PDA

View Full Version : HOw is AMD 3200XP+GF 6800 Ultra?


Pages : [1] 2

reactiv8
07-09-04, 07:14 PM
For those who have this kind of sys- how is it?any bottelneck or some ****?IS it ok?I am getting gf 6800 but i dont wanna get CPu for now....

ChrisRay
07-09-04, 07:15 PM
Well I have a 6800NU but I dont think my CPU is really bottlenecking this card much. But in Ultra probably ya. Big bottleneck. But even so theres still a performance increase

Goth
07-09-04, 07:27 PM
It's not bad at all
If you run a higher resolution like 1280x1024 with 4AA 8AF on games
the GPU starts to become the bottleneck, so the CPU starts to become less important

npras42
07-09-04, 07:32 PM
Well I have a 6800NU but I dont think my CPU is really bottlenecking this card much. But in Ultra probably ya. Big bottleneck. But even so theres still a performance increase

I have an AMD64 3200+ overclocked to 2.42GHz. Whilst this CPU is a bit faster than yours (unless you have overclocked too), I can imagine yours can play any game there is available now and in the immediate future, at a fast rate at high detail levels and res.

So yes, your CPU will be a bottleneck, especially if you play games at 1024x768 with no AA/AF, but it will still play games very fast. I can well imagine you could pick pretty much any game and be able to play it at 1280x768 [Edit - I mean 1280 x 960] with 4xAA/8xAF and it will run fast enough for you to play it without problems (most people consider this as between 45-60 FPS).

So, to cut a long story short: No, IMHO you don't need a new CPU yet... yours will still play games appreciably faster than whatever card you are running now.

Nandro
07-09-04, 07:33 PM
I have the GT in my A2500+ rig which is clocked up around 2500mhz and there is no cpu bottleneck to speak of. It plays everything I throw at it and then some. You should be fine.

Cota
07-09-04, 07:35 PM
I think a 6800GT would be a better investment.

leatherface
07-09-04, 07:40 PM
any CPU right now is a bottleneck to the 6800 Ultra's......Pentium 4's,Pentium 4 HT's, Athlon XP's, Athlon 64's, Athlon 64 FX........

basically unles your running in REALLY hi-res with AA and AF on higher settings, the Video card is sitting there waiting twidling its thumbs waiting for the RAM, CPU, etc to catch up...

hypothetically, your not gonna notice much difference, if ANY right now no matter what type of processor your using....... A Athlon XP 3200+ vs a 3ghz Pentium 4 with HT may have a slight difference in frmaerate (not much at all) considering the Geforce cards have been friendly with SSE2 (which the p4's have and the athlon xp's do not), but none thats gonna be noticeable unless your looking at some hardcore becnhmarks.....

On the other hand, Athlon 64's and Athlon 64 FX's have SSE2 and slaughter PEntium 4's with and without HT with current cards and games, but even then, with a 6800 Ultra, your probably only gonna have a few frames faster than the P4 HT's and the Athlon XP's if that.........

TheTaz
07-09-04, 07:56 PM
On the other hand, Athlon 64's and Athlon 64 FX's have SSE2 and slaughter PEntium 4's with and without HT with current cards and games, but even then, with a 6800 Ultra, your probably only gonna have a few frames faster than the P4 HT's and the Athlon XP's if that.........

Games don't use SSE2. (Yet)

I could care less if my Mobile XP 2500+ @2.5Ghz can't zip as fast, encode mp3's as fast, compile as fast, etc. Regular FPU MFlops is what matters for games, IMO. And an at my settings, it beats a stock Athlon 64 3800+. MIPwise I'm just behind that Athlon 64 3800+.

Don't get me wrong... A 64's are fine processors.. and prolly can kick the crap out of my mobile if you OC them. But I rather spend $85 on a processor and get near stock $700 processor speeds (Minus SSE2 stuff), than buy a new motherboard right now. ;)

Taz

qballshalls2002
07-09-04, 08:16 PM
For those who have this kind of sys- how is it?any bottelneck or some ****?IS it ok?I am getting gf 6800 but i dont wanna get CPu for now....


You only get cpu limited especially with a cpu like that only if you run beyond 1280x768 with 4xaa and 16af or higher.

Banko
07-09-04, 08:21 PM
Look at my score should give you some kind of info.

reactiv8
07-09-04, 08:33 PM
yeah..thats cool coz i play most games on 1600x, 4x4x AA AF or even 4x8x...an so on...\
good i will get that card...

ssj4goku887
07-09-04, 08:34 PM
an a64 3200+ will SMOKE a athlon xp 3200+ theres no contest.

qballshalls2002
07-09-04, 08:43 PM
an a64 3200+ will SMOKE a athlon xp 3200+ theres no contest.
Smoke by wat?Only in high res gaming like 1600x1200 or beyond.

