On P4 3.4 ht, is a X1950XTX a waste?

[Maximilian]

Damnit your cpu is fine! It wont bottleneck it! Go buy the card and have fun with it.

 

[happy medium]

So will 2- 7900gt's in sli be bottlenecked by a 3.4 pent 4?

 

[akshayt]

where are all those ppl who told me that I shouldn't get 1900XT on AMD 64 2GHz becuase it is a big bottleneck.

 

[akshayt]

Just do one simple thing.

Get the 1900XT and 1900XTX.
Try the 1900XT on your P4 3.4, then on D930 and then on E6300, do the same with the 1900XTX.

1)Tell us if you noticed any real world difference between XT and XTX with the P4 3.4 and D930.
2)Please tell us whether there was a performance difference between D930 and P4 3.4, if there was then it means your CPU has bottlenecked you, and in case there was a huge difference means there is a huge bottleneck.
3)Don't only look at the FPS but also at the smoothness, jerkiness, lagging etc.

 

[buzzsaw13]

Originally posted by: akshayt
Just do one simple thing.

Get the 1900XT and 1900XTX.
Try the 1900XT on your P4 3.4, then on D930 and then on E6300, do the same with the 1900XTX.

1)Tell us if you noticed any real world difference between XT and XTX with the P4 3.4 and D930.
2)Please tell us whether there was a performance difference between D930 and P4 3.4, if there was then it means your CPU has bottlenecked you, and in case there was a huge difference means there is a huge bottleneck.
3)Don't only look at the FPS but also at the smoothness, jerkiness, lagging etc.

Like he really has the money to spend on a Pentium-D+motherboard, Conroe+motherboard, just to see if he's going to have a bottleneck. You really think people are as stupid as you?

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Originally posted by: akshayt
where are all those ppl who told me that I shouldn't get 1900XT on AMD 64 2GHz becuase it is a big bottleneck.

Those people were wrong.
Or maybe I'm forgetting the context of the thing.
Or maybe people were just lying to you for kicks.

I mean, you never say "Thanks". Never update us on what's up. You called us all incompetent. You don't follow instructions. You still haven't figured out that the term lagging is used explicitly for an inadequate online multiplayer gaming experience. You test games with their pre-release demos in this age of rushed-to-the-market titles that are buggy even after 5 different patches have rolled out. You don't bench full games and patch them to the latest version. And you are never courteous.

And besides, you sounded like someone competing for some kinda world record. If you noticed in reviews, even FX-62s hover around 35-40fps running Most Wanted at maxed settings (Visual Treatment, Shadow Quality, 4X MSAA et al), which I believe is what you were getting. You seemed to have the mentality, "I have a X1900XTX, I demand all my games to run at 100FPS regardless of my CPU, RAM, the registry hell that my OS probably is, patches and updates that are missing and god knows what else."

It doesn't work that way. What everyone here is saying: a faster CPU can and will make a difference. At maxed settings, maybe 40FPS instead of 37. Or 49 instead of 45. But the bulk of the performance still rests on the GPUs broad PCB. Didn't the real-world-conroe-testing teach you this? I remember you loved the HardOCP article. Remember all those benchmarks all over the web, where a cheap C2D outperformed a FX-62 by a huge freakin margin? There were instances where 50% leads dropped to 5% by raising the IQ.

Everybody gets this, but you.

The people who told you to overclock that 3200+ (I was never one of them because I knew you would probably blow it up in smoke) were the ones who wanted you to finally hit that magic 60FPS in the MWemo so that your threads could cease.

Since you showered praises on the hardocp review when it came out, I will quote a line from it (from memory).

"Once you are around 2.4GHz for an A64 or 3.2GHz for a P4 Netburst, CPU performance plays a very minor role in your 3D gaming experience. Sure, faster will be a little faster (like DDR2-1066 vs DDR2-800), but you really have to ask yourself if you are taking a maximum hit to your wallet for depreciating returns."

