How bad would an Opteron 180 @ 2.4ghz bottleneck a HD4890?

[BrokenVisage]

I want to squeeze the life out of this S939 build once more. My theory is buy a 4890 now and build a new system around it over time and eventually go CF with another 4890. I'm just curious how much it's going to be held back until then. If not so much then I'll take my time buying parts and look for some deals. Any thoughts?

 

[Spike]

I think the whole concept of worring about being bottlenecked is quite silly. If you buy a 4890 you will see quite an improvement from your current 8800GT, period. Yes, your improvement would be much better with a faster CPU but no other single purchase will get you a larger gaming performance increase than a new GPU.

If you current card is holding you back and you can only afford one item then get this card. If your games are playing fine right now, but you have the upgrade itch, I would say hurry up and wait, waiting will almost always bring you lower prices for better performance. Even with an "ancient" opteron in there you will still be able to game quite well though you will have to mind certain game settings. I still game quite regularly on my Opty 165 @ 2.52 using a 9600GSO and it performs quite well.

Good luck!

 

[SickBeast]

You should be able to hit 2.6ghz or more with that CPU. I'm sure it will hold you back a bit, but you will see a nice boost from the 4890 anyway.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Thanks for the input!

I actually just bought a XFX 4980XT for $170, so we'll see how she does with that. Farcry 2 @ 1680x1050 should soar.. (it better!)

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Spike
I think the whole concept of worring about being bottlenecked is quite silly. If you buy a 4890 you will see quite an improvement from your current 8800GT, period. Yes, your improvement would be much better with a faster CPU but no other single purchase will get you a larger gaming performance increase than a new GPU.

If you current card is holding you back and you can only afford one item then get this card. If your games are playing fine right now, but you have the upgrade itch, I would say hurry up and wait, waiting will almost always bring you lower prices for better performance. Even with an "ancient" opteron in there you will still be able to game quite well though you will have to mind certain game settings. I still game quite regularly on my Opty 165 @ 2.52 using a 9600GSO and it performs quite well.

Good luck!

actually its not silly at all. what is silly is buying a video card that wont perform as well as it should because you have a slow cpu. depending on his res there could be very very little improvement and his minimums will likely be exactly the same. comments like your show how little thought some people put into purchasing a video card. also your cpu being used with a 9600gso is not even in the same league as using it with a 4890. an opty 180 at 2.4 would bottleneck the heck out of a 4890 especially at 1680 or lower. that would be like clocking my E8500 at 1.6 which would destroy the framerates I get.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
You should be able to hit 2.6ghz or more with that CPU. I'm sure it will hold you back a bit, but you will see a nice boost from the 4890 anyway.

It doesn't OC well, much to my dismay. I'm not very smart with OC'ing but have tried everything to get it stable and nothing seems to work.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Thanks for the input!

I actually just bought a XFX 4980XT for $170, so we'll see how she does with that. Farcry 2 @ 1680x1050 should soar.. (it better!)

at 1680 and with your opty at 2.4 you will only get about 60-70% of what the 4890 can do in Far Cry 2.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: SickBeast
You should be able to hit 2.6ghz or more with that CPU. I'm sure it will hold you back a bit, but you will see a nice boost from the 4890 anyway.

It doesn't OC well, much to my dismay. I'm not very smart with OC'ing but have tried everything to get it stable and nothing seems to work.

I think every Opty 165 - 185 can probably hit 2.6-2.7GHz. I don't know how much improvement 300MHz would bring you, but I would imagine your system will use every bit of CPU horsepower you can feed it with a 4890 and that CPU. It might be worth looking into overclocking it again. See how things run, if you feel you still need a boost then you may want to look into overclocking. Good luck with the new card!

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: SickBeast
You should be able to hit 2.6ghz or more with that CPU. I'm sure it will hold you back a bit, but you will see a nice boost from the 4890 anyway.

It doesn't OC well, much to my dismay. I'm not very smart with OC'ing but have tried everything to get it stable and nothing seems to work.

I think every Opty 165 - 185 can probably hit 2.6-2.7GHz. I don't know how much improvement 300MHz would bring you, but I would imagine your system will use every bit of CPU horsepower you can feed it with a 4890 and that CPU. It might be worth looking into overclocking it again. See how things run, if you feel you still need a boost then you may want to look into overclocking. Good luck with the new card!

that would certainly help but even at 2.6 it wouldnt come close to fully utilizing the 4890 at 1680 in many games. an X2 or opty at 2.6 is still slower than a current core 2 at 1.8. if he doesnt overclock at all then he might as well have stuck with his 8800gt for the most part. heck he was already bottlenecking it with his 2.4 opty.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Spike
I think the whole concept of worring about being bottlenecked is quite silly. If you buy a 4890 you will see quite an improvement from your current 8800GT, period. Yes, your improvement would be much better with a faster CPU but no other single purchase will get you a larger gaming performance increase than a new GPU.

