3500+ bottleneck for 8800GTS?
- Thread starter ixelion
- Start date
not too sure... i have a friend with a 3500+ 1gb ram and 7800GT and i ran better with my 4400+, 2gb ram and 7600gt... we think it's his ram though
1GB ram is minimum so make sure you have atleast that much for the GTS to feed off... 2GB suggested
also if you need to upgrade (not sure if it's needed) and if you can, get an X2 and OC it if you need higher clock speeds. i would suggest the X2 3800+
orrr if you have a 939 system look at some opterons, they are real cheap these days, and if those fx-55's still on sale for ~$150 consider them
1GB ram is minimum so make sure you have atleast that much for the GTS to feed off... 2GB suggested
also if you need to upgrade (not sure if it's needed) and if you can, get an X2 and OC it if you need higher clock speeds. i would suggest the X2 3800+
orrr if you have a 939 system look at some opterons, they are real cheap these days, and if those fx-55's still on sale for ~$150 consider them
- Feb 5, 2005
- 984
- 1
- 0
I cant afford an X2 at the moment I would only consider a 4000+ because of the low price.
I have 2 GB of RAM.
It seems the CPU will only be a bottleneck on low resolution, at higher resolution it wont be.
But I am still undecided I have to say I need a video upgrade rather soon, before christmas anyway.
I have 2 GB of RAM.
It seems the CPU will only be a bottleneck on low resolution, at higher resolution it wont be.
But I am still undecided I have to say I need a video upgrade rather soon, before christmas anyway.
AFAIK, an overclocked Quad-core Intel CPU is a bottleneck for an 8800GTX.
You can't afford an X2 ($150?), but you're going to buy an 8800?
You can't afford an X2 ($150?), but you're going to buy an 8800?
closest DC to the 4000+ would be the opty 165 which is 1.8Ghz... you would need a 600mhz OC to get up the same clock as the 4000+, and i would think it is possible on the opty.
it is $160 @ NE
the 4000+ is $137 @ NE
it is $160 @ NE
the 4000+ is $137 @ NE
- Feb 5, 2005
- 984
- 1
- 0
I am in Canada so I don't think New Egg will ship to Canada an opty is almost $300 in Canada, I have looked at several benches of a 7800GTX and it seems that there is in fact a bottleneck but it is fairly small and I can defiantly live with it.
My next CPU will probably some quad core thing a year or two from now.
Poor choice of words, I can afford it but it would not be practical for my current situation, just trying to be sensible with my spending. (seems hypocritical how 8800GTS are fairly expensive
)
My next CPU will probably some quad core thing a year or two from now.
Poor choice of words, I can afford it but it would not be practical for my current situation, just trying to be sensible with my spending. (seems hypocritical how 8800GTS are fairly expensive
)Hard Drive Technology has Always Been the Bottleneck in ANY Modern Computer..............
If you Cannot feed the Beast... you will be Bottlenecked..... and IDE/SATA has Been(For Years) and Will Continue To Be The True Bottleneck.
This Statement Means Nothing..... 99.99 % of All Games are SINGLE threaded.....
They See One and Only One Processor.... and it responds to that processor as a Single Core at whatever the clock speed is....
Until there is better Dual Core Support, or The Developers releaase an SMC patch for your game titles.... you are best off spending the extra on Hard Drives or something that will actually benefit you for now and down the road....
If you're running at high resolutions it won't really matter because the game will be powered by the gpu. However, at lower resolutions, a faster cpu will mean more frames because the game becomes more cpu dependent.
Don't bother upgrading to the 4000+. It's not really worth it in the end because you wouldn't notice the difference.
Don't bother upgrading to the 4000+. It's not really worth it in the end because you wouldn't notice the difference.
SpeedZealot369
Platinum Member
- Feb 5, 2006
- 2,778
- 1
- 81
Nope it will run fine with your cpu.
Mr fox what the heck are you talking about, hard drive is the true bottleneck? Lay off the smack man.
Noubourne is on something too, CPU is NOT the bottleneck (especially a overclocked conroe) And frankly I'm getting tired of this CPU bottleneck crap. We need a sticky that shows people how expensive cpu's do not help gaming at all, and how an amd64 3500+ is enough for any GPU even SLI'd 8800gtx's.
SZ
edited for spelling
Mr fox what the heck are you talking about, hard drive is the true bottleneck? Lay off the smack man.