TheTaz
07-09-04, 08:52 PM
an a64 3200+ will SMOKE a athlon xp 3200+ theres no contest.

It does huh?

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/x800_pro_athlon_xp/page3.asp

Look at the top two bars of each chart.

Go through each page and ignore the 1024x768 ones.

Yeah... it's XP 3200+ vs A64 3400+ near the top of each chart on an X800 Pro. But you can guess where an A64 3200+ would be.

Not exactly what I call a "smoking lead", in most cases. (Especially the 4xAA, 8xAF ones)

Regards,

Taz

Amuro
07-09-04, 10:32 PM
This should be a good read:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/article/136/01

coldpower27
07-09-04, 11:46 PM
Hmm seems like the 6800 Series isn't as CPU dependent as the X800 Series. Considering a 2.8C is around = Athlon XP 3200+ Stock.

reactiv8
07-10-04, 12:53 AM
an a64 3200+ will SMOKE a athlon xp 3200+ theres no contest.
Edited by MUYA: can you refrain from personal abuse. Please view this as a warning for future conduct.
amd 64 3400 XP leads 1-3 fps...comparing to amd 3200XP..XXXXXX

Amuro
07-10-04, 02:13 AM
You only get cpu limited especially with a cpu like that only if you run beyond 1280x768 with 4xaa and 16af or higher.
Who's going to run below 1280x1024 these days? Unless you're still using a 15" LCD or 17" CRT.

mustrum
07-10-04, 04:31 AM
an a64 3200+ will SMOKE a athlon xp 3200+ theres no contest.
Some people should think or google a bitr before posting. The AMD64 IS faster but it's not by much at all. On Stock the XP craps out quite a bit but the XP's OC a lot better than the typical AMD64.
I don't think my Barton@2.4ghz gets "smoked".
Look at the scores ppl get with AMD XP systems.
As mentioned above: lack of SSE2 kills hte XP in CPU benchmarks. It is damn fast in Games still though.

ssj4goku887
07-10-04, 09:46 AM
LOL. why dont you test it yourself? instead of using thos unreliable tests. considering iw ent from an athlon xp 3000+ to an athlon 643200+ and my 3dmark score went from 17500 to 22k heh. and you can definately tell there was a huge performance increase. so dont tell me there isnt much differance. you can never go by any reviewing site because 99.9% of the time they are incorrect.

leatherface
07-10-04, 11:29 AM
yeah, any *processor* anymore (2.2ghz or equivalent and beyond) will do wonders with the a 6800 ultra, standard and GT....... there might be a few frames lost here or a few gained there..... but without benchmarking, you usually wouldnt notice.... big difference in upcoming games is gonna be your RAM...... if you have less than 512MB, better start thinking of some more.... even 512MB is starting to stumble with alot of games, although 1GB is plenty



note.... when i said processor, i mean all of the high performance processors, like the P4's, P4's with HT, Athlon XP's, Athlon thunderbird's (yes, they will run doom 3 and half life 2 more than likely just fine with a good video card and alot of ram), Athlon 64's and Athlon 64-FX.....

I did not mean AMD Duron, Sempron, or Intel's Celeron or Centrino mobile processor.....

Although i've heard that 2ghz and higher Durons and Celerons will do Doom 3 just fine, i have yet to see for myself...... Semprons will probably be jus as good as the Athlon XP's, and I figure the Centrino processor will do fine since it usually has a decent mobile graphics card backing it up......

mustrum
07-10-04, 12:18 PM
LOL. why dont you test it yourself? instead of using thos unreliable tests. considering iw ent from an athlon xp 3000+ to an athlon 643200+ and my 3dmark score went from 17500 to 22k heh. and you can definately tell there was a huge performance increase. so dont tell me there isnt much differance. you can never go by any reviewing site because 99.9% of the time they are incorrect.

Yeah but you went from a 2.1 ghz XP to a AMD64 3200+.
Compare a XP 2.4ghz to the AMd64 and you wont have a lot more performance. And in fact AMD64 don't oc that well i read.

I'm not saying the AMd64 are not faster. They are not THAT much faster as some people want us to believe that's all.

I guess leatherface is right tho. All highend CPU's should do well.

leatherface
07-10-04, 12:44 PM
ill give the rest of my 2cents

i have a Geforce FX 5950 OC'd right now (waiting on my 6800 ultra to arrive from best buy), 1GB DDR400 RAM, WinXPpro, Audigy ZS, Samsung 120GB SATA driver, blah blah blah


now i've had all this on different motherboards over the past 4 months....

