8800GTX question

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: xollox
I don't have any specific experience with this, but this THG article should shed some light:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/29/geforce_8800_needs_the_fastest_cpu/

GeForce 8800 Needs The Fastest CPU

The authors title contridicts thier evidence, the benchmarks.

The FX-60 is roughly 30% slower CPU than the X6800 however in the game tests, at anything taxing like 16x12 or above with AA/AF both using a GTX they get real identical in the benchmarks.

Not to mention at low resolutions, like 12x10 and under both CPU's are well above "playable" >100FPS in every test so CPU comparison is mute.

You could stick the OPs 3500+ in there for the same result

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: xollox
I don't have any specific experience with this, but this THG article should shed some light:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/29/geforce_8800_needs_the_fastest_cpu/

GeForce 8800 Needs The Fastest CPU

The authors title contridicts thier evidence, the benchmarks.

The FX-60 is roughly 30% slower CPU than the X6800 however in the game tests, at anything taxing like 16x12 or above with AA/AF both using a GTX they get real identical in the benchmarks.

Not to mention at low resolutions, like 12x10 and under both CPU's are well above "playable" >100FPS in every test so CPU comparison is mute.

You could stick the OPs 3500+ in there for the same result

One thing that article did show is a fx-60 at 1600x1200 is a large bottleneck in fear with a gtx. The 8800gts scores the same thing. FEAR is the most GPU intensive game out now, so any outher game you 'll see a bigger bottleneck. So take the op's 3500+ cpu(which is slower then a fx-60) and match it with the 8800 and the bottleneck gets worse. His native resolution is lower too (1600x1050).I don't see any games in the future thats going to use 640mb of memory at 1600x1050.

I stand by my statement, you got piss poor advise and wasted 200.00$. Should have bought a 8800GTS, 640mb. You could have ran any game out now at 1600x1050 everything maxed with no aa/af with the 289.00$ 8800 gts 320mb just as fast as a gtx. With the 8800gts 640 you'd be future proof and , you wouldn't have to worry about your PSU either.

 

[nZone]

The CPU isn't bottlenecking the 8800GTX; crapped! I wasted $190 with shipping on CPU.
Granted I bought the Pentium D 945 (3.4GHz stock) to replace my PD805 because my MB can't get C2D.
I found out that it didn't do squat except raising my CPU temp additional 10C degrees. I should have sticked with the PD805.
I also OC to 4.0GHz; found no noticeable improvement their.

The only thing I found that got noticeable effect is when adjusting the GTX settings (both for 805 and 945 cpu). So in real game; any dual cores cpu is fine. If single core; add-on sound helps.

I don't want to play game with no AA/AF; V-Sync off. I want all eye candies and no screen tearing; so there go GTX.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: nZone
The CPU isn't bottlenecking the 8800GTX; crapped! I wasted $190 with shipping on CPU.
Granted I bought the Pentium D 945 (3.4GHz stock) to replace my PD805 because my MB can't get C2D.
I found out that it didn't do squat except raising my CPU temp additional 10C degrees. I should have sticked with the PD805.
I also OC to 4.0GHz; found no noticeable improvement their.

The only thing I found that got noticeable effect is when adjusting the GTX settings (both for 805 and 945 cpu). So in real game; any dual cores cpu is fine. If single core; add-on sound helps.

I don't want to play game with no AA/AF; V-Sync off. I want all eye candies and no screen tearing; so there go GTX.

Read this whole page.......

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=618&p=1

Your cpu is even worse. The only Intel cpu's that should see a 8800 series card are core 2 duo's period. Amd cpu's can't barely make the 8800 break a sweat. In short pent 4's and d's suck.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: happy medium

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: xollox
I don't have any specific experience with this, but this THG article should shed some light:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/29/geforce_8800_needs_the_fastest_cpu/

GeForce 8800 Needs The Fastest CPU

The authors title contridicts thier evidence, the benchmarks.

The FX-60 is roughly 30% slower CPU than the X6800 however in the game tests, at anything taxing like 16x12 or above with AA/AF both using a GTX they get real identical in the benchmarks.

Not to mention at low resolutions, like 12x10 and under both CPU's are well above "playable" >100FPS in every test so CPU comparison is mute.

You could stick the OPs 3500+ in there for the same result

One thing that article did show is a fx-60 at 1600x1200 is a large bottleneck in fear with a gtx. The 8800gts scores the same thing. FEAR is the most GPU intensive game out now, so any outher game you 'll see a bigger bottleneck. So take the op's 3500+ cpu(which is slower then a fx-60) and match it with the 8800 and the bottleneck gets worse. His native resolution is lower too (1600x1050).I don't see any games in the future thats going to use 640mb of memory at 1600x1050.

I stand by my statement, you got piss poor advise and wasted 200.00$. Should have bought a 8800GTS, 640mb. You could have ran any game out now at 1600x1050 everything maxed with no aa/af with the 289.00$ 8800 gts 320mb just as fast as a gtx. With the 8800gts 640 you'd be future proof and , you wouldn't have to worry about your PSU either.

Large bottleneck???? where is it?

In FEAR at 16x12

AMD GTX is 79 FPS. Intel GTX is 83 FPS.

AMD GTS 640 is 60 FPS, Intel GTS 640 is 59 FPS. Not as future proof being 30% slower. Some would say the GTS is the bottleneck. I know I would. And I would certainly spend $200 extra for the GTX rather than $1000 for a C2D setup which makes me little to no difference in gaming - let alone 30% improvment like the relatvly cheap GTX upgrade got me.


Hell this picture says it all and you linked it. I'm wasting my breath from here on out for those who don't want to learn like I been doing for years here in Video.
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=618&p=3

 

[nZone]

OK, I don't get this. What bottleneck are people talking about -- benchmarking 3Dmark as a measuring stick?
Take a look at this lab experiment. A pentium D 945 (3.4Ghz) is no sludge. Yes, running game at 1024x768 at low resolution, C2D appears to be outperforming. While at the same resolution with a medium quality settings; the performance gap is closing up. While at high quality settings; it's a wash.
This isn't a 8800 GTX by any mean but the concept is the same.

CPU-comparison:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300_11.html

This is just a 1024x768 res.; considering at 1680x1050; a C2D won't perform any better than my current PD945 at high quality settings.

And I don't deny that a C2D X6800 or QX6700 won't improve performance; maybe 30% improvement. But at $900-1000 price tag; no thanks I could get 2 GTX and SLI them. This is not even considering certain people might require a new motherboard; in this case, me. I spent $250 for an Asus P5N32-SLI Deluxe several months ago and I'm not about to replace it. Talking about that; I'm still pissed at Asus; I bought this MB as it specified that it will compatible with C2D.

Ok, why people are counting the number of FPS? Large monitor at 32-bit color can display at 60 hertz. Isn't that mean 60 FPS is all you get no matter if a system can produce 1000000000000000 FPS?

 

[happy medium]

mabe i'm wrong? I allways thought that a 8800gtx was geared for ultra high resolutions?(over 1900x1200). Thats what I gather from most reviews I read. Is FEAR an exception?

 

[Fistandantilis]

well fellas, I got the GTX, there is no turning back, I will be getting an FX-60 as soon as I make a credit card payment, I would've gotten bother component at the samr time but my wife used the card earlier that day and only left me so much money on it.
I am sure that whatever may come down the PC Game line I will be able to play very nicely... and the future will have some sort of protection.
I wanted to get the best of the best, I did, I will upgrade the rest of the machine next week, thanks for all the input guys.

