Would a E4300 bottleneck an X1900XT?

[Therk]

Assuming that both are on stock speeds.

 

[myocardia]

Yes, but not by much. They're fairly close in performance/capability, with both at stock speeds.

 

[f4phantom2500]

Why would you run an E4300 at stock?

 

[Therk]

^ I have my reasons...

Also, another question, what sort of temperatures does the E4300 idle and load at, stock speed and cooler?

 

[MikeyLSU]

mine was about 32-35 idle and 50-52 under load

 

[betasub]

Either (or neither) could be a bottleneck to performance, depending on the app. Question is too vague.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

no bottleneck at all.

 

[Conroe]

You mean will a stock E4300 push a x1900xtx to it's limits? No, I think you will need to push it to around 2.4GHz before overclocking it more will not increase the performance of a x1900xtx.

 

[the Chase]

As always, this question boils down to resolution, resolution, resolution...(and maybe level of AA used).

 

[nZone]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
mine was about 32-35 idle and 50-52 under load

With these temps; I wonder why people keep saying Pentium D is a flamethrower?
(of course not this thread)

 

[imported_Truenofan]

question about temps, i have a 6300 and im idling in the 40's with a new cooler and all, tat says 42 both cores at 2.24ghz, would it be because my voltages are in the 1.3 range since my board is currently set to auto? and what would be a voltage to set it at for this speed anyway. load is 50 to low 50's

edit: its a scythe infinity with a high flow panaflo right next to it for a case fan, and the stock fan blowing twards that case fan as well. spose i should take the stock fan off and rely on that panaflo for airflow over the hsf?

 

[Tempered81]

its real simple, a 1900xt with a 100mhz processor, an 1800mhz 4300, a 3.5ghz 4300, or a 10,000mhz processor... the faster the processor the higher framerate of your games, always....

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Conroe
You mean will a stock E4300 push a x1900xtx to it's limits? No, I think you will need to push it to around 2.4GHz before overclocking it more will not increase the performance of a x1900xtx.

He wasn't asking about an X1900XTX. He was asking about it's slower little brother, the X1900XT, which should be able to be maxed out by a slower C2D, probably in the 2.1-2.2 Ghz range. Of course, that's at lower resolutions. At 1600x1200 and above, the processor won't be the bottleneck, even with an A64, unless the game specifically wants/needs a fast processor, like M$'s Flight Simulator X, for instance.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
its real simple, a 1900xt with a 100mhz processor, an 1800mhz 4300, a 3.5ghz 4300, or a 10,000mhz processor... the faster the processor the higher framerate of your games, always....

Nope, not that simple. While your range of 100mhz to 10,000mhz is nice and all-encompassing, we should likely stick to realistic CPU speeds... such as a low-end A64 or C2D at 1.8ghz and go all the way up to an X2 and C2D at 3ghz+.

What you will find is that there are many situations where the processor speed will make absolutely no difference in games.

So, it's not "always", and most definitely not that "simple". As those above have stated, it really comes down to the individual game and at which settings that game is played.

 

[A554SS1N]

OP: lol I'd hardly call an E4300 a bottleneck! Unless you have very high standards.

 

[perdomot]

I'm going to be getting an E4300 next month an plan to OC it to about 3 Ghz. Would my old 6600GT card be a problem? I'm not a gamer but this question of bottlenecks has me wondering if performance will be hindered.

 

[CurseTheSky]

Originally posted by: perdomot
I'm going to be getting an E4300 next month an plan to OC it to about 3 Ghz. Would my old 6600GT card be a problem? I'm not a gamer but this question of bottlenecks has me wondering if performance will be hindered.

If you're not gaming, a 6600GT should be more than plenty. Really, the only reason to have a beefy graphics card is for gaming, video editing, DVDs, and a few other things. A 6600GT should run everything except newer games no problem.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel

Originally posted by: jaredpace
its real simple, a 1900xt with a 100mhz processor, an 1800mhz 4300, a 3.5ghz 4300, or a 10,000mhz processor... the faster the processor the higher framerate of your games, always....

