What video card wont be bottlenecked by my 2.4ghz E660

[evolucion8]

yeah between an stock E6850 and stock i5 750 there probably is very little difference in most situations with a single 5870. Ghostbusters and Red Faction Guerrilla are very much optimized for quads though. its the physics in both of those games that is a killer at times. now those with weaker cpus can turn down some of the settings but maxed out both of those games need a fast quad for the best playability during heavy scenes.

I doubt that a fast quad will do a big difference in Ghost Buster, it uses the Inferno engine and its pretty easy on GPU's, Red Faction Guerrilla is very well threaded but it uses lots of GPU power, you will be far more GPU bound than CPU bound, textures or shaders have very little to do with CPU. A very nice balanced system with a nice CPU will be enough for current games, its non sense using an i7 with an HD 5770 when a fast dual core will be more capable with an HD 5850. Current games are GPU bound.

 

[toyota]

I doubt that a fast quad will do a big difference in Ghost Buster, it uses the Unreal 3 engine and its pretty easy on GPU's, Red Faction Guerrilla is very well threaded but it uses lots of GPU power, you will be far more GPU bound than CPU bound, textures or shaders have very little to do with CPU. A very nice balanced system with a nice CPU will be enough for current games, its non sense using an i7 with an HD 5770 when a fast dual core will be more capable with an HD 5850. Current games are GPU bound.

wrong on both accounts. Ghostbusters does not use UE 3 and is a very cpu intensive game. it will use 70-80% of a fast quad core and I had to oc my E8500 a bit to help smooth out very heavy physics parts of the game. Red Faction Guerrilla also uses some pretty heavy physics and will bring most cpus to there knees during scenes with lots of destruction.

 

[evolucion8]

wrong on both accounts. Ghostbusters does not use UE 3 and is a very cpu intensive game. it will use 70-80% of a fast quad core and I had to oc my E8500 a bit to help smooth out very heavy physics parts of the game. Red Faction Guerrilla also uses some pretty heavy physics and will bring most cpus to there knees during scenes with lots of destruction.

Yeah, sorry I misread, it uses the Inferno Engine. You definitively have a problem with your setup, CPU dependency in games isn't that great unless if you have Crossfire or SLI with powerful cards like the HD 5870. Probably your slowdowns are caused because too much debris is in your screen and you GPU can't cope with the load at all, that situation is pretty normal specially that your GPU isn't the fastest thing around.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5870-cpu-scaling_10.html#sect0

Now, I’ll try to sum everything up. First of all, the single Radeon HD 5870 does not depend as much on the CPU as it is supposed to. According to my tests (the left part of the diagrams), the Radeon HD 5870 is quite satisfied with an overclocked dual-core CPU manufactured two years ago. And you can even leave the CPU at its default frequency at the high-quality settings and 1920x1200. The only exceptions are Left 4 Dead and Warhammer 40000: Dawn of War II. The former game is not a problem for modern top-end Radeons while the latter, on the contrary, calls for a quad-core CPU, preferably from Intel.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/05/19/real_world_gameplay_cpu_scaling/11

All that said about our processors, most of us are not running CrossFireX or SLI video card configurations. Outside of massively CPU-centric games such as FlightSimX, which are far and few between, the world of PC gaming is still very GPU-centric. Many of us are likely never going to be in a position to truly enjoy Core i7 gaming with "lesser" video cards. If a $130 processor can provide enough cycles to respectably push an $800 video card setup, you had best believe it will do wonders with less expensive GPUs. However if you do have a high end video card setup, you are likely wasting it without the proper CPU and proper GHz behind it.

 

[toyota]

Yeah, sorry I misread, it uses the Inferno Engine. You definitively have a problem with your setup, CPU dependency in games isn't that great unless if you have Crossfire or SLI with powerful cards like the HD 5870.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5870-cpu-scaling_10.html#sect0

Now, I’ll try to sum everything up. First of all, the single Radeon HD 5870 does not depend as much on the CPU as it is supposed to. According to my tests (the left part of the diagrams), the Radeon HD 5870 is quite satisfied with an overclocked dual-core CPU manufactured two years ago. And you can even leave the CPU at its default frequency at the high-quality settings and 1920x1200. The only exceptions are Left 4 Dead and Warhammer 40000: Dawn of War II. The former game is not a problem for modern top-end Radeons while the latter, on the contrary, calls for a quad-core CPU, preferably from Intel.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/05/19/real_world_gameplay_cpu_scaling/11