If you current card is holding you back and you can only afford one item then get this card. If your games are playing fine right now, but you have the upgrade itch, I would say hurry up and wait, waiting will almost always bring you lower prices for better performance. Even with an "ancient" opteron in there you will still be able to game quite well though you will have to mind certain game settings. I still game quite regularly on my Opty 165 @ 2.52 using a 9600GSO and it performs quite well.

Good luck!

actually its not silly at all. what is silly is buying a video card that wont perform as well as it should because you have a slow cpu. depending on his res there could be very very little improvement and his minimums will likely be exactly the same. comments like your show how little thought some people put into purchasing a video card. also your cpu being used with a 9600gso is not even in the same league as using it with a 4890. an opty 165 at 2.4 would bottleneck the heck out of a 4890 especially at 1680 or lower. that would be like clocking my E8500 at 1.6 which would destroy the framerates I get.

how about the detail?

he can crank it up to maximum now

how about filtering; he has NONE .. soon he will have 4xAA/16xAF

.. he is planning for the future .. a $200 card may well DOUBLE his pleasure

he would be stupid to wait to get a faster CPU just because he is getting 70% of a theoretical maximum MOST gamers never achieve

it a balance and a compromise for most of us

[not me thankfully ]



j/k'ing

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Spike
I think the whole concept of worring about being bottlenecked is quite silly. If you buy a 4890 you will see quite an improvement from your current 8800GT, period. Yes, your improvement would be much better with a faster CPU but no other single purchase will get you a larger gaming performance increase than a new GPU.

If you current card is holding you back and you can only afford one item then get this card. If your games are playing fine right now, but you have the upgrade itch, I would say hurry up and wait, waiting will almost always bring you lower prices for better performance. Even with an "ancient" opteron in there you will still be able to game quite well though you will have to mind certain game settings. I still game quite regularly on my Opty 165 @ 2.52 using a 9600GSO and it performs quite well.

Good luck!

actually its not silly at all. what is silly is buying a video card that wont perform as well as it should because you have a slow cpu. depending on his res there could be very very little improvement and his minimums will likely be exactly the same. comments like your show how little thought some people put into purchasing a video card. also your cpu being used with a 9600gso is not even in the same league as using it with a 4890. an opty 165 at 2.4 would bottleneck the heck out of a 4890 especially at 1680 or lower. that would be like clocking my E8500 at 1.6 which would destroy the framerates I get.

how about the detail?

he can crank it up to maximum now

how about filtering; he has NONE .. soon he will have 4xAA/16xAF

.. he is planning for the future .. a $200 card may well DOUBLE his pleasure

he would be stupid to wait to get a faster CPU just because he is getting 70% of a theoretical maximum MOST gamers never achieve

it a balance and a compromise for most of us

[not me thankfully ]



j/k'ing

okay here is a REALITY CHECK for all those that "think" the cpu isnt important or that he could just turn up the settings.

I ran the Far Cry 2 benchmark at 1680x1050 since that is what the op will be playing at. I also ran it at Ultra settings and 4x AA to make it about as gpu limited as possible. my gtx260 at 700 is still not as fast as a 4890 would be so even more of his performance will go down the drain.

first run is with my E8500 at 3.16 and the next run was at 1.6 which would be about equal to his opty at 2.4. remember his 4890 is even stronger so the gap would have been even greater since he would have gotten higher fps with the E8500 at 3.16. his cpu being a bottleneck is an understatement.

Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1680x1050 (60Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(4x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Ultra High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Ultra High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)


E8500 @ 3.16 GTX260 @ 700/2250
Total Frames: 2736, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 53.64
Max. Framerate: 86.20 (Frame:414, 6.34s)
Min. Framerate: 37.74 (Frame:1037, 17.55s)


E8500 @ 1.60 GTX260 @ 700/2250
Total Frames: 1612, Total Time: 51.02s
Average Framerate: 31.60
Max. Framerate: 50.15 (Frame:257, 6.63s)
Min. Framerate: 20.69 (Frame:1084, 33.76s)

 

[apoppin]

OK ... now run those same setting with the OP's card
- my 2900XT is faster than his card - at your settings

:roll:

2900XT 12.39 min /16.53 average /27.02 maximum

i think he would kill to get 20s as a minimum
- it is a SOLID improvement over what he HAS NOW

and it will only get better as he incrementally upgrades
- besides he went for it

Post the results, OP

You tell us if it was worth it

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: apoppin
OK ... now run those same setting with the OP's card

:roll:

2900XT 12.39 /16.53 /27.02

an 8800gt in an E8500 system would do better in Far Cry 2 at 1680 than his 2.4 opty and a 4890 and theres no doubt about it. just look at video card benchmarks and you will see thats true. just like in FEAR 2 where an E8400 and 8800gt was faster than a 5000 X2 and gtx280 even at 1680 and highest settings.

this is mainly for those that claim a cpu bottleneck is silly.

