• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

amd [email protected] - bottleneck for the new 4850 ?

asd1301

asd1301

asd1301

Associate
Joined
31 Oct 2005
Posts
190
i wanna wait for the new 4850 but my question is if i reallyy need a new E8400 for ex ...?
i'm now on amd [email protected] and to tell u the true i'm happy - my XP runs realy fast ....
but as we all know games today want more - MUCH MORE

so :
how much bottleneck will i get if i'll get that new shiny 4850 with my RIG :D
?
cos i'm planning anyway to move to an 22' LCD next week (gonna play 1600 RES in games )from my 19' CRT and i always play V-SINC on ...so i'll just need anyway a graphic card that will always give me 61+ fps ....:D

2 more questions :
425 ENERMAX is good from those new ATI ones ?
is there any 1 here with my rig and a 8800GTS 512 that cann tell me how much he got in 3DMARK06 so i'll know how much bottleneck to expect :mad: ?


10x all !!
 
Yes. (Edit: You need a better CPU and the 8400 is one of the best VFM ones on the market right now). Quite a few games struggle without a dual core now. Assassin's Creed has Dual Core as a minimum spec. According to HardOCP you're looking at a dreadful bottleneck that will keep the game at sub-20fps with any video card.
 
Last edited:
I take it thats S939? If you dont want to buy a new mobo, get a cheap X2 939 and OC it. Then it shouldn't be too bad. Otherwise getting a new mobo and a fast intel chip would do very nicely.
 
mmmm

so .....like....how much i can get in 3DMARK 06 with my rig and a new 8800GTS 92 for example compare to that GPU with new 8400 ?
10000 ? 11,000 ? so i'll know kinda how much i loos here ....(estimated)

ps. don't forget i'm at 2.4GHZ OC ...it's not a stock 3200
and yes (to the 1 that asked) it's S939
 
As said above you should buy a dual core if you want to run modern games. Considering you are going to play at high resolution, any dual core running over 2600mhz wouldn't bottleneck much your GFX. There are reviews around showing this, I think with a 8800 ultra (if I find it I will copy the link here) where playing a high resolution with AA & AF doesn't show big improvements in many games comparing 10 different processors including the fastest intel and even a slow AMD dual core.
 
Last edited:
You will definitely need a faster CPU in order not get bottlenecked.

Uriel said:
Yes. (Edit: You need a better CPU and the 8400 is one of the best VFM ones on the market right now). Quite a few games struggle without a dual core now. Assassin's Creed has Dual Core as a minimum spec. According to HardOCP you're looking at a dreadful bottleneck that will keep the game at sub-20fps with any video card.
Click to expand...

The E8400 may be one of the best VFM CPUs, but the Q6600 in my opinion is the best VFM CPU going as of now! :D the Q6700 being a close second with the G0 Q6700 dropping to £160! I'm gonna pick myself one up for the added overclocking options (10 multi over nine for the Q6600).
 
It isn't so cheap when you have to buy a new motherboard and probably new memory - the OP is running an AMD CPU rated at 3200, which is probably S939, using DDR1. The OP probably wouldn't get change from £300.

So I'll go with the others who suggested a S939 A64 X2, if one can still be found at a reasonable price, and overclocking it. I have an X2 3800 at 2.5GHz and it's OK for the moment. It will be much worse than a Q6700, but it will be maybe a quarter of the price.

Although my first suggestion to the OP is to fit the new graphics card and see if your current system is good enough. If the framerate sucks and your CPU is at 100% all the time, you'll know it's time for a new one. Of course, this assumes that you can bear to wait for the new CPU (if you have it delivered).
 
It does very much depend on what game you're playing too. Some games are still fine on a single core.
 
Just get a nice cheap X2 it'll be a good upgrade and won't break the bank.
 
some games will be fine on single core CPU's UT3 being a good example. an AMD64 3500+ 1gig DDR400 x1950Pro will get you a solid 60fps on most maps, if you run at 1280x1024 or less. Whereas Assassin's creed is crippled in the same machine because its optimised for dual cores.
 
I'd get an X2 as has been suggested.

At your res you won't be that limited by CPU speed but the 2nd core will aid some of the newer games as well as helping normal desktop duties like encoding audio/video and general multitasking.

gt
 
Interesting ..

Any ideas how an AMD +4000 single core would work with a 4850? I only ever play eve online and it is not optimised for duel core. I would goes as far as buying a 4870 if it would improve frame rates.

I did ask an upgrade question a while back and got some great answers. This made me decide to save up around 1.2k and build a new rig. Right now I just want to get my existing going better while playing eve.

The board I have can take duel core AMDs too.
 
Depends on what res do you're gaming at really.

If it's 1680x1050/1600x1200 and above then i'd go for a dual AMD as a nice cheap boost and for the reasons stated in my original post above.

gt
 
Uriel said:
Yes. (Edit: You need a better CPU and the 8400 is one of the best VFM ones on the market right now). Quite a few games struggle without a dual core now. Assassin's Creed has Dual Core as a minimum spec. According to HardOCP you're looking at a dreadful bottleneck that will keep the game at sub-20fps with any video card.
Click to expand...

Well probably... You will be bottlenecked, and you won't see all the performance you would with a good cpu, but imo it's overhyped, this bottlenecking business. ie, i'm running an 8800GT (stock) inside of a 939 3400+ stock and a gig of ddr400 ram, and i find assassin's creed playable with things set to high at 1280x1024 (don't know my FPS counts though), whereas i couldn't even run it on my X600... Bottlenecks aren't as bad as everyone makes them out to be... Bioshock at max ingame gfx with no AA and no DX10 (30-40fps) at the same res taught me that.

i'll prolly leave this card in here and by a new one for my other rig...
 
Last edited:
kylew said:
You will definitely need a faster CPU in order not get bottlenecked.



The E8400 may be one of the best VFM CPUs, but the Q6600 in my opinion is the best VFM CPU going as of now! :D the Q6700 being a close second with the G0 Q6700 dropping to £160! I'm gonna pick myself one up for the added overclocking options (10 multi over nine for the Q6600).
Click to expand...

7200 for VFM?

Cheers Pug ;)
 
Regarding this bottleneck business, I have a fairly old dual opteron 170 939 running at 2820Mhz and a 8800GTX. Many people would say it bottlenecks my gfx, I am sure it does sometimes, but nothing to stop me playing any modern game at highest settings. If I run Crysis benchmark with high settings at 1280x1024 I get 43.3fps. If you have a look to the Crysis DX9 thread you will see a few Q6600 running over 3200mhz with a 8800 GTX getting the same amount of fraps. At 1650x1050 (my usual resolution) gets 36fps. 3DMark is over 10.600 points.

Should I spend £300 updating my system to do super pi in 10 seconds less or get a few fraps more in my favorites games? No really.

My recommendation for all the guys with a 939 system just buy the gfx you like and don't worry too much about bottlenecks ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom