My CPU and Bottlenecks w/ new GPU

[Sorrento]

OMG!!!! PLEASE, IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY, DON'T CHECK SPELLING OR GRAMAR, PLEASE!!! Me no English :tooth:

 

From what I read and seen about the comparison between "old" AMD64's and new Conroe's... at stock speeds the diference in some games is marginal, and when the AMD64 was overclocked it was superior to the Intel one. However the Intel one overclocks a lot more, so there is no real battle... but the comparison was Hyped a lot by sites and people and "artificial" benchmarks.

 

Redbeaver's idea about comparing between performance at stock speeds and overclocked speeds (cpu) and see how much diference exists is a great idea... that would tell you exactly how much the cpu holds your system down or not. Remember some games are more CPU intensive than others that are more Video Card intensive: BF2 and 2142 will benefit little with a 8800GTX card, but others like FEAR and Oblivion will benefit a lot.

 

I also want to apologize for using CAPS with the first paragraph, and also for my very poor knoledge and use of the English language... if its of any consolation people over here tell me "how good my Spanish is", as if I didn't spoke it since birth....

[sailindawg]

@ the OP, one more question you should ask yourself before you upgrade, is what resolutions do you game at? If you are gaming at resolutions <1280x1024, then your cpu will hold back what ever higher end graphics card you put in your system. However, if your monitor can get resolutions >1280x1024, then by all means get the best vid card you can afford. When running at higher resolutions, with highest quality settings, the vid card is doing most of the work for rendering games and earning it's keep. You may end up considering upgrading the vid card and your monitor. Or, like I did, find a used 21" Trinitron that can get a max resolution of 1920x1200@85Hz !

[Sorrento]

1920x1200@85Hz ??????? Don't you mean 1920 x 1600?? The one you mentioned is widescreen, and last thing I know a 21" CRT is 4x3.

 

I always wanted a 21", but it was always too huge or too expensive for me... then when I could buy it I could no longer found one.

[WintersFury]

Since the 8800 series and it's good / bad has been covered quite well...

 

I figured I'd point out that if theres no DX10 games your planing on playing right now and you play at lower resolutions then a DX9 card may be your best bet.

 

I myself doubt I'll be playing any DX10 games for about a year or so, and decided to get a 7900GS which was only $150 and from everything I've read is a stellar overclocker that can beat a stock 7950GT. And since I game at lower resolutions it's the perfect solution until I really need a DX10 card, and they'll be more powerful than they currently are now at that point as well.

 

Figured I had to give a reason for going DX9 still

[sailindawg]

1920x1200@85Hz ??????? Don't you mean 1920 x 1600??

 

Nope. 1920x1200, hehehe........

 

The one you mentioned is widescreen, and last thing I know a 21" CRT is 4x3.

 

You are correct! I have a 21" Sony Multiscan 500 PS (flat screen, not total flat, maybe 1 degree radius to the screen, however picture looks flat) with 5 component BNC cables. I bought the thing almost 2 years a ago for $100. The monitor is native 4:3. I always thought that the highest resolution that it was capable of was 1600x1200@85Hz. Since owning the monitor, I have never gone higher, but I never had a vid card that could. The 1920x1200 resolution was always offered in the vid driver CP, but I never clicked it.

 

Whelp, I have been considering an LCD and was afraid that 1680x1050 widescreen would choke my system. So I fired up Steam, put a known good resolution into the Launch Properties of Lost Cost and went into game CP and set up the monitor for 1920x1080 @ 16:9 pulldown. All went fine. next I went for 1920x1200@16:10. Came up @75Hz. I was ecstatic! I tried 1920x1440, but that kicked the monitor out of range. Luckily, I alt tabbed out to desk top, refired the game up and the game came back up at the resolution in the Launch Properties.

 

I found out the 85 Hz refresh rate by total accident. I set the Arma Demo to 1920x1200 and forgot to change the refresh rate from 85Hz. Luckily, it was not a problem. That was also a great find.

 

Now, the picture initially looked stretched because the monitor is native 4:3. I hit the auto screen adjust and it was still a bit stretched. I adjusted the height of the screen to make it more narrow. This effectively puts two 1.25" bars at the top and bottom of the screen. However, everything looks proportional. If I click inside game settings either 16:9 or 16:10 pulldown, the game makes a very slight adjustment to the screen. On the 21" CRT, I effectively have the viewable screen area of a 19" widescreen LCD, but with at a much higher resolution. I might be a tad narrower than a true 19" widescreen.

