CPU Bottleneck question

clozak · Feb 23, 2008, 08:50 PM

Ok, I finally purchased a FX-60 (dual core) and a 3850 AGP. I know I have written off ATI, but with both of these and a MSI motherboard at under $500, how could I go wrong? Plus I just doubled my FPS in Crysis at 1280 x1024 with textures and shaders at "very high" installing the 3850. (See TweakGuides on how to do this on XP).

Here's my question:

AM3 score with FX-60 and x1950 Pro AGP =
11200 CPU
14200 GRX

AM3 score with FX-60 and 3850 AGP =
11300 CPU
17000 GRX

I have also purchased a 939 socket board with PCIe. Am I waiting in vain for the true next generation flag ship PCIe Video card, because the FX-60 will become a bottleneck? I plan I playing games like FarCry2 at least at 1280x1024.

Thanks in advance

...

kris23 · Feb 23, 2008, 08:55 PM

the FX-60 is already a bottleneck man...

is this system brand new? i hope not, socket 939 is long dead, so is AGP

you probably couldve gotten a Q6600, P35-DS3L and a cheaper, better PCI-E HD 3850 for less than that.

Judas · Feb 23, 2008, 08:56 PM

Aquamark imo is getting a bit on the dated side of things... plus it's a synth benchmark (kinda)....

If your crysis results have improved significantly... then things are rolling....

Farcry2 and 1280x1024 with the hd3850 should be a pretty good chance of reality.

clozak · Feb 24, 2008, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kris23

the FX-60 is already a bottleneck man...

is this system brand new? i hope not, socket 939 is long dead, so is AGP

you probably couldve gotten a Q6600, P35-DS3L and a cheaper, better PCI-E HD 3850 for less than that.

How is a dual core CPU a bottleneck when new games are just now suggesting them for recommended requirements? Your suggested hardware would have cost me double for an upgrade. Don't forget, I did not have to purchase memory and the mother board cost me $50.

clozak · Feb 24, 2008, 07:12 AM

Is there any kind of software out there that can tell me if my CPU is a bottleneck with the 3850?

***temeteus82*** · Feb 24, 2008, 09:45 AM

I don't know if 3dMark is really the correct way to test it. But you could run it and see how much you get in the CPU score part. Then compare it to the newer CPU's...

clozak · Feb 24, 2008, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by temeteus82

I don't know if 3dMark is really the correct way to test it. But you could run it and see how much you get in the CPU score part. Then compare it to the newer CPU's...

Well, I was looking more into software that analyzes your CPU and sees if the GPU is being bottle necked by it.

***temeteus82*** · Feb 24, 2008, 11:28 AM

I don't think that there is such program in the market.

**Grace** · Feb 24, 2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clozak

Well, I was looking more into software that analyzes your CPU and sees if the GPU is being bottle necked by it.

There is no such software. The only way to tell if the GPU is being "bottlenecked" by the CPU is to overclock the CPU by a bit. If your 3D performance rises by a considerable amount, it means that your CPU limits the 3D performance of your system.

In answer to your question, I do believe that you should drop the FX-60 completely if you plan on getting a next generation high end card. Even a 100$ modern CPU will be considerably faster. Getting a high end card alone is not a good idea, it is better to buy a mid-range card but also get a new DDR2 based system with an E6XXX/E8XXX CPU and 4GBs of DDR2 RAM.

While I don't agree with Kris that the FX-60 is already a bottleneck, I also believe that you could spend the 500$ much better than placing them on an AGP based system. Even a E4600, 2GBs DDR-2, a cheap P35 based motherboard and a PCIe 3850 would be faster than the FX-60 based system and they would cost as much, if not less, plus they would give you much better upgrade potential for the future.

clozak · Feb 25, 2008, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grace

There is no such software. The only way to tell if the GPU is being "bottlenecked" by the CPU is to overclock the CPU by a bit. If your 3D performance rises by a considerable amount, it means that your CPU limits the 3D performance of your system.

In answer to your question, I do believe that you should drop the FX-60 completely if you plan on getting a next generation high end card. Even a 100$ modern CPU will be considerably faster. Getting a high end card alone is not a good idea, it is better to buy a mid-range card but also get a new DDR2 based system with an E6XXX/E8XXX CPU and 4GBs of DDR2 RAM.

While I don't agree with Kris that the FX-60 is already a bottleneck, I also believe that you could spend the 500$ much better than placing them on an AGP based system. Even a E4600, 2GBs DDR-2, a cheap P35 based motherboard and a PCIe 3850 would be faster than the FX-60 based system and they would cost as much, if not less, plus they would give you much better upgrade potential for the future.

Excellent, superb, really thought out answers everyone. Thank you. Grace you tipped the scales with my decision to RMA the 939 PCIe board I have. It's a Biostar and it was $50.

I probably won't even have to pay the 15% restocking fee. Biostar said it had 2 Firewire ports in back, which it doesn't. So either Geeks can waive the fee or give me a free firewire card. While I beleive the FX-60 has the muscle for the top of the line current generation video cards. It won't fit into my plans for next generation.

Who knows, maybe ATI will get into my good graces again with having to make me wait 8 months for AGP drivers to work for my system. It did cost them a recent video card purchase. I have to admit, they make great hardware, not only with speed, but with video quality, but thier software support has um, well read some of my last posts. Water under the bridge. We'll see.

Thanks again everyone. Some really well though out answers. And data...I love data supporting requested feedback. Statistics too. Also love stats. Makes me wonder why I play Mega Millions Lottery. Even 2nd prize has some tough statistics to beat. Cheers...

Zelig · Feb 28, 2008, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grace

Even a 100$ modern CPU will be considerably faster.

Just as a note here, a $100 Core 2 Duo wouldn't be "considerably" faster, an Athlon X2 at 2.6 GHz is about on par with a Core 2 Duo at 2.1 GHz.

No arguments with the rest of your post though, pumping money into an AGP system is about as dead-end as you can get at the moment.

**Grace** · Feb 28, 2008, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zelig

Just as a note here, a $100 Core 2 Duo wouldn't be "considerably" faster, an Athlon X2 at 2.6 GHz is about on par with a Core 2 Duo at 2.1 GHz.

No arguments with the rest of your post though, pumping money into an AGP system is about as dead-end as you can get at the moment.

I didn't compare between the X2 and C2D in the first place but any modern CPU to the FX-60, and I also said "will be". An Athlon X2 5200+ (2.7GHz) already costs ~100$ and it has more raw processing power than the FX-60 without even taking the advantages of the higher RAM/HTT bandwidth into consideration. Soon enough we will have Phenoms or high speed dual core CPUs in that price range and they all are much faster than the FX-60, not only because of the processor alone but also because of the better overall bandwidth and efficiency new technologies provide.

All in all, by the time Clozak would want to move to a high end video card I doubt that the FX-60 could perform on par even with the Celerons available at the time.

Matth · Feb 28, 2008, 12:09 PM

S939 PCI-E and a 3850 in PCI-E form may be a little better than AGP (no bridge chip latency) - main advantage of S939 PCI-E is if you do put a really good graphics on it, you can migrate the card to a new system.

There is certainly a danger that the "best of yesterday's" could soon be equalled by today's budget system... todays "Celeron" is going to be a somewhat cache-crippled Core 2, and will probably still be clock for clock superior to previous and current generation AMDs.