 

[apoppin]

Exactly!

it will be worth it for him and his situation

not ideal .. but a hellaofa improvement

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: apoppin
OK ... now run those same setting with the OP's card

:roll:

2900XT 12.39 /16.53 /27.02

an 8800gt in an E8500 system would do better in Far Cry 2 at 1680 than his 2.4 opty and a 4890 and theres no doubt about it. just look at video card benchmarks and you will see thats true. just like in FEAR 2 where an E8400 and 8800gt was faster than a 5000 X2 and gtx280 even at 1680 and highest settings.

this is mainly for those that claim a cpu bottleneck is silly.

damn timewarps :|

i investigated bottlenecking back in September

However, no matter what, it will be a substantial visual upgrade *now* ... and is in line with his future upgrading

it isn't like he is spending $500 on a GTX285
- it is more like $200 - he said $170 - and it includes future upgrade plans

only the OP can tell us if he thinks it was worth it after he plays with it; i see he ordered a 4890
- that will certainly encourage his CPU upgrade

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Exactly!

it will be worth it for him and his situation

not ideal .. but a hellaofa improvement

worth 180 bucks for only a couple frames per second? his minimum framerate in Far Cry 2 and many other games will be the same as it was with the 8800gt. if you dont believe me I can drop my gpu speeds down to prove it to you.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: apoppin
Exactly!

it will be worth it for him and his situation

not ideal .. but a hellaofa improvement

worth 180 bucks for only a couple frames per second? his minimum framerate in Far Cry 2 and many other games will be the same as it was with the 8800gt. if you dont believe me I can drop my gpu speeds down to prove it to you.

Do you have an 8800GT?

And did you miss the fact he can increase details and the fact he can run with filtering with the faster GPU?

Let's see what the OP says about his $170
- if he will return to comment

i don't think you are qualified to speak for him

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: apoppin
Exactly!

it will be worth it for him and his situation

not ideal .. but a hellaofa improvement

worth 180 bucks for only a couple frames per second? his minimum framerate in Far Cry 2 and many other games will be the same as it was with the 8800gt. if you dont believe me I can drop my gpu speeds down to prove it to you.

did you miss the increased details and the fact he can run with filtering now

Let's see what the OP says about his $170
- if he will return to comment

i don't think you are qualified to speak for him

here you go with my gpu core and shaders dropped 35% and gpu memory dropped nearly 30%. just like I said NO difference. that means that a gpu about 30% weaker than my 192sp gtx260 would give him the same performance. in other words he was already bottlenecked in Far Cry 2 with his 2.4 opty at 1680 even with the 8800gt. also thats with Ultra settings and 4x AA so there is no excuse about turning up the settings.


Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1680x1050 (60Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(4x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Ultra High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Ultra High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)


E8500 @ 1.60 GTX260 @ 700/2250
Total Frames: 1612, Total Time: 51.02s
Average Framerate: 31.60
Max. Framerate: 50.15 (Frame:257, 6.63s)
Min. Framerate: 20.69 (Frame:1084, 33.76s)

E8500 @ 1.60 GTX260 @ 460/1600
Total Frames: 1616, Total Time: 51.00s
Average Framerate: 31.69
Max. Framerate: 49.77 (Frame:239, 6.25s)
Min. Framerate: 21.50 (Frame:1089, 34.21s)

 

[yh125d]

Toyota, there is absolutely no way an e8500 at 1.6 and gtx260 at those lowered clocks is near comparable to an opty at 2.4 and 8800gt. I'll be back in a few mins with proof

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
I want to squeeze the life out of this S939 build once more. <My theory is buy a 4890 now and build a new system around it over time and eventually go CF with another 4890. I'm just curious how much it's going to be held back until then. If not so much then I'll take my time buying parts and look for some deals. Any thoughts?

The op will have to build his system around the card quickly to make it worth it. If not, by the time he builds his system a new cooler, more power efficient card will match the performance of crossfired 4890's.

Theres a time when you have to build a whole new system , and I think this is a good example.

