PDA

View Full Version : Getting 8800GTX soon. Will my single athlon 64 @ 2.7GHz handle it?


Pages : [1] 2

rHy0
01-13-07, 01:43 PM
I plan to upgrade to maybe an intel quad core setup eventually but that won't be for at least 2 months, so I have decided to get the 8800GTX now and put it in my current system until I have the new setup in a few months time.

Thing is at the moment I have an Athlon 3700 single CPU @ 2.72GHz and I would like to know if I will get a large bottleneck with the card? I understand I will get at least a bit but I don't mind as long as it will be performing better than my 7800GTX. Also due to my monitor (in sig) the max res I can play at is 1280x1024.

Thanks.

CaptNKILL
01-13-07, 01:56 PM
You should be fine. Dual core doesn't offer much over single core in current games, and a 2.7Ghz Athlon is still pretty damn good.

By summer you'll definitely want to have a dual core powering that 8800 though. I think the majority of the games coming out now will take advantage of multiple cores... and that means single cores will probably be left in the dust.

rHy0
01-13-07, 02:09 PM
Alright looks like i'll be alright then. Thanks. Also the 8800GTX is definately worth it right? I mean will it last max every dx10 game the next year at least? It's just that I don't want to have to worry about my graphics card for a while.

One more thing. Is it worth the whole overall extra cost of upgrading to C2D/Quad Intel? Compared to just getting a x2 Athlon 939 which would obviously be heaps cheaper?

LORD-eX-Bu
01-13-07, 02:13 PM
I would definately go the C2D route... if you aren't dying to upgrade right now I would wait a couple of months til Intel slashes its C2D prices:D

Went from using 3800+ to a Pentium D950 to a C2D and the difference was pretty huge every time:D

SlieTheSecond
01-13-07, 02:55 PM
I went from a 3700+ to a C2D with my 8800 GTS. And I noticed a performance increase. I couldn't run oblivion full out, with 16xAF and 4xAA. I would drop down to 12 fps in some areas. Now with Oblivion full out I've yet to go below 30. Except for the rare occasion.

But then again I run at 1280x1024.


As of now that CPU should fine for the majority of games. It is defiantly holding back a GTX tho.

BCKator
01-13-07, 03:57 PM
I plan to upgrade to maybe an intel quad core setup eventually but that won't be for at least 2 months, so I have decided to get the 8800GTX now and put it in my current system until I have the new setup in a few months time.

Thing is at the moment I have an Athlon 3700 single CPU @ 2.72GHz and I would like to know if I will get a large bottleneck with the card? I understand I will get at least a bit but I don't mind as long as it will be performing better than my 7800GTX. Also due to my monitor (in sig) the max res I can play at is 1280x1024.

Thanks.

At that resolution I imagine a 8800gtx would be overkill.

grimreefer
01-13-07, 05:02 PM
At that resolution I imagine a 8800gtx would be overkill.
u would think that, but its the only card that gets decent frames consistenetly in rainbow 6 vegas at 1280x1024 lol. yea, this guy's games will play fine, but his 3dmark scores will be horrendously low because of the cpu. :(

Maverickman
01-13-07, 10:08 PM
Even a Core2 Extreme can't max out an 8800 GTX. That card can take anything a CPU can throw at it. I would think that an overclocked 8800 GTS would be your best bet. An Athlon 64 running at 2.7GHz is no slouch, but the time will soon come when you'll need a dual core CPU. that time may be sooner than you think.

walterman
01-13-07, 11:18 PM
i 'borrowed' a XFX 8800GTX from work some weeks ago, & i the performance on my 2.75 GHz X2 over my 7900GTX wasn't 'amazing' @ 1280x1024. Pretty little difference. Think you only should get it if you're going to run very high resolutions.

Also, it wasn't able to run BloodRayne 2 properly, so, useless card for me :cry:

Xion X2
01-14-07, 12:10 AM
BloodRayne 2 is just buggy as hell. I never could get that game working on my 7900GTX. It played at about 10FPS.

And if you couldn't tell much of a difference between your 7900 and the 8800, then you must not play many newer games. Even at 1280 res there is a HUGE difference in both visuals and performance.

Redeemed
01-14-07, 02:43 AM
BloodRayne 2 is just buggy as hell. I never could get that game working on my 7900GTX. It played at about 10FPS.

And if you couldn't tell much of a difference between your 7900 and the 8800, then you must not play many newer games. Even at 1280 res there is a HUGE difference in both visuals and performance.

WERD shizzle. :p

FEAR, HL2, HL2:EP1, OFP, BFME, BFMEII, and FarCry have never looked better. I'm running dual GTSs, but that is on a piss-weak s754 3400. :( I'm running everygame at 1920x1440, 16xAA, 16xAF and all in game options maxed. Not a sweat. ;)

It is amazing the amount of clarity the 8800's offer. I'm still stunned at the image quality these cards crank out. :D

P.S. Xion-

Did you get that second 8800GTX in yet? :p ;)

Xion X2
01-14-07, 02:54 AM
She's in. I've been test-driving her all day. :)

So far, I'm seeing big gains with Oblivion, no gains w/ Rainbow Vegas, terrible loss w/ Prey, small gains w/ Tomb Raider Legend.

