How bottlenecked will this be?

[GaiaHunter]

VERY bottlenecked. Anything over a 8800GT would need more CPU horsepower to shine.

Like this 4850 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-balanced-platform,2469.html that regardless of being used on Pentium E6300 or an i7 920 doesn't improve squat?

Excellent write-up and thanks for the time and effort you put into it. Unfortunately, it isn't really conclusive beyond the scope of the games you used, which is a problem because none of the games you used are CPU-intensive in the first place. While you addressed this in your "FAQ" section, none of your conclusions or responses conclusively answer the issue or in anyway diminish the validity and importance of the question. A fast CPU is just as important in some games as is a fast GPU.
(...)

However, if you throw in some advanced physics or AI, or you move the multiplayer platform, the situation will change dramatically. It's well known the MMO's and some RTS's will stress the living hell out of the CPU, but you can also do that in FPS's as well (Source multiplayer in high-capacity CS:S or TF2 servers, for example). Note that I'm not arguing dual core vs. quad core here, just the overall importance of CPU power. At any rate, it's important not to generalize.

Again, same article, World in Conflict, http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-balanced-platform,2469-14.html .

Interesting results.

I wish they would release the AMD article already.

 

[cbn]

If the (weak) CPU limits a game to, say, 30fps, then throwing a Radeon 9950x2 on it would be a gigantic waste of future tech, since the game will still play at 30fps, since the limiting factor is the CPU, and if you want to escape the 30fps in this scenario, get a better CPU instead of upgrading to an all-powerful future GPU.

A simple and easy test anyone can do (before buying a video card) is turn down resolution and detail settings to bare minimums. If frame rates don't increase that much then the person knows the existing video card is pretty strong for that particular game.

 

[AzN]

He is probably referring to fps. If the (weak) CPU limits a game to, say, 30fps, then throwing a Radeon 9950x2 on it would be a gigantic waste of future tech, since the game will still play at 30fps, since the limiting factor is the CPU, and if you want to escape the 30fps in this scenario, get a better CPU instead of upgrading to an all-powerful future GPU.

That's not exactly what he said. He said reaching the capabilities of 5850. Meaning you need faster CPU to reach 5850 capabilities. True to an extent but compuerbottleneck has a point as well. Anything can be bottlenecked.

 

[AzN]

VERY bottlenecked. Anything over a 8800GT would need more CPU horsepower to shine.

Oh really what about 2560x1600 16xAA with a 8800gt? What will be bottleneck? The CPU or GPU? It's obvious that 8800gt doesn't have the power to run it which shifts the bottleneck to GPU not CPU!

With the OP's resolution 8800gt is reaching its limitation. A better GPU would be more wise investment than a CPU would.

 

[jvroig]

A simple and easy test anyone can do (before buying a video card) is turn down resolution and detail settings to bare minimums. If frame rates don't change much then the person already knows they their video card is good enough for the game.

Thanks, but please understand that I was in no way agreeing with him when I replied to you, nor am I a proponent of the "more CPU power needed in gaming" or the "it's all about the GPU" schools of thought.

I merely tried to interpret his statement, since you asked about it. And while we're at it, there's no guarantee I interpreted it correctly, so he may still clarify his position better, especially if I mangled his message.

 

[jvroig]

That's not exactly what he said. He said reaching the capabilities of 5850. Meaning you need faster CPU to reach 5850 capabilities.

I just finished saying I may have misinterpreted his statement, and here we are.

I am confused though. What does "to reach 5850 capabilities" mean aside from fps in his scenario? Sure, crank graphics up or lower them, wouldn't the tangible result aside from aesthetic differences also be fps? And isn't the fps the main factor there, since everyone would set their games to look as fantastic as possible, were it not for the fact that they will reach their hardware's limit and lower FPS to an undesirable level?

 

[cbn]

That's not exactly what he said. He said reaching the capabilities of 5850. Meaning you need faster CPU to reach 5850 capabilities. .

When we talk about reaching the capabilities of HD5850 shouldn't we be thinking of things like LCDs instead of CPUs? (monitor resolution vs VRAM needed?, etc)

Doesn't the monitor itself have a greater influence on utilizing video cards? For example pixel pitch size has effects on the amount of AA needed for smooth appearing graphical edges.

 

[cbn]

wouldn't the tangible result aside from aesthetic differences also be fps?

No.

The graphics card just makes the game look better.

The major caveat would be integrated graphics because that might slow down frame rates even with all graphical settings set to bare minimums.

 

[toyota]

Never played ghostbusters.

GTA4 is CPU intensive and not even a GPU intensive game at all. A bad console port at best that is dependent on CPU.

Resident Evil plays just fine on a 2 ghz C2D. Lost planet plays just fine as well. So does Red Faction or Far Cry2. GPU makes much more impact than a CPU will. That's for sure.

I didnt say they couldnt be played. I said a great deal of performance of my gtx260 would go down the drain with my cpu at 2.0 which it did. with that cpu speed a 5850 would be a silly purchase because even a much slower card would be able to deliver the same playable framerate in basically every case.

btw Red Faction 2 is not really what I would call playable with my cpu at 2.0. it was very sluggish during huge action sequences with framerates sometimes dipping into the single digits.

 

[toyota]

I agree completely. With any kind of limited budget, you should always put the most money into the graphics system because it’ll net by far the biggest performance gain.

At 1920x1200 his 8800 GT will hold back performance far more than his CPU, especially if he uses any kind of AA. My GTX285 is a 100% bottleneck in many games at 1920x1200 with just 2xAA, and that’s about 3-4 times faster than a 8800 GT. When I run my CPU at 2 GHz, it’s probably pretty close to his one.

Toyota, I’m not saying the CPU/platform will make no difference. What I’m saying is that the GPU will make the biggest difference by far, so he should be allocating funds there first. This applies in general.

An E6850 underclocked to 2 GHz paired with a 5870 will be massively faster than a 8800 GT paired with a 4 GHz i7. It won't even be a contest.

again this isnt an choice of get a cpu or get a video card. the op asked if he would be bottlenecking a 5850 with his 5600 X2 and the simple answer is YES. it would be a massive amount of performance down the drain.

 

[jvroig]

No.

The graphics card just makes the game look better.

Are you saying that the graphics card in no way affects the fps?

 

[cbn]

Are you saying that the graphics card in no way affects the fps?

A faster card will give better image quality (AA/AF/detail settings/resolution) at X FPS than a slower card assuming the CPU/mobo/ram, etc are all the same.

The real question is how much can the person utilize the image quality provided by the faster card? If pixel pitch size is larger (ie, 27.5" 1920 x1200 vs 23" 1920x1200) that extra AA will look even better.

 

[Marty502]

It might be a bit of an unbalanced rig with a 5850, but who cares?

Crank the AA and enjoy badass image quality in all games you try. I bet you'll be fine.

Trying to squeeze a bit more Mhz out of that CPU wouldn't hurt though...

 

[toyota]

It might be a bit of an unbalanced rig with a 5850, but who cares?

Crank the AA and enjoy badass image quality in all games you try. I bet you'll be fine.

Trying to squeeze a bit more Mhz out of that CPU wouldn't hurt though...

because its a waste of money when a slower/cheaper card could deliver the same playable framerate. games that have minimums in the 20s and sometimes even the teens because of the cpu will not run any better no matter how much gpu power you throw at it.

 

[AzN]

I just finished saying I may have misinterpreted his statement, and here we are.

I am confused though. What does "to reach 5850 capabilities" mean aside from fps in his scenario? Sure, crank graphics up or lower them, wouldn't the tangible result aside from aesthetic differences also be fps? And isn't the fps the main factor there, since everyone would set their games to look as fantastic as possible, were it not for the fact that they will reach their hardware's limit and lower FPS to an undesirable level?

Your right. FPS does matter when we are talking about gaming performance. On top of FPS image quality matters as well.

I'm not quite getting what you are asking about undesirable level. With a 5850 those undesirable level would be nearly eliminated at least at OP's resolution and the games we have today. Reaching capabilities is what extra performance we can get with other hardware at least that was what toyota was implying.

 

[cbn]

because its a waste of money when a slower/cheaper card could deliver the same playable framerate. games that have minimums in the 20s and sometimes even the teens because of the cpu will not run any better no matter how much gpu power you throw at it.

There are a lot of games that are not CPU intensive though.

Using a faster graphics card will allow higher image quality settings. Now whether he can subjectively appreciate and ultilize those graphics settings I think depends more on the monitor than the CPU.

 

[AzN]

When we talk about reaching the capabilities of HD5850 shouldn't we be thinking of things like LCDs instead of CPUs? (monitor resolution vs VRAM needed?, etc)

Doesn't the monitor itself have a greater influence on utilizing video cards? For example pixel pitch size has effects on the amount of AA needed for smooth appearing graphical edges.

that too but in the case of toyota he was implying performance numbers. Don't take it so literally.

 

[cbn]

that too but in the case of toyota he was implying performance numbers. Don't take it so literally.

Toyota is saying if the CPU calculation time is too long....then whether the video card is fast or slow matters much less. (CPU time + GPU time= FPS)

 

[AzN]

I didnt say they couldnt be played. I said a great deal of performance of my gtx260 would go down the drain with my cpu at 2.0 which it did.

Down the drain? Like what percentage?

Well let's look at GPU side of things. Isn't your CPU being wasted on a GPU like GTX260 at @1920x1200? From 2.0ghz to 3ghz the difference is mostly 5-20% at best depending on the game at that resolution with 4xAA. that's with 50% clock difference. Now 5850 or 5870 would give you anything from 15%-80% better performance even with 2ghz CPU at the desired resolution and settings.

with that cpu speed a 5850 would be a silly purchase because even a much slower card would be able to deliver the same playable framerate in basically every case.

Now you are being silly and don't know what you are proposing. A much slower card like your 8600gt? But in the case of 8800gt the limitations becomes obvious @ 1920x1200 4xAA. It tanks hard at those settings with modern games but 2ghz core 2 duo does not at least with enough GPU power available.

btw Red Faction 2 is not really what I would call playable with my cpu at 2.0. it was very sluggish during huge action sequences with framerates sometimes dipping into the single digits.

I haven't played Red Faction 2 and not planning on it. From the likes of other posters it seems that game is another bad console port that doesn't utilize PC's properly like GTA4.

 

[toyota]

There are a lot of games that are not CPU intensive though.

Using a faster graphics card will allow higher image quality settings. Now whether he can subjectively appreciate and ultilize those graphics settings I think depends more on the monitor than the CPU.

it doesnt have to be a cpu intensive game to still show a huge waste in performance. if your playable settings dont really change then why spend the extra money on performance you will never ever see?

 

[AzN]

You can get good performance numbers by turning resolution down.

The big question is whether the OP can appreciate higher levels of AA or not?

Your asking a question with a question. Toyota was implying performance numbers @ OP's resolution. Not turning down resolutions to get better performance numbers.

 

[exar333]

Oh really what about 2560x1600 16xAA with a 8800gt? What will be bottleneck? The CPU or GPU? It's obvious that 8800gt doesn't have the power to run it which shifts the bottleneck to GPU not CPU!

With the OP's resolution 8800gt is reaching its limitation. A better GPU would be more wise investment than a CPU would.

That's a fool's arguement; who tries to run at that resolution with a 8800GT for modern game (Besides you)? I agree with other poster that the money would be better spent on a 4890 and a X4.

I would argue the 4980 + X4 would beat a X2 + 5850 in most cases, plus you would have a much faster overall system for other tasks as well. Will the system run games well? Sure. But a lot of performance is wasted, hence $$$$ is wasted.

 

[toyota]

Down the drain? Like what percentage?

Well let's look at GPU side of things. Isn't your CPU being wasted on a GPU like GTX260 at @1920x1200? From 2.0ghz to 3ghz the difference is mostly 5-20% at best depending on the game at that resolution with 4xAA. that's with 50% clock difference. Now 5850 or 5870 would give you anything from 15%-80% better performance even with 2ghz CPU at the desired resolution and settings.




Now you are being silly and don't know what you are proposing. A much slower card like your 8600gt? But in the case of 8800gt the limitations becomes obvious @ 1920x1200 4xAA. It tanks hard at those settings with modern games but 2ghz core 2 duo does not at least with enough GPU power available.





I haven't played Red Faction 2 and not planning on it. From the likes of other posters it seems that game is another bad console port that doesn't utilize PC's properly like GTA4.

a 5850 is not going to come remotely close to its potential with that cpu and thats what I mean by performance down the drain. every game and situation is different of course but the bottom line is that it is too big of a waste imo.

of course I am not referring to something like an 8600gt and I meant a card like a 4890 or 4870. I dont think there would be any games where his minimum framerate would go up with a 5850 over a 4890 or 4870 while using a 5600 X2.

Red Faction 2 is pretty cpu intensive because of so much physics going on. I dont think its a bad port and it seems to play really well for the most part. its not that good of game but thats a whole other topic. lol

 

[toyota]

That's a fool's arguement; who tries to run at that resolution with a 8800GT for modern game (Besides you)? I agree with other poster that the money would be better spent on a 4890 and a X4.

I would argue the 4980 + X4 would beat a X2 + 5850 in most cases, plus you would have a much faster overall system for other tasks as well. Will the system run games well? Sure. But a lot of performance is wasted, hence $$$$ is wasted.

I too think a 4890 and Phenom 2 X4 or i5 would deliver a better overall experience than a 5850 and 5600 X2. after all there isnt a massive difference in many cases between the much cheaper 4890 and 5850 anyway even when using a highly overclocked i7. in other words I dont think he would ever come close the performance a 5850 can deliver with his 5600 X2 so he really wouldnt be missing anything in most cases.

 

[cbn]

if your playable settings dont really change then why spend the extra money on performance you will never ever see?

Well that is true.

But why would someone buy a new video card if they were satisfied with current graphical settings?

Most likely he is turning down settings of his video card in order to play newer games. If that is happening then there would evidence of a GPU bottleneck (otherwise there wouldn't be much difference in FPS).