Edit: my moneys on Toyota. I think it's a fair comparison.At least close.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: yh125d
Toyota, there is absolutely no way an e8500 at 1.6 and gtx260 is near comparable to an opty at 2.4 and 8800gt. I'll be back in a few mins with proof

you need to pay more attention. go back and look at benchies of when the E6300 1.86 cpu came out. it was dead even with 2.6 X2(same as opty) cpus. his cpu is at 2.4 and the E8xxx are at least 15% faster clock for clock than the old E6xxx cpus so YES that is a valid cpu comparison. I had a system for 2 years with a 2.6 5000 X2 so i know just how slow those things are when paired with a decent video card.

as for as the gpu goes i was showing that a gtx260 which is slower than a 4890 is severely bottlenecked by his cpu. I lowered my gpu clocks and ran another bench just tp prove that the cpu was completing limiting. and yes a 192sp gtx260 at 460/1600 wouldnt be too much faster than an 8800gt. the fact that the numbers didnt budge at all when lowering the gpu clocks shows that a 35% slower gpu than my 192sp gtx260 is already bottlenecked in Far Cry 2 at 1680 with a cpu like the ops.

 

[MagickMan]

I think it'll be a decent upgrade*, and will provide a good reason to upgrade everything else in the near future.




*unless he's running WoW, which can bring even an i7/GTX 285 combo to it's knees.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: MagickMan
I think it'll be a decent upgrade*, and will provide a good reason to upgrade everything else in the near future.




*unless he's running WoW, which can bring even an i7/GTX 285 combo to it's knees.

it wont be much of an upgrade at all in many cases because he was already cpu limited in Far Cry 2 at 1680 with an 8800gt.

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: toyota

okay here is a REALITY CHECK for all those that "think" the cpu isnt important or that he could just turn up the settings.

I ran the Far Cry 2 benchmark at 1680x1050 since that is what the op will be playing at. I also ran it at Ultra settings and 4x AA to make it about as gpu limited as possible. my gtx260 at 700 is still not as fast as a 4890 would be so even more of his performance will go down the drain.

first run is with my E8500 at 3.16 and the next run was at 1.6 which would be about equal to his opty at 2.4. remember his 4890 is even stronger so the gap would have been even greater since he would have gotten higher fps with the E8500 at 3.16. his cpu being a bottleneck is an understatement.

Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1680x1050 (60Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(4x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Ultra High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Ultra High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)


E8500 @ 3.16 GTX260 @ 700/2250
Total Frames: 2736, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 53.64
Max. Framerate: 86.20 (Frame:414, 6.34s)
Min. Framerate: 37.74 (Frame:1037, 17.55s)


E8500 @ 1.60 GTX260 @ 700/2250
Total Frames: 1612, Total Time: 51.02s
Average Framerate: 31.60
Max. Framerate: 50.15 (Frame:257, 6.63s)
Min. Framerate: 20.69 (Frame:1084, 33.76s)

Many of us have tried to tell you before, just because someone doesn't have a powerful enough CPU to not bottleneck an upgrade to a high end card, does NOT mean that upgrading a card significantly can't also produce significantly better gameplay. Now, I will try to do so using your own methods. I'll run the identical FC2 benchmark with my own CPU at 2.53 and at 1.6, with my 9800GT (same as OPs 8800gt). Hopefully this will show you that even with a slow CPU, video card upgrades can be and are usually, worth it.

First is e7200 @ 2.53, 9800GT at stock. Second is e7200 at 1.6 9800GT stock. According to your own logic, pairing my 9800 with a slow processor should yield results barely different than your processor (when clocked to be a slow processor) with a significantly more powerful card

Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1680x1050 (60Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(4x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Ultra High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Ultra High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)


e7200 @ 2.53, 9800GT stock
* Average Framerate: 23.92
* Max. Framerate: 34.74
* Min. Framerate: 18.39

Obviously average and min quite a bit below your system at stock speed. Now on to the slow clocked CPU with card that should be bottlenecked by the slow CPU, and should see pretty similar performance to your similarly bottlenecked card with its similarly slowly clocked cpu



e7200 @ 1.6, 9800GT at stock
* Average Framerate: 20.94
* Max. Framerate: 31.59
* Min. Framerate: 15.59

Some interesting numbers. Reducing CPU clock speed by 37% brings only 12% lower average, 15% lower minimum. Seems like GPU actually IS more important to FPS... This is the part where by your logic, the fps shouldn't change from my 9800GT up to a GTX260. Which, by your test results, shows that in this situation the fps when changing to a 260 would actually go up about 45%...

