PDA

View Full Version : You'll need a super fast CPU for your 8800 GTX!!!!


Pages : [1] 2 3

Maverickman
10-31-06, 03:38 PM
An article at everyone's favorite site www.firingsquad.org states that you really need a super CPU to get the most from the 8800 GTX. The writer mentions someone with a Core2 Extreme overclocked to 4GHz can hit over 11000 in 3DMark 2006, but the same 8800 GTX in a Core2 E6700 like mine can barely manage 8000!!!!! That's about the same as a 7950 GX2. My 7900 GTO tops out at 6278!!! Imagine spending all that money for a card that would not be a whole lot faster than my 7900 GTO!!! Of course,one benchmark score does not tell the whole story. The 8800 GTX would certainly be much faster in the majority of games, and it has DX 10.

However, this does show the importance of the CPU with this card. For a while now, the GPU has been all-important. As newer GPUs come out, they rely more and more on a CPU fast enough to keep them humming. If you have anything slower than an FX-60 or Core2 E6700, it may be a waste of money buying an 8800 GTX or GTS. Keep that 7900 GTX or 7950 GX2. You'll save a lot of money to upgrade your computer later on and then buy an 8800 GTX when it's cheaper.

Maverickman
10-31-06, 03:40 PM
Well, I posted the wrong line to the article from The Inquirer.

Here it is: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35437

Maverickman
10-31-06, 03:42 PM
Hmmm. Still the wrong link. Just go to The Inquirer and you'll see it.

Slammin
10-31-06, 03:54 PM
Thing is, I heard the exact same story when I got my 7800GTX's and yet never really experienced this.

GPU seems to always bottleneck before CPU for me, regardless of what the synthetic benchmarks, or some 'dude' just speculating says.

shadow001
10-31-06, 04:01 PM
An article at everyone's favorite site www.firingsquad.org states that you really need a super CPU to get the most from the 8800 GTX. The writer mentions someone with a Core2 Extreme overclocked to 4GHz can hit over 11000 in 3DMark 2006, but the same 8800 GTX in a Core2 E6700 like mine can barely manage 8000!!!!! That's about the same as a 7950 GX2. My 7900 GTO tops out at 6278!!! Imagine spending all that money for a card that would not be a whole lot faster than my 7900 GTO!!! Of course,one benchmark score does not tell the whole story. The 8800 GTX would certainly be much faster in the majority of games, and it has DX 10.

However, this does show the importance of the CPU with this card. For a while now, the GPU has been all-important. As newer GPUs come out, they rely more and more on a CPU fast enough to keep them humming. If you have anything slower than an FX-60 or Core2 E6700, it may be a waste of money buying an 8800 GTX or GTS. Keep that 7900 GTX or 7950 GX2. You'll save a lot of money to upgrade your computer later on and then buy an 8800 GTX when it's cheaper.


That's allways been the case,but it is getting worse and worse as time goes on,since overall performance in video cards is improving at a much faster pace than CPU's are,and by a huge margin at that...


You can pretty be sure that as fast as a G80 is,there will be something 2x faster in 12 months,and there's is no way in god's green earth that CPU's will double in overall performance within that same time frame....They'll improve maybe 25~30% thru higher clock speeds for the most part.


Personally,i'm looking forward to a 7950 GX2 style card,but with a pair of G80 GPU's inside instead(8950 GX2:D)and using a 65 nm fab process for lower power and cooling requirements.....I'd swap my 7950GX2 for one of those in a heartbeat since by then,there should be a decent selection of DX10 games to choose from.

fivefeet8
10-31-06, 04:10 PM
There is a way to alleviate a lot of CPU bottlenecking. Run the benchmarks at higher resultions with AA/AF enabled. ;)

OWA
10-31-06, 04:21 PM
An article at everyone's favorite site www.firingsquad.org states that you really need a super CPU to get the most from the 8800 GTX. The writer mentions someone with a Core2 Extreme overclocked to 4GHz can hit over 11000 in 3DMark 2006, but the same 8800 GTX in a Core2 E6700 like mine can barely manage 8000!!!!! That's about the same as a 7950 GX2. My 7900 GTO tops out at 6278!!! Imagine spending all that money for a card that would not be a whole lot faster than my 7900 GTO!!! Of course,one benchmark score does not tell the whole story. The 8800 GTX would certainly be much faster in the majority of games, and it has DX 10.

However, this does show the importance of the CPU with this card. For a while now, the GPU has been all-important. As newer GPUs come out, they rely more and more on a CPU fast enough to keep them humming. If you have anything slower than an FX-60 or Core2 E6700, it may be a waste of money buying an 8800 GTX or GTS. Keep that 7900 GTX or 7950 GX2. You'll save a lot of money to upgrade your computer later on and then buy an 8800 GTX when it's cheaper.
The guy at Xtreme Systems gets around 12600 in 3Dmark06 with the dual-core duo (X6800) at 2.93 ghz. I wonder what the difference is.