All that said about our processors, most of us are not running CrossFireX or SLI video card configurations. Outside of massively CPU-centric games such as FlightSimX, which are far and few between, the world of PC gaming is still very GPU-centric. Many of us are likely never going to be in a position to truly enjoy Core i7 gaming with "lesser" video cards. If a $130 processor can provide enough cycles to respectably push an $800 video card setup, you had best believe it will do wonders with less expensive GPUs. However if you do have a high end video card setup, you are likely wasting it without the proper CPU and proper GHz behind it.

what does that link have to do with what I said? I mentioned three specific games and NONE of those are even reviewed there.

also the slowest cpu on there is an E8400 at 2.7 which is quite a bit faster than the OPs cpu. there are a couple of games they tested that clearly show an advantage of having a faster cpu when it comes to minimums. plenty of other games they tested did not even include the min framerate so we dont even know what those are like there.

and perhaps you missed the conclusion of that article..."Using this setup, I could quickly switch from the system with a dual-core CPU to the system with a quad-core CPU and feel the difference between them in the same parts of five games. Excepting S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky, I easily felt the difference such games as Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X., Resident Evil 5, Call of Duty 5: World at War and Crysis. The gameplay was much smoother on the quad-core CPU, without occasional jerks as on the Core 2 Duo. Game levels were loaded faster, too."

 

[AzN]

With some tinkering. I got my E5200 to 3.85ghz. Won't reach 400fsb. Blank screen. bla bla

I did however was trying to find the balance between fsb and multiplier. I ended up with 350fsb @ 11x multiplier.

GTA4 sure loved it as the actual game play went up about 15% better performance with other games no so much over my E6300 @ 3.36ghz. I tried mass effect thinking it would help performance. None what so ever. It seems mass effect 1 has a certain threshold after so much.

 

[toyota]

With some tinkering. I got my E5200 to 3.85ghz. Won't reach 400fsb. Blank screen. bla bla

I did however was trying to find the balance between fsb and multiplier. I ended up with 350fsb @ 11x multiplier.

GTA4 sure loved it as the actual game play went up about 15% better performance with other games no so much over my E6300 @ 3.36ghz.

dont blow it up on the first day. lol. your E5200 at 3.85 is about like what speed on my cpu? probably around the stock 3.16 speed I would guess without looking up any comparisons.

when I was playing around with GTA 4 I got 33.27fps with my cpu at 2.4 and 47.10fps with it at 3.8. that was at 1920 and mostly high settings but viewing and detail distance turned down quite a bit.

 

[evolucion8]

what does that link have to do with what I said? I mentioned three specific games and NONE of those are even reviewed there.

also the slowest cpu on there is an E8400 at 2.7 which is quite a bit faster than the OPs cpu. there are a couple of games they tested that clearly show an advantage of having a faster cpu when it comes to minimums. plenty of other games they tested did not even include the min framerate so we dont even know what those are like there.

and perhaps you missed the conclusion of that article..."Using this setup, I could quickly switch from the system with a dual-core CPU to the system with a quad-core CPU and feel the difference between them in the same parts of five games. Excepting S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky, I easily felt the difference such games as Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X., Resident Evil 5, Call of Duty 5: World at War and Crysis. The gameplay was much smoother on the quad-core CPU, without occasional jerks as on the Core 2 Duo. Game levels were loaded faster, too."

Your CPU isn't much faster than the OP in gaming, you simply have 1MB more of cache in each core and slighly higher IPC. When I switched from my Core 2 Extreme QX6850 to the Q9650, besides of heat dissipation and improved performance in video encoding thanks to SSE4, I couldn't spot a difference in gaming performance.

Who kind of moron switches of application while gaming? It may cause issues or slowdowns whatsoever, but it is handy when needed. Quad cores are the way to go now definitively, that's why I owned one long before the i7 debut while the same people that complains now bought Wolfdale back then thanks to its exceptional gaming performance beating Quads in games at that time. And that's the same kind of people forgot that the application would be more multi threaded in the future and now the same type of people complains that their Wolfdales can't cope with games. You are more GPU bound than CPU bound by the way, GTX 260 192 is slighly slower than the HD 4870 512MB at launch, and it is even slower now thanks to the driver optimizations done to the HD 4870 which depends heavily on compiler optimizations.

 

[toyota]

Your CPU isn't much faster than the OP in gaming, you simply have 1MB more of cache in each core and slighly higher IPC. When I switched from my Core 2 Extreme QX6850 to the Q9650, besides of heat dissipation and improved performance in video encoding thanks to SSE4, I couldn't spot a difference in gaming performance.

okay I think you are still missing the point. my cpu is faster than the ops by quite a bit in cpu intensive games. I mentioned THREE of those cpu intensive games that I know having a slower cpu than mine would make a difference at least in heavy parts. I had better overall results with those three games, especially GTA 4, when my cpu was overclocked. thats all I am saying and I thought that was pretty clear. in most other games his cpu is just fine but he will still maybe pick up a little more minimum framerate performance in them from overclocking it if he was using a fast gpu like 5850 or better.

 

[AzN]

I never blew up a processor by overclocking in my life. I've had that E6300 for 3.5 years overclocked during the whole period running 24/7 computer. I did however break 2 AMD CPU trying to mount a heatsink long time ago as the core was bare without heat plate.

I was chilling nicely @ 50C with 307fsb 12.5 multiplier orthos load but when I raised the FSB to 350 and lowered the multiplier my temps went up 7C. Kind of weird huh.

It would depend what I was doing but I would think it would be little faster than your stock e8500 for most situations. It's based on the same architecture except the cache and sse4. It's a little faster than my E6300 at same mhz. So I've heard.

Find me some benchmarks.

 

[toyota]

I never blew up a processor by overclocking in my life. I've had that E6300 for 3.5 years overclocked during the whole period running 24/7 computer. I did however break 2 AMD CPU trying to mount a heatsink long time ago as the core was bare without heat plate.

I was chilling nicely @ 50C with 307fsb 12.5 multiplier orthos load but when I raised the FSB to 350 and lowered the multiplier my temps went up 7C. Kind of weird huh.

It would depend what I was doing but I would think it would be little faster than your stock e8500 for most situations. It's based on the same architecture except the cache and sse4. It's a little faster than my E6300 at same mhz. So I've heard.

Find me some benchmarks.

too lazy to look for any benchmarks but I believe the E8xxx series were about 15-20% faster clock for clock then the E6xxx.

 

[AzN]

I have to agree with evolucion8. You are definitely more gpu bound at the resolution you play. Those 3 titles aren't the majority of PC games that behave that way. From a financial point or performance point of view you are better off with faster GPU not CPU.

 

[toyota]

I have to agree with evolucion8. You are definitely more gpu bound at the resolution you play. Those 3 titles aren't the majority of PC games that behave that way. From a financial point or performance point of view you are better off with faster GPU not CPU.

thats great and all but I have pretty much said the same thing myself so there is no argument here. he decided to question 2 of those games, which he was wrong about anyway, and then turn this into something that had nothing to even do with those 3 games.

 

[evolucion8]

too lazy to look for any benchmarks but I believe the E8xxx series were about 15-20% faster clock for clock then the E6xxx.

Wrong, it was 10-15% faster in average than Conroe. But in a per clock cycle, 5% is usually the average number.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_13.html#sect0

Well, everything seems pretty clear. Summing up everything we have just said, we can state that new dual-core Core 2 Duo E8500, E8400 and E8200 processors on 45nm cores are great from all stand points. They are faster than their predecessors working at the same clock speeds. Besides, their working frequencies are initially higher than those of previous Core 2 Duo CPUs. And taking into account that Intel is going to sell the new solutions for the price of Core 2 Duo E6850, E6750 and E6550, we can all get “free” performance improvement of 10-15% on new Intel dual-core CPUs.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3069&p=3

Let's point out the zeros first: SYSMark, iTunes and Oblivion all showed no performance increase from Conroe to Wolfdale. Not all applications will benefit dramatically from the improved cache or architectural improvements and these are examples of some.

The DivX 6.6 test shows a particularly impressive 10.5% increase in performance, especially when you keep in mind that we are running the same DivX test we always run and not an SSE4 optimized benchmark. If you'll remember back to our Intel-sanctioned Penryn preview, with SSE4 enabled Penryn's DivX performance skyrocketed. But this test here shows us that even without SSE4 optimizations, Wolfdale is a healthy 10% faster than Conroe. Windows Media Encoder 9 saw a 5.4% increase in performance, which is still tangible.

