Opteron 146 + 9600GT = CPU bottleneck?

[SantiClaws]

I just picked up a 9600GT and am currently running an Opteron 146 OC'd to 2.8Mhz. Will I see a bottleneck because I have a single core CPU? Do modern games really utilize additional cores? If there will be a bottleneck, what would be my "sweet spot" for a CPU that will not cause my 9600 to be the bottleneck?

Thanks

EDIT: Oh yeah, usually game at 1280 x 1024 and will probably go up once I get a new monitor.

 

[nanaki333]

Originally posted by: SantiClaws
I just picked up a 9600GT and am currently running an Opteron 146 OC'd to 2.8Mhz. Will I see a bottleneck because I have a single core CPU? Do modern games really utilize additional cores? If there will be a bottleneck, what would be my "sweet spot" for a CPU that will not cause my 9600 to be the bottleneck?

Thanks

EDIT: Oh yeah, usually game at 1280 x 1024 and will probably go up once I get a new monitor.

yeah, i'd say 2.8mhz is a serious bottleneck

 

[Jax Omen]

Since we know you meant ghz...


If you mostly play FPS, it won't bottleneck too badly. Only the latest of new FPS seem to even notice multicores (Crysis and the like).

If you want to play RTS... yeah, not going to happen. Pretty much all of them want dualcores at this point, a few are even hungry enough that they want a quad (Supreme Commander being the poster child for this movement).


Other genres... I have no idea. It varies a lot from game to game. Some RPGs you'll be fine, others you'll struggle, etc.

 

[SantiClaws]

Yeah, obviously 2.8 ghz...

I didn't realize genre of games would make a difference. I play FPS almost exclusively, sometimes driving/flying sims, although rarely. I don't play RTS or RPG at all..

 

[Lithan]

For FPS, CPU is really only an issue if your comps 6+ yrs old or if you're running a server on the same rig you're playing on.

 

[Jax Omen]

Then, while you may be bottlenecked, it will usually be at an FPS that's already very playable. (the CPU would be keeping you from, say, racking up 130fps, limiting you to only 90 instead. OH NO! )

Just don't expect Crysis to play nice, and some newer FPS games that aren't running on UE3 may not be too happy either. But most everything will be playable.

 

[SantiClaws]

Cool, I'll hold off on a new cpu/mobo for now. Thanks for the info, guys.

 

[vj9usa]

In some new FPSs, it'll actually make a rather noticeable difference. I went from an A64 3700+ @2.7 to an E2160 @3GHz on a 512MB X1900XT, and there was a significant improvement in Bioshock, UT3, and Crysis. UT3 and Bioshock used to dip into the 20-30 FPS range fairly frequently, but now almost never go under 40 (both are maxed out with no AA at 1280x800). Cryis became MUCH smoother, and is now almost playable at high settings at 1280x800 (went from about 15FPS to 20-25, quite a jump). I can only imagine you'd see a greater improvement, since your video card is better.

 

[Jax Omen]

Yes, but that only applies to the latest FPSes, and while UE3 games definitely like a beefy CPU, they run great on single-cores, as long as your GPU is up to par.

Basically, any current FPS except Crysis you should be fine. No promises about future FPSes.

 

[Lithan]

Really? I can't imagine a 2.7 A64 bottlenecked at 20fps when my e6400 gets 100+ fps. Maybe bioshock reaaaaaaally likes multithreaded cpus? I could try forcing it to only use one core and see if it dips way down, but I'd expect memory improvements (and cache to a lesser extent) are more responsible for that increase than cpu power.

 

[Jax Omen]

No, he's got some sort of problem with his system. UE3 runs great on basically everything .

 

[vj9usa]

It's not purely a CPU bottleneck; it's also due in part to the video card. There were no problems with my A64 or the 2GB RAM I ran it with. I'm sure I would've gotten higher framerates with the A64 and a better GPU, though - I actually ran Bioshock on that CPU and my friend's 3850 and noticed higher max framerates. No idea about mins, though, since I didn't have time to get into a big firefight.

Gamespot did a performance analysis of Bioshock, and they also saw significantly lower framerates with a single core 4000+ (with an 8800GTX), so it's not just my system.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6177688/p-7.html
Average framerates went from 44 to 60+ when going from one core to two, so I'm guessing the difference in minimum FPS was even greater (probably along the lines of what I saw with my CPUs).

 

[Tempered81]

don't know exactly what an opty 146 is equal to in the x2 series, or if its even a dual core... but you could compare it to how all these cpus perform in games...

http://www.tomshardware.com/ch...7%2C1314%2C1310%2C1311

make sure to click "view all products" at the bottom right of the graph to show all cpus. ( I chose quake IV @ 1280 Resolution because of how well it scales linearly with different cpus considering architecture, clock speed & cache.)

A sempron "2800+" runs that bench at 40fps, while an actual 2800mhz 45nm intel cpu (e8200 actually just 2666mhz) is a whopping 3 times faster at 122fps pushing the same video card in the same benchmark. 2.8ghz might not mean a whole lot with your opty 146 when comparing chip architectures to guage gaming performance. IMO, A 4ghz+ E8400 or QX9650 might double your framerates in any particular benchmark...