I started off with a Pentium 4 2.2ghz..... everything ran smooth and great...... and it was one of the Socket 478's that didnt have HT..... Farcry ran really nice, Quake 3 was amazing, Unreal tOurnenament 2004 ran awesome, same with BF1942, SWKOTOR, blah blah blah.... they all ran AMAZING


i then ditched that processor and mobo and went with a Amd Athlon XP 2500+

I noitced nothing faster to the naked eye.... and i checked out the framerates agaisnt my p4 2.2ghz....... for Farcry, they were maybe 1.7 fps faster than my 2.2ghz processor.... in quake 3, about 2 to 3fps faster.....
it ut 2003 and 2004, about 2 fps faster, if that....

I later didtched that Athlon XP, got a new mobo and a Pentium 4 3.2ghz HT processor.......

once again, maybe a frame or two faster in all of my games with the xception of Farcry, which jumped a bout about 4 fps faster than before.... possibly because of the HT.... i dunno

I built a new gaming system for myself, made the old Pentium 4 3.2ghz into a server..... it is now a AMD Athlon 64 3200+ since i am going to be using Gentoo and Fedora Core 2 Linux in 64-bit mode as well as Windows XP 64-bit edition for extended systems...

Even though the Athlon 64 has 1mb of l2 cache, and much better memory handling and a bit better core than the P4's with HT and Athlon XP's, it only made about another 2 FPS faster in most of the games, with the exception of farcry, which it jumped about another 3 FPS faster.....

i was running all my other games at 1280x1024 in maxed out settings, with the exception of Farcry, which i ran at 1024x768 with maxed out settings.

I did not have on Veritcal sync for the Direct3d based games, not did i use AA of AF......

coming from a 2.2ghz processor to the equivalent of 3.2ghz and better only increased my framerate about 4 to 5 fps in most games, IF THAT........

so processor arent much of a big deal anymore.... its your video card thats gonna make the huge difference, especially as more and more games are programmed with video cards specifics such as GPU and VPU related processing

TheTaz
07-10-04, 01:37 PM
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=6887

For people running 1280x1024 or higher, like me.... if that's too difficult to read (Had to compress the heck out of it to get it to upload)... it's a Mobile 2500+ @ 2.5 GHz vs. an Athlon 64 3400+ @ stock clocks.

Regards,

Taz

Pandora's Box
07-10-04, 01:45 PM
ill give the rest of my 2cents

i have a Geforce FX 5950 OC'd right now (waiting on my 6800 ultra to arrive from best buy), 1GB DDR400 RAM, WinXPpro, Audigy ZS, Samsung 120GB SATA driver, blah blah blah


now i've had all this on different motherboards over the past 4 months....

I started off with a Pentium 4 2.2ghz..... everything ran smooth and great...... and it was one of the Socket 478's that didnt have HT..... Farcry ran really nice, Quake 3 was amazing, Unreal tOurnenament 2004 ran awesome, same with BF1942, SWKOTOR, blah blah blah.... they all ran AMAZING


i then ditched that processor and mobo and went with a Amd Athlon XP 2500+

I noitced nothing faster to the naked eye.... and i checked out the framerates agaisnt my p4 2.2ghz....... for Farcry, they were maybe 1.7 fps faster than my 2.2ghz processor.... in quake 3, about 2 to 3fps faster.....
it ut 2003 and 2004, about 2 fps faster, if that....

I later didtched that Athlon XP, got a new mobo and a Pentium 4 3.2ghz HT processor.......

once again, maybe a frame or two faster in all of my games with the xception of Farcry, which jumped a bout about 4 fps faster than before.... possibly because of the HT.... i dunno

I built a new gaming system for myself, made the old Pentium 4 3.2ghz into a server..... it is now a AMD Athlon 64 3200+ since i am going to be using Gentoo and Fedora Core 2 Linux in 64-bit mode as well as Windows XP 64-bit edition for extended systems...

Even though the Athlon 64 has 1mb of l2 cache, and much better memory handling and a bit better core than the P4's with HT and Athlon XP's, it only made about another 2 FPS faster in most of the games, with the exception of farcry, which it jumped about another 3 FPS faster.....

i was running all my other games at 1280x1024 in maxed out settings, with the exception of Farcry, which i ran at 1024x768 with maxed out settings.

I did not have on Veritcal sync for the Direct3d based games, not did i use AA of AF......

coming from a 2.2ghz processor to the equivalent of 3.2ghz and better only increased my framerate about 4 to 5 fps in most games, IF THAT........

so processor arent much of a big deal anymore.... its your video card thats gonna make the huge difference, especially as more and more games are programmed with video cards specifics such as GPU and VPU related processing


so what your saying is if you have a athlon xp 2500+ or higher, a p4 2.2g with or without ht or higher you dont need a new cpu? just get a new video card?