Edit: Oops, Actually, his cpu was at 3.8 not 2.93 like I originally posted.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1045582&postcount=448

Monolyth
10-31-06, 04:29 PM
The guy at XtremeSystems probably isn't 'Victor'; the stuffed gnome sitting on one of the Inquirer's desks.

shadow001
10-31-06, 04:38 PM
There is a way to alleviate a lot of CPU bottlenecking. Run the benchmarks at higher resultions with AA/AF enabled. ;)


I already game on a 24" LCD at 1920*1200 with 4X AA and 16X AF in battlefield 2142 and it plays really smooth as it is....:D


With a G80 or even worse,a pair of G80's in SLI,It's a sure thing you'll need a 2000$,30" LCD to game at 2500*1500(even with 4x AA enabled) and still play games smoothly....


It's scary the rate of improvement in video cards in the last 4 years,since the best back then was a 9700 pro with these stats:

9700 pro............................................... ............ 8800 GTX.

115 million transistors....................................... ... 700 million transistors
325 mhz core speed............................................ 575 mhz core speed
8 pipelines......................................... ................ 128 streaming processors(?)
19 gig/sec memory bandwith................................. 86 gig/sec memory bandwith
256 bit memory bus............................................. 384 bit memory bus
128 meg ram............................................... ....... 768 megs of ram



Keep in mind it takes 4 years to make a game on average,especially if you're making your own graphics engine,so i can't even imagine what we'll have in terms of graphics cards in 4 years time,if the same rate of improvement maintains itself as it has so far.

fivefeet8
10-31-06, 05:08 PM
I already game on a 24" LCD at 1920*1200 with 4X AA and 16X AF in battlefield 2142 and it plays really smooth as it is....:D

No Doubt about that, but I'm referring to the original quote saying that you need a super duper CPU to see much benefit from the G80 when in fact, you don't necessarily do.

Xion X2
10-31-06, 05:12 PM
An article at everyone's favorite site www.firingsquad.org states that you really need a super CPU to get the most from the 8800 GTX. The writer mentions someone with a Core2 Extreme overclocked to 4GHz can hit over 11000 in 3DMark 2006, but the same 8800 GTX in a Core2 E6700 like mine can barely manage 8000!!!!!

That's BS. There are guys over on xtremesystems that are getting over 12k with their E6600's at about 3.5-3.6 with just a mild overclock on the GTX. One guy hit 13k at about 3.8gHz on the processor.

Maverickman
10-31-06, 05:16 PM
I agree that GPUs are getting much faster than CPU technology can tolerate. Each generation is 2X faster than the other. A Core2 Duo, however is not 2X faster than a Pentium Extreme Edition. The X6800 is only about 40% faster than an FX-62 if you believe Intel. A GeForce 8800 GTX would be 2X faster than a 7900 GTX I would think. But if I replaced my 7900 GTO with the 8800 GTX, I doubt it would be 2X faster.

NoWayDude
10-31-06, 05:59 PM
The Inq is the same people that are saying that R600 will be faster than G80...http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35195

Without even knowing what both cards are about...
Enough said.

Dazz
10-31-06, 06:06 PM
Well i don't think CPU are going to get much faster 4Ghz stock seems a long way off it seems they are just adding more and more insead.

J-Mag
10-31-06, 06:14 PM
Game developers have no problem upping texture resolutions, poly counts, and shader implimentation. The next wave of games we see, will bring the G80 to its knees. Games will be GPU limited again, like they always are.

@ the BF 2142 example: The Game has an older engine, so what is the point of using it as an example? We all know current high end cards play older generation games fine... Ask yourself this: Would you buy a G80 for BF2?

Personally I will be getting a pair for upcoming titles.

queth
10-31-06, 06:41 PM
i'll be buying 1 and seeing how well it runs on the 6700 i plan to build with it.
sick of not getting uber details at 1920x1200.

shadow001
10-31-06, 08:51 PM
Game developers have no problem upping texture resolutions, poly counts, and shader implimentation. The next wave of games we see, will bring the G80 to its knees. Games will be GPU limited again, like they always are.

@ the BF 2142 example: The Game has an older engine, so what is the point of using it as an example? We all know current high end cards play older generation games fine... Ask yourself this: Would you buy a G80 for BF2?

Personally I will be getting a pair for upcoming titles.


It is a game that was just released no matter what,so this is what we have,as well as older games....There's only oblivion that is more demanding,but it's already been commented that the main reason for that is poor game design(as quoted by another developer who shall remain nameless...:D).



The overall amount of detail in games has been increasing,but video cards capabilities have been growing faster still and here's the proof...


