Whats cpu will not bottleneck the 8800GT.

S

s4rge

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
459
i have the 4000+ overclocked to 2.7 and its still pretty laggy in games. I dont think its video lag because of the video card. I only scored 9700 in 3dmark06. Im not basing my guess on the 3dmark06, but on experience from playing.

Now, whats the cheapest cpu i can get that will not bottle neck me? I cant afford a intel due $4324324 cpu. I run a amd x2 right now with 500w ps so im looking for that something fits in a x2 slot and is not going to break the average persons pocket.

thanks.

Just my 3dmark score: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=5734498

35116746qa6.jpg
 
visaris said:
*deleted*

BTW, you may want to update your sig. It had me all confused...
Click to expand...

wow, that computer is probably toasted by now. I havent logged on this site in years so that rig is pretty much old. LOL, sorry. Im going to download the drivers in the thread j1979 listed above.

thanks

heres my current specs
Biostar AM2 Mobo
4000+ x2 CPU 940
2gb DDR2 800 ram
sata 7200 500gb HDD with 16mb cache
500w coolermaster psu
Mobo that wont up my vcore.

Would something like the AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ really help my performance?

35116746qa6.jpg
 
Well i been told to ditch the amd setup and just get a intel motherboard and cpu. if i was to buy the amd cpu it would cost $160. If i was to buy a intel chip and mobo itll cost $130 and you can overclock the intel dual core cpu from 1.8ghz to 3.0 ghz with no problems and beat any of the amd am2 x2 cpus out currently.. So i guess ill ditch my 1 week old mobo/cpu setup and go with intel.

e2160 intel cpu overclocked to 3.0ghz
some intel motherboard.

more money to spend that i dont have lol.
 
I considered going Intel aswell.

My 4000 (2.7ghz) runs good with my 8800GT oced to 700/1620/1000.

My OC settings for it are

270 x 10 = 2.7ghz
HTT: 3x
Ram: DDR2667 4-4-4-12 (450mhz)
1.3v core

I can get it to run 3dmark06 stabily at 2.95ghz but I don't really bother cuz I have to max out the Vcore and i'd rather just sacrifice 250mhz and keep my temps under 48c.
 
MrHood22 said:
I considered going Intel aswell.

My 4000 (2.7ghz) runs good with my 8800GT oced to 700/1620/1000.

My OC settings for it are

270 x 10 = 2.7ghz
HTT: 3x
Ram: DDR2667 4-4-4-12 (450mhz)
1.3v core

I can get it to run 3dmark06 stabily at 2.95ghz but I don't really bother cuz I have to max out the Vcore and i'd rather just sacrifice 250mhz and keep my temps under 48c.
Click to expand...

=[ i cant adjust my vcore with this motherboard for some reason. The setting is in bios, but the max is 1.350 in windows, however in bios i can raise it high as 1.5. Im not sure what the problem is but it wont raise no matter how high.

im going to try your settings right now and see if its helps.

thanks alot.
 
Anything Intel at 2.6GHz and dual core and above is NOT going to bottleneck your GPU (or AMD for that matter). The big quesiton here is what reslolution are you gaming at? Almost all of today's games are GPU-limited if you are playing at 1280 or above....
 
Also I had the same problem with overclocking my x2 4400. I couldn't get it higher then 2.8ghz, but I got it to go higher when i set my memory to 2T timing instead of 1T which you should also do, because now I am running my 4400 at 3ghz at 1.39v so you should be able to go higher just change your rams command rate to 2T. You shouldn't be seeing really any lag at that speed thou. But yeah as kyle said what resolution you running at?
 
AA/AF could bring the 8800 gt to its knees almost right?

when people say they play games with the 8800gt on MAX high everything. Does that include highest aa/af?
 
peta328 said:
Also I had the same problem with overclocking my x2 4400. I couldn't get it higher then 2.8ghz, but I got it to go higher when i set my memory to 2T timing instead of 1T which you should also do, because now I am running my 4400 at 3ghz at 1.39v so you should be able to go higher just change your rams command rate to 2T. You shouldn't be seeing really any lag at that speed thou. But yeah as kyle said what resolution you running at?
Click to expand...

