bottleneck because of cpu at higher resolutions

[ViperMichael]

Is it true that at higher resolutions the cpu matters less and less, if i was to take a pair of 8800GTX in SLi witha E6700, at 1680 x 1050 22" monitor would there be much bottle neck. What overclock speed would I have to go to get rid of this bootle neck.

 

[Noema]

It's not that the CPU matters less at higher resolutions with lots of AA; it's that the video card will be bottlenecked long before the CPU can be a factor.

I think that at that resolution, with SLI'ed 8800GTX, well yes, the CPU might be the bottleneck. But we are talking about an E6700! It's not like you are going to see a slideshow here.

'Bottleneck' in this case means that you'll get 150 Max FPS instead of, say, 190, or whatever... In other words, you probably wouldn't even notice if your E6700 were running at 3.6GHz unless you were really, really, really picky about max FPS and / or synthetic benchmarks.

EDIT: And to be perfectly frank, I think that SLI'ed 8800GTXes are an utter waste at that resolution.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Noema
It's not that the CPU matters less at higher resolutions with lots of AA; it's that the video card will be bottlenecked long before the CPU can be a factor.

I think that at that resolution, with SLI'ed 8800GTX, well yes, the CPU might be the bottleneck. But we are talking about an E6700! It's not like you are going to see a slideshow here.

'Bottleneck' in this case means that you'll get 150 Max FPS instead of, say, 190, or whatever... In other words, you probably wouldn't even notice if your E6700 were running at 3.6GHz unless you were really, really, really picky about max FPS and / or synthetic benchmarks.

EDIT: And to be perfectly frank, I think that SLI'ed 8800GTXes are an utter waste at that resolution.

For now, anything more than an 8800GTS is a waste @ 1680x1050.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Noema
It's not that the CPU matters less at higher resolutions with lots of AA; it's that the video card will be bottlenecked long before the CPU can be a factor.

I think that at that resolution, with SLI'ed 8800GTX, well yes, the CPU might be the bottleneck. But we are talking about an E6700! It's not like you are going to see a slideshow here.

'Bottleneck' in this case means that you'll get 150 Max FPS instead of, say, 190, or whatever... In other words, you probably wouldn't even notice if your E6700 were running at 3.6GHz unless you were really, really, really picky about max FPS and / or synthetic benchmarks.

EDIT: And to be perfectly frank, I think that SLI'ed 8800GTXes are an utter waste at that resolution.

For now, anything more than an 8800GTS is a waste @ 1680x1050.

Boo on that comment. :thumbsdown:

If you think that, you're not pumping up the IQ enough.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Noema
It's not that the CPU matters less at higher resolutions with lots of AA; it's that the video card will be bottlenecked long before the CPU can be a factor.

I think that at that resolution, with SLI'ed 8800GTX, well yes, the CPU might be the bottleneck. But we are talking about an E6700! It's not like you are going to see a slideshow here.

'Bottleneck' in this case means that you'll get 150 Max FPS instead of, say, 190, or whatever... In other words, you probably wouldn't even notice if your E6700 were running at 3.6GHz unless you were really, really, really picky about max FPS and / or synthetic benchmarks.

EDIT: And to be perfectly frank, I think that SLI'ed 8800GTXes are an utter waste at that resolution.

For now, anything more than an 8800GTS is a waste @ 1680x1050.

Boo on that comment. :thumbsdown:

If you think that, you're not pumping up the IQ enough.

Tell me what game I can't play 4xAA/16xAF @ 1680x1050 with max settings on a 8800GTS (especially overclocked). Perhaps Oblivion might give you trouble.

I run my GTS @ 600/1900 but I haven't found a scenario where I can't play a game at max settings. Medieval II gets a bit choppy at times, but it's more than acceptable.

Now when Crysis and UT2007 are released, that's going to be another story. But by then I'll have upgraded to something better anyway.

Everything is starting to change and will change when games like Crysis, UT2007, and Alan Wake come around. For one we're going to see a whole new league of GPU requirements, but otherwise we're also going to see more stress on the CPU than ever before. If you're worried about TODAY's performance, however, a good CPU like an E6600 or E6700 and an 8800GTS is fine for ANYTHING at 1680x1050, unless you insist on running 16xQAA.

 

[Matt2]

Maybe for some people 4xAA is not enough. Try running high AA modes.