Joshua

 

[Zebo]

I dont relly consider 27FPS playable looking at the Oblivion outdoors over at THG with a GTS @ 16x12. I mean you're right on the edge of comfort and with Crysis coming and stuff I'd say a GTX gives better frames now (36-39 FPS) and more in future. GTS is not a bad recommendation but I think GTX is a better one if you can afford it at any res 16x10 or higher with everything on. Bang for the buck they are are equal. GTX costing 30% more and performing 30% better.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Fistandantilis
well fellas, I got the GTX, there is no turning back, I will be getting an FX-60 as soon as I make a credit card payment, I would've gotten bother component at the samr time but my wife used the card earlier that day and only left me so much money on it.
I am sure that whatever may come down the PC Game line I will be able to play very nicely... and the future will have some sort of protection.
I wanted to get the best of the best, I did, I will upgrade the rest of the machine next week, thanks for all the input guys.

Joshua

Don't bother with an FX60 get an opteron 170/175, cheaper, clocks higher, same cache. The only advantage to FX-60 is unlocked multipliers.

If you really want a FX60 I got one I'll sell you for $300 shipped.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: happy medium
Well with a monitor that has a 1680x1050 native resolution, I would NOT waste my money on a 8800 gtx. Save yourself some money and get a 8800 gts. 640mb. Really i'd be debating on a 320mb version.

That's not very smart.

I'd only consider the 320mb GTS if I was using 1280x1024.

8800GTX may be a little overkill for 1680x1050 now, but what new games have come out since the 8800GTX launch that actually challenges the card?

Once more demanding games roll around you might have to dumb down some settings to make it playable at 1680x1050 with even a 640mb GTS.

A $500 graphics card is an investment for at least six months to a year as far as I'm concerned, so why would you base such a large decision on performance of games that are a year old already?

 

[nZone]

Originally posted by: Matt2

A $500 graphics card is an investment for at least six months to a year as far as I'm concerned, so why would you base such a large decision on performance of games that are a year old already?

I'm not sure if you referred to me buying a 8800GTX for Titan Quest (which a year old game). Believe me; I don't spend $545 (include tax) on graphic card and use Titan Quest to measure the card performance and calling it a day. When I made my decision; I want something that can performance well on current released games and future games. I want also from this potential card to be directX 10 compliance. And that I don't have to upgrade again in 2 years or maybe 3 years. I am not a heavy gamer, but I do appreciate nice graphics and details.

I was torn between GTX and PS3. A PS3 would have been a good investment for what I paid for the GTX (at least for 5 years) but I love playing RPG diablo-type game. PC has it in Titan Quest so I bought GTX

Frankly, I had no regret for buying GTX but PS3 would be a better buy for me.

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: Fistandantilis
well fellas, I got the GTX, there is no turning back, I will be getting an FX-60 as soon as I make a credit card payment, I would've gotten bother component at the samr time but my wife used the card earlier that day and only left me so much money on it.
I am sure that whatever may come down the PC Game line I will be able to play very nicely... and the future will have some sort of protection.
I wanted to get the best of the best, I did, I will upgrade the rest of the machine next week, thanks for all the input guys.

Joshua

Don't worry about it, you didn't make a mistake with the GTX as far as performance goes & in fact as I mentioned earlier the only issue you face is that your power supply hasn't proven very reliable under high loads for a lot of people, so that should really be your next upgrade. You don't need to go crazy & spend big bucks for 850-1000 watts, but I would consider somthing in the 600-700 watt range (in other words more then you'll draw) just to give yourself some breathing room.

Also you should consider Zebo's advice about the FX-60 (unless you buy his! ) & just grab an Opteron 170 instead for less money ... X2's are getting hard to find in skt 939 but there are still plenty of the Opty's around.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: happy medium
mabe i'm wrong? I allways thought that a 8800gtx was geared for ultra high resolutions?(over 1900x1200). Thats what I gather from most reviews I read. Is FEAR an exception?

Yeah, you are wrong. The GTX is not going to be a bottleneck at 16x10 resolution. And, no, FEAR isn't just an exception. Far Cry and Prey also show this.

Look closely at those charts. They show a C2D at 3ghz compared to a C2D at 1.8ghz. Granted, we're talking about an AMD 3500+ here, but the point still stands. At a resolution around 1600x1200, a faster processor doesn't grant you more FPS. Therefore, a slower processor doesn't bottleneck.

Don't get me wrong-- I'm all for faster CPUs. But, for the settings I play at, and the games I play, my old 3000+ Venice is hanging in there just fine. It's my x1900xtx that could use a shot in the arm while running Oblivion at 1600x1200 4xAA, 16xHQAF, HDR, QTP3, 4096 LODs, AEVWD, and a bunch of other mods. I'm very much looking forward to upgrading to R600 xtx or an 8900gtx soon (though something tells me that I still might experience some slowdowns simply because of Bethesda's engine).

 

[nZone]

Originally posted by: Captante

Don't worry about it, you didn't make a mistake with the GTX as far as performance goes & in fact as I mentioned earlier the only issue you face is that your power supply hasn't proven very reliable under high loads for a lot of people, so that should really be your next upgrade. You don't need to go crazy & spend big bucks for 850-1000 watts, but I would consider somthing in the 600-700 watt range (in other words more then you'll draw) just to give yourself some breathing room.

Also you should consider Zebo's advice about the FX-60 (unless you buy his! ) & just grab an Opteron 170 instead for less money ... X2's are getting hard to find in skt 939 but there are still plenty of the Opty's around.

I'm a bit nervous now. What do you think about my PS Antec NeoHE 550 with GTX? It has 3 dedicated +12V rails rated at 18 amps each with 504 watts total. I emailed Antec support and they said it's fine. I'm still not convince; it's their product and they have to say "it's fine". Occasionally, the game slow down in certain area. If paused the game for 30 minutes for a break and then go back to that area (that was slow); it's not slow.

I am not sure if it's driver (still beta), the game itself, or the power supply doesn't have enough juice during intense action?

 

[VooDooAddict]

Many power supplies that claim separate rails simply don't have them.

What else do you have on the 12v rails? anything you can unplug and try again?

 

[Zebo]

Well I wouldnt put an ANTEC in my rig after burning not one, not two, but three up. Two True 480's and the one that came in my P150 case. I'm a slow learner... Fantastic cases but poor PSU's

Anyway all you can do is try it and if you get shut downs when gaming it's PSU.

 

[Fistandantilis]

Thanks for the input about the PSU, I really hope that I have the amps with this PSU, if not I guess I will have to go and buy one.
so if my games crash my machine then I can guess that the PSU is at fault?

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: nZone

Originally posted by: Captante

Don't worry about it, you didn't make a mistake with the GTX as far as performance goes & in fact as I mentioned earlier the only issue you face is that your power supply hasn't proven very reliable under high loads for a lot of people, so that should really be your next upgrade. You don't need to go crazy & spend big bucks for 850-1000 watts, but I would consider somthing in the 600-700 watt range (in other words more then you'll draw) just to give yourself some breathing room.

Also you should consider Zebo's advice about the FX-60 (unless you buy his! ) & just grab an Opteron 170 instead for less money ... X2's are getting hard to find in skt 939 but there are still plenty of the Opty's around.

I'm a bit nervous now. What do you think about my PS Antec NeoHE 550 with GTX? It has 3 dedicated +12V rails rated at 18 amps each with 504 watts total. I emailed Antec support and they said it's fine. I'm still not convince; it's their product and they have to say "it's fine". Occasionally, the game slow down in certain area. If paused the game for 30 minutes for a break and then go back to that area (that was slow); it's not slow.

I am not sure if it's driver (still beta), the game itself, or the power supply doesn't have enough juice during intense action?

The Neo HE 550 watt is pretty much an economy-model Seasonic and doesn't suffer from anywhere near the failure rate of the older True-Power & Smart-Power models which had very specific problems with over-heating capaciters in systems with sustained high power draw so you should be fine... it wouldn't be my first choice in a PSU, but they arn't bad at all if you get a good price.

