• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Phenom II With A Gtx 670

IGhzI

Member
Nov 6, 2011
131
0
0
I've been testing for an hour or so at stock clocks and overclocked as for the card Asus non-top.Is there bottlenecking yea a little but depends what game. Either way the its just (nasty..nasty). (All Maxed settings 1920-1200) Mass effect 3 60fps, saints row the third 40-70. BF3 40-85 fps but for some reason it keeps shutting down no different from when I had my 5770 (online). (AA off. Arma 2 benchmark 1 43 fps, Oc 3.8 49 fps ). F1 2011 Ave 50, Batman AC its plays alright. More to come.... worth ever dollar!! (CPU 955be)
 
Last edited:

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
it would be more helpful if you said what Phenom 2 that you have. the performance you are listing for some of those games could be had with a much slower card.
 

Destiny

Platinum Member
Jul 6, 2010
2,309
1
0
My previous CPU - AMD Phenom II Quad Core 965 Deneb @ 3.4GHz was the bottle neck for my GTX 570... so it would have been definately a bottle neck for my new GTX 670...
 

turn_pike

Senior member
Mar 4, 2012
316
0
71
My Phenom II 955 BE does not overclock very well, maxed out at 3.5 or 3.6 GHz.
What is the fastest graphic card I can buy that will not be held back by the cpu ?
Games to play, among others : Witcher 2, Skyrim, BF3
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
My Phenom II 955 BE does not overclock very well, maxed out at 3.5 or 3.6 GHz.
What is the fastest graphic card I can buy that will not be held back by the cpu ?
Games to play, among others : Witcher 2, Skyrim, BF3
GTX 690.

Since you didn't list your resolution, I am assuming you are at 7680x1600.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
3
0
I'm in a similar boat and it looks to me a 7850 is about as fast a card that's worth getting with that CPU and running at 1920x1080. Just as an example of what I'm going by, here ME3 gets 95 fps with a PII X4 980 and 92 fps with a 7850:
http://www.techspot.com/review/507-mass-effect-3-performance-test/
so at least there those two components match up pretty well. I wish reviews like these were more widespread with more games. Makes picking worthwhile upgrades a lot easier.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
18
81
Interesting, OP. It would appear that you mated a ferarri transmission to a toyota corolla motor. I hope it works out for you. If not there is always the 2500k. :)
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
18
81
A GTX 460 would be good for you, perhaps even a 560 or 6870. Beyond that I think you would be too bottlenecked, depending on the game. I would say that in 75% of games you would do ok though even with something more powerful.
 

turn_pike

Senior member
Mar 4, 2012
316
0
71
A GTX 460 would be good for you, perhaps even a 560 or 6870. Beyond that I think you would be too bottlenecked, depending on the game. I would say that in 75% of games you would do ok though even with something more powerful.
Already have a 6870. Looks like I can just save my money for a new smartphone instead.
 

poohbear

Platinum Member
Mar 11, 2003
2,284
5
81
meh, @ 1080p and above (especially once you use AA) a PhenomII is more than enough, you won't notice a difference in FPS once the AA comes on @1080p+. In BF3 the cpu makes NO difference.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
meh, @ 1080p and above (especially once you use AA) a PhenomII is more than enough, you won't notice a difference in FPS once the AA comes on @1080p+. In BF3 the cpu makes NO difference.
he may have a dual core Phenom 2 for all we know. and saying the cpu makes no difference in BF 3 shows you have no clue about multi player and only looked at a single player benchmark...
 

poohbear

Platinum Member
Mar 11, 2003
2,284
5
81
he may have a dual core Phenom 2 for all we know. and saying the cpu makes no difference in BF 3 shows you have no clue about multi player and only looked at a single player benchmark...
I have no clue huh? ok thanks man. if you're not gonna be civil there's no point in getting dragged into a flame war.

Anyways, the OP is very happy with his GTX 670 and PhenomII, im saying it would make no difference if he upgraded to a SB or Ivy Bridge for gaming @ 1080+. Sure you can show us benchmarks of 120fps vs 135fps @ lower resolutions with medium-low settings in some games, but when the monitor maxes out @ 60hz (& hence 60 fps), its a moot point. Turn those settings to max in game settings, 1080+ resolution, and turn AA on, and yes the CPU makes NO difference. I saw a graph for Starcraft 2, which is heavily cpu dependant, come down to 1-2 fps diff between a PhenomII and an i7 when the resolution was high, in game settings maxed, and AA turned on.
 
Last edited:

Destiny

Platinum Member
Jul 6, 2010
2,309
1
0
I have no clue huh? ok thanks man. if you're not gonna be civil there's no point in getting dragged into a flame war.

Anyways, the OP is very happy with his GTX 670 and PhenomII, im saying it would make no difference if he upgraded to a SB or Ivy Bridge for gaming @ 1080+. Sure you can show us benchmarks of 120fps vs 135fps in some games, but when the monitor maxes out @ 60hz (& hence 60 fps), its a moot point.
We are just stating the facts and I'm not flaming you... Toyota and I have both owned a GTX 570s and now we both own GTX 670s.

