Bottleneck for X1950Pro AGP?

[SoMBrA]

Good morning everyone
I need some help . Im about to buy the upcoming X1950Pro AGP just for the Dual Link DVI connector they have so i can play high resolution on my new monitor.
I was thinking if my 3200+ (754) would be a problem for this graphic card... I would play at 1600x1200 at least, hopefully 1920x1xxx (cant remember now )

Any comment will be appreciated

 

[fire400]

bottleneck is the CPU.

 

[Skitzer]

Actually I don't think a 3200+ will bottleneck any AGP card. Is it running at stock speed?

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: fire400
bottleneck is the CPU.

Try looking at the resolutions he's going to be gaming: 1600x1200 and 1920x1??0. Even for a fast card like this, the stress will be on the graphics sub-system.

 

[SoMBrA]

Thanks everyone for the replies!
I still don't know what to do .

I'm using my Dell with a 1280x800 resolution because the Dual Link DVI problem and i see everything HUGE! So the fastest way to resolve this small issue was buying the x1950pro AGP but if my CPU gonna be a bottleneck for the graphic card maybe i should wait and buy new computer so i can move to PCIe (i didnt want to because first i want to wait and see what ATI's R600 has to offer and all the DX10 stuff...)

 

[IEC]

The bottleneck will still be the video card at higher resolutions. A better GPU is worth many times more in the FPS dept than a better CPU.

 

[fire400]

Pff, it's a bloody outdated s754, it used to be that the any AMD s939 would do for a game back in 2005. it's 2006 obviously.

it's like running a Northwood Celeron with a 7600GT in my eyes. save the money from getting that dead end AGP solution and get a dual core CPU and a faster GPU.

gaming on the 3200 is old skool, kids.

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: fire400
Pff, it's a bloody outdated s754, it used to be that the any AMD s939 would do for a game back in 2005. it's 2006 obviously.

it's like running a Northwood Celeron with a 7600GT in my eyes. save the money from getting that dead end AGP solution and get a dual core CPU and a faster GPU.

gaming on the 3200 is old skool, kids.

Heh, I don't think so. If you look at processor performance scaling for game benchmarks a solid A64 3200+ is still able to keep up quite well.

The big issue comes in the form of the raw system bandwidth. More always helps, and this is where 939 will help out over 754.

 

[shortylickens]

If its one of the newer, more graphically advanced games then the AGP bus is a slight bottleneck.

I'm thinking of Oblivion at max detail, same for Battlefield 2 and maybe FEAR.
But I really just think it limits you from the absolutely ridiculous resolutions and useless settings, like Soft Shadows on FEAR or grass in Oblivion. They look horrible and kill performance, pointless to use them.

 

[jelifah]

The bottleneck, currently, is the lack of availability for this video card :/

Sarcasm aside I'm very happy to see this card being released in AGP format, it just can't get here quick enough! After having recently upgraded my A64 3200+ to an Opteron, it's nice to see that I'll be able to get a rather current video card that can run my dream 30" monitor, with its Dual DVI link.

shortylickens - I don't think you'll be able to max detail Oblivion. The only card that, currently, does that is the recently released 8800.

 

[Makaveli]

You're gonna need 2 of those cards in a crossfire setup to put a 30Inch native res!

 

[fire400]

Originally posted by: InlineFive

Originally posted by: fire400
Pff, it's a bloody outdated s754, it used to be that the any AMD s939 would do for a game back in 2005. it's 2006 obviously.

it's like running a Northwood Celeron with a 7600GT in my eyes. save the money from getting that dead end AGP solution and get a dual core CPU and a faster GPU.

gaming on the 3200 is old skool, kids.

Heh, I don't think so. If you look at processor performance scaling for game benchmarks a solid A64 3200+ is still able to keep up quite well.

The big issue comes in the form of the raw system bandwidth. More always helps, and this is where 939 will help out over 754.

The Pentium D is way faster than a 3200.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/...knocks_out_athlon_64/page12.html#games

You tell me where the 3200 will fit on these lists? Way_Below...
Op brags that he wants to hit 1600x1200 resolutions for games?

Yeah, no problem, just turn all the eye candy off and you're set!

 

[happy medium]

A (754) xp 3200 is about as fast as a 2.6- 2.8 pent 4, Northwood. I would think a 7600gt is the fastest card that cpu can push. Imho I would say upgrade the whole system in this case.

Now if you can overclock it to 2.6 it might be a different story

 

[SoMBrA]

Thanks for the replies!

Originally posted by: happy medium
A (754) xp 3200 is about as fast as a 2.6- 2.8 pent 4, Northwood. I would think a 7600gt is the fastest card that cpu can push. Imho I would say upgrade the whole system in this case.