Just so you know Seasonic now makes all of Antecs higher end models including the new True-power Trio's ... Antecs newest models called "Earth-Power" seem to be the best they have sold in quite awhile according to the hests I've read.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: nZone

Originally posted by: Captante

Don't worry about it, you didn't make a mistake with the GTX as far as performance goes & in fact as I mentioned earlier the only issue you face is that your power supply hasn't proven very reliable under high loads for a lot of people, so that should really be your next upgrade. You don't need to go crazy & spend big bucks for 850-1000 watts, but I would consider somthing in the 600-700 watt range (in other words more then you'll draw) just to give yourself some breathing room.

Also you should consider Zebo's advice about the FX-60 (unless you buy his! ) & just grab an Opteron 170 instead for less money ... X2's are getting hard to find in skt 939 but there are still plenty of the Opty's around.

I'm a bit nervous now. What do you think about my PS Antec NeoHE 550 with GTX? It has 3 dedicated +12V rails rated at 18 amps each with 504 watts total. I emailed Antec support and they said it's fine. I'm still not convince; it's their product and they have to say "it's fine". Occasionally, the game slow down in certain area. If paused the game for 30 minutes for a break and then go back to that area (that was slow); it's not slow.

I am not sure if it's driver (still beta), the game itself, or the power supply doesn't have enough juice during intense action?

The Neo HE 550 watt is pretty much an economy-model Seasonic and doesn't suffer from anywhere near the failure rate of the older True-Power & Smart-Power models which had very specific problems with over-heating capaciters in systems with sustained high power draw so you should be fine... it wouldn't be my first choice in a PSU, but they arn't bad at all if you get a good price.

Just so you know Seasonic now makes all of Antecs higher end models including the new True-power Trio's ... Antecs newest models called "Earth-Power" seem to be the best they have sold in quite awhile according to the hests I've read.

Good info. I currently use Seasonics and Corsiars exclusivly (500-600 watters )with very high loads in all overclocked systems CPU and GPU's and couldnt be happier.. Never a power loss and almost silent to boot. Good to hear Antec is having them made by Seasonic now like Corsiar does.

 

[nZone]

Originally posted by: VooDooAddict
Many power supplies that claim separate rails simply don't have them.

What else do you have on the 12v rails? anything you can unplug and try again?

I used 2 +12V rails for the pci-e power plug; the 3rd +12V for 3 120mm fans.

 

[nZone]

I have both the 550NeoHE and the GTX. I had not experience freeze, crash, or shutdown yet. Good indication so far; but in the back of my mind I just don't feel safe because of the power requirement for the GTX.

 

[Fistandantilis]

well I got the 8800GTX yesterday, I reformated my drives and reinstalled windows. This card works great, not PSU problems so far, but I do see where my processor is bottlenecking this beast, I will be getting an opteron shortly.
What would you guys advise, I think I remember the 170 or 175 series being talked about in this thread, what are my other options for a processor upgrade?

Thanks

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Fistandantilis
well I got the 8800GTX yesterday, I reformated my drives and reinstalled windows. This card works great, not PSU problems so far, but I do see where my processor is bottlenecking this beast, I will be getting an opteron shortly.
What would you guys advise, I think I remember the 170 or 175 series being talked about in this thread, what are my other options for a processor upgrade?

Thanks

The Opty 165 would be plenty, if you plan to overclock. I really don't recommend any other s939 processor right now (maybe the X2 3800+ if a hot deal shows up). I'm not much of an advocate of dual-core CPUs for gaming yet, but I don't see any point of upgrading to a faster single-core s939 when your current 3500+ could likely overclock to the same speed. Speaking of which, what speed is your 3500+ running at right now?

And what is making you think you are bottlenecking the gtx?

 

[Fistandantilis]

right now it is running at 2.42, this is on stock voltages and with the stock heatsink. the temps on my processor are high in my opinion, they are ~41c right now and it gets to ~55-56 under load so I have not toyed with clocking it any higher. if I lowered my ram down to 333 from 400 (ddr) would that allow my processor to go higher?

thanks