Incredibly, I have resisted the urge to fight your Pentium D930/P4 3.4/E6300-experiment suggestion to the OP. Way to go, Einstein:disgust:


Edit: Woo Hoo! Post 700! And only took me close to two years

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel

Originally posted by: akshayt
where are all those ppl who told me that I shouldn't get 1900XT on AMD 64 2GHz becuase it is a big bottleneck.

Those people were wrong.
Or maybe I'm forgetting the context of the thing.
Or maybe people were just lying to you for kicks.

I mean, you never say "Thanks". Never update us on what's up. You called us all incompetent. You don't follow instructions. You still haven't figured out that the term lagging is used explicitly for an inadequate online multiplayer gaming experience. You test games with their pre-release demos in this age of rushed-to-the-market titles that are buggy even after 5 different patches have rolled out. You don't bench full games and patch them to the latest version. And you are never courteous.

And besides, you sounded like someone competing for some kinda world record. If you noticed in reviews, even FX-62s hover around 35-40fps running Most Wanted at maxed settings (Visual Treatment, Shadow Quality, 4X MSAA et al), which I believe is what you were getting. You seemed to have the mentality, "I have a X1900XTX, I demand all my games to run at 100FPS regardless of my CPU, RAM, the registry hell that my OS probably is, patches and updates that are missing and god knows what else."

It doesn't work that way. What everyone here is saying: a faster CPU can and will make a difference. At maxed settings, maybe 40FPS instead of 37. Or 49 instead of 45. But the bulk of the performance still rests on the GPUs broad PCB. Didn't the real-world-conroe-testing teach you this? I remember you loved the HardOCP article. Remember all those benchmarks all over the web, where a cheap C2D outperformed a FX-62 by a huge freakin margin? There were instances where 50% leads dropped to 5% by raising the IQ.

Everybody gets this, but you.

The people who told you to overclock that 3200+ (I was never one of them because I knew you would probably blow it up in smoke) were the ones who wanted you to finally hit that magic 60FPS in the MWemo so that your threads could cease.

Since you showered praises on the hardocp review when it came out, I will quote a line from it (from memory).

"Once you are around 2.4GHz for an A64 or 3.2GHz for a P4 Netburst, CPU performance plays a very minor role in your 3D gaming experience. Sure, faster will be a little faster (like DDR2-1066 vs DDR2-800), but you really have to ask yourself if you are taking a maximum hit to your wallet for depreciating returns."

Incredibly, I have resisted the urge to fight your Pentium D930/P4 3.4/E6300-experiment suggestion to the OP. Way to go, Einstein:disgust:


Edit: Woo Hoo! Post 700! And only took me close to two years

Brilliant :beer:

I particularly enjoyed your'e very accurate chewing out of akshayt, let's hope he actually reads it & maybe, just maybe, learns something (i have sincere doubts about that however )...

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel

Originally posted by: akshayt
where are all those ppl who told me that I shouldn't get 1900XT on AMD 64 2GHz becuase it is a big bottleneck.

Those people were wrong.
Or maybe I'm forgetting the context of the thing.
Or maybe people were just lying to you for kicks.

I mean, you never say "Thanks". Never update us on what's up. You called us all incompetent. You don't follow instructions. You still haven't figured out that the term lagging is used explicitly for an inadequate online multiplayer gaming experience. You test games with their pre-release demos in this age of rushed-to-the-market titles that are buggy even after 5 different patches have rolled out. You don't bench full games and patch them to the latest version. And you are never courteous.

And besides, you sounded like someone competing for some kinda world record. If you noticed in reviews, even FX-62s hover around 35-40fps running Most Wanted at maxed settings (Visual Treatment, Shadow Quality, 4X MSAA et al), which I believe is what you were getting. You seemed to have the mentality, "I have a X1900XTX, I demand all my games to run at 100FPS regardless of my CPU, RAM, the registry hell that my OS probably is, patches and updates that are missing and god knows what else."

