PDA

View Full Version : Best video card suited for Athlon 64 3500+


Vanzagar
01-30-06, 06:36 PM
Looking to upgrade my 6600GT vid card. I am looking to run my games with more bells and whistles and would like to play Oblivion with nice resolution and AA. I find my 6600Gt is not bad just lacking...

Was thinking about the 7800 GTX or GT but was wondering if this card would be too powerful (my CPU being the bottleneck) for my CPU and thus a waste. Was wondering what would be a godd match for my system below:

SYSTEM
Windows XP Pro, Service Pack 2, with latest updates from windowsupdate.com
Chaintech nVidia nForce4 Ultra Motherboard For AMD Socket 939 CPU, Model "VNF4/Ultra"
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ 939P, Mushkin 1GB DDR PC-3200, Cas Latency: 2.5-3-3
Leadtek nVIDIA GeForce 6600GT, PCI-Express, Model "PX6600GT TDH"

What would you recommend for best match if:

1. At what card system bottlenecks card (For example, say 3d mark score would be exact same for 7800GT vs 7800GTX, so no point paying extra for card)

2. Best bang for your buck card to match this system.

Looking at http://www.pricewatch.com/ I am almost thinking about the $285 - geforce 7800 gt 256mb pci express... would my system be a major bottleneck here?

I've looked at tons of benchmark sites but they bench the higher end cards with top of the line systems and I get no feel for how my system would be suited....

Thanks in advance.

rhuala

JamesDax
01-30-06, 07:04 PM
Your CPU is fast enough for any card you like.

cvearl
01-31-06, 05:18 PM
xbitlabs.com had a benchmark comparison of a 7800GT using 1280x1024 4xAA and 8xAF or whatever across CPU's from the FX57 on down to Celerons. Thier findings were interresting.

Once you get over Sepmron 3100+ or P4 3.0, games did not actually get all that much faster all the way up to FX57. So what does that mean?

Based on what they showed, after that Sempie 3000+ or Athlon 64 3200+ you would be better off getting a faster video card. All the CPU in the world did not seem to speed the games framerates up. At least at those settings.

So I guess in answer to your question, sky is the limit with current video cards. Get a GTX and it's faster than a GT. Get an X1800XT or GTX512 and it's faster than a GTX. Get an X1900XT or XTX and they are faster than a GTX512. So I guess in the end it's whatever is the most video card you can afford. It ramps up.

Soo.... I am also wondering the reverse of your question.

At what point in video card would a person notice the difference between an FX57 ($1000) and an Athlon 64+ 3200 or 3500 ($200).

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/cpu-games2/bf2.png

cvearl
01-31-06, 05:26 PM
One further note. :)

People make the mistake all the time of putting the money in the wrong spot on a system.

An FX60 with a 7800GT gets spanked all day long by an X2 3800+ with an X1900XT (Or 7800GT SLI if you prefer) and for hundreds less. :)

You got the right CPU IMO. And the A64 3500+ is pretty much the original $1000 FX51 chip BTW. ROFLMAO. Dual memory controller. 1600Mhz HT. But with half the cache. Which seems to make little or no difference. And since the FX51 was the unbeleivably expensive Opteron originally (well close relation anyway), a REALLY big ROFLMAO at that one too. Hahahaha.

C.

j0j081
01-31-06, 10:39 PM
nice info in that chart but how about other games? some are a lot more cpu dependent than others.

cvearl
02-01-06, 02:02 AM
nice info in that chart but how about other games? some are a lot more cpu dependent than others.

kk here's the link and charts...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/cpu-games2.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/cpu-games2/fear.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/cpu-games2/ss2.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/cpu-games2/q4.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/cpu-games2/cod2.png

grey_1
02-01-06, 04:34 PM
One further note. :)

People make the mistake all the time of putting the money in the wrong spot on a system.

An FX60 with a 7800GT gets spanked all day long by an X2 3800+ with an X1900XT (Or 7800GT SLI if you prefer) and for hundreds less. :)

You got the right CPU IMO. And the A64 3500+ is pretty much the original $1000 FX51 chip BTW. ROFLMAO. Dual memory controller. 1600Mhz HT. But with half the cache. Which seems to make little or no difference. And since the FX51 was the unbeleivably expensive Opteron originally (well close relation anyway), a REALLY big ROFLMAO at that one too. Hahahaha.

C.
You might be right regarding the fx-51 and A64 3500+, but I'd sure love to see some linky's backing that up. Keep in mind that I would like it alot if it were true! Thx

cvearl
02-02-06, 01:03 AM
You might be right regarding the fx-51 and A64 3500+, but I'd sure love to see some linky's backing that up. Keep in mind that I would like it alot if it were true! Thx

Hmmm...

I meant the 3700+. But anyway...