Wolfdale also seems to do quite well in 3D rendering apps, giving us 6.7% better performance in 3dsmax 9 and a similar boost in Lightwave. Cinebench performance improved even further at 9.1%.

Gaming performance is a bit of a mixed bag; we saw everything from Oblivion's 0.4% performance improvement to 8.5% under Lost Planet. Wolfdale is good for gaming, but the degree is very title dependent.

On average, Wolfdale ends up being just under 5% faster clock-for-clock than Conroe. Definitely not an earth shattering improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. Focusing in on specific benchmarks, Wolfdale can look even more impressive. Without taking SSE4 performance into account as we don't know how widespread SSE4 applications will be upon its arrival, Wolfdale will simply make competing more difficult for AMD's Phenom, but not impossible.

But I can tell you that SSE4 improves greatly the video encoding performance.

 

[BFG10K]

Ha you are on a 30" though. LOL.

At slightly lower resolution you would probably see a little bit of performance gain with your new i750 but yeah that's why I haven't upgraded yet.

I run many modern titles at 1920x1200 or even 1680x1050 with just 2xAA, but my point still stands. I run all of my games at the highest playable settings, and my i5 750 with all four cores turbo'd to 3.2. GHz makes little to no difference over my dual-core E6850 underclocked to 2 GHz.

You'll see the results when I get around to uploading the article.

 

[BFG10K]

overall sure but if you compare the min framerates you would get some pretty bad results with a 2.4 E6600 compared to the i7 if both were using the 5870.

A minimum by definition is a single data point in an entire benchmark run, which makes it totally useless by itself given it could be nothing more than benchmarking noise. A minimum is only useful with a plot putting it onto context, so you can see if large portions of the benchmark also experience reduced performance.

Focusing on the minimum all the time won't allow you to see where the primary bottleneck is, nor will it allow you to see what is happening with the bigger picture.

That and the GPU affects the minimum too if it's the primary bottleneck, and I'm arguing that it almost always is if you always run games at their highest playable settings.

Ghostbusters, Red Faction Guerrilla, and GTA 4 are some examples that would be significantly held back and even gameplay would be affected.

Not if you run them at at GPU limited settings they won't. At GPU limited settings the GPU will be the one holding back performance primarily.

 

[toyota]

A minimum by definition is a single data point in an entire benchmark run, which makes it totally useless by itself given it could be nothing more than benchmarking noise. A minimum is only useful with a plot putting it onto context, so you can see if large portions of the benchmark also experience reduced performance.

Focusing on the minimum all the time won't allow you to see where the primary bottleneck is, nor will it allow you to see what is happening with the bigger picture.

That and the GPU affects the minimum too if it's the primary bottleneck, and I'm arguing that it almost always is if you always run games at their highest playable settings.


Not if you run them at at GPU limited settings they won't. At GPU limited settings the GPU will be the one holding back performance primarily.

sorry but that is absolute BS for those 3 games. if I lower my cpu to 2.4 in any of those games become very sluggish during action because of the CPU. at this 2.0 nonsense you are claiming those 3 games are certainly not fun during action and border on unplayable at times. It doesnt take a genius to change the cpu speed and go do some destruction in Red Faction Guerrilla and Ghostbusters and damn near anything GTA 4 and feel the lower framerates. hell with my cpu at 2.4 I cant even fucking average but 33fps in the GTA4 benchmark which less demanding then the game. with my cpu at 3.8 I get 47 fps which is much better. gee thats a 14fps increase from ocing the cpu that takes me from sluggish to playable but I am sure you will make up some nonsense for that too.

 

[BFG10K]

sorry but that is absolute BS for those 3 games. if I lower my cpu to 2.4 in any of those games become very sluggish during action because of the CPU. at this 2.0 nonsense you are claiming those 3 games are certainly not fun during action and border on unplayable at times. It doesnt take a genius to change the cpu speed and go do some destruction in Red Faction Guerrilla and Ghostbusters and damn near anything GTA 4 and feel the lower framerates. hell with my cpu at 2.4 I cant even fucking average but 33fps in the GTA4 benchmark which less demanding then the game. with my cpu at 3.8 I get 47 fps which is much better. gee thats a 14fps increase from ocing the cpu that takes me from sluggish to playable but I am sure you will make up some nonsense for that too.

