Possible to skimp on the CPU for a 7800GT at high resolutions?

[Sonikku]

So... My 9600XT isn't exactly pushing my Sony FW900. Certainly not when it supports resolutions upwards of 2304x1440. The thing is, buying a new video card/cpu/mobo is going to hit my wallet pretty hard, so I was curious if I could skimp on the cpu seeing as how I'll be gaming in very high resolutions. If I play most of my titles in 1920x1200 with a 7800GT, will a Athlon 64 3000+ Venice do the job? From what I understand, that certainly puts a bottleneck in the cpu. But from what I hear at high resolutions the strain is put on the video card, thus getting the bottleneck out at 1920x1200. At least, that is what I theorize. Will a 3000+ fit my uses or will I still need to fork over the cash for a San Diego?

 

[johnnqq]

if you're playing games at super high resolutions, the video card makes most of the difference...

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: johnnqq
if you're playing games at super high resolutions, the video card makes most of the difference...

Yup. There's one of these threads every day. Why don't we have an FAQ on this? I know there's going to be some zealots coming in here claiming you need an 8-way Opteron cluster and a bag of chips to run it. Simply not true...

A64 3000+, 7800GT and 1920x1200 sounds good to me.

 

[Crescent13]

GPU is where you will have the biggest difference. a 7800GT or GTX, and a venice 3000+ overclocked should be very good for that monitor. I wish I had a monitor with that res.

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

If you do 800x600 or even 1024x768, the CPU will make a noticeable impact, but who puts down $400+ to play at 1024x768. At any rate, the CPU will bottleneck at 100+ frames/sec in most cases, so it's not a big concern. The GPU will hit the wall way before the CPU at high res/high AA.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
If you do 800x600 or even 1024x768, the CPU will make a noticeable impact, but who puts down $400+ to play at 1024x768. At any rate, the CPU will bottleneck at 100+ frames/sec in most cases, so it's not a big concern. The GPU will hit the wall way before the CPU at high res/high AA.

:thumbsup:

 

[Sonikku]

Originally posted by: Crescent13
GPU is where you will have the biggest difference. a 7800GT or GTX, and a venice 3000+ overclocked should be very good for that monitor. I wish I had a monitor with that res.

It's nice, but it's not THAT nice. WoW for instance supports all 16x10 aspect ratios, but that's rare. Hell, even 16x9 ratios can be difficult to find in some games these days. While the monitor kicks ass for widescreen material, it kind of sucks putting up with black bars or a stretched image. Also, like I said it's awesome when everything checks out at 1920x1200, but even if you do have a game that supports it you still need a video card that's up to the task of pushing that resolution. In addition to the monitor of course. Needless to say, this isn't a perfect world and things do not always work out that way. Right now I'm looking at getting the right video card. But even then it will still be a matter of finding games that support 16x10 aspect ratios. World of Warcraft is my current favorite.

For those cursing me for making a topic with a question like this, I already was aware of the concept that video cards are a generation ahead of CPU's and that running games in higher resolutions put's more strain on the card then the processor. I just didn't know the parts that would do the best job for the lowest cost, putting that concept to good use. A 3000+ Venice was my blind guess for a 7800GT pushing 1920x1200, but I wanted to be sure before I spent any money.

 

[PuppettMaster001]

A lot of games can support WS, they just have to be told to do so.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/ >PC Widescreen Solutions

 

[klah]

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/athlon_64_geforce_7800_gtx_scaling/

 

[Sonikku]

Nice, except I'm not in the market for a GTX (The GT is really pushing it as it is) and I'm playing in widescreen resolutions like 1920x1200. Not 4x3 resolutions like 1600x1200 or less.

 

[DRavisher]

Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
If you do 800x600 or even 1024x768, the CPU will make a noticeable impact, but who puts down $400+ to play at 1024x768. At any rate, the CPU will bottleneck at 100+ frames/sec in most cases, so it's not a big concern. The GPU will hit the wall way before the CPU at high res/high AA.

QFT. I cant understand why people scream about how the CPU is the bottleneck. If the game runs consistently above 60FPS with Vsync it's quite enough for me (and most others as well). Buying a 7800GTX, for then to complain that you CPU is limiting it to 150FPS at 1024x768 is just silly. If the CPU is not bottlenecking the GPU to unplayable framerates, the CPU is overkill for the GPU, not the other way around.

 

[mrkun]

Get a Venice E3 and overclock it to 2.7 Ghz.

Edit: 3000+ Venice that is.

 

[jiffylube1024]

It should be good but if you've got a Venice 3000+ then it's just begging to be overclocked! 2.4 Ghz is pretty much "guaranteed", and weeks 10-20 seem to be going above 2.5 Ghz pretty easily too.

 

[Sonikku]

Originally posted by: mrkun
Get a Venice E3 and overclock it to 2.7 Ghz.

Edit: 3000+ Venice that is.

How can I be sure the chip is a E3 and not a E6? I don't see that being mentioned in most of the listings I see online for Venice chips.