Noubourne is on something too, CPU is NOT the bottleneck (especially a overclocked conroe) And frankly I'm getting tired of this CPU bottleneck crap. We need a sticky that shows people how expensive cpu's do not help gaming at all, and how an amd64 3500+ is enough for any GPU even SLI'd 8800gtx's.
SZ
edited for spelling
Ignorance Must be Bliss !!
You should do some reading.... if hard drive Technology were actually up to the rest of the technology in your computer... there would be no boot times, and no Lag due to Pagefile Access.... IDE and SATA have been the Primary Bottleneck of a PC for Three - Four years or more.....
CPU's/GPU's and RAM are Measured in Bandwidth of Gigabytes Per Second.......
IDE/SCSI, and SATA are Measured in Bandwidth of Megabytes Per Second.......
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200601/WD1500ADFD_1.html
The Fastest RaptorX in 4 Drive RAID 0 are Lucky To Burst at 220 Mbps....
and Sustain 150-180 Mbps........... Depending Upon The Controller.
15000 RPM SCSI Drives Can Go Slightly Above that But They are Almost Double the Cost of the same Size SATA Drive.....
HARD DRIVES ARE THE BOTTLENECK...... Plain and Simple !!
No Rocket Science Involved.... Giga vs Mega
I don't think hard drives are the bottleneck.
True, you might meed mega or even gigabytes per second for the CPU, but not for the hard drive especially when you're just gaming. (except for the load up time, that's where you become bottlenecked)
Don't upgrade to 4000+ unless you're going for X2. It's just a waste of money and you'd be better off to start saving your money for the quad core.
True, you might meed mega or even gigabytes per second for the CPU, but not for the hard drive especially when you're just gaming. (except for the load up time, that's where you become bottlenecked)
Don't upgrade to 4000+ unless you're going for X2. It's just a waste of money and you'd be better off to start saving your money for the quad core.
SpeedZealot369
Platinum Member
- Feb 5, 2006
- 2,778
- 1
- 81
But, I think you need to understand that games don't need fast hard drives, hence HDD is NOT a bottleneck.
Sure if we were talking about how fast windows booted up, and someone would say a faster cpu is a better investment then a raptor for faster boot times, I would call them crazy. Yes HDD would be the bottleneck in that case. But we are talking about GAMES here. Does that make sense to you??
It is this Simple... If the Drive Cannot feed the Textures to the application fast enough... you will Lag.... The Card that he is Buying would be tied down by anything other than the fastest hard Drives....
High End Gaming Rigs Spec.. 2xRaptors in RAID 0... There is a reason why....
SpeedZealot369
Platinum Member
- Feb 5, 2006
- 2,778
- 1
- 81
Don't worry about it, CPU bound or not, next game that comes out, it'll be GPU bound more than you can wish for. My 9800pro was I'm sure CPU bound when it first came out, now it's most definately GPU bound, the X1900, MOST DEFINATELY CPU bound at resolutions below 1600X1200, even then IIRC it's CPU bound, it was only Oblivion that made it GPU bound. Look, let it be CPU bound, don't worry about it, sooner than you think or want, it'll be GPU bound and then you'll realize you've got a dated video card.
This is a funny guy.
yes, technically speaking an HDD is the slowest component in the system, what you DON'T get is that it's not a bottleneck in games because they're designed to run resident in system memory. Yes, if HDDs were much faster, we had a faster HDD bus, then you could get away with 64MB of system ram for BF2, but that isn't the case. Because we know that hard drives are much slower and that the technology to make them faster isn't tangible unless you use a ram drive, the biggest bottleneck will be between the CPU, GPU and ram.
This is a funny guy.
yes, technically speaking an HDD is the slowest component in the system, what you DON'T get is that it's not a bottleneck in games because they're designed to run resident in system memory. Yes, if HDDs were much faster, we had a faster HDD bus, then you could get away with 64MB of system ram for BF2, but that isn't the case. Because we know that hard drives are much slower and that the technology to make them faster isn't tangible unless you use a ram drive, the biggest bottleneck will be between the CPU, GPU and ram.
People have Raid 0 in high end gaming rigs because they're spending enough money as it is and they want to LOAD MAPS faster, once you're in the map, and you have enough ram, HDD speed means nothing.