Drivers still need a lot of work. But I'm just happy I got a working motherboard, finally. :p

Redeemed
01-14-07, 02:57 AM
She's in. I've been test-driving her all day. :)

So far, I'm seeing big gains with Oblivion, no gains w/ Rainbow Vegas, terrible loss w/ Prey, small gains w/ Tomb Raider Legend.

Drivers still need a lot of work. But I'm just happy I got a working motherboard, finally. :p

Good to hear man. :D

Have you tried any FEAR yet? I'm wondering what two GTXs can do to it! :p

I'm pretty anxious to get my new setup running, so I can see what these GTSs can offer.

Later, after Intel's price cuts, I'm targeting the Q6600, a couple gigs of DDR2 1066 ram, and a pair of GTXs. Can't wait! :D :D :D

Xion X2
01-14-07, 03:07 AM
Fear's next on the list. ;)

Is your machine up and running again? I knew at one time you were waiting on the Silverstone PSU.

And how come you want to swap the GTS's out? SLI'd GTS's should last you for a good long while. Just need a C2D platform to go w/ them.

A Q6600 would be nice, but I hope they have the FSB problems worked out by the time they drop in price. Right now you couldn't get one to 3.2gHz on a 680i because it tops out around 325-350fsb on the 680i and it has a max multi of 9.

Redeemed
01-14-07, 03:32 AM
Fear's next on the list. ;)

Is your machine up and running again? I knew at one time you were waiting on the Silverstone PSU.

And how come you want to swap the GTS's out? SLI'd GTS's should last you for a good long while. Just need a C2D platform to go w/ them.

A Q6600 would be nice, but I hope they have the FSB problems worked out by the time they drop in price. Right now you couldn't get one to 3.2gHz on a 680i because it tops out around 325-350fsb on the 680i and it has a max multi of 9.

Well, I'm using the rig I built for my GF. She's nice like that. :o

As it turns out, the Silverstone PSU never was the issue. It must have been the mobo. I tried each component from 'my' rig, and every component but the mobo and CPU worked. :( Oh well. Just means I get to upgrade. :D

I've got the cash right now to get an FX-60/A8N-32 SLi setup. But I'm waiting for some info from the local community college before I make the purchase. I might owe the college some more money, so untill I know I'm not buying anything.

The FX-60/A8N32-SLi is gonna' be my secondary rig. Once Intel cuts their prices I'm getting that Q6600. That'll be my main rig. The FX-60/A8N32-SLi will sport these two GTSs (as I figure the FX-60 is all the processor they'll ever need), and the Q6600 will be paired with two 8800GTXs. I figure that these two setups should last quite a while for gaming. ;)

Thanks for the heads-up about the FSB. I sure do hope they have that issue resolved. I'd like to hit 3.5GHz or so on that Q6600.

Xion X2
01-14-07, 04:07 AM
Yeah, I know how it is having to pay for school and all. Heh, I probably shouldn't have, but I kinda-sorta-kinda took one less class this semester so I could have this 2nd GTX. :thinker:

Sorry about your rig. Sure you wouldn't want to just go w/ a C2D mobo now and a cheap chip like the E6400 and then just upgrade to quad later? Or do you just want two computers?

You could get a 6400 for 220$ and a 650i mobo for 140$. Buy you 2 gigs of ram and you're set. That'd be much faster than what you're talking about and not much more expensive. FX-60's are still a nice chunk of change, aren't they?

Redeemed
01-14-07, 05:03 AM
Yeah, I know how it is having to pay for school and all. Heh, I probably shouldn't have, but I kinda-sorta-kinda took one less class this semester so I could have this 2nd GTX. :thinker:

Sorry about your rig. Sure you wouldn't want to just go w/ a C2D mobo now and a cheap chip like the E6400 and then just upgrade to quad later? Or do you just want two computers?

You could get a 6400 for 220$ and a 650i mobo for 140$. Buy you 2 gigs of ram and you're set. That'd be much faster than what you're talking about and not much more expensive. FX-60's are still a nice chunk of change, aren't they?

I do want two computers. :D

I'm still living at home with my parents. Other wise, I wouldn't be able to afford college. :o And that's working two jobs (one full time and one part time). With two computers, my sister and I can be up gaming against or with each other after teh parents have gone off to sleep. Or if I have some buddies over we can do some LAN gaming as well.

And as for getting a cheap C2D/mobo instead of the FX-60: I still have 2GB of DDR500 from 'my' computer ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820220084 ), and the HSF, which both work perfectly. I do not want to waste them.

So, to get the FX-60 and the ASUS A8N32 SLi mobo I'm only looking at just under $600. If I go with any C2D I'd wind up spending $800+ cause I'd be out getting more ram and a new HSF.

So, the FX-60 + ASUS A8N32-SLi= teh cheapest route. And the reason I'm so bent on the FX-60 is cause of the unlocked multipliers. I'm expecting to hit 3GHz with this puppy.

I figure the main computer (Q6600, ASUS Striker or comparable mobo, 2 or 4 GB DDR2 1066 RAM, *eventually* 4x150GB raptors RAID 0+1, 2x 8800GTXs) and the secondary computer (FX-60, ASUS A8N32-SLi, 2GB DDR500 *eventually* to be 4GB DDR500, 2x300GB ATA133 HDDs, and 2x8800GTSs) should make for a pair of mean gaming machines. Both should last for an extremely long time I'd imagine. ;)

Uberpwnage
01-14-07, 05:10 AM
I remember when I saw the initial Core 2 Quad scores on 3Dmark06, I was like "OMG I NEED QUAD". But after the shell shock was over, I remembered that '06 added the 2 game scores and the CPU score. As far as real life game performance, dual core or quad isn't that needed right now. Wont be long before that changes though.

Xion X2
01-14-07, 06:30 AM
Quad is all about the placebo effect right now, but I still want it. Just the fact that it's 4 cores makes me giddy. :)

Redeemed
01-14-07, 06:37 AM
Quad is all about the placebo effect right now, but I still want it. Just the fact that it's 4 cores makes me giddy. :)

I know what you mean. But I'm feeling that way just over the idea of having two cores. :o

rHy0
01-14-07, 08:30 AM
Right well I have taken everyones advice and I will not get the 8800GTX then. If only I had a large monitor I would go for it :( God I have so much work to do till I can have whats considered a high end rig.... Also the Intel Quad core uprgade will be farther away than I hoped considering that I have to add a monster (super-duper expensive) monitor :( Also I live in Ireland so I have to pay almost twice for comp components than what you guys pay :(

sigh.... I guess I'll just have to stick with weak games for the next year.

walterman
01-14-07, 04:04 PM
BloodRayne 2 is just buggy as hell. I never could get that game working on my 7900GTX. It played at about 10FPS.

And if you couldn't tell much of a difference between your 7900 and the 8800, then you must not play many newer games. Even at 1280 res there is a HUGE difference in both visuals and performance.

Quake4/Prey/DooM3 were still going below 60fps in the same zones (so, cpu bounded). The card didn't help me to improve my minimum framerates with these openGL titles, but, i was able to run them with 8xAA.

BF2 was already running fine on my system with 4xAA & around 100FPS. With the 8800, i was able tu run it with 8xAA.

The biggest difference was with TRL, but, it still was running below 60FPS.

I didn't try R6V, cause, i tested the card before the game was launched, but i'm sure that it should perform much better with the 8800, even at 1280x1024.

The AF quality was impressive. Best i've seen till the date. So, i really agree with you about the better visuals. Running AF 16x + 8xAA with this card in all games was amazing.

BloodRayne2 runs at 130FPS on my system. The game engine loves video memory bandwidth. On the 8800GTX, it was running at 160FPS, but, with a lot of rendering errors. And this is a pitty for me, cause, it's what i like to play & it's why i spend my money & i'm not going to tell anybody what to play.

The guy who started the thread was asking about if his athlon 64 @ 2.7GHz could handle the 8800GTX, & i thought that my experience with both cards on my system, which is almost the same config, could help him.

Xion X2
01-14-07, 04:55 PM
No problem, walterman. I'm just a little confused because even on my 7900GTX when I had my X2 4400+ I don't remember Doom 3 or Quake 4 or Prey ever dipping below 60fps hardly. They stayed pinned at 60 just about the entire time.

All of those are openGL games too, which usually run to perfection on Nvidia cards.

As for BloodRayne2, it was a really cool game that I enjoyed when it played like it should. But about half the time it would lock in at 10-15fps and I have no idea why. I tried patches, drivers, everything and never could get that game to run right. I don't think I've ever spent as much time trying to optimize a game as I did that one.

Bman212121
01-14-07, 07:01 PM
To the OP: Yes, the CPU is most likely bottleneck the card, but it will definitely make a huge improvement up to that point. I guess in your case though, the 7800GTX might have already been a little bottlenecks for fps. I'm sure if you get an 8800gtx you can use it to turn up more eye candy, but I'm not sure if it's worth the extra cost.

@ Redeemed: You can get the FX-60 up to 3GHZ, you'll just need to pump a lot of volts through it to make it stable. Also, I know that when Jakup originally posted his scores for Fear, the SLI Setup was really high fps with a ton of eye candy.

Redeemed
01-14-07, 07:45 PM
To the OP: Yes, the CPU is most likely bottleneck the card, but it will definitely make a huge improvement up to that point. I guess in your case though, the 7800GTX might have already been a little bottlenecks for fps. I'm sure if you get an 8800gtx you can use it to turn up more eye candy, but I'm not sure if it's worth the extra cost.

@ Redeemed: You can get the FX-60 up to 3GHZ, you'll just need to pump a lot of volts through it to make it stable. Also, I know that when Jakup originally posted his scores for Fear, the SLI Setup was really high fps with a ton of eye candy.

Thanks man. That is what I was figuring. I know my ram and HSF should be up to the task. And I'm sure the mobo (ASUS A8N32-SLi) will be up to it aswell. Now, just to see if the CPU is. Seems that 3GHz is the common OC for the FX-60, atleast from what I've been reading. :D :D :D