Originally posted by: Noema
Originally posted by: Assimilator1
If you are CPU limited your frame rates suffer at low resolutions because the GPU will be able to handle that easily, and will this make the CPU limitations transparent. If you raise the resolution / AA and so forth to the limit which the GPU can handle so that the bottle neck is the GPU (and the bottleneck becomes apparent regardless of the CPU), then your frame rates suffer, making the GPU limitations evident. If you had unlimited GPU muscle, then you'd get crap frame rates at ANY resolution (if you are CPU limited) because that would make the limitations of the CPU evident at any resolution. It's not that the workload is offloaded to the GPU...it's simply that at higher resolutions your frame rates suffer because of the GPU, long before the CPU limitations are made evident. Which would be made evident if the GPU limitations are removed. If your CPU can't output more than 25fps, you won't get more than 25fps at any resolution. If you are not GPU bound at higher resolutions, you will still be CPU bound, thus no more than 25fps. If you are GPU bound, well, you won't be getting more than 25fps anyway.
Thats very interesting.
I did a test. System A64 3000(754) X800GTO256 AGP 1G Corsair
Ran far cry research @ 720x576 then 1152x864(normal) and my fps didn't change all that much, stayed around 50-70. Maybe 15% increase in low res.
So then i assume i wouldn't be badly cpu limited with a 1950 pro?
Originally posted by: greyeyezz
these guys eXaggerate the CPU "bottleneck" ... yeah, sometimes the CPU is so overloaded that 'offloading' work to the GPU doesn't do much ...Originally posted by: Noema
Originally posted by: Assimilator1
If you are CPU limited your frame rates suffer at low resolutions because the GPU will be able to handle that easily, and will this make the CPU limitations transparent. If you raise the resolution / AA and so forth to the limit which the GPU can handle so that the bottle neck is the GPU (and the bottleneck becomes apparent regardless of the CPU), then your frame rates suffer, making the GPU limitations evident. If you had unlimited GPU muscle, then you'd get crap frame rates at ANY resolution (if you are CPU limited) because that would make the limitations of the CPU evident at any resolution. It's not that the workload is offloaded to the GPU...it's simply that at higher resolutions your frame rates suffer because of the GPU, long before the CPU limitations are made evident. Which would be made evident if the GPU limitations are removed. If your CPU can't output more than 25fps, you won't get more than 25fps at any resolution. If you are not GPU bound at higher resolutions, you will still be CPU bo und, thus no more than 25fps. If you are GPU bound, well, you won't be getting more than 25fps anyway.
Thats very interesting.
I did a test. System A64 3000(754) X800GTO256 AGP 1G Corsair
Ran far cry research @ 720x576 then 1152x864(normal) and my fps didn't change all that much, stayed around 50-70. Maybe 15% increase in low res.
So then i assume i wouldn't be badly cpu limited with a 1950 pro?
... that said, A64 3000 or P4 3.0 will NOT bottleneck the x1950p [noticeably/practically] and you CAN crank up the AA/AF and details so your CPU will not be a problem whatsoever.
My own upgrade from x850xt>x1950p is not [obviously] bottlenecking the proc
:thumbsup:
------------------------
Originally posted by: wizzard0003
Found THIS from a link posted in another forum...
Possible explanation why the VisionTek cards showed up so soon...?
:shocked:
\\//_mine doesn't o/c very wellAlways eager to release recent graphics cards for older interfaces, Visiontek has introduced a Radeon X1950 Pro graphics card with an AGP interface. Just like the PCI Express Radeon X1950 Pro, which we reviewed a couple of months ago, the AGP card has a 575MHz core clock speed and 256MB of GDDR3 memory running at 690MHz. However, Visiontek says its card has a 90nm graphics processor. Since the PCIe Radeon X1950 Pro is powered by the 80nm RV570 GPU, Visiontek's AGP model might be using the same cut-down 90nm R580 GPU as the older Radeon X1900 GT. The cut-down R580 and RV570 share the same specs, though, so performance between the PCIe X1950 Pro and Visiontek's AGP variant should be similar.