It doesn't work that way. What everyone here is saying: a faster CPU can and will make a difference. At maxed settings, maybe 40FPS instead of 37. Or 49 instead of 45. But the bulk of the performance still rests on the GPUs broad PCB. Didn't the real-world-conroe-testing teach you this? I remember you loved the HardOCP article. Remember all those benchmarks all over the web, where a cheap C2D outperformed a FX-62 by a huge freakin margin? There were instances where 50% leads dropped to 5% by raising the IQ.

Everybody gets this, but you.

The people who told you to overclock that 3200+ (I was never one of them because I knew you would probably blow it up in smoke) were the ones who wanted you to finally hit that magic 60FPS in the MWemo so that your threads could cease.

Since you showered praises on the hardocp review when it came out, I will quote a line from it (from memory).

"Once you are around 2.4GHz for an A64 or 3.2GHz for a P4 Netburst, CPU performance plays a very minor role in your 3D gaming experience. Sure, faster will be a little faster (like DDR2-1066 vs DDR2-800), but you really have to ask yourself if you are taking a maximum hit to your wallet for depreciating returns."

Incredibly, I have resisted the urge to fight your Pentium D930/P4 3.4/E6300-experiment suggestion to the OP. Way to go, Einstein:disgust:


Edit: Woo Hoo! Post 700! And only took me close to two years

Brilliant :beer:

I particularly enjoyed your'e very accurate chewing out of akshayt, let's hope he actually reads it & maybe, just maybe, learns something (i have sincere doubts about that however )...

Heh, yea, its all true too. :thumbsup:

 

[Conky]

It's not a waste but your cpu will still bottleneck all of the cards you mentioned significantly.. if not now, then at some point in the near future as games get more demanding.

I went from a P4-3.45HT(3.06 oc'd) to an Intel E6400(mildly overclocked) and my framerates with my X850XT almost doubled in HL2 and Quake4 at identical settings. Significant improvements were seen in many other games as well.

So, it will be a faster gaming experience but until you upgrade the cpu you still won't get the most out of it.

 

[Paratus]

HL2 is the most CPU bound game around.

Q4 is basically the only game that is actually multi threaded & can really use both cores. So ya you'll see some improvement.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Soviet

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel

Originally posted by: akshayt
where are all those ppl who told me that I shouldn't get 1900XT on AMD 64 2GHz becuase it is a big bottleneck.

Those people were wrong.
Or maybe I'm forgetting the context of the thing.
Or maybe people were just lying to you for kicks.

I mean, you never say "Thanks". Never update us on what's up. You called us all incompetent. You don't follow instructions. You still haven't figured out that the term lagging is used explicitly for an inadequate online multiplayer gaming experience. You test games with their pre-release demos in this age of rushed-to-the-market titles that are buggy even after 5 different patches have rolled out. You don't bench full games and patch them to the latest version. And you are never courteous.

And besides, you sounded like someone competing for some kinda world record. If you noticed in reviews, even FX-62s hover around 35-40fps running Most Wanted at maxed settings (Visual Treatment, Shadow Quality, 4X MSAA et al), which I believe is what you were getting. You seemed to have the mentality, "I have a X1900XTX, I demand all my games to run at 100FPS regardless of my CPU, RAM, the registry hell that my OS probably is, patches and updates that are missing and god knows what else."

It doesn't work that way. What everyone here is saying: a faster CPU can and will make a difference. At maxed settings, maybe 40FPS instead of 37. Or 49 instead of 45. But the bulk of the performance still rests on the GPUs broad PCB. Didn't the real-world-conroe-testing teach you this? I remember you loved the HardOCP article. Remember all those benchmarks all over the web, where a cheap C2D outperformed a FX-62 by a huge freakin margin? There were instances where 50% leads dropped to 5% by raising the IQ.

Everybody gets this, but you.

The people who told you to overclock that 3200+ (I was never one of them because I knew you would probably blow it up in smoke) were the ones who wanted you to finally hit that magic 60FPS in the MWemo so that your threads could cease.

Since you showered praises on the hardocp review when it came out, I will quote a line from it (from memory).