Now if you can overclock it to 2.6 it might be a different story

I tried to OC and i think my CPU has a bad stepping because i couldn't go above 2.5 (i used it@2.55 but after couple days became unstable)

I'm considering changing the whole system just like some of you said, but if i want to buy everything brand new i'm afraid something will change the next months with all the new graphic cards coming out, how much power i will need, maybe ati's R600 for Core2Duo or new Intel chipset? (985?) nvidia's 680i... Mmmmm Quad core anyone?

Maybe i should just wait and upgrade everthing

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

sry, but i have to disagree with those who say GPU is always the bottleneck since there are many situations in different games when u will be CPU limited. Not even a stronger GPU would help to change that fact..

 

[dguy6789]

Wow, how times have changed. People have become such avid fanboys of Intel that they forget the power of the Hammer. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a socket 754 Athlon XP. This means that he has an Athlon 64 3200+. For those who are not sure or are misinformed, an Athlon 64 3200+ socket 754 is and will always be faster than a Pentium 4 Northwood at 3.2Ghz.

Those who argue about 939 vs 754 need to get a clue. 939 has merits over 754, but none have to do with the performance of the socket itself. A 2Ghz processor on 754 will be no more than 5-7% slower than a 2Ghz processor on 939 even if the 939 has full dual channel memory. People have been too hyped up. Clock for clock, a 754 processor is almost identical to the 939. 939 is a more viable option than 754 only because it does offer that slight boost(And that is all it is, a slight boost and nothing more) and also offers dual core support. Other than that, there is nothing 939 has over 754.

Next up, yes, there are some cases where performance is limited by cpu. This only occurs when the gpu is underloaded enough to already be getting high fps. There are rare occasions where this is not the case, where a slow cpu will cause lag at a level that is more than desired, but these games are very few and far between. Some games in this category could include Oblivion, and very badly coded real time strategy games.

But we are not talking about a slow cpu; slower than the best, yes, but not slow in general, not by a long shot. Some people need to get their head out of the clouds and realize something: There is not one game out there now that cannot be run with maximum quality on the processor mentioned above with a good video card.

To the OP, get yourself that video card and enjoy running every game out there at excellent graphical settings.

 

[SoMBrA]

Maybe the CPU bottleneck for a GPU is not as important as we all might think... I mean a good GPU will improve your general gaming experience and thats the point, i dont want to have the 3DMark record . But anyways not much time left for R600 so i should wait and see whats going on...

 

[MegaVovaN]

Originally posted by: SoMBrA
Thanks for the replies!

Originally posted by: happy medium
A (754) xp 3200 is about as fast as a 2.6- 2.8 pent 4, Northwood. I would think a 7600gt is the fastest card that cpu can push. Imho I would say upgrade the whole system in this case.

Now if you can overclock it to 2.6 it might be a different story

I tried to OC and i think my CPU has a bad stepping because i couldn't go above 2.5 (i used it@2.55 but after couple days became unstable)

I'm considering changing the whole system just like some of you said, but if i want to buy everything brand new i'm afraid something will change the next months with all the new graphic cards coming out, how much power i will need, maybe ati's R600 for Core2Duo or new Intel chipset? (985?) nvidia's 680i... Mmmmm Quad core anyone?

Maybe i should just wait and upgrade everthing

When Quad comes out, you gonna wait for 8x core, or for quad to drop prices. same with dx10 cards.
Just go ahead and buy ur stuff _today_. C2D is still very recent CPU.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: SoMBrA
Thanks for the replies!

Originally posted by: happy medium
A (754) xp 3200 is about as fast as a 2.6- 2.8 pent 4, Northwood. I would think a 7600gt is the fastest card that cpu can push. Imho I would say upgrade the whole system in this case.

Now if you can overclock it to 2.6 it might be a different story

I tried to OC and i think my CPU has a bad stepping because i couldn't go above 2.5 (i used it@2.55 but after couple days became unstable)

I'm considering changing the whole system just like some of you said, but if i want to buy everything brand new i'm afraid something will change the next months with all the new graphic cards coming out, how much power i will need, maybe ati's R600 for Core2Duo or new Intel chipset? (985?) nvidia's 680i... Mmmmm Quad core anyone?

Maybe i should just wait and upgrade everthing

I'm coming to that reality too with my system. It's just about maxed out. It looks like the way to go is a core2 motherboard that will support sli and Quad core later. I also see that a 200.00$ e6400 core duo will easily max a 8800gtx and with a mild overclock will push 2- 8800gtx's in sli.

Option 1,..
So a good motherboard 200.00$, core duo e6400 about 200.00$ ,ram with overclocking potential 250.00$ Video card 8800 gtx 500.00$, power supply 850 watts with 45 amp 12v rail (so you can sli later and quad core cpu) 150.00$, and a new case to keep it cool about 150.00$. FPS I'll get with this system for about 2 years priceless. Thats 1500.00$ for a system that you can upgrade the video (sli) and over clock cpu or quad core when they are priced nice.

Option 2,.. Upgrade my AGP video with 1950pro agp (250.00$) and my cpu (because it 533 bus) and grab a pent 3.4, 800 bus (125.00$). $375.00 total. No windows reinstall.
In 6 months I can upgrade all the stuff in option 1 cheaper and the technology is more mature.(not as many bugs).

 

[SoMBrA]

Hey medium, where u get the amp info from the 12v rail?
It's becoming important and i really dont know how u look that up.

And MegaVovan you are right, we always do that, wait and wait and wait... if i wait its just for the motherboard now, choose the best chipset because i will go for a Core2Duo for sure ^^

 

[happy medium]

In their specifications like this 12v+ rail at 72 amps
or on the unit itself (back of your tower) just look for 12v+ then amps.

Hers the original page from Newegg. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817703007

Model
Brand PC Power & Cooling
Model Turbo-Cool 1KW-SR
SPEC
Type EPS12V
Maximum Power 1000W Continuous @ 50°C
Fans 1
PFC Active
Main Connector 24-Pin
Dual +12V No
SLI Support NVIDIA SLI Certified
Modular Cabling Support No
Power Good Signal 300ms
Hold-up Time 32ms
Efficiency 83%
Over Voltage Protection +3.3V, +5V, +12V
Input Voltage 90 - 264 V
Input Frequency Range 47 - 63 Hz
Input Current 15A @ 115V
Output +3.3V@24A,+5V@30A, ak+12V@72A (78A Pe), -12V@0.8A, +5VSB@3.5A
MTBF 120,000 hours
Approvals UL, cUL, CE, TUV, RoHS
Features
Connectors 1 x Main connector (24-pin)
1 x 12V (4-pin)
2 x 12V(8-pin)
8 x peripheral (4-pin)
6 x SATA
1 x Floppy
4 x PCI-E
Features Developed to power ultra high-end systems (Quad CPU, Quad SLI, etc.), the new SR version of the renowned Turbo-Cool 1KW delivers 1000 watts (1 Kilowatt) of continuous, rock-solid power with a peak output of 1100 Watts! Built with three AC-DC power modules, the Turbo-Cool 1KW-SR is an efficient, amazingly quiet, EPS12V / SLI power supply with 72A (78A peak) of 12VDC in a form factor that fits most ATX cases. Truly, the ultimate computer power supply.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: fire400
Pff, it's a bloody outdated s754, it used to be that the any AMD s939 would do for a game back in 2005. it's 2006 obviously.

it's like running a Northwood Celeron with a 7600GT in my eyes. save the money from getting that dead end AGP solution and get a dual core CPU and a faster GPU.

gaming on the 3200 is old skool, kids.

The Pentium D is way faster than a 3200.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/...knocks_out_athlon_64/page12.html#games

You tell me where the 3200 will fit on these lists? Way_Below...
Op brags that he wants to hit 1600x1200 resolutions for games?

Yeah, no problem, just turn all the eye candy off and you're set!

Thinking that a processor from 2005 can't run games in 2006..... strike one.
Linking to Tom's Hardware for discussing useful benchmarks...... strike two.
Thinking a 3200+ can't play games at 1600x1200...... aw, strike three. Looks like no joy in Mudville today.

If Tom's had shown charts at 1600x1200, what you'd see is that in just about every game on that page, each CPU would show about the exact same FPS.

But he didn't. Yet there are plenty of other benches out there to prove it. Yes, there are some games where a faster (or even dual-core) CPU can increase gaming performance even at 1600x1200; namely Flight Sims and online games. There is also a benefit of using a faster CPU when utilizing Crossfire or SLI.

But to call the 3200+ a *bottleneck* would be a gross misuse of the word. Wanna test it out? It's easy. I have a 3000+ and an x1900xtx. I should be bottlenecked like a sumbitch then, right? Well, ya know what happens when I game at 1024x768, then raise the resolution to 1600x1200, then to 2048x1536? The FPS goes down. Well, waddya know. If this weak "old skool" 3000+ were bottlenecking this still high end x1900xtx card, I'd get the same damn FPS across ALL resolutions. But that doesn't happen. So, please explain, fire400, how would it bottleneck an even slower video card?