Besides, it may be fine now, but you may change your mind when some more games come out.

 

[terentenet]

Originally posted by: Matt2
Maybe for some people 4xAA is not enough. Try running high AA modes.

Besides, it may be fine now, but you may change your mind when some more games come out.

I for one like the 16xAA mode. Best quality possible, that's why we pay thousands of dollars on video cards and cpus.

 

[Munky]

Try running all your games maxed with SS TRAA enabled, and tell me if you still think anything above the 8800gts is overkill.

 

[terentenet]

Originally posted by: munky
Try running all your games maxed with SS TRAA enabled, and tell me if you still think anything above the 8800gts is overkill.

Munky, I agree. Some think they've made the best investment with one GTS and that everything over it is useless. Also, some think that people buying GTX's are marketing victims.
GTX SLI? Insane; not needed, period.
Truth is Extelleron, it all depends on the eye candy you want enabled. Some don't even like AA, 7900GTX is enough for them.
The more eye candy you want, the more video processing power you need. I want more power. I am waiting for 8900GTX to appear and I'm upgrading the 2 8800GTX's.

I used to game at 1680x1050 on a 8800GTX SLI setup. I can enable all eye candy I want and keep it above 40FPS at 1680x1050. But that's SLI.
A single 8800GTX would struggle to maintain over 40FPS at 1680x1050 when you're asking it to do HDR+16xAA/16xAF; SS TRAA; Gamma Correct AA; Image Quality set to High Quality.
And not only in Oblivion. Supreme Commander; Armed Assault are just 2 other titles that can make a 8800GTX cry for mercy if you enable a lot of eye candy.

 

[Extelleron]

Personally I find settings like those to be overkill. Half of the time all I play is CS:S and that runs perfectly fine 16xQAA/16xAF, and any other game I run @ 4xAA/16xAF and that's fine for me. If you stared at a still screenshot you would tell the difference between 4xAA and 16xQAA, but for the most part, you will not see the difference while gaming. No AA at all is easy to spot and I can't deal with it, but I don't need crazy AA settings.

 

[yacoub]

Yup, 4x or 8x AA and 8x AF are more than enough for 1680x1050 resolution. An 8800 GTS 640MB card is more than enough to run any game I care about at those sort of settings.

 

[TheRyuu]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Noema
It's not that the CPU matters less at higher resolutions with lots of AA; it's that the video card will be bottlenecked long before the CPU can be a factor.

I think that at that resolution, with SLI'ed 8800GTX, well yes, the CPU might be the bottleneck. But we are talking about an E6700! It's not like you are going to see a slideshow here.

'Bottleneck' in this case means that you'll get 150 Max FPS instead of, say, 190, or whatever... In other words, you probably wouldn't even notice if your E6700 were running at 3.6GHz unless you were really, really, really picky about max FPS and / or synthetic benchmarks.

EDIT: And to be perfectly frank, I think that SLI'ed 8800GTXes are an utter waste at that resolution.

For now, anything more than an 8800GTS is a waste @ 1680x1050.

Boo on that comment. :thumbsdown:

If you think that, you're not pumping up the IQ enough.

Tell me what game I can't play 4xAA/16xAF @ 1680x1050 with max settings on a 8800GTS (especially overclocked). Perhaps Oblivion might give you trouble.

I run my GTS @ 600/1900 but I haven't found a scenario where I can't play a game at max settings. Medieval II gets a bit choppy at times, but it's more than acceptable.

Now when Crysis and UT2007 are released, that's going to be another story. But by then I'll have upgraded to something better anyway.

Everything is starting to change and will change when games like Crysis, UT2007, and Alan Wake come around. For one we're going to see a whole new league of GPU requirements, but otherwise we're also going to see more stress on the CPU than ever before. If you're worried about TODAY's performance, however, a good CPU like an E6600 or E6700 and an 8800GTS is fine for ANYTHING at 1680x1050, unless you insist on running 16xQAA.

Ya know what would also help?
Fixing your rig link:
http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.aspx?rigid=33740

:laugh:

(besides mentioning it in the post) how am I suppose to know you have a GTS

j/k man..
I wouldn't say that you couldn't run any game at 1680x1050 but a GTX would always be nice. As you said, just wait till stuff like Crysis comes out.