Running a stock E6600 with an HD 4870

[Eucharistadorer]

Hi all, I'm new to the forums.

I have a question pertaining to running a stock E6600 with an HD 4870. I was advised by someone on another tech forum that my E6600 would bottleneck a 4870 (which I plan to get to replace my x1900xt), and that it wouldn't be worth the money to buy it because of the bottleneck.

Do you guys think this holds true? And if it does, how much of a performance decrease and what not would I experience? Or, should I just get the card because the lower fps will be minimal? Any and all advice is appreciated.

Thanks

 

[iBPJohn]

I would think that it would be a good improvement.

What games are you going to be playing because a lot of times it really depends on the different games.

 

[error8]

Yes it will, especially at lower resolutions. But it's a very small bottleneck and it can be solved easily with a slight overclock of that chip to around 3 ghz.

But don't trust the other forum, this card will be a major boost over your current one, even with that cpu.

 

[chizow]

Like the others said, you'll still see a significant boost in performance from a x1900xt just don't expect your 4870 scores to mirror what you see in reviews that use faster CPUs. You should also be able to crank up AA with little penalty in situations where you're CPU bottlenecked. Also, I'd consider getting a faster CPU or overclocking before any additional upgrade, like a 2nd 4870 in CrossFire.

 

[Eucharistadorer]

I'm running at 1680x1050, if that changes anything. AS far as games go, I play Crysis and pretty much any other modern game, except for MMOs.

The only reason I'm not overclocking is because I've never done it, and am a bit leery about it. It looks confusing to me, but I might give it a shot.

How much of a less fps/performance would I get from say, if I had an e8400?

 

[hclarkjr]

look here for tips on overclocking. i too have a E6600 that i have overclocked to 3 GHZ at default voltages. most E6600's will do that with ease and it is a nice jump in performance without having to buy another chip

 

[Eucharistadorer]

Thanks for the link! Anyone else have any input on my question? I'd like all the opinions I can get before I make a decision whether to overclock, buy a new cpu, or buy the 4870. Thanks again so far.

 

[hclarkjr]

might also want to try asking your question in that forum as it is more relevant to that forum than here or get a mod to move this thread to there

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Eucharistadorer
Thanks for the link! Anyone else have any input on my question? I'd like all the opinions I can get before I make a decision whether to overclock, buy a new cpu, or buy the 4870. Thanks again so far.

Even at 1680 I'd get the new video card first, then worry about overclocking 2nd, and buying a new CPU 3rd. There's not many reviews or links right now that show CPU scaling with current GPUs but even at 2.4 to 3GHz with Core 2 there was good scaling with last-gen's GPUs like G80/G92. RV770 and GT200 are typically 1.5-2x faster than last-gen so the need for faster CPUs is obvious.

 

[JPB]

GPU vs. CPU Upgrade: Extensive Tests

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Eucharistadorer
I'm running at 1680x1050, if that changes anything. AS far as games go, I play Crysis and pretty much any other modern game, except for MMOs.

The only reason I'm not overclocking is because I've never done it, and am a bit leery about it. It looks confusing to me, but I might give it a shot.

How much of a less fps/performance would I get from say, if I had an e8400?

About the same performance (E8400 has 6MB cache instead of 4MB like the E6600) you'd get by just upping the FSB to 333Mhz to put your E6600 to 3.0Ghz. The E6600 should be able to do 3.0Ghz without a voltage bump. It is begging you to overclock it.

Of course, if you get the E8400, it should be able to do 3.6Ghz with lower power consumption and better thermals.

Original Question's Answer - The E6600 should be a very small bottleneck, if it is one at all. The jump from an X1900 series to a 4870 will blow your mind even with the E6600 at stock speeds (but again, for all that is right and good...just overclock it to 3.0Ghz).

 

[Eucharistadorer]

Wow, I never expected this many people to reply. The other forum I was on didn't reply as fast, nor were they as enthusiastic or helpful. Thanks again guys.

 

[Eucharistadorer]

chizow, hclarkjr and JPB, can you specifically answer the original question like Golgatha did?
If you did already and I didn't realize it, forget about it.

*Sorry for the double post, I didn't realize that I hit the reply button twice.*

 

[hclarkjr]

buy the 4870 and bump your FSB to 333 and your all set my 6600 runs that speed at default voltages

 

[hclarkjr]

out of curiosity what size power supply are you using? just be careful that your power supply can handle the new video card and overclocking

 

[AmberClad]

I wonder what motherboard he has (i.e., Does he have something like a Dell? Or does he have a motherboard that's overclockable already).

 

[Eucharistadorer]

hclarkjr, I meant what bottlenecking performance decrease would I see without overclocking? That was my question.

And here's my system: GIGABYTE GA-P35C-DS3R LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Motherboard/Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ Stock/ ATI Radeon x1900XT 512 mb/3 GB DDR2 Crucial Ballistix PC2 6400 @ 4-4-4-12/SATA 250 GB 7200 RPM Western Digital Caviar SE/ SATA 150 GB 10000 RPM Western Digital Raptor X/CORSAIR CMPSU-550VX 550W ATX12V V2.2 Power Supply

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: Eucharistadorer
And here's my system: GIGABYTE GA-P35C-DS3R LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Motherboard

That thing is just begging to be overclocked :Q. You're in luck.

 

[hclarkjr]

according to the article that JBP linked too the speed should be between 2.6 to 3.0 GHZ, read the last page of that review it has the info you are seeking

 

[hclarkjr]

to be honest with you though i am willing to bet that if for some reason you are not comfortable with overclocking you are not going to notice the bottleneck that much

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Nine times out of ten lower/minimum frame rates are GPU dependent, so a faster video card is going to increase performance where you need it even if your CPU is a "bottleneck." I really wish people would stop throwing that word around like they do. Anyway, get the card, enjoy the upgrade, and don't go to that other forum anymore.

 

[Eucharistadorer]

Does overclocking cause a decrease in fps, or what does it exactly do? I've perfectly understood it to be honest with you guys.

The person on the other forum wasn't exactly saying that it won't improve my fps, they just said that it wouldn't be worth the money because the faster gpu would only be limited by what the slower cpu could do. In essence, that the excess speed that would be lost due to the bottleneck would be like throwing away money, because it wouldn't be used and I'd be spending extra money for nothing.

 

[hclarkjr]

it does the opposite, your FPS increase

 

[AmberClad]

It's intended to the remove/reduce the possibility of the CPU bottlenecking your GPU. The CPU is responsible for feeding data to the GPU to render -- therefore if the CPU can't keep up, the GPU isn't going to be working to its full potential.

That's pretty much the layman's explanation of it.

 

[Eucharistadorer]

Oops, I meant bottlenecking, not overclocking.

AmberClad, do you think I'll see any significant performance hit, if I don't overclock that is?