I don't get why gamers are so concerned all the time with bottlenecking their video card. Even if it were holding back the card's full potential a little bit, so what... raise the resolution, use AA, use MSAA, use 16AF, turn up everything. Because no matter how you slice it, a faster CPU can gain you a few frames here and there, but, as we've seen with G80, a faster GPU can frickin DOUBLE your framerate if you already own a high-end card. Even moreso if you own a midrange or lower.

SoMBrA, 2.5ghz from that 3200+ is good. I'm running mine at 2.5 also and haven't been bottlenecked in the least at 1600x1200 with my XTX.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: SoMBrA
Thanks for the replies!

Originally posted by: happy medium
A (754) xp 3200 is about as fast as a 2.6- 2.8 pent 4, Northwood. I would think a 7600gt is the fastest card that cpu can push. Imho I would say upgrade the whole system in this case.

Now if you can overclock it to 2.6 it might be a different story

I tried to OC and i think my CPU has a bad stepping because i couldn't go above 2.5 (i used it@2.55 but after couple days became unstable)

I'm considering changing the whole system just like some of you said, but if i want to buy everything brand new i'm afraid something will change the next months with all the new graphic cards coming out, how much power i will need, maybe ati's R600 for Core2Duo or new Intel chipset? (985?) nvidia's 680i... Mmmmm Quad core anyone?

Maybe i should just wait and upgrade everthing

So advise him to spend 250.00 to 300.00$ on a AGP gpu with a stock A64 3200 this late in the game would be kinda dumb.? I threw 275.00 down on my 7800gs 7 -8 months ago and at least I got the chance to play games at high setting and resolutions for mabe a year if I'm lucky. With all the new fast hardware coming out it won't be long (2-3 months) before new games will make the 7800gs and x1950 pro AGP
feel like a low end gpu. In other words his whole system will be a bottleneck!

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: SoMBrA
Good morning everyone
I need some help . Im about to buy the upcoming X1950Pro AGP just for the Dual Link DVI connector they have so i can play high resolution on my new monitor.
I was thinking if my 3200+ (754) would be a problem for this graphic card... I would play at 1600x1200 at least, hopefully 1920x1xxx (cant remember now )
Any comment will be appreciated

At these resolutions forget about it, upgrade to pci-e and some sort of duel core cpu.

 

[GregGreen]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel

Originally posted by: fire400
Pff, it's a bloody outdated s754, it used to be that the any AMD s939 would do for a game back in 2005. it's 2006 obviously.

it's like running a Northwood Celeron with a 7600GT in my eyes. save the money from getting that dead end AGP solution and get a dual core CPU and a faster GPU.

gaming on the 3200 is old skool, kids.

The Pentium D is way faster than a 3200.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/...knocks_out_athlon_64/page12.html#games

You tell me where the 3200 will fit on these lists? Way_Below...
Op brags that he wants to hit 1600x1200 resolutions for games?

Yeah, no problem, just turn all the eye candy off and you're set!

Thinking that a processor from 2005 can't run games in 2006..... strike one.
Linking to Tom's Hardware for discussing useful benchmarks...... strike two.
Thinking a 3200+ can't play games at 1600x1200...... aw, strike three. Looks like no joy in Mudville today.

If Tom's had shown charts at 1600x1200, what you'd see is that in just about every game on that page, each CPU would show about the exact same FPS.

But he didn't. Yet there are plenty of other benches out there to prove it. Yes, there are some games where a faster (or even dual-core) CPU can increase gaming performance even at 1600x1200; namely Flight Sims and online games. There is also a benefit of using a faster CPU when utilizing Crossfire or SLI.

But to call the 3200+ a *bottleneck* would be a gross misuse of the word. Wanna test it out? It's easy. I have a 3000+ and an x1900xtx. I should be bottlenecked like a sumbitch then, right? Well, ya know what happens when I game at 1024x768, then raise the resolution to 1600x1200, then to 2048x1536? The FPS goes down. Well, waddya know. If this weak "old skool" 3000+ were bottlenecking this still high end x1900xtx card, I'd get the same damn FPS across ALL resolutions. But that doesn't happen. So, please explain, fire400, how would it bottleneck an even slower video card?

I don't get why gamers are so concerned all the time with bottlenecking their video card. Even if it were holding back the card's full potential a little bit, so what... raise the resolution, use AA, use MSAA, use 16AF, turn up everything. Because no matter how you slice it, a faster CPU can gain you a few frames here and there, but, as we've seen with G80, a faster GPU can frickin DOUBLE your framerate if you already own a high-end card. Even moreso if you own a midrange or lower.

SoMBrA, 2.5ghz from that 3200+ is good. I'm running mine at 2.5 also and haven't been bottlenecked in the least at 1600x1200 with my XTX.

QFT