I in fact owned an AMD Phenom II x4 965 Deneb which may be a better CPU than OP's (EDIT: OP STILL HASN"T TOLD US WHAT CPU HE HAS). And I can say that my Phenom II 965 was a bottle neck for my GTX 570... I couldn't even turn on FRAPS to record my game play with fraps settings at 540p resolution (recording resolution while I game at 1920x1200) without BF3 hardcore juddering. Sometimes when I fly Jets or Chopters it Judders even without FRAPs on.

When I switched over to my Sandy i5-2550k and then my Ivy i5-3570k - for both i5 CPUs I had no bottlenecks and I was able to set my FRAPS recording settings at 1080p with 60FPS to record during my gaming sessions - with both i5 CPUs I had no judders, no drop in framerates, and no issues while I game at MAX settings for BF3 at 1920x1200p. With either my i5 Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge - the improvement was noticeable enough to justify the upgrade. Again, both Toyota and I have 1920x1200p monitors - which is also better than OPs.

I have 300hrs logged on BF3 and I only play on 64 player maps...

Also Monitors 60Hz with 60FPS is only applicable when you play with VSYNC on - which I never do...
 
Last edited:

Destiny

Platinum Member
Jul 6, 2010
2,309
1
0
I saw a graph for Starcraft 2, which is heavily cpu dependant, come down to 1-2 fps diff between a PhenomII and an i7 when the resolution was high, in game settings maxed, and AA turned on.
It is a known fact that StarCraft II only utilizes two cores and is optimized for only dual core CPUs... so having any quad core CPU is moot for that game...
 

Jaydip

Diamond Member
Mar 29, 2010
3,691
21
81
I have no clue huh? ok thanks man. if you're not gonna be civil there's no point in getting dragged into a flame war.

Anyways, the OP is very happy with his GTX 670 and PhenomII, im saying it would make no difference if he upgraded to a SB or Ivy Bridge for gaming @ 1080+. Sure you can show us benchmarks of 120fps vs 135fps @ lower resolutions with medium-low settings in some games, but when the monitor maxes out @ 60hz (& hence 60 fps), its a moot point. Turn those settings to max in game settings, 1080+ resolution, and turn AA on, and yes the CPU makes NO difference. I saw a graph for Starcraft 2, which is heavily cpu dependant, come down to 1-2 fps diff between a PhenomII and an i7 when the resolution was high, in game settings maxed, and AA turned on.
U probably have looked at the wrong charts
http://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page13.html

CPU makes a big difference depending on your game preferences.If u play MMOs,Strategy then yes a faster cpu can make a lot of difference.Even Witcher 2,Mafia 2 are very dependent on cpu.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
U probably have looked at the wrong charts
http://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page13.html

CPU makes a big difference depending on your game preferences.If u play MMOs,Strategy then yes a faster cpu can make a lot of difference.Even Witcher 2,Mafia 2 are very dependent on cpu.
Yes. Actually it's even worse than that. That chart was for single player IIRC. In multiplayer it gets even more CPU-bound. Sure there are occasional exceptions on modded maps or with people with very powerful GPUs or playing on very low resolutions or settings, but most people will be CPU-bound on Starcraft 2.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
I have no clue huh? ok thanks man. if you're not gonna be civil there's no point in getting dragged into a flame war.

Anyways, the OP is very happy with his GTX 670 and PhenomII, im saying it would make no difference if he upgraded to a SB or Ivy Bridge for gaming @ 1080+. Sure you can show us benchmarks of 120fps vs 135fps @ lower resolutions with medium-low settings in some games, but when the monitor maxes out @ 60hz (& hence 60 fps), its a moot point. Turn those settings to max in game settings, 1080+ resolution, and turn AA on, and yes the CPU makes NO difference. I saw a graph for Starcraft 2, which is heavily cpu dependant, come down to 1-2 fps diff between a PhenomII and an i7 when the resolution was high, in game settings maxed, and AA turned on.
perhaps you should read more carefully next time. the part I said you have no clue about is if you are referring to multi player when you say that the cpu does not matter much in BF 3. it matters greatly in BF 3 multi player and again he could have a dual core for all we know.
 

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
5,488
1,277
136
I have my 965BE at 4.1GHz, and it really holds back my 7950 in several games. BF3 being the main one where I run at about 90% CPU in 64 player matches. I drop into the 40's at times and its not because of the video card, its because of my CPU.
 

Termie

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
7,949
48
91
www.techbuyersguru.com
Out of curiousity, I looked at the only other review I could find on BF3 multiplayer performance, which was done by Techspot on the beta: http://www.techspot.com/review/448-battlefield-3-beta-performance/page7.html

I'm not going to post the graph, because the data is completely out-of-date and irrelevant, other than to show that during the beta stage, and perhaps early after release, the game was entirely unoptimized on the CPU side. For laughs, you can click the link to see the Phenom handily beating the 2600k.

I have personally noticed that my CPU load has actually gone down quite a bit since my own benchmarking done on the game in November. Either it's better threaded or it's just not presenting as high a load. Either way, it's not what it was at release (or in beta).

Take a look at this test I did in November, back when people said HT didn't help (and therefore I shut it off):



The CPU was completely redlined. I can't even come close to that now, but I have HT on, and as I've already said, I think the game is better optimized.
 
Last edited:

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
5,488
1,277
136
The game is better now. Basically I am CPU limited now instead of GPU limited like I used to be. So my CPU is going to peg because my GPU is waiting for more data.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
winr Graphics Cards 14

ASK THE COMMUNITY