November 2003...

Opteron vs. FX-51

http://www.hardavenue.com/reviews/amdfx511.shtml

""it is hard to differentiate the two from raw performance, rather, it is the features that really separate the two. To start, the Opteron features three HyperTransport links, as opposed to the single link found in the FX51, which further pushes the bandwidth boundary. However the most important difference between the two is probably the SMP capabilities of the Opteron - so in reality the FX51 and Opteron are very similar chips with different names for different markets. One characteristic remains however - they both currently cost a heap.""

Opteron station fans of the time were pi$$ed. So in general, to hit Intel hard, AMD took Opteron. removed 2 HT links (which really only helped with multi-processor server situations) and that was pretty much it. I have probably over-simplified though.

Now not everyone could afford FX-51 and they needed a competitor to the P4C riding that 800Mhz FSB.

They took the FX-51. Took half the cache off and crippled the integrated memory controller to be single channel and not dual. Then lowered the clock to 2GHz vs. the FX-51's 2.2Ghz core. The S754 Athlon 64 3200+ is born. The crippled little brother of the FX-51.

The dual channel memory controller was really what made FX-51 king though.

Fast forward to today.

Enter Semperon. Sits on the original S754 socket. It is the original Athlon 64. Like the original A64 it has a single channel memory controller. All they did was take it down from 512k Cache to 256k. Celerons cannot even come close to this chip and that's why. It's the A64.

Then basically they made faster FX chips and based the new A64 939 products on the original FX design while also adding SSE3 I guess.

Compare now... Both these chips are Opteron K8 design spec right?

FX-51 - 2.2Ghz core, 1MB L2 Cache, Integrated Dual channel memory controller, 1 1600Mhz HT link. Was socket 940 and required registered RAM.

Athlon 64 3700+ - 2.2Ghz core, 1MB L2 Cache, Integrated Dual channel memory controller, 1 1600Mhz HT link. Socket 939 and does not require registered RAM.

The same chip? I would say so.

I really need to find the article though. It was Q&A format and one question was "What's the difference between A64 S939 and the FX-5x". They said nothing except L2 cache depeding on which A64 and core speeds. They concluded that someone knowing what they were getting would not throw away thier money on an FX chip.

To further cement my theory...

Maximum PC did a FX-51 vs. P4EE chart. In that chart the FX-51 scored 1001 on the CPU test from 3dmark03. My A64 3200+ scores 914. Almost exactly 10% slower. Just so happens that my core is 10% lower clocked at 2GHz vs. the FX51's 2.2. :)

C.

grey_1
02-02-06, 01:58 AM
Thx for the reply cvearl, food for thought. Btw, apologies to rhuala, I didn't mean to hijack your thread-sorry!

SH64
02-02-06, 03:17 AM
A 7800GT would be the best choice IMO though i believe even the GTX wont be a bottleneck anymore with the new gen games.

oh & its time to ignore 3DMark05 scores .. go for 3DMark06 & i guarantee you no more bottlenecks!! ;)

nutcrackr
02-02-06, 03:50 AM
FEAR is heavily gpu reliant, however any game with high res and lots of AA will stress the gpu a huge amount. I overclocked my cpu (AMD 64 3000+) by 20% and it made zero difference to fear and no difference to cs:s at 1280x1024 with 4aa and the same deal with Far Cry at those settings. Your system will do just fine with the 7800 unless you run games at 800x600.

Vanzagar
02-02-06, 12:09 PM
Thx for the reply cvearl, food for thought. Btw, apologies to rhuala, I didn't mean to hijack your thread-sorry!

No not at all, interesting conversation. Gives me confidence in my original post about getting the 7800GT...

Also, I was considering selling my 3500+ and upgrading my CPU but now I see I'd be better off putting that cash into a better vid card. The X1900XT is just too pricey but the 7800GTX is an option...

I'll wait till Oblivion comes out to see some benchmarks and make my final decision then....

Thanks for all the info cvearl, you'd think we'd hear more about this situation on review sites... worth a Firingsquad comparison I would think over multiple games, could save people some serious cash for the same performance...

rhuala

KickAssCop
02-02-06, 01:08 PM
See sig. Its a decent budget combo. Get it tiger. My 7800GTX gets gpu bound in almost all new games at 1600*1200 4xAA 16xAF :(.

ronss
02-11-06, 12:55 AM
well, i have a measly socket 754- amd 64 +3400 clawhammer. this is what i am going to do -
i bought a epox 8npa-sli,, got a geforce 6800gs in it now

getting 5762 in madoinion 2005

next month-going to get another 6800gs, and run sli, total investment on video cards-$380

my rusult in madionion in 2005 should be over 10,000 with sli.

not bad for a socket 754, and 2 6800gs video cards.