CPU restricting GPU?

[joeyh51]

Hi there, I've recently ordered a new 9800 GTX card and just wondering if this card will be hindered at all by my current PC (going to be upgraded soon)?
im running a S939 X2 4400+ running at 2.4GHz, 2GB OCZ RAM and a 7900 GTX atm, will I see a big increase in graphics performance with this new card or will I need to wait til I upgrade my whole comp before seeing a big change?
Upgrading to 2.53GHz Wolfdale Intel C2D, with 4GB RAM and a Raptor HD. Planning on overclocking cpu to about 3GHz.
Cheers.

 

[benjo]

You'd probably see a bit of an increase, but a C2D will unlock the full potential of the system.

 

[easyrider]

You will see nice gains.

Even more with a C2D under the hood.


Welcome to the forums.

 

[Greebo]

Yep you will be cpu limited in games

I have a G92 GTS running at 800/2200/2100 and I went from a 3Ghz 4200+ to a q6600 running at 3.6Ghz.

My 3dmark score went up 7000 points and my crysis benchmark on high @ 1280 x 1024 went up by 12fps from 39 to 51 (more than 25%)

I thought I wasn't that cpu limited till I upgraded my cpu but I guess I was.

It was a bit of a disappointment really going from my 8800 GTS 320Mb to my 8800 GTS G92 but it did give me a boost, not as much as expected.

I would imagine your framerates/scores will increase similar.

 

[joeyh51]

Ok thanks for the replies, was thinking along the same lines. Having abit of an increase at first but then a lot when i get a duo under the hood! cheers guys.

 

[J.D]

I can't believe no one asked you what resolution you play at? .

It depends on your resolution joeyh51. My X2 3800 @ 2.8Ghz and 1gb of DDR400 ran my 8800GTX just as well as this rig does. I don't judge by running at the CPU limited resolution of 1280x1024 as it's pointless. Even gaming at 1600x1200 would not show my AMD machine up although I was usually at 1920x1200 or higher.

Can you get that X2 4400+ running any faster?. 2.6 - 2.8Ghz would be a sweeter spot.

 

[Greebo]

Oops good point about the resolution.

Although the benchmarks I gave as an example were 1280 x 1024 I have noticed a vast improvement in games at 1680 x 1050 going from my AMD to my q6600.

Also JD, take a look here:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/4

Although the difference is more profound at lower res, almost double the framerate between an Athlon @ 2.5Ghz to a QX9770 at 3.2Ghz, it is still 13 fps (36%) at even 2560 x 1600 in World In Conflict.

This pattern is repeated in a lot of games, it is only later in games like Stalker and FEAR where there is very little difference once you get to 1600 x 1200 and the game is gpu limited but don't forget this is with lots of aa/af applied.

Even Crysis shows a major difference at 1920 x 1200 - 9 fps (28%) and it's only at 2650 x 1600 that they is no difference in choice of processor.

There is another even better review somewhere which I can't find atm which shows the difference in games between about 20 processors same gfx, mem, then different memory same cpu,gfx, then different gfx, same everything else etc to give you the scaling on all fronts.

And I also don't beleive the results that JD gets when he claims 1gb to 4Gb made no difference in games. In Supreme Commander my memory usuage can peak at 2Gb so how having only 1Gb less operating system overheads doesn't affect performance is beyond me.

 

[Dark_Angel]

I actually have a friend that went from 1GB to 1.5 GB and it made everything a lot nicer for him.

I also have a second friend who wnt from 1GB to 2GB and he said that loading was far faster, his FPS went up and the game wasn't s "jumpy" (his words not mine. I am guessing it is where the game was trashing the hard drive cache).

 

[Uriel]

Looked at that Guru3D article and it seems to me upping the clock on th Athlon X2 will close some of the gap.

Surprised they didn't include a higher clocked Athlon in that set of benchmarks. Would have been interesting to see a 6000+ or a 6400+ in there.

 

[fraps]

I can't believe no one asked you what resolution you play at? .