I remember a time way back when,when there was this little card called a Geforce 2 Ultra,wich the only comparison to today's cards,lies in the fact that they too,were the first ones to hit the 500$ mark,for consumer 3d cards...


For those 500$,it was only fast enough to run the top of the line games released back then at most 1280*1024 at 32 bit color at 60 FPS,forget about AA or AF at all.....That included Quake 3,and that was pretty much one of the most demanding games for it's day,having been released just a few months earlier...


Today,a 500$ video card,wich in this case actually buys a 7950 GX2,games at 1920*1200 4X AA and 16 AF,in the vast majority of games out there at pretty decent frame rates....This proves 2 things in fact:


Yes,i'm an old fart who's seen a lot of video card introductions over the many years i've been involved in my PC hobby(spans 12 years in fact).


But also,video card tech has been overtaking any other Component in PC in terms of improvement rate by a large amount and that includes game development as well,and all you see in most reviews over the past several years,with every new high end graphics card introduction,are graphics settings getting ever more extreme,even with the latest games released at the time,and the visual quality improvement getting smaller and smaller as those settings go ever higher....


What's the point of having 6X AA,8x AA or even higher,when you're gaming at 1920*1200,and will pretty much need a magnifying glass to even notice jaggies with 4x already enabled at those resolutions,never mind adding even more AA on top just to prove a given card is faster still...It really becomes academic once you reach those extremes.....


Speed sells,but you'll end up hitting a wall eventually since game developement can't keep up with the crazy pace of video card introductions,by having both the resources and time to really develop their game engines and artwork to support this stuff....Even that article on the other thread i posted in,quotes Tim sweeney himself that game developement will take longer still with DX10,precisely because of all the added capabilities that cards are integrating at a really fast pace.


Games take longer and longer to develop these days,not just because of graphics,but also because people also expect better gameplay,AI,physics,interactively along with those higher quality graphics,and there's no way to accelerate that,it's all up to the talent and resources available to developers....

MustangSVT
10-31-06, 08:55 PM
Sooo you're telling me that with a 8800 GTX, my Core 2 Duo @ 3.0GHz isn't fast enough? You have to be kidding, right? :wtf:

shadow001
10-31-06, 09:01 PM
Sooo you're telling me that with a 8800 GTX, my Core 2 Duo @ 3.0GHz isn't fast enough? You have to be kidding, right? :wtf:


Read my post again....:p


And no,you're fine for a very long time with that combo:D

shoman24v
10-31-06, 10:39 PM
Read my post again....:p


And no,you're fine for a very long time with that combo:D
not till the next CPU or GPU comes out.

jAkUp
10-31-06, 10:57 PM
Is this really any suprise? The faster the GPU, the faster the CPU needs to be to feed it. The uber-fast CPU is not as necesarry for high resolutions or next generation games.

Toss3
10-31-06, 11:36 PM
Props to the Inq. for stating the obvious! :ass:

crainger
10-31-06, 11:50 PM
Oh teh Noes!!!

So my Pentium Pro at 200Mhz wont work well with a 8 series? It's a Pro for crying out loud!

MustangSVT
11-01-06, 12:08 AM
Oh teh Noes!!!

So my Pentium Pro at 200Mhz wont work well with a 8 series? It's a Pro for crying out loud!
But, but, but... it's a Pro.. :|

shadow001
11-01-06, 12:11 AM
Is this really any suprise? The faster the GPU, the faster the CPU needs to be to feed it. The uber-fast CPU is not as necesarry for high resolutions or next generation games.


It's been like that till now,but even you have to admit that the limit in terms of graphics settings have been increasing steadily over the past several years,on the latest video card banchmarks,even with the latest games.



This to avoid CPU bottlenecks even with high end CPU's on the systems,and still be able to tell wich card is faster,if you're comparing 2 high end cards from different card makers...All i know is that we went from a GPU with 115 million transistors and 19 gig/sec of memory bandwith(9700 pro) to now a near 700 million,86 gig/sec 8800 GTX,wich is obviously several times faster than a 9700 pro in every way possible,and all in the space of 4 short years.


If the same pace keeps up in terms of improvement rate,in 4 years from now,we'll likely be looking at GPU's probably packing 2+ billion transistors and at least 3x more memory bandwith than a G80,and that's just 1 card,never mind SLI or crossfire setups.....And i'm probably being conservative here,that's the scary part :D.


CPU's becoming several times faster in the same time period.....Not a chance,since CPU makers stick to the same architecture for 3~4 years on average,just add new instruction sets,higher clock speeds,more cache and faster FSB's for the most part during that timeframe....


Sure there's the new cores they add now(dual core,quad core),but that takes a while to write games that leverage them,and dual core chips like the Athlon X2 and pentium D's have been out for almost 18 months now,and there still isn't a game specifically written to take advantage of that second core yet....