You'll benefit from more system ram than from a faster hard drive, because once the game is loaded, if it has to swap to the HDD because of a lack of ram, you'll notice the stuttering. Again, it's the CPU-GPU-RAM that are the bottleneck when it comes to games, for frame rates, it's CPU/GPU, for playability, it's all three.
What is so funny about your post is the fact that I've seen that information preached in many different places, while it's technically true, you need to actually put logic behind it and realize that it's a per situation basis. A fast HDD will not benefit SuperPi scores, right? A 8800GTX won't improve my video encoding performance, right? Same thing. It's a per situation basis, you'd be correct about the HDD if he had a file server with my I/O requests or was video editing as the HDD and the CPU are the main bottlenecks when doing video editing/encoding.
</thread>
bob4432
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2003
- 11,727
- 46
- 91
it is MB(MegaBytes) per second, not Mb(MegaBits) per second....No Rocket Science Involved.... Bytes vs Bits
and the newest 15k scsi hdds (the seagate 15k.5) can attain a str of over 100MB/s (first drive to do it
), so a 4drive raid0 array could do ~350+MB/s, more than just slightly above the 150-180 you claimWell, you're just plain wrong.
He doesn't have an overclocked Conroe, he's got a A64 3500 at stock speeds. BIG DIFFERENCE.
VR-Zone Review of OC'd 8800GTX
His CPU and clock?
Quad-Core Kentsfield at 4.5Ghz. TWO Conroes at 4.5Ghz can't feed SLI 8800s. And good luck getting 4.5Ghz without Dry Ice. 3.5Ghz is more likely, and that's CERTAINLY going to bottleneck a pair of 8800s.
He might as well buy a 7900GT for $200 if he plans on keeping that CPU/mobo for very long.
And the "most games don't use 2 CPU" argument is crap too. Most games don't require an 8800GTS!! The ones that do are optimized for multiple cores.
Considering that those benchmarks are run at relatively low resolutions, it's no surprise that they're CPU limited. You guys have seeming forgotten that next generation software will certainly make the GPUs today much more GPU limited, it's a cycle, a cycle that you're going to have to accept. The probably likely wouldn't be so bad if there was more wide acceptance of the PPU as the CPU does a pretty ****** job as it is.
Makaveli
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2002
- 4,986
- 1,577
- 136
Originally posted by: ixelion
I am in Canada so I don't think New Egg will ship to Canada an opty is almost $300 in Canada, I have looked at several benches of a 7800GTX and it seems that there is in fact a bottleneck but it is fairly small and I can defiantly live with it.
My next CPU will probably some quad core thing a year or two from now.
Poor choice of words, I can afford it but it would not be practical for my current situation, just trying to be sensible with my spending. (seems hypocritical how 8800GTS are fairly expensive
I don't know where u shop but here are opteron prices I have found in Canada
OPTERON - SOCKET 939
AMD® Opteron? 144 (Socket 939) [BNBOX] E4 Revision Retail Box w/ Heatsink and Fan $109.99
AMD® Opteron? 146 (Socket 939) [BNBOX] E4 Revision Retail Box w/ Heatsink and Fan $124.99
AMD® Opteron? 148 (Socket 939) [BNBOX] E4 Revision Retail Box w/ Heatsink and Fan $159.99
AMD® Opteron? 150 (Socket 939) [BNBOX] E4 Revision Retail Box w/ Heatsink and Fan $199.99
OPTERON X2 - SOCKET 939
AMD® Opteron? Dual Core 165 (Socket 939) [CDBOX] E6 Revision Retail Box w/ Heatsink and Fan $214.99
AMD® Opteron? Dual Core 170 (Socket 939) [CDBOX] E6 Revision Retail Box w/ Heatsink and Fan $244.99
AMD® Opteron? Dual Core 175 (Socket 939) [CDBOX] E6 Revision Retail Box w/ Heatsink and Fan $329.99
happy medium
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2003
- 14,387
- 480
- 126
2- 8800gtx's in sli are the bottleneck with any Amd fx cpu or e6400 core 2 duo and up at any resolution above 1600x 1200 with af ,aa. Anyone who buys 2 -8800gtx's and doesn't have a monitor that does at least 1600x 1200 is a moron!
To the OP your 3500+ will be fine as long as your using a resolution of 1280x1024 or more and some aa,af.
To the OP your 3500+ will be fine as long as your using a resolution of 1280x1024 or more and some aa,af.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter