Min. hardware config for decent 8800 GTS performance?

[sthaznpride17]

Well 3dMark06 is suppossed to be CPU based. Thats why single core CPU's like mine and yours show those scores, while substituting a C2D or X2 will raise the scores substantially. I was surprised at the low scores when I got my card too. I have heard mixed things saying that if I overclock the chip to 2.6 then the bottleneck will go away; some people say that you need a C2D to run these vid cards to their full potential.

I would just overclocl your chip as much as you can, or just build a C2D rig.

 

[betasub]

Forget about 3DMark06 unless you're running dual/multi-core.

If you must have a 3DMark, use 3DM05 for high-end graphics with single core, but really you should be looking at performance in games that you play, at res/detail you actually use (rather than 1024x768 or whatever FutureMark decide you should use).

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Morgales

I truly belive that the 8800 GTS has much more potential in dual core systems than single core.

Disagree. There are almost no games other than Supreme Commander where a dual core will improve performance (if you aren't running any other tasks in the background). The actual processor at 2.0ghz is your bottleneck in games, not the fact that it's a single core. Considering something like an E6400 can be overclocked to 3.4ghz and C2D is roughly 25% faster per clock cycle, that would mean today's mainstream cpu would be equal to about 4.2ghz A64, or double what you have. Of course this won't translate into double the performance but something like A64 2.8ghz and above should provide substantial gains.

 

[Morgales]

Well I think i'm just gonna wait for like a month or 2 before I upgrade. I just don't like the fact that I bought the card that doesn't run on full power because of the system I have.

Probably gonna buy an AMD AM2 6000+ or switch to intel.

tnx all for your input.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Morgales
Well I think i'm just gonna wait for like a month or 2 before I upgrade. I just don't like the fact that I bought the card that doesn't run on full power because of the system I have.

Probably gonna buy an AMD AM2 6000+ or switch to intel.

tnx all for your input.

that is a good plan ... you can try to OC your CPU more in the meantime ... without a doubt your dog-slow CPU IS holding back your GPU ... the only problem we had was with "how much"

let us know how it goes when you upgrade

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Morgales
Well I think i'm just gonna wait for like a month or 2 before I upgrade. I just don't like the fact that I bought the card that doesn't run on full power because of the system I have.

Probably gonna buy an AMD AM2 6000+ or switch to intel.

tnx all for your input.

I really don't think that's the answer at all. Apoppin mentioned overclocking your CPU. It would be very quick and easy, and something you should go ahead and do once you feel comfortable, but, still, I have to say, at your playing resolution (16x10), you aren't being held back by your CPU much, if at all. And certainly not enough to warrant a complete system overhaul in the next month or two.

Let's look at some examples from our friends at FiringSquad:

Now, these examples all show an X2 and not a single-core, but you'll still see my point in a minute because it all translates well enough from dual to single.

First, when comparing a GTS with a stock X2 3800+ and a stock FX-62, you'll see that 3dMark06 shows a 17% increase in benchmarks for the FX62! Wow, that must translate into 17% gains in games too, right??

Nope.

HL2 Lost Coast at 16x12. 7fps faster for the FX62. Almost 10% in a game known to stress CPUs quite a bit. An FX62 doesn't take the game from being unplayable to playable. 7fps would hardly be noticeable in gameplay.

Quake 4 at 16x12. No benefit at all for a faster CPU.

Granted, I'm having to find benches at 1600x1200 because not too many sites bench 16x10. And that is a few more pixels than your scenario, but it's close enough to make a comparison.

Fear-- no difference

Same with Oblivion, COD2, and Far Cry. Company of Heroes, like HL2:LC, kicks it up another 10%.

You also hear a lot of times how a CPU will affect minimum framerates. It doesn't really, in most cases. (Though, again, on some CPU-stressful games like LOMAC where CPU speed does matter, of course it will affect min framerates, as well as avg/max too... See bottom charts here, here, here, here, and here.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm a hardware-loving geek myself (like many others here). I, because of my situation (house, non-working spouse, 3 kids, etc), find myself having to budget and plan more than others. But that leads me to observe as much as I can in order to make the most out of my money-spending.

If you're on a tight budget, don't upgrade a thing. Overclock. And keep playing your games and not worrying too much about a "score". Once you start playing a game that struggles, research some and see if there's anything you can do to increase performance in that game-- a patch update, settings changing, new drivers, maybe a cpu upgrade, maybe a gpu upgrade, maybe more ram. In the future, Crysis is probably going to kick your system's butt all over the place if you want high details. Keep an eye out for benchmarks. You may find that an upgrade to a GTX (or even an x2900 or nV's next gen gpu) might be a whole heckuva lot better than a bump in cpu performance. You're on s939. For the budget-minded shopper, the only upgrade worth spending money on is the ~$70 X2 3800+.