Is my CPU bottlenecking my videocard?

[Wonderclam]

Anyone know if my CPU is going to bottleneck my videocard? I don't have them yet, but they're on the way.

 

[blackangst1]

Highly unlikely

 

[bfdd]

I haven't really noticed anything and if you plan on overclocking, definitely not.

 

[Woofmeister]

What's the resolution you're going to use?

 

[betasub]

Ack, yet another "bottleneck" question without any info on app/game and resolution/detail.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: betasub
Ack, yet another "bottleneck" question without any info on app/game and resolution/detail.

No kidding.

But just in case OP is really agonized over the uncertainty :

1. I used GTX with Opteron 146 @3.0GHz and 165 @2.8GHz, as well as E6600 @3.7GHz, E6400 @3.6GHz, Q6600 @3.2GHz - Didn't feel much of the difference @1920x1200/4AA/16AF.

2. In your selection of games and/or the settings you play those games, if E6600 is bottlenecking the GTX, it's most likely that your games are already running smoothest possible. (There are a few exceptions to these - some RTS games and flight simulation games tend to be very CPU heavy)

3. From my experiences, most modern titles are heavily GPU bound and for those titles A64 @2.4GHz and better CPUs will suffice for GTX. Of course when you buy a $500 GPU I'm assuming you'd want to max out most (if not all) graphical details in your games.

 

[NickelPlate]

I doubt it. I have an E6700 here and I'm not seeing CPU bottlenecks in any of the modern titles I've been playing, Oblivion and FEAR mostly of late. However GPU bottlenecks are still quite possible at very high resolution and max settings particularly with OB.

 

[BenchZowner]

If you're gaming like you should ( the appropriate resolution & filtering settings ) you shall be ok, now if you're gaming at 1024x768 / 1280x1024 NoAA NoAF, then yes, you're bottlenecked by your CPU...but hey! It's already fast, and who buys a 8800GTX to play without AA/AF ?
More details & test results can be found here

 

[Rage3kMoiz]

An OC of that CPU would remove the bottleneck (if there is any) completely IMO.

 

[Nathelion]

An E6600 can typically handle all but the ridiculously super largest games in Supreme Commander without lagging in the slightest, and SC is the most CPU intensive game I've ever seen. Unless you're serious about playing really really CPU intensive games multiplayer against people who have quad core, I'd say you won't have a problem.

 

[BenchZowner]

Originally posted by: NathelionUnless you're serious about playing really really CPU intensive games multiplayer against people who have quad core

Totally wrong and irrelevant for the time being ( and for a long time as well )

 

[TheUnk]

While SC can make use of all cores in a quad core CPU, the speed increase isn't much at all vs. a dual core because the processes the additional cores from the quad manage aren't that CPU intensive to begin with.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BenchZowner

Originally posted by: NathelionUnless you're serious about playing really really CPU intensive games multiplayer against people who have quad core

Totally wrong and irrelevant for the time being ( and for a long time as well )

not true ... and becoming completely relevant next year when most games will be multi-threaded and over half the new PCs will be QC by 09

IF you play Supreme Commander with DC against QC in massive multiplayer battles, you will be at a disadvantage[period]

 

[BenchZowner]

By the time real SMP games will be out, the current DC/QC will be outdated already
As for the 'argument', have you personally tested that ? Have you tried SC with the same system using a C2D and then a C2Q CPU to see the difference ?

eoc

 

[apoppin]

i can point you to the reviews if you like

and for me ... not YET ... as soon as i get Penryn this Summer or Fall, i will give you a personal experience if you are still regular here then

 

[BenchZowner]

@apoppin:

Please don't point me to any worthless reviews like Kyle's or others, playing the game @ CPU Limited resolution-sets ( like 1024x768 NoAA NoAF ) to show that there's a difference, because the point is in real-life gaming situations, like 1280x1024 4xAA/16xAF, because that's where the differences are...n't there.
Unless you consider 0.4fps a benefit

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BenchZowner
@apoppin:

Please don't point me to any worthless reviews like Kyle's or others, playing the game @ CPU Limited resolution-sets ( like 1024x768 NoAA NoAF ) to show that there's a difference, because the point is in real-life gaming situations, like 1280x1024 4xAA/16xAF, because that's where the differences are...n't there.
Unless you consider 0.4fps a benefit

so you prefer to keep your strongly-held fantasies instead of open-mindedly exploring the advantages of QC over DC in SC ?

OK by me

 

[RussianSensation]

E6600 is sufficient for 8800GTX. If you were to go from 2.4 to 3.6ghz, there would be an increase in MINIMUM framerates in games. Of course if your E6600 is delivering playable minimum framerates today and there is no stuttering, then it's not an issue. If 3.6ghz C2D would give 39fps minimum framerates in a game and your E6600 say 35fps, you could say that E6600 is the bottleneck (remember at any point in time there is always a bottleneck in your system). But, as far as I am concerned a real bottleneck is one where the effect is noticeable (i.e. going from P4 3.2ghz and X1950Pro to E6600 and X1950Pro).

 

[dandragonrage]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
If you were to go from 2.4 to 3.6ghz, there might be an increase in MINIMUM framerates in some games.

Fixed.

 

[BenchZowner]

Lemme see...same settings, same system, everything intact but the CPU ( changing through all E6xxx series CPUs )

http://i9.tinypic.com/662qtxh.jpg

http://i17.tinypic.com/646885t.jpg

http://i19.tinypic.com/68a3dq9.jpg

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: dandragonrage

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
If you were to go from 2.4 to 3.6ghz, there might be an increase in MINIMUM framerates in some games.

Fixed.

:thumbsup: