Will a e2140 @ 3.0ghz bottleneck a 8800gt
- Thread starter CatchPhrase
- Start date
Nah, it be like having a core 2 duo with twice the cache, but only 200mhz slower, so more like 2.8ghz. And no it won't be bottlenecked. Especially past resolutions of 1280*1024.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
No, it won't
E2160 @ 3.4ghz > C2D 2.93ghz
So your 3.0ghz should be slightly faster than a 2.5ghz c2D which doesnt bottleneck 8800GT.
E2160 @ 3.4ghz > C2D 2.93ghz
So your 3.0ghz should be slightly faster than a 2.5ghz c2D which doesnt bottleneck 8800GT.
'Bottlenecking' is relative. There is ALWAYS a bottleneck in your system, otherwise you would have infinite performance. 
A E2140 @ 3GHz would be about equal with a 2.5GHz E6x00, yes. The smaller cache tends to take the biggest performance hits in games unfortunately.
A E2140 @ 3GHz would be about equal with a 2.5GHz E6x00, yes. The smaller cache tends to take the biggest performance hits in games unfortunately.
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
that was uncalled for betasub. This is a very valid question.
I would definitely say a x2 3800 would bottleneck such a video card. I don't think this CPU will however.
It should be similar in performance to an E8400 which isn't being overclocked, so I don't see it bottlenecking this video card in games.
I would definitely say a x2 3800 would bottleneck such a video card. I don't think this CPU will however.
It should be similar in performance to an E8400 which isn't being overclocked, so I don't see it bottlenecking this video card in games.
Not even close. 6MB L2 owns 1MB L2 in gaming.
Hey, at 3GHz it's not a slow CPU by any means, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here.
Originally posted by: harpoon84
Not even close. 6MB L2 owns 1MB L2 in gaming.
Im not going to go find it but different cpu's at the same speed but with different cache sizes (1M, 2M, 4M) showed that 1->2M showed a bit of performance boost but 2->4M was minimal. 1M performed well enough though as without fraps running I'd like to tell if you can tell the difference between 120fps and 160fps. Or between 80 and 190 for that matter.
So to say 6M cache ownes 1M has some truth to it but you may as well said 2M owns 1M and you'd be 90%+ on the same track.
Just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents here. I'm an avid WoW gamer and my e2140 @ 2.8ghz was significantly slower than my e8400 @ 3.6ghz.
In Shattrah running max video settings at peak times my fps would dip as low as 15-20 fps. Since I installed the e8400 my framerate never drops below 40 in shatter, even in the most crowded times.
WoW is a cpu-intensive game and my e2140 was certainly bottlenecking my system
In Shattrah running max video settings at peak times my fps would dip as low as 15-20 fps. Since I installed the e8400 my framerate never drops below 40 in shatter, even in the most crowded times.
WoW is a cpu-intensive game and my e2140 was certainly bottlenecking my system
If I would to guess? yes it will bottleneck it a little 10-15% I say. You need something with more cache running at 3.2+ to max out the 8800GT I say.
Originally posted by: sutahz
Originally posted by: harpoon84
Not even close. 6MB L2 owns 1MB L2 in gaming.
Im not going to go find it but different cpu's at the same speed but with different cache sizes (1M, 2M, 4M) showed that 1->2M showed a bit of performance boost but 2->4M was minimal. 1M performed well enough though as without fraps running I'd like to tell if you can tell the difference between 120fps and 160fps. Or between 80 and 190 for that matter.
So to say 6M cache ownes 1M has some truth to it but you may as well said 2M owns 1M and you'd be 90%+ on the same track.
Yes, as you get to the larger caches you will see diminishing returns, but the fact remains that clock for clock, an E8x00 chip is around 20% faster than an E21x0 chip in gaming.
superstition
Platinum Member
- Feb 2, 2008
- 2,219
- 221
- 101
At least have them run at the same clock speed when doing such a comparison. I'm certain the e2140 would run faster with an extra 800 MHz!
As for the original question... Have you tried running it at 3.2 GHz?
We're talking bottlenecks without even specifying the resolution. Awesomeness. My x2 3800+ @ 2.6ghz surely isn't bottlenecking my 8800gts 320mb at 1680*1050, at 1024*768 it might be though. But I don't play at 1024*768
I've read that the cache really matters when reaching > 3Ghz.
The E8400 may be 20% faster, but it only cost 323% more,
.As the previous post implies, what games and what resolution are you running?
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
We're talking bottlenecks without even specifying the resolution. Awesomeness. My x2 3800+ @ 2.6ghz surely isn't bottlenecking my 8800gts 320mb at 1680*1050, at 1024*768 it might be though. But I don't play at 1024*768
Perhaps you happen to run more GPU limited games than I do, since my E4400 at stock 2GHz (about equal to your X2 3800+ @ 2.6GHz) is a big bottleneck compared to its overclocked speed of 3.33GHz, and I run a 8800GTS 320 at 1680x1050 also. Then again, I run my 8800GTS 320 heavily overclocked to 660c/1060m which puts it around stock 8800 GTX (or 8800GT) levels.
For example, after FRAPsing numerous cop pursuits in Need For Speed: Most Wanted, I get:
E4400 @ 2.00GHz - 30fps min, 55fps avg
E4400 @ 3.33GHz - 40fps min, 70fps avg
The key here is the minimum framerate, the faster CPU means the games is not as stuttery during the framerate dips. It may not seem like much, but 40fps vs 30fps makes a big difference.
I know it's only one game, but it actually takes a lot of time and effort to do in game FRAPs runs, record the framerates again and again to try to get reproducible results, and then to do it all again at a different clockspeed, so take it for what it's worth. Perhaps if I have more time in future I'll do similar tests for some newer games like Call of Duty 4.
Originally posted by: twistedlogic
I've read that the cache really matters when reaching > 3Ghz.
The E8400 may be 20% faster, but it only cost 323% more,
No, cache size matters at all clockspeeds. Otherwise why would Intel bother putting 6MB on an E8400 if it doesn't 'really matter'?! LOL might as well put zero cache on it if it doesn't do anything at 3GHz+, which is clearly not the case.
As for price/performance between an E8400 and E2140, you fail to figure that an E8400 can be overclocked a whole 1GHz higher than an E2140 (4GHz vs 3GHz). Comparing a heavily overclocked CPU to a stock CPU is not a great way to start a price comparison. An E8400 @ 4GHz would be about 60% faster than an E2140 @ 3GHz.
Regardless, I agree that even overclocked, the E8400 cannot match the pure value of a E2140, at least on an individual part level. On a platform or system level it may very well prove to be the better value. However, that wasn't the point of my post. The OP asked if a 3GHz E2140 would 'bottleneck' a 8800GT, to answer that, I'd have to say 'slightly', but it largely depends on the games that the OP plays, and at what resolutions.
aussiestilgar
Senior member
- Dec 2, 2007
- 245
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: harpoon84
Originally posted by: twistedlogic
I've read that the cache really matters when reaching > 3Ghz.
The E8400 may be 20% faster, but it only cost 323% more,
No, cache size matters at all clockspeeds. Otherwise why would Intel bother putting 6MB on an E8400 if it doesn't 'really matter'?! LOL might as well put zero cache on it if it doesn't do anything at 3GHz+, which is clearly not the case.
As for price/performance between an E8400 and E2140, you fail to figure that an E8400 can be overclocked a whole 1GHz higher than an E2140 (4GHz vs 3GHz). Comparing a heavily overclocked CPU to a stock CPU is not a great way to start a price comparison. An E8400 @ 4GHz would be about 60% faster than an E2140 @ 3GHz.
Regardless, I agree that even overclocked, the E8400 cannot match the pure value of a E2140, at least on an individual part level. On a platform or system level it may very well prove to be the better value. However, that wasn't the point of my post. The OP asked if a 3GHz E2140 would 'bottleneck' a 8800GT, to answer that, I'd have to say 'slightly', but it largely depends on the games that the OP plays, and at what resolutions.
Well said. My opinion would be that at 1440x900 or higher resolution, the CPU would not be bottlenecking the GPU. Under that resolution, it depends on the game but the framerate would be high enough for it to not matter.
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
Originally posted by: harpoon84
Originally posted by: sutahz
Originally posted by: harpoon84
Not even close. 6MB L2 owns 1MB L2 in gaming.
Im not going to go find it but different cpu's at the same speed but with different cache sizes (1M, 2M, 4M) showed that 1->2M showed a bit of performance boost but 2->4M was minimal. 1M performed well enough though as without fraps running I'd like to tell if you can tell the difference between 120fps and 160fps. Or between 80 and 190 for that matter.
So to say 6M cache ownes 1M has some truth to it but you may as well said 2M owns 1M and you'd be 90%+ on the same track.
Yes, as you get to the larger caches you will see diminishing returns, but the fact remains that clock for clock, an E8x00 chip is around 20% faster than an E21x0 chip in gaming.
which is similar enough to not be a bottleneck.. I was saying... similar compared to say... e21x0 at stock speeds... or an X3800
If I thought there was no difference I Wouldn't have bought myself an E8400
Even before overclocking my e8400 i noticed a huge fps improvement over my e2140 @ 2.8ghz. The L2 Cache makes a big difference
At that low a res your E2140 @ 3.0 Ghz may very well bottleneck an 8800 series card but your framerate should be good enough it won't really make that big a playability difference in most games w/ the possible exception of crysis
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter