it.

Personally I would buy the AMD 64 3200+ or more if I had the cash at the time I wanted to upgrade. Furthermore, any CPU bottlenecks any X800Pro, but in higher resolutions we can see clearly that the X800XT still wins because of it's added 4 pipelines. So the fact that any processor bottlenecks any X800 series card isn't reason not to get one.

Depending on the app you can still get more speed and higher performance with 4 more pipelines.

Not to mention if your like most enthusiests you'll upgrade your processor whenever significant jumps occur if you can afford it. So having a video card that scales well with your system as CPU speed increases only makes sense.

To sum up, always get the fastest components you can or will be willing to spend the money on. You'll never be sorry you did. The only exception to those rules are rare scenario's where the price vs. performance ratio is WAY off. These are rare instances. Like with the Athlon FX-53 and Pentium 4 3.4EE. But to those that have that much money and are willing to spend it, those chips are worth it.

That's my advice.
 
Dont get me wrong, I would love a 64bit socket 939 rig. My point was since we all just spent 400-500+ bucks for a new card and money might be tight that there are other alternatives to increase performance, for alot less cash. I am sorry if I offended anyone. I personally am going to wait till the 64bit rigs are a bit cheaper.
 
SIK_L_CELL said:
My mobile 2600 is running 215x12.5 thats 2.65mhz. Temp is 44 under load. I believe that the 64 3200 runs at 2.0! Sandra benches show it outperforms the fx53 and p4 3.0 all for 99 dollars. I wouldnt downgrade as you call it, but I wouldnt purchase a several hundred dollar processor until the prices come down.
Click to expand...

show me a sandra bench i bet i can smoke it.

heres one you can start with

sancpu.jpg
 
theelviscerator said:
show me a sandra bench i bet i can smoke it.

heres one you can start with

sancpu.jpg
Click to expand...

Man, you really are missing the point. I never meant this to become a "My dad can beat up your dad" thread. I will bow out gracefully from this thread.
 
high end amd and top of the line nvidia cant beat a x800 pro..



I got my 6800 Ultra 2 days ago. Ordered it from PNY.com for $499. They are out of stock now. Mine came clocked at 425MHz

3dmark03=12,189



__________________
K8T Neo-FIS2R
A64 3200+
Corsair XMS 3200
PNY 6800 Ultra
 
SIK_L_CELL said:
My mobile 2600 is running 215x12.5 thats 2.65mhz. Temp is 44 under load. I believe that the 64 3200 runs at 2.0! Sandra benches show it outperforms the fx53 and p4 3.0 all for 99 dollars. I wouldnt downgrade as you call it, but I wouldnt purchase a several hundred dollar processor until the prices come down.
Click to expand...

why say things you cant back up?

Now dont go getting your panties all wadded up! My statement was directed to all who are still using the XP platform and are worried about supposed "cpu bottlenecks" That for a very small amount of cash they can get p4 and amd64 performance until the 939's hit the street at reasonable prices. As you can see it works. Well you certainly have attained a monster overclock of your own so you should understand my point.
 
theelviscerator said:
show me a sandra bench i bet i can smoke it.

heres one you can start with

sancpu.jpg
Click to expand...


You know, I do remember reading somewhere that having a fast computer = having a large penis...
 
Unless you plan on playing at 800x600 or 1024x768 with no AA and no AF(real games, not synthetic benchmarks) you won't see much of a difference between a 3200+ and a 3700+. Save your money and keep the 3200+. If you're still not satisfied, you can always overclock.
 
WuTangClam said:
Unless you plan on playing at 800x600 or 1024x768 with no AA and no AF(real games, not synthetic benchmarks) you won't see much of a difference between a 3200+ and a 3700+. Save your money and keep the 3200+. If you're still not satisfied, you can always overclock.
Click to expand...

Many games I tend to play at 1600x1200 currently (Except for SWG) but with AA/AF off since with my current card it shows its age (especially with FarCry...).
 
WuTangClam said:
Unless you plan on playing at 800x600 or 1024x768 with no AA and no AF(real games, not synthetic benchmarks) you won't see much of a difference between a 3200+ and a 3700+. Save your money and keep the 3200+. If you're still not satisfied, you can always overclock.
Click to expand...

This pretty much sums up any kind of bottleneck questions. If you they you are hitting some cap because of your proc, push the settings up. If you're still worried about it, and are desperate to spend your money now, just buy a 939 board and an FX-53 ;-)
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
Also remember that the higher end processors overclock too. And it's less work to get them to be faster than a lower end chip most of the time. Also since OC'ing is luck of the draw as much as technical innovation, I'd say your safer getting a higher end CPU to start with.
Click to expand...
A lot of what you say is true and good advice, but check out my sig. My 2.4 is now $140, and running at 3.4 (283, now running 1:1 with my RAM thanks to AData) I have a 1133.5 FSB. Yes, it's a lottery, but these 2.4Cs tend to OC pretty well. I've been thinking of upgrading to a higher P4, but unless I can guarantee a 3.0 will run at 3.6+, I am going down in performance.

The Athlon64's smoke, until you look at the price. In mosy games I can run with maybe a 3500+, which is what, $500? The 64s are great processros, but they need to come way down in price. I mean, this new idea of AMD actually making money really sucks. ;)

Just a thought. If you have money to burn, the fastest system is pretty easy to build. On a budget, however...
 
rekojenasni_787 said:
theelviscerator got pwnt.
Click to expand...


how so?

the only part of the test relying on cpu he got raped by 50 fps..

rest was due to a superior video card..the XT oc'd on water..