4400 and 4000 are the same CPU but yours has a higher stock frequency, right?

If that's the case how comes If I put my cpu any higher then 2.95ghz it can't run 3dmark06. And I assume if it can't complete 3dmark06 it can't game.

harpoon said:
A lot of RTS games and online shooters like BF2 / 2142, CS:S and TF2 benefit greatly from increased CPU speed. I used to play BF2 and CS:S competitively, so I would think I know what I'm talking about here. *******Consistent 60+ framerates are imperative for competition, and you simply needed a 2.5GHz+ C2D to maintain such framerates under all conditions.********** Have I mentioned Supreme Commander and Flight Simulator X? I'm sure you know how CPU bound these games are...
Click to expand...

I assume what that means is you said you need a C2D at 2.5ghz+ to maintain 60FPS contstant in games like CSS.

I get 80FPS constant with my x2 at 2.7ghz on COD4 and CSS.

Now obviously 2.7ghz is higher then 2.5 but a C2D at 2.5ghz beats a 2.7ghz (from what I read).

My point in bringing that up is that 2.5ghz C2D helps a bit but it certainly isn't needed. The cheapest C2D cost $120+ doesn't it? My $60 x2 Does the trick so i'm happy :)
 
MrHood22 said:
I assume what that means is you said you need a C2D at 2.5ghz+ to maintain 60FPS contstant in games like CSS.

I get 80FPS constant with my x2 at 2.7ghz on COD4 and CSS.

Now obviously 2.7ghz is higher then 2.5 but a C2D at 2.5ghz beats a 2.7ghz (from what I read).

My point in bringing that up is that 2.5ghz C2D helps a bit but it certainly isn't needed. The cheapest C2D cost $120+ doesn't it? My $60 x2 Does the trick so i'm happy :)
Click to expand...

How exactly do you get 80fps constant? The framerate is always changing in online shooters depending on the maps and action, you can't really get a consistent framerate. The most important thing is that the minimum framerates don't drop to a level that affects your aiming. It just so happens that framerates drop the most in the middle of firefights, this is where a faster CPU comes into play with higher minimum framerates.

I'm sure if you do a FRAPS benchmark run whilst you play online, you'll find that the framerate isn't as 'constant' as you may think, and there will inevitably be framerate dips along the way.

As for the cheapest C2D, if you consider the Pentium E21x0 series a 'C2D' (which it technically is, based on the Allendale core but with 1/2 cache disabled) then the cheapest is also around $60 for the E2140, and when overclocked to 3GHz it puts most X2 overclocks to shame. An X2 6400+ @ 3.5GHz can match it, but then we're comparing a $150 CPU to a $60 one. ;)
 
So Pentium E21x0 is a C2D with 1/2 cache "disabled" and Phenom X3 is a CPU with one "faulty core" ;)
 
s4rge said:
Would the e4500 @ 3ghz be way faster than the e2160 @ 3ghz.
Click to expand...

Err I don't think so because the e4500 has 2mb of Chache.

Also I think C2D > Pentium Dual Cores

I'm not sure how it works out because I really only follow AMD (if anything) but i'd say the E4500 is better.
 
Oh I also forgot to add.

OP - Maybe you should try getting a Soundcard. Your CPU is strained by onboard audio so if you get a soundcard/disable onboard audio that might help.
 
Sorry for the triple post but I decided to post a SS of GPUZ and CPUZ.

Also, Ignore that Orthos there. I realize it's only like 4 minutes in the post but i'm going to run it for another 5 hours or so while i'm at work tongiht.

2.8ghz @ 1.3v

52c seems to be my max temp.

My ram is running at like 463 frequency i think.

 
MrHood22 said:
Err I don't think so because the e4500 has 2mb of Chache.

Also I think C2D > Pentium Dual Cores

I'm not sure how it works out because I really only follow AMD (if anything) but i'd say the E4500 is better.
Click to expand...

Pentium Dual Cores (E2000's) are C2Ds with even smaller L2 caches than the E4000 series with 1MB vs. 2MB L2 caches. The only major differences are in FSB's (800mhz) vs. the 6x00s that had 1066 FSB and the 6x50's that had 1333FSB.
 
