• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

7800GT + amd 64 3000

JD50

JD50

Lifer
I just got the 7800 GT and I am about to order a processor, is the 64 3000 strong enough to handle this graphics card. The only reason I want to get such a cheap processor is because I plan to upgrade to a X2 in about a year when they are cheaper (hopefully), better (hopefully), and more utilized.
 
i think it is a good plan too. But if you have the money i would go ahead and get the X2. You will notice the difference right away with how windows is so more responsive. I don't have an X2 but i have worked on many different dual processor machines.
 
Originally posted by: Lord Banshee
i think it is a good plan too. But if you have the money i would go ahead and get the X2. You will notice the difference right away with how windows is so more responsive. I don't have an X2 but i have worked on many different dual processor machines.
Click to expand...

what he said .....
l have one its awsome if you can get it now......
 
Originally posted by: piddlefoot
Originally posted by: Lord Banshee
i think it is a good plan too. But if you have the money i would go ahead and get the X2. You will notice the difference right away with how windows is so more responsive. I don't have an X2 but i have worked on many different dual processor machines.
Click to expand...

what he said .....
l have one its awsome if you can get it now......
Click to expand...

I agree. X2's are NOT just for multitasking. They are just a better overall computer experience.
 
I'm still on the fence with this one, but from what you guys have said, it seems that running an athlon 64 3000 with a eVGA nvidia 7800 GT will be fine, no bottleneck issues or anything like that.
 
Yeah it will be bottlenecked as it would run notably faster on a 4400+ or whatever, but a decent overclock on a 3000+ should give you a plenty good gaming experience.
 
Ok thanks, maybe I'll just get the San Diego 3700, it still saves me a little over $100 from the X2, so I wouldnt feel so bad buying a new processor in 6-12 months.
 
How many frickin' times do i have to say this?

Unless you are running a monitor @ 1600x1200 or higher, or have an FX-57 OCed with your 7800GT @ 1280x1024, your [7800 series] video card will almost always be held back by your CPU!

This is a proven fact, even AT's reviews agree with me.

Something you n00bs can't seem to comprehend is that the current video cards are far far ahead of current CPUs (& the gap continues to increase) unless you run at extremely high resolutions.

Now that being said, having the video card held back by the CPU is certainly better than vice versa.

 
It would be worth it if you do the following, buy the 3000+ now then the X2 5000+ next year.

I know in Canada the X2 3800+ is about $450 CDN and the 3000+ is about $200 CDN.
So, if someone bought a 3000+ for $200 CDN then spent $200 CDN next year on that same dual core, then they'd still spend a total of $400 CDN. Of course, they could still sell the 3000+ on eBay but by then it would be worth like $50 CDN on eBay. So, total cost $350 CDN when they could get the X2 right now for an extra $100 CDN and have it for a full year more.

On the other hand, you'd save money by getting let's say an X2 4600+ next year. My impression is AMD will take their time to lower the price on the X2 4800+ and especially the X2 5000+ when it comes out. They're snobs in that way. The same thing happens for top of the line video cards. They don't want to give away their top of the line (always a stupid premium).
 
Thanks, good to know, thats what I was looking for. And to answer your question, you will probably have to say this anytime someone new comes along.
 
Originally posted by: JD50
Thanks, good to know, thats what I was looking for. And to answer your question, you will probably have to say this anytime someone new comes along.
Click to expand...


My response wasn't really even directed at you (though the answer to your bottlenecking question was).

There were a lot of long-time users here that were incorrectly responding to your question, since they don't seem to actually bother to learn what they are talking about 😛
(Not that i know anything; i don't. I just read what the experts have to say 😉)
 
n7 is correct; here is why he is correct. The problem is that even with the latest games, they are not taxing the GPU sufficiently. To tax the GPU sufficiently, they need to either send the GPU more data to work on, or you can increase the resolution/AF/AA, or both.
 
Battlefield 2 likes beefy video cards, but it hardly seems to care about CPUs. In Gamespots tests, the difference between a 7800GTX with a A64 4000+ and 3000+ was 60fps and 59 fps respectively.
 
Originally posted by: Sonikku
Battlefield 2 likes beefy video cards, but it hardly seems to care about CPUs. In Gamespots tests, the difference between a 7800GTX with a A64 4000+ and 3000+ was 60fps and 59 fps respectively.
Click to expand...


True.

BF2 is one game that seems to be extremely graphics cards dependant.
However, nearly all other games are not, or certainly not to the same extent.
 
in the bottleneck reviews for the gtx, after 2.2 ghz it started plateauing, providing you have a decent board, the 3000+ will overclock to 2.2 quite easily
 
Originally posted by: JD50
Ok thanks, maybe I'll just get the San Diego 3700, it still saves me a little over $100 from the X2, so I wouldnt feel so bad buying a new processor in 6-12 months.
Click to expand...

I built a San Diego 3700 system for a friend, pared with at 7800GT. Very good system that kicks butt in games and very responsive in Windows and other apps. If you don't want to go the X2 route, the San Diego 3700 with the 1mb cache is a killer CPU, and half the cost of the X2. They're also great overclockers.. I got a 3700 up to 2750mhz stable on air with only a bump in voltage.

 
what type of monitor and what resolutions do you plan to play on? I'm amazed that people would buy a 7800 series card and run it at anything less than 16x12.

It is very likely that I will be adding a 7800GT to my A64 3000+ system because they compliment each other very nicely.
 
Since we?re on the topic of gaming, I?d like to say that the X2 3800+ won?t be as powerful as an Athlon 64 3400+ 2.4 GHz (socket 754) in games like UT2004. UT2004 also uses the CPU more than the GPU. That?s why I bought an Athlon 3400+ 2.4 GHz and X700 Pro.
Though I?d like to get socket M2 when it comes out.
On the topic of ?bottlenecking? and ?is this CPU powerful enough?, I?ve seen CPU scaling benchmarks that show you really what happens. Your video card won?t stop working just because the CPU is not very powerful. You?ll just get lower frame rates or will have to go down to medium or low quality and lower resolutions to get playable frame rates, that?s all.
Maybe the easiest way (but still inaccurate) way of visualizing this is to think that for every 100 MHz in CPU speed, you?d get like 3 fps more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top