We've already been through this repeatedly, and the conclusion we've reached is that you place far too much emphasis on a single datapoint from thousands (i.e. a minimum).

That and you don't appear to understand the impact of high graphic settings because you've never used them; 1080p with 4xAA is not a high graphic setting.

Do us a favor: retest those games at 2560x1600 with at least 8xMSAA and AAA/TrAA, then get back to us as to what impacts performance the most.

 

[toyota]

We've already been through this repeatedly, and the conclusion we've reached is that you place far too much emphasis on a single datapoint from thousands (i.e. a minimum).

That and you don't appear to understand the impact of high graphic settings because you've never used them; 1080p with 4xAA is not a high graphic setting.

Do us a favor: retest those games at 2560x1600 with at least 8xMSAA and AAA/TrAA, then get back to us as to what impacts performance the most.

I am not talking about hitting a one time minimum. I am talking about prolonged low framerates because of the cpu not being fast enough. a minimum framerate of 15fps at 1920 because of the cpu isnt going to get any better at 2560 now is it? sure that will put more load on the gpu so guess what? that means we will get a faster gpu and still have the same low minimum rates because its the cpu thats at fault. for someone that test card you sure dont get some things.

those games that I listed were slowing down when I lowered the cpu speed because it was the cpu that was already a great deal of the limitation. in fact with GTA 4 it was nearly 100% of the limitation. with the other two games it was when a lot of destruction was happening that would show the weakness of the cpu especially its speed was lowered from stock.

you just want to try and create a gpu bottleneck and ignore the cpu slowing down things where I just want to eliminate most of the cpu bottleneck if possible. what you are suggesting is about as stupid as having a 2.0 P4 and 9600gt at 1280 and then telling me to run games at 1920 with 4x AA. lol. that doesnt FIX the fact that the damn cpu is causing most of the low framerates. if I go buy a better gpu for that higher res then I still have the same cpu issues at 1920 that I did at 1280.

 

[evolucion8]

I am not talking about hitting a one time minimum. I am talking about prolonged low framerates because of the cpu not being fast enough. a minimum framerate of 15fps at 1920 because of the cpu isnt going to get any better at 2560 now is it? sure that will put more load on the gpu so guess what? that means we will get a faster gpu and still have the same low minimum rates because its the cpu thats at fault. for someone that test card you sure dont get some things.

those games that I listed were slowing down when I lowered the cpu speed because it was the cpu that was already a great deal of the limitation. in fact with GTA 4 it was nearly 100% of the limitation. with the other two games it was when a lot of destruction was happening that would show the weakness of the cpu especially its speed was lowered from stock.

I think is the other way around, for someone who doesn't test cards at all, puts a lot of emphasis in one thing, CPU power, if games were so CPU bound, why the GPU's exist? Heck, we could just simply play games on CPU and that's it. Usually in most games, you will be far more GPU bound than CPU bound.

Everything that I posted here, plus what BGF stated proves you wrong, and yet, you fail to understand the nature. I just can't understand why in every thread that someone ask for a GPU recommendation, the first thing that comes out of your keyboard is "You are CPU limited, change the CPU!!".

 

[toyota]

I think is the other way around, for someone who doesn't test cards at all, puts a lot of emphasis in one thing, CPU power, if games were so CPU bound, why the GPU's exist? Heck, we could just simply play games on CPU and that's it. Usually in most games, you will be far more GPU bound than CPU bound.

Everything that I posted here, plus what BGF stated proves you wrong, and yet, you fail to understand the nature. I just can't understand why in every thread that someone ask for a GPU recommendation, the first thing that comes out of your keyboard is "You are CPU limited, change the CPU!!".

read my edited post. and it doesnt prove shit when I am looking right at the fucking screen and seeing and feeling lower framerates with my cpu at a lower speed. the cpu most certainly matters in some games.

1920x1080 on high settings in GTA 4, I dont even average 30 fps with my cpu at 2.0 where I get 47 fps with it at 3.8. I guess I need to have my own website with snazzy bar graphs for that to count though.