I believe the E4500 has 2MB of L2 cache, which would make it perform markedly better than one with 1MB L2 cache.. you could spend another $40 and get an E6550 and be in much better shape.
 
LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
Is this from experience with an upcoming real-world gaming article? I would think you'd have a hard time bottlenecking top-end nVidia cards with even X2s in the 2.6 GHz range.
Click to expand...

It really depends on the game and resolution. For example:

Call of Duty 4 1280x1024 @ Maximum Quality w/ 8800GT 512MB
Code: 
C2D X6800 @ 2.93GHz  -  77fps
C2D E6600 @ 2.40GHz  -  77fps
C2D E6300 @ 1.86GHz  -  54fps
A64 FX-60 @ 2.60GHz  -  60fps
A64 FX-60 @ 2.00GHz  -  48fps

Clearly, at 1280x1024 the FX-60 @ 2.6GHz is bottlenecking the 8800GT, as is the C2D E6300. The E6600 however achieves the same framerate as the X6800, which indicates there is no CPU bottlenecking involved.

I'm also aware you can run the game at 1680x1050, 1600 x 1200 or 1920x1200 and have it more GPU bound, and if staying true to form I'm sure [H] will use such high resolutions in their upcoming article (if it is still in the pipeline) to 'prove' that CPU speed doesn't matter in 'real world gaming'. ;)

The only problem I see is - how do you determine what resolution is 'real world'? Many people own 1280 x 1024 17" and 19" LCDs, 21 - 22" 1680 x 1050 WS LCDs seems quite popular amongst enthusiasts also, and then there are the 24"+ 1920x1200 or even 2560 x 1600 LCDs... just where do you draw the line?
 
Well I have my 8800GT Oced at 700/1640/1000 and I run my Oced x2 at 2.7ghz

My run all my games at 1280 x 1024.

Do I have that much of a Bneck?
 
Epiik said:
OEM E2140 $57: http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=E2140
Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro $23: http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=FAN-AC7PRO
Gigabyte DS3L $92: http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=MB-P35DS3L

$172 total

Here's my current setup.

E2140 @ 3.2GHz w/ Tuniq Tower 120 $80
Gigabyte DS3L $95
XFX 8800GT 512 $260
2GB G.SKILL DDR2 800 $45
Corsair 520HX $95
Antec Nine Hundred $80
X-Fi Xtremegamer $50

12,200 in 3DMark06

170+fps CoD4 max settings at 1024x
Click to expand...

Yeah I thought about upgrading but I figure if I don't have problems with my rig now then why bother.
 
Ok, first of all, all these upgrade recommendations are not needed. There's nothing wrong with what he has now.

I ran COD, Crysis, Bioshock, BF2, CnC 3, CoH all at great looking frame rates (1280x1024) on a 2.55GHz (OC) Opteron 170, with 2GB of DDR400 and an 8800GT.

To the OP-start tweaking your software. As someone pointed out before, you need to install the dual core patches and drivers. Also look at trimming windows down and eliminating any processes/services/programs that are chewing up CPU while you play, or just in general. Also, you might look for any malicious software that may be slowing you down. In short, your lag probably has more to do with a software based issue than hardware.

The only thing that I noticed with the hardware was a low HTT bus (around 700) but that's also been proven not to have that large of an impact. The other thing was your RAM timing which was a bit high. I would see if you can get 4-4-4-12 out of it.
 
WEll i thought of one thing. On my older hardware i use run windows xp for general stuff and 2k for gaming. Xp was always laggy for me while 2k was always smooth. So, im going to put my dual boot 2k back on here and see what it gets me.

My current xp is a fresh install with all patches and cpu drivers im not even sure what to say about my FPS dropping down to 20-30 in TF2. I will also re-install that crappy OS they call Vista and see how it runs.

i have a good feeling it will run better on 2k than xp or vista. Thats how it was in the past so ill report back.

thanks for all the replies. Im going to drop it back to stock speed and see if i lower the ram timing.

edit: Does dual core run on windows 2000? And i dont see drivers for 2000 for the 8800 GT but xp drivers should work anyway.