"Once you are around 2.4GHz for an A64 or 3.2GHz for a P4 Netburst, CPU performance plays a very minor role in your 3D gaming experience. Sure, faster will be a little faster (like DDR2-1066 vs DDR2-800), but you really have to ask yourself if you are taking a maximum hit to your wallet for depreciating returns."

Incredibly, I have resisted the urge to fight your Pentium D930/P4 3.4/E6300-experiment suggestion to the OP. Way to go, Einstein:disgust:


Edit: Woo Hoo! Post 700! And only took me close to two years

Brilliant :beer:

I particularly enjoyed your'e very accurate chewing out of akshayt, let's hope he actually reads it & maybe, just maybe, learns something (i have sincere doubts about that however )...

Heh, yea, its all true too. :thumbsup:

the sad thing is, everyone here - excepting one person - 'gets it'.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Soviet

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel

Originally posted by: akshayt
where are all those ppl who told me that I shouldn't get 1900XT on AMD 64 2GHz becuase it is a big bottleneck.

Those people were wrong.
Or maybe I'm forgetting the context of the thing.
Or maybe people were just lying to you for kicks.

I mean, you never say "Thanks". Never update us on what's up. You called us all incompetent. You don't follow instructions. You still haven't figured out that the term lagging is used explicitly for an inadequate online multiplayer gaming experience. You test games with their pre-release demos in this age of rushed-to-the-market titles that are buggy even after 5 different patches have rolled out. You don't bench full games and patch them to the latest version. And you are never courteous.

And besides, you sounded like someone competing for some kinda world record. If you noticed in reviews, even FX-62s hover around 35-40fps running Most Wanted at maxed settings (Visual Treatment, Shadow Quality, 4X MSAA et al), which I believe is what you were getting. You seemed to have the mentality, "I have a X1900XTX, I demand all my games to run at 100FPS regardless of my CPU, RAM, the registry hell that my OS probably is, patches and updates that are missing and god knows what else."

It doesn't work that way. What everyone here is saying: a faster CPU can and will make a difference. At maxed settings, maybe 40FPS instead of 37. Or 49 instead of 45. But the bulk of the performance still rests on the GPUs broad PCB. Didn't the real-world-conroe-testing teach you this? I remember you loved the HardOCP article. Remember all those benchmarks all over the web, where a cheap C2D outperformed a FX-62 by a huge freakin margin? There were instances where 50% leads dropped to 5% by raising the IQ.

Everybody gets this, but you.

The people who told you to overclock that 3200+ (I was never one of them because I knew you would probably blow it up in smoke) were the ones who wanted you to finally hit that magic 60FPS in the MWemo so that your threads could cease.

Since you showered praises on the hardocp review when it came out, I will quote a line from it (from memory).

"Once you are around 2.4GHz for an A64 or 3.2GHz for a P4 Netburst, CPU performance plays a very minor role in your 3D gaming experience. Sure, faster will be a little faster (like DDR2-1066 vs DDR2-800), but you really have to ask yourself if you are taking a maximum hit to your wallet for depreciating returns."

Incredibly, I have resisted the urge to fight your Pentium D930/P4 3.4/E6300-experiment suggestion to the OP. Way to go, Einstein:disgust:


Edit: Woo Hoo! Post 700! And only took me close to two years

Brilliant :beer:

I particularly enjoyed your'e very accurate chewing out of akshayt, let's hope he actually reads it & maybe, just maybe, learns something (i have sincere doubts about that however )...

Heh, yea, its all true too. :thumbsup:

QFT.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: Beachboy
It's not a waste but your cpu will still bottleneck all of the cards you mentioned significantly.. if not now, then at some point in the near future as games get more demanding.

I went from aand Quake4 at identical settings. Significant improvements were seen in many other ga P4-3.45HT(3.06 oc'd) to an Intel E6400(mildly overclocked) and my framerates with my X850XT almost doubled in HL2 mes as well.

So, it will be a faster gaming experience but until you upgrade the cpu you still won't get the most out of it.

Good call!