 

[evolucion8]

read my edited post. and it doesnt prove shit when I am looking right at the fucking screen and seeing and feeling lower framerates with my cpu at a lower speed. the cpu most certainly matters in some games.

1920x1080 on high settings in GTA 4, I only get 30 fps with my cpu at 2.0 where I get 47 fps with it at 3.8. I guess I need to have my website with snazzy bar graphs for that to count though.

Why the cussing? Can't just keep a civil conversation and just have to get pissed off like a little child? CPU performance in gaming is important, but GPU matter the most and gives you the most in your investment compared to CPU alone.

Does it make a difference running the crappy GTA4 at 30fps or 47fps or 100fps? A crappy console port which is far from being the reality of current games, most developers will put far more emphasis in GPU power than CPU power, because unlike CPU's which will never scale linearly in performance, GPU scales much better.

 

[toyota]

Why the cussing? Can't just keep a civil conversation and just get pissed off like a little child? CPU performance in gaming is important, but GPU matter the most and gives you the most in your investment compared to CPU alone.

Does it make a difference running the crappy GTA4 at 30fps or 47fps or 100fps? Please.

because I get fed up with the same nonsense over and over. its one thing to say the cpu doesnt matter a whole lot but another to say something like his Core 2 at 2.0 is not a bottleneck for a gtx285 or 5870. he just tries to create very very gpu limited situation that makes the lower framerates on the slower cpu look less significant. if I buy a high end gpu its to try and get 60fps or more and keep the minimums as high as possible while also improving IQ if possible.

I know most games are fine with my cpu at a lower speed but the 3 games I gave him are good examples of ones that arent. for him to to tell my that I am still gpu limited in those games with my cpu lowered is ridiculous. the only one that would be faster with a better gpu would be Red Faction Guerrilla but with my cpu at 2.0 it wouldnt matter during destroying things because my cpu would be the cause of the low framerates.

 

[evolucion8]

because I get fed up with the same nonsense over and over. its one thing to say the cpu doesnt matter a whole lot but another to say something like his Core 2 at 2.0 is not a bottleneck for a gtx285 or 5870. he just tries to create very very gpu limited situation that makes the lower framerates on the slower cpu look less significant. if I buy a high end gpu its to try and get 60fps or more and keep the minimums as high as possible while also improving IQ if possible.

I know most games are fine with my cpu at a lower speed but the 3 games I gave him are good examples of ones that arent. for him to to tell my that I am still gpu limited in those games with my cpu lowered is ridiculous. the only one that would be faster with a better gpu would be Red Faction Guerrilla but with my cpu at 2.0 it wouldnt matter during destroying things because my cpu would be the cause of the low framerates.

But those are only 3 games!! That will not be the tendency in games, usually cheap console ports like GTA4 will be heavily CPU dependant because for example, PS3 has 6 cores for gaming, Xbox 360 have 6 cores for gaming too, a cheap console port will scale greatly with the number of cores in a computer, so don't be surprised that AMD Six Core will scale greatly in GTA4.

And while most games todays are console ports, they usually aren't very CPU bound but won't challenge the GPU enough, pretty much well balanced, but will not make a big difference in playability where it only matters, not FPS or scores.

Also I understand why others with less CPU than yours doesn't have that dependency in CPU power, it would seems to me that you have an issue with your setup like high ram latency which with overclocking would minimize the impact, the Core architecture loves low latency. Good example, myself. Lowering the latency of the ram plus turning on Northbridge optimizations in the BIOS brought me between 2% and 10% higher performance for free.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687620/ArmA-2-tested-Benchmarks-with-18-CPUs/Practice/

A game that loves CPU power, and yet, Quads aren't much faster than Dual to make a huge difference in playability, but is more playable, fps alone doesn't tell the whole story. You get the 20% better frame rates from quads @ same clock as dual core instead of 100%.

 

[AzN]

Does it make a difference running the crappy GTA4 at 30fps or 47fps or 100fps? A crappy console port which is far from being the reality of current games, most developers will put far more emphasis in GPU power than CPU power, because unlike CPU's which will never scale linearly in performance, GPU scales much better.

I think Toyota has a point but I have to agree with this. 1 or 2 bad console ports does not dictate PC games.

 

[jpeake]

What card won't be bottle necked by my c2d e660 2.4ghz?

haha, I feel your pain.

I've got a 4850 I'll sell you!