Edit 2: seem it does work on 2000.
 
harpoon said:
It may have been the case with the 7900GTX you used for your C2D vs A64 gaming article, but times have moved on, modern GPUs are far more powerful and are showing benefits from a faster CPU, yes, even under 'real world' gaming conditions. Btw, what happened to the new and updated CPU + gaming article, is it still coming out at all or has it been cancelled? Wasn't it supposed to coincide with the launch of Phenom, I wonder why that didn't eventuate. ;)

The fact is, a lot of RTS games and online shooters like BF2 / 2142, CS:S and TF2 benefit greatly from increased CPU speed. I used to play BF2 and CS:S competitively, so I would think I know what I'm talking about here. Consistent 60+ framerates are imperative for competitive play, and you simply needed at least a ~2.5GHz C2D to maintain such framerates under all conditions. Have I mentioned Supreme Commander and Flight Simulator X? I'm sure you know how CPU bound these games are...

I really don't like generalising with blanket statements claiming 'nah, anything above xxx GHz you won't be CPU bottlenecked' because it depends entirely on the game in question.
Click to expand...

Well, you obviously know way more about it than I do...
 
That would be awesome if there was an updated C2D and C2Q vs X2 and Phenom gaming guide.

Based on what I read a few posts up, 60fps on amd @2.6 and 77fps on intel 2.4 and up.

IMO this is playable on both systems and the difference will only negate further on any higher resolution used. For those of us that don't play professionally, anyway. I seldom agree with Kyle but I do here.
 
just great. Couldnt get windows 2000 installed on my 500 gbsata drive with drivers and sp4. Even made an sp4 install disk and got it installed but blue screened on 1st boot up =[ Damn it! I can install on it on ide drive with my vanilla 2k most likly, but i dont feel like doing that. Anyways im going to re-install vista and see whats going on. I probably screwed up the slipstreaming since it was my 1st doing one.
 
Here's the link to the [H]Enthsiast Real-World Gaming CPU Comparison with 8800 GTX SLI.
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI2MiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
It was an AM2 Athlon 64 FX-62 (2.8GHz) against Intel’s Core 2 Duo X6800 (2.93GHz) at high resolutions.

I'm not sure how this would relate to current CPUs and a single 8800GT. It would be interesting to see if a QX9770 @ 3200 would offer a better gaming experience, over an Athlon 64 5000+ on a single 8800 GT.
 
just great. im on vista now and it still drops down to 20-30 fps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

i dont know what the freaking problem is, but i dont like it. Drove 1 (2 hours when combined) hour to get this damn card and doesnt run any better than my 7600 GT.
 
I had that issue to before.

I reformated my Hard drive and reinstalled my OS but instead of installing it onto the same drive (My Ide drive) i installed it onto one of my other drives (a sata Drive) now all is well.
 
My 3dmark06 score dropped alot with vista :/ 8922 from 9737

im done with this system :mad: If the intel one doesnt solve my problem im not sure whats wrong. BTW, my sound is disabled 100 %.
 
enabled pci express spread spectrum and cpu spread spectrum and it runs alittle better in Tf2 now.
 
toddw said:
That would be awesome if there was an updated C2D and C2Q vs X2 and Phenom gaming guide.
Click to expand...

From what I remember, there was supposed to be one to coincide with the Phenom launch (just as with the C2D launch) but for whatever reason it was canned. I (and others) have asked Kyle when and if the article will come out, but since he hasn't answered directly I can only assume its not a top priority right now.

Based on what I read a few posts up, 60fps on amd @2.6 and 77fps on intel 2.4 and up.

IMO this is playable on both systems and the difference will only negate further on any higher resolution used. For those of us that don't play professionally, anyway. I seldom agree with Kyle but I do here.
Click to expand...

I say this often, and I'll say it again - minimum framerates is key. On the surface, 77fps avg and 60fps avg both look fine, but framerates drop during intense gameplay, often during firefights and such. That just so happens to be the worst time for framerates to drop as it does affect your aiming.

Again, just strictly speaking from personal experience, a faster CPU will enable higher minimum framerates, and this does have a tangible impact on gameplay, since you really only notice the choppy areas where framerates drop, and not the smooth areas where the framerate is at 60fps or higher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top