Points:

Even when the GPU is bottlenecked, you will still see big improvements when you upgrade to a faster card (compare your second test with my second. That would simulate the OP moving from a 8800GT to a GTX260. You are saying that this move would gain very very little or no improvement, when your own test and mine show that you could gain around 50% from that move. How the hell can you say that that move isn't worth it?)

While big changes in CPU speed can bring noticable differences in FPS, a big jump GPU wise (even when the bigger GPU is bottlenecked a bit) will still bring big FPS bonuses.

Your assumption that a GTX 260 at 460/1600 is equal to a 8800/9800GT is compete crap. Your e8500 at 1.6 and underclocked 260 is still 30% faster than my 9800GT, with my e7200 over 900mHz FASTER

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: yh125d

Originally posted by: toyota

okay here is a REALITY CHECK for all those that "think" the cpu isnt important or that he could just turn up the settings.

I ran the Far Cry 2 benchmark at 1680x1050 since that is what the op will be playing at. I also ran it at Ultra settings and 4x AA to make it about as gpu limited as possible. my gtx260 at 700 is still not as fast as a 4890 would be so even more of his performance will go down the drain.

first run is with my E8500 at 3.16 and the next run was at 1.6 which would be about equal to his opty at 2.4. remember his 4890 is even stronger so the gap would have been even greater since he would have gotten higher fps with the E8500 at 3.16. his cpu being a bottleneck is an understatement.

Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1680x1050 (60Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(4x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Ultra High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Ultra High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)


E8500 @ 3.16 GTX260 @ 700/2250
Total Frames: 2736, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 53.64
Max. Framerate: 86.20 (Frame:414, 6.34s)
Min. Framerate: 37.74 (Frame:1037, 17.55s)


E8500 @ 1.60 GTX260 @ 700/2250
Total Frames: 1612, Total Time: 51.02s
Average Framerate: 31.60
Max. Framerate: 50.15 (Frame:257, 6.63s)
Min. Framerate: 20.69 (Frame:1084, 33.76s)

Many of us have tried to tell you before, just because someone doesn't have a powerful enough CPU to not bottleneck an upgrade to a high end card, does NOT mean that upgrading a card significantly can't also produce significantly better gameplay. Now, I will try to do so using your own methods. I'll run the identical FC2 benchmark with my own CPU at 2.53 and at 1.6, with my 9800GT (same as OPs 8800gt). Hopefully this will show you that even with a slow CPU, video card upgrades can be and are usually, worth it.

First is e7200 @ 2.53, 9800GT at stock. Second is e7200 at 1.6 9800GT stock. According to your own logic, pairing my 9800 with a slow processor should yield results barely different than your processor (when clocked to be a slow processor) with a significantly more powerful card

Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1680x1050 (60Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(4x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Ultra High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Ultra High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)


e7200 @ 2.53, 9800GT stock
* Average Framerate: 23.92
* Max. Framerate: 34.74
* Min. Framerate: 18.39

Obviously average and min quite a bit below your system at stock speed. Now on to the slow clocked CPU with card that should be bottlenecked by the slow CPU, and should see pretty similar performance to your similarly bottlenecked card with its similarly slowly clocked cpu



e7200 @ 1.6, 9800GT at stock
* Average Framerate: 20.94
* Max. Framerate: 31.59
* Min. Framerate: 15.59

Some interesting numbers. Reducing CPU clock speed by 37% brings only 12% lower average, 15% lower minimum. Seems like GPU actually IS more important to FPS...

Points:

Even when the GPU is bottlenecked, you will still see big improvements when you upgrade to a faster card (compare your second test with my second. That would simulate the OP moving from a 8800GT to a GTX260. You are saying that this move would gain very very little or no improvement, when your own test and mine show that you could gain around 50% from that move. How the hell can you say that that move isn't worth it?)

While big changes in CPU speed can bring noticable differences in FPS, a big jump GPU wise (even when the bigger GPU is bottlenecked a bit) will still bring big FPS bonuses.

Your assumption that a GTX 260 at 460/1600 is equal to a 8800/9800GT is compete crap. Your e8500 at 1.6 and underclocked 260 is still 30% faster than my 9800GT, with my e7200 over 900mHz FASTER

so how much faster than an 8800gt is a 192ssp gtx260? I thought it was about 40-45% faster depending on the games and settings. lowering it to 35% may not have equaled an 8800gt but it wasnt too far off and the point was that the fps number didnt budge at all going from 700/2250 down to 460/1600.

I do agree in many games he will get a little better performance but upgrading a video card to pick up a few fps in average while still getting the basically same minimum framerate in a demanding game is a waste of money in my book.