It depends on your resolution joeyh51. My X2 3800 @ 2.8Ghz and 1gb of DDR400 ran my 8800GTX just as well as this rig does. I don't judge by running at the CPU limited resolution of 1280x1024 as it's pointless. Even gaming at 1600x1200 would not show my AMD machine up although I was usually at 1920x1200 or higher.

Can you get that X2 4400+ running any faster?. 2.6 - 2.8Ghz would be a sweeter spot.

good point, i run at 1600x1200 on stock 3800x2 as I might get no substantial benefit going down to 1280 x 1024...the crysis benchmark indicated this to me when I ran it at the two resolutions

 

[J.D]

Oops good point about the resolution.

Although the benchmarks I gave as an example were 1280 x 1024 I have noticed a vast improvement in games at 1680 x 1050 going from my AMD to my q6600.

Also JD, take a look here:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/4

This pattern is repeated in a lot of games, it is only later in games like Stalker and FEAR where there is very little difference once you get to 1600 x 1200 and the game is gpu limited but don't forget this is with lots of aa/af applied.

Even Crysis shows a major difference at 1920 x 1200 - 9 fps (28%) and it's only at 2650 x 1600 that they is no difference in choice of processor.

I seen that article and would like to point out that I don't measure FPS when playing as it's irrelevant. I only care if it's playable and both times with the 8800GTX on both AMD and Intel CPU's the game was playable with AA/AF, max settings. With the 2900Pro I had to lessen the amount of AA. TimeShift, UT3, Pro Evo 2008, Just Cause and a lot more titles all played great on my AMD machine as they do now with the Intel. Fair enough I never tried Crysis but that was because it ran terribly on the 2900Pro and I never tried it again until a few days ago as I was only using it for the Crysis benchmark on here.
From the games I've been playing there has not been a major difference in my gaming since moving to Intel. Maybe the titles I've been playing are well capable of giving a good experience on a 2.8Ghz dual core AMD CPU and that's all that matters .

And I also don't beleive the results that JD gets when he claims 1gb to 4Gb made no difference in games. In Supreme Commander my memory usuage can peak at 2Gb so how having only 1Gb less operating system overheads doesn't affect performance is beyond me.

Yeah, I'm lying. Sheeesh, some people?. What would I have to gain from doing that?.

You seen over 1gb getting used playing a game I've never been interested in and that makes the 1gb I had a struggle in the games that I played?. Are you joking me? .

I only had the GTX for a few months before I changed to Intel so i only played a few games and in that time I experienced NO difference between the two machines.

 

[J.D]

good point, i run at 1600x1200 on stock 3800x2 as I might get no substantial benefit going down to 1280 x 1024...the crysis benchmark indicated this to me when I ran it at the two resolutions

Aye 1280x1024 isn't so great with a stock X2. Have you not tried overclocking that yet? .

 

[fraps]

Aye 1280x1024 isn't so great with a stock X2. Have you not tried overclocking that yet? .

too scared - worried that m/b won't be able to hack it? Anyway, may be I could sell it for £20 and get a 5600 or more for £50 in the next few months...games seem to run well 1600x1200 no AA med/ high settings

 

[J.D]

too scared - worried that m/b won't be able to hack it? Anyway, may be I could sell it for £20 and get a 5600 or more for £50 in the next few months...games seem to run well 1600x1200 no AA med/ high settings

If it ain't broke..... .

As for overclocking. Get a guide. Read it through and then go for it when you feel confident enough. I didn't have a scoobie what to do when I first started but it's pretty easy once you get your hands dirty as it all kinda comes together and everything you have read starts to make sense.

 

[queamin]

J.d i think it depends on game and res i went from 1 to 2 gig with fear and it stopped a lot of hard drive loading as the game was using 1.4 gig at times and was smoother.

 

[jigger]

Hi there, I've recently ordered a new 9800 GTX card and just wondering if this card will be hindered at all by my current PC (going to be upgraded soon)?
im running a S939 X2 4400+ running at 2.4GHz, 2GB OCZ RAM and a 7900 GTX atm, will I see a big increase in graphics performance with this new card or will I need to wait til I upgrade my whole comp before seeing a big change?
Upgrading to 2.53GHz Wolfdale Intel C2D, with 4GB RAM and a Raptor HD. Planning on overclocking cpu to about 3GHz.
Cheers.

You'll see a massive increase with just the card, most games are GPU dependent anyway and there's a sort of threshold hold for CPU's and after that there's not much point of having a faster CPU for games.

Ive got an 4000+, Opteron 180, E6600, and a Q6600 all with 2gb of RAM and i cant tell them apart when gaming. TBH the E6600 and the Opteron are very evenly matched in everything.

 

[J.D]

J.d i think it depends on game and res i went from 1 to 2 gig with fear and it stopped a lot of hard drive loading as the game was using 1.4 gig at times and was smoother.

I did notice the HD loading as you've described when playing FEAR. I only played about an hours of play before I re-installed XP and have never went back to see the difference. I will install it over the next few days and see the difference first hand.

I am being totally honest that the games I was playing on my old rig were fine and well playable though. Maybe Fear was problematic with HD loading but as it wasn't one of the main games I was playing plus the fact I hardly spent any time on this title then it wasn't something that would stick in my mind.

The most recent games I played on my old rig were: UT3 demo, Pro Evo 2008, Timeshift, Dirt and World in Conflict and all of these titles ran very well on my old machine and the GTX. This was also at 1600x1200 which isn't away from the CPU being a factor in FPS given. It was only when using my 2900Pro that I would start to see my FPS drop. Maybe there has been a significant improvement to my gaming since buying this rig but if I'm just getting more FPS than I was getting before and I enjoyed gaming on my old rig then I don't expect to be blown away.

2gb I agree is what you want as the minimum. It has been for a while now but I can safely say that the games I was playing when on 1gb have not changed dramatically enough on 4gb and a faster CPU (3gb shown, XP). I was playing Call of Duty 1 online nearly daily when I had my AMD rig as I was a member of a community so maybe spending all my time on an old game kept me from experiencing the limitations with 1gb of DDR.

 

[queamin]

Yeah 2 gb became needed with bf2 i think and fear they were out around the same time and the trouble is would i have noticed it as much if i never been on the forums and just played the game on 1 gig.

edit

am being totally honest that the games I was playing on my old rig were fine and well playable though. Maybe Fear was problematic with HD loading but as it wasn't one of the main games I was playing plus the fact I hardly spent any time on this title then it wasn't something that would stick in my mind.

at the time it was cutting edge but was a bit bland very samey and grey but i enjoyed it

 

[queamin]

Hi there, I've recently ordered a new 9800 GTX card and just wondering if this card will be hindered at all by my current PC (going to be upgraded soon)?
im running a S939 X2 4400+ running at 2.4GHz, 2GB OCZ RAM and a 7900 GTX atm, will I see a big increase in graphics performance with this new card or will I need to wait til I upgrade my whole comp before seeing a big change?
Upgrading to 2.53GHz Wolfdale Intel C2D, with 4GB RAM and a Raptor HD. Planning on overclocking cpu to about 3GHz.
Cheers.

As you have ordered it i would just put the card in and see how it runs if you are happy then maybe upgrade later as a 9800 gtx should run almost all games very well.
I still think you see a good improvement over the 7900 just turn on AA/af and see how it runs,yes it will bottleneck it a bit not sure how much but you still should get a very good improvement

 

[J.D]

Yeah 2 gb became needed with bf2 i think and fear they were out around the same time and the trouble is would i have noticed it as much if i never been on the forums and just played the game on 1 gig.

edit


at the time it was cutting edge but was a bit bland very samey and grey but i enjoyed it

Aye, I remember that. It was 1.5gb needed or something like that so everyone gave themselves some headroom with 2gb plus keeping dual channel running. BF2 I never played either so there's another reason why I may have not experienced the limitations. So I've been pretty lucky it seems with the games I had been playing at the time .

Yeah, it's when people point things out that you start to notice things more. It's like someone bursting your bubble hehe.

I might find FEAR bland now but hopefully it's good enough to complete. I've got so many games that i have to go through. Install, play a few levels/missions and then it remains installed and unplayed .