Nope, not that simple. While your range of 100mhz to 10,000mhz is nice and all-encompassing, we should likely stick to realistic CPU speeds... such as a low-end A64 or C2D at 1.8ghz and go all the way up to an X2 and C2D at 3ghz+.

What you will find is that there are many situations where the processor speed will make absolutely no difference in games.

So, it's not "always", and most definitely not that "simple". As those above have stated, it really comes down to the individual game and at which settings that game is played.

give an example of any of "many" situations where processor speed doesnt make a difference in video game fps

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

Originally posted by: CurseTheSky

Originally posted by: perdomot
I'm going to be getting an E4300 next month an plan to OC it to about 3 Ghz. Would my old 6600GT card be a problem? I'm not a gamer but this question of bottlenecks has me wondering if performance will be hindered.

If you're not gaming, a 6600GT should be more than plenty. Really, the only reason to have a beefy graphics card is for gaming, video editing, DVDs, and a few other things. A 6600GT should run everything except newer games no problem.

the card IS a bottleneck in gaming.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
give an example of any of "many" situations where processor speed doesnt make a difference in video game fps

Running just about any FPS game at 1600x1200, such as FEAR, Prey, Far Cry, NFS:Carbon... many other games as well, such as BF2142, Quake4, Oblivion, COD2, etc.

Some of the games are even limited at lower resolutions too, such as Quake4 running with an x1950xtx at 1280x1024. No gain from a 3800+ to an FX-62. Granted, changing the video card to a GTS or GTX helps out stronger CPUs at that resolution, but that's exactly why I say that CPU bottlenecks are not just dependent on CPU and GPU... but also the game and the resolution/settings it is run on. Hence, you can't say "always".

 

[perdomot]

Is the video card really a bottleneck when doing video editing?

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel

Originally posted by: jaredpace
give an example of any of "many" situations where processor speed doesnt make a difference in video game fps

Running just about any FPS game at 1600x1200, such as FEAR, Prey, Far Cry, NFS:Carbon... many other games as well, such as BF2142, Quake4, Oblivion, COD2, etc.

Some of the games are even limited at lower resolutions too, such as Quake4 running with an x1950xtx at 1280x1024. No gain from a 3800+ to an FX-62. Granted, changing the video card to a GTS or GTX helps out stronger CPUs at that resolution, but that's exactly why I say that CPU bottlenecks are not just dependent on CPU and GPU... but also the game and the resolution/settings it is run on. Hence, you can't say "always".

Good answer. The truth is, there are many situations where the processor is not the bottleneck.

On the other hand, there are many situations where the GPU is not the bottleneck. It doesn't matter if you have top of the line video cards in SLI mode, you still better have CPU horsepower to run a flight simulator.

To say that the CPU power "always" matters is simply wrong.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel

Originally posted by: jaredpace
give an example of any of "many" situations where processor speed doesnt make a difference in video game fps

Running just about any FPS game at 1600x1200, such as FEAR, Prey, Far Cry, NFS:Carbon... many other games as well, such as BF2142, Quake4, Oblivion, COD2, etc.

Some of the games are even limited at lower resolutions too, such as Quake4 running with an x1950xtx at 1280x1024. No gain from a 3800+ to an FX-62. Granted, changing the video card to a GTS or GTX helps out stronger CPUs at that resolution, but that's exactly why I say that CPU bottlenecks are not just dependent on CPU and GPU... but also the game and the resolution/settings it is run on. Hence, you can't say "always".

man, i stand corrected. i would love to see fear at that res. so, what do you think the answer to the op's question is? would he benefit from increasing his processor speed from the 4300's stock 1800mhz?

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
would he benefit from increasing his processor speed from the 4300's stock 1800mhz?

The answer is undoubtedly, yes, especially for non-gaming applications, or even gaming at lower resolutions, or more CPU-limited games. However, at certain resolutions, on certain games, he might see no tangible benefit. But, again, we're just not given enough information to answer the question. I would always want a more powerful processor over a less powerful processor (notice I didn't say "faster", as in mhz), unless heat/noise became too much of an issue.

 

[kmmatney]

For most situations, the E4300 would not be the bottleneck to a X1900XT. It really depends on the resolution, but if you assume common LCD resolutions, the video card will be the bottleneck.