 

I have always been able to hit the lower widescreen resolutions with this monitor and used those because with my previous cards, I could always use high quality settings and get excellent frames. The monitor also runs 1360x768 & 1280x768 @ 120Hz. I have used these resolutions when I want to use V-synch. However, with the GX2, I really don't use V-synch anymore. I also like the widescreen format for gaming. Much more natural line of sight. There's no more FOV than at 4:3, but the sense of horizon is much more natural.

 

After gaming @ 1920x1200 for the past 2 days, the resolution is incredibly smooth and the colors look very liquid and vivid. I'm also getting the best out of my hardware. I think I just may stay with this work horse monitor till she dies. At this time, I just don't see any advantage of a LCD. So, back at the original poster, if you can get a flat screen CRT that can hit the high widescreen resolutions, and get it for cheep! Then by all means, get that 8800GTS or GTX.

[Sorrento]

Hmm, but then if the 21" 4x3 CRT monitor can handle 1920x1200 and 1680x1050 it is with everything out of proportion, since the horizontal size has a shorter limit than the vertical one: everything on the screen would look horizontally stretched.

 

I think you could reach something bigger than 2048x1536... but maybe at 60hz... in other words forget about WS, and enjoy ubber high resolution at normal 4x3. 70hz is more than enough.

 

Btw, at these resolutions you don't need a 24" or 30" WS LCD... Unless the monitor is far from you

[sailindawg]

@Sorrento

 

I think you could reach something bigger than 2048x1536... but maybe at 60hz... in other words forget about WS, and enjoy ubber high resolution at normal 4x3. 70hz is more than enough.

 

Nope can't do. My max for the horizontal is 1200. Any higher, and I get out of frequency. 2048x1536 & 1920x1440 both show up in the user CP of games & drivers, but the horizontal is too high.

 

Btw, at these resolutions you don't need a 24" or 30" WS LCD

 

That's the conclusion I'm slowly coming around to. And that was my point to the OP. The OP didn't seem to be considering the other video component, the monitor. Heck, if he could source a 21" CRT for cheap that hits the über resolutions, then his 8800 upgrade makes all the sense in the world and there will be minimal cpu bottle necking, especially if he can kick up the cpu cycles.

[Sorrento]

Problem about the CRT monitor its how its not healthy... too much radiation you don't want thrown at you. For gaming its the ideal monitor, no question, its all about distance between you and the monitor; I have the 24" LCD and I require 85 cm to be able to enjoy the whole area with out moving my eyes around too much (from left to right), a 30" would require at least 1 m.

 

If you don't spend more than 6 hours per day in front of the CRT then there is no need to upgrade... or is it?? :confused:

[sailindawg]

Problem about the CRT monitor its how its not healthy... too much radiation you don't want thrown at you.

 

I think that "radiation from a CRT" stuff is bit overblown. A bit of an urban myth like cell phones will give one brain cancer. Your more likely to die in a car accident from using a cell phone than getting brain cancer from one.

 

If you don't spend more than 6 hours per day in front of the CRT then there is no need to upgrade... or is it??

 

My gaming time is limited to about 2 hours/day, at most. A 6 hour gaming session would be on a chance I'm home alone on a weekend and my family is gone some where's else. I guess the upgrade-itis is part of the disease I've got of wanting the latest and greatest. However, in the monitor category, I'm not entirely convinced that is the case. I'm also looking at how I use the area where my pc is. A 22"-24" monitor would allow for better movie viewing and maybe a game console for my daughter.

[Sorrento]

Hmm, check it out... not only UV radiation comes from the CRT screen, but also the magnetic one even if lower is similar to a microwave oven.

 

Its all about time, and like you said you don't spend too much of it in front of the screen... however there are others who work 16 hours per day in front of monitors and these are the ones who might get skin cancer or worse things (eye problems) because of the CRT.

 

Maybe you are right and this is a little bit exagerated, I think its all about time... however these are things I don't like to play with, and like I said a 21" CRT monitor is ideal for gaming, unless the owner is a sick gaming SOB who spends more than 16 hours in front of it

 

Also last time I checked LCD monitors were behind CRT in colours and brightness and other quality stuff: black color looks grey in the LCD.

[war59312]

Yeah my eyes suck. I am legally blind without contacts. And even with contacts its still only 20/80. Best that can do without lazzer surgrey.

[freakyGameR]

Okay guys, regarding to this bottlenecking issues, what do u think the best gpu would fits my system (as showed in my sig), nvdia 7600gs 256mb/512mb, 7600gt 256mb or 7900gs?? Also i have to note that i got only resolutions up to 1024 x 768 while gaming..