03 is all about the vid card noob.

that card in my system would give me prob 15000
 
theelviscerator said:
that quote was referring to you your wild assed claim a 2600 mobile could outbench a 3.0 in sandra..

never said an XT couldnt or shouldnt outrun a pro in 03

btw you lost 50 fps in the first test to a slower card by over 100 hz core speed..

owned.
Click to expand...

I am also the ONLY xp cpu in the top twenty. With all the P4's running almost twice my speed. Hmmm. Own?

Oh new score 3DMark 03 - 13227
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2678463
 
theelviscerator said:
how so?

the only part of the test relying on cpu he got raped by 50 fps..

rest was due to a superior video card..the XT oc'd on water..

03 is all about the vid card noob.

that card in my system would give me prob 15000
Click to expand...

Does it matter how I do it? Does it really bother you that a 99 dollar cpu beats you? With your system you should be able to break 13000. Maybe I could give you some pointers. I am taking my hardware to the limit, not all of this is just plug and play. Would it kill you to acknowledge someones hard work other than yourself?
 
SIK_L_CELL said:
Does it matter how I do it? Does it really bother you that a 99 dollar cpu beats you? With your system you should be able to break 13000. Maybe I could give you some pointers. I am taking my hardware to the limit, not all of this is just plug and play. Would it kill you to acknowledge someones hard work other than yourself?
Click to expand...


not at all, nice score.....nice clocks on the card,
but cpu still has it bottlenecked..
proof is the 50 frames you gave up on first test. yes?
 
There you go! I would love to have a more powerful cpu. you can see from the tests that I am limited. I am waiting till the first of the year to upgrade. Keep rockin!
 
SIK_L_CELL said:
Does it matter how I do it? Does it really bother you that a 99 dollar cpu beats you? With your system you should be able to break 13000. Maybe I could give you some pointers. I am taking my hardware to the limit, not all of this is just plug and play. Would it kill you to acknowledge someones hard work other than yourself?
Click to expand...

Just so you know it takes a 2500mhz A64 3200 to run with my 4ghz p4 on water....and thats in superpi which is biased towards amd.

Listen dude....THERE IS NO WAY YOUR 2600mhz XP IS FASTER THAN ELVIS' OR MY 3.0C. PERIOD. Show me any CPU benchmark (since I don't have your video card nor the cash to get it, ltes leave video card dependent benchies out of this like 03). I would be interested in seeing your 3dmark 01 score however. You will def. beat me but I will most likely kill you on the cpu scores. Not only that, lets see some superpi (which is AMD biased), and other cpu benchies like that. Your $99 chip is $99 for a reason, and its not because AMD wants to be generous to you. Its last generation. Put it this way....put your video card in my system or my card in your system and you WILL lose in EVERY SINGLE BENCHMARK no matter how amd biased it is. The difference IS That big. In ocforums superpi thread, it takes a barton at 3ghz to match my 4ghz p4. The difference is youre not gonna be hitting 3ghz on air OR water with an AMD and 4ghz on air/water is now becoming common with intels. Your chip IS slower than elvis chip. And you haven't shown anything at ALL when you showed your 3dmark03 link. In fact, you proves his point. You got raped on the cpu test by 50FPS. thats a lot. Lets see some 3dmark01, superpi, and sandra. AFter you get smoked in all three, I STILL bet you will think yours is faster.

ACtually, I forgot, there IS a way your barton can run with the big boys....here it is....

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/main.html
 
computerpro3 said:
Just so you know it takes a 2500mhz A64 3200 to run with my 4ghz p4 on water....and thats in superpi which is biased towards amd.

Listen dude....THERE IS NO WAY YOUR 2600mhz XP IS FASTER THAN ELVIS' OR MY 3.0C. PERIOD. Show me any CPU benchmark (since I don't have your video card nor the cash to get it, ltes leave video card dependent benchies out of this like 03). I would be interested in seeing your 3dmark 01 score however. You will def. beat me but I will most likely kill you on the cpu scores. Not only that, lets see some superpi (which is AMD biased), and other cpu benchies like that. Your $99 chip is $99 for a reason, and its not because AMD wants to be generous to you. Its last generation. Put it this way....put your video card in my system or my card in your system and you WILL lose in EVERY SINGLE BENCHMARK no matter how amd biased it is. The difference IS That big. In ocforums superpi thread, it takes a barton at 3ghz to match my 4ghz p4. The difference is youre not gonna be hitting 3ghz on air OR water with an AMD and 4ghz on air/water is now becoming common with intels. Your chip IS slower than elvis chip. And you haven't shown anything at ALL when you showed your 3dmark03 link. In fact, you proves his point. You got raped on the cpu test by 50FPS. thats a lot. Lets see some 3dmark01, superpi, and sandra. AFter you get smoked in all three, I STILL bet you will think yours is faster.

ACtually, I forgot, there IS a way your barton can run with the big boys....here it is....

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/main.html
Click to expand...

I am sorry to have offended you. You are absolutely correct in all of your observations. In fact you stated that the P4 chips have to run faster than the 64's to keep up. I too noticed that while comparing my 3DMark scores against lesser scoring P4 rigs that were running 3+ghz. Cool I cant wait to get my 939 setup. I have stated repeatedly that I know my cpu is not the fastest but I was surprised that a Mobile would do so well. Thank you for the observations.
 
There are entusists, there are the [H]ardcore, and then there are the people who go off the deep end. Screaming at someone about benchmarks is sad, but amusing. Thanks for the mid-day laugh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top