CPU Limited ? X2 4800+ & 8800GTX

S

Sizzy

n00b
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
34
Hi everyone,

I was just wondering whether I will be CPU limited running 8800GTX with an Athlon X2 4800+ ? This is for a new system I am building. I am planning to get an LCD with 1920x1200 res, btw. Any ideas ?
 
Sizzy said:
Hi everyone,

I was just wondering whether I will be CPU limited running 8800GTX with an Athlon X2 4800+ ? This is for a new system I am building. I am planning to get an LCD with 1920x1200 res, btw. Any ideas ?
Click to expand...

At lower resolutions, sure, but the higher up you go the less the limitations. It's gonna take some frame hits but it shouldn't be a big deal.
 
i just reciently got a gtx and my cpu (see sig ) handles it good, could be a little better. i got a 3dmark06 score of 98XX on xp x64. but intel is the way to if you got the $
 
The answer is "It depends".

I had an 8800 Ultra in the sig rig (the Ultra in now in a pre-built Acer Q6600). For most games I play (FEAR, Quake 4, Call of Juarez, Lost Planet) at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 I definatelty got a boost from my 7950GX2's in Vista (have a pair but QUAD-SLI in Vista just didn't work). Those game ran smoothly and better.

One notable exception was DiRT. This game is very CPU intensive, and while it ran ok at 1920x1200, it was a bit sluggish on a Socket 939 4800+ @ 2.5GHz. When I went to the Acer Q6600 system, it ran much better. Much smoother.

So that's my observation. Most of the time for me, the 4800+ was not a bottleneck at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200, DiRT being the only exception I noticed.
 
I have a Opty 165 @ 2.8 with my 8800GTX and it runs just fine in 1920 x 1200
 
Svengali said:
At lower resolutions, sure, but the higher up you go the less the limitations. It's gonna take some frame hits but it shouldn't be a big deal.
Click to expand...

:confused: at lower resolution you are more limited by the cpu ??? means a 15" monitor is limited by the cpu when using a 8800gts for example and same system config with huge monitor wont be limited an run better ??? :confused:
sorry , but i dont quite get it .
 
game14 said:
:confused: at lower resolution you are more limited by the cpu ??? means a 15" monitor is limited by the cpu when using a 8800gts for example and same system config with huge monitor wont be limited an run better ??? :confused:
Click to expand...

No it wont run better. For a 15" screen the CPU will be the bottleneck. For a 24" or whatever screen then the GPU will be the bottleneck.
 
Generally no. You might experience slow downs with strategy games such as Medieval 2: Total War or Supreme Commander. Maybe even an occasional hitch in FPS's when there is a lot going on, for instance, when ragdolls flying all over the place.
 
game14 said:
why that ???
Click to expand...

Well it works like this...

Say you get:
200 fps @ 1024x768 (cpu limited)
200 fps @ 1280x1024 (shows the game is still cpu limited as more pixels are required, but the fps is the exact same or very close)
150 fps @ 1600x1200 (ah ha! Now we see we are pushing the gpu)
120 fps @ 1920x1200 (again, more pixels to render on screen... fps is lowering = gpu is taking a hit)

Now say you replaced your processor with a faster one, you might get something like:
250 fps @ 1024x768 / 1280x1024
175 fps @ 1600x1200
130 fps @ 1920x1200

You won't get better fps at higher resolutions, the bottleneck just changes from the cpu to the videocard and overall FPS will decrease.
 
jmackay said:
Well it works like this...

Say you get:
200 fps @ 1024x768 (cpu limited)
200 fps @ 1280x1024 (shows the game is still cpu limited as more pixels are required, but the fps is the exact same or very close)
150 fps @ 1600x1200 (ah ha! Now we see we are pushing the gpu)
120 fps @ 1920x1200 (again, more pixels to render on screen... fps is lowering = gpu is taking a hit)

Now say you replaced your processor with a faster one, you might get something like:
250 fps @ 1024x768 / 1280x1024
175 fps @ 1600x1200
130 fps @ 1920x1200

You won't get better fps at higher resolutions, the bottleneck just changes from the cpu to the videocard and overall FPS will decrease.
Click to expand...

thx much , now i got the point :)
 
jmackay said:
Well it works like this...

Say you get:
200 fps @ 1024x768 (cpu limited)
200 fps @ 1280x1024 (shows the game is still cpu limited as more pixels are required, but the fps is the exact same or very close)
150 fps @ 1600x1200 (ah ha! Now we see we are pushing the gpu)
120 fps @ 1920x1200 (again, more pixels to render on screen... fps is lowering = gpu is taking a hit)

Now say you replaced your processor with a faster one, you might get something like:
250 fps @ 1024x768 / 1280x1024
175 fps @ 1600x1200
130 fps @ 1920x1200

You won't get better fps at higher resolutions, the bottleneck just changes from the cpu to the videocard and overall FPS will decrease.
Click to expand...


I think that deserves a sticky. ;)
 
The cpu bottleneck I would assume to be negligable. What resolution exactly do you plan on running? That is the most important piece of information for us right now. And by the way, just because the area of a screen is bigger doesn't make a difference, its what resolution you run. :D
 
Svengali said:
At lower resolutions, sure, but the higher up you go the less the limitations. It's gonna take some frame hits but it shouldn't be a big deal.
Click to expand...

Well I had a 8800 GTX with my old X2 3800+ @ 5200+ speeds and when I upgraded to a Core2 Quad I noticed a HUGE improvement in many of my games,

so I say yes, you will be CPU limited even at that res.
 
how much fps do you need anyways to run a game real smooth ??? Read that many games are limited in that way , you cant get more fps out of it even if your system specs would be good for more .Any way to calculate how many fps you get with certain setup ???
Because why spend a fortune on hardware when you cant even use half of its potential due to software limits ???
 
game14 said:
how much fps do you need anyways to run a game real smooth ??? Read that many games are limited in that way , you cant get more fps out of it even if your system specs would be good for more .Any way to calculate how many fps you get with certain setup ???
Because why spend a fortune on hardware when you cant even use half of its potential due to software limits ???
Click to expand...

min of 50-60 FPS is usually what you want for action intensive games (FPS), for strat games, some CAP at 30.
 
I have that setup and my computer handles everything @ 1280x1024 Res, High Settings, 2xaa, 16x af, though Dirt is probally the most system resource hog I have ran, also running both 17'' monitors kills the fps dramatically (Enemy Territory:Quake Wars for one).

Still going to upgrading to a Quad Core next year for games like Alan Wake.
 
well if u are into overclocking my 4800+ 2.5 @ 2.9 runs everything great i play at 1680x1050 my moniters native res. MOH-Airborne, Bioshock, ETQW-Demo, with max ssettings, u may not get 2.9 but 2.7to 2.8 for sure. (see sig for full system)
 
You will push a few more frames if you upgrade to a C2D, but the difference should be negligible. The x2 4800 is still a beast, especially when overclocked.
 
Awesome chart, but it could be extremely misleading to some considering over-clockability. It did make the AMD 6000+ almost look good though. :cool:
 
baleedit said:
Awesome chart, but it could be extremely misleading to some considering over-clockability. It did make the AMD 6000+ almost look good though. :cool:
Click to expand...

yea u have to put it in your context for your own needs, i know for myself i looked at the 6000+ but if i went with it i would have to step my memory down, to stay in my budget so i looked around the net for the overclocking stats on the 4800+ and figured if i can get 2.8out of it or better i would be doing good, i haven't tried yet but i think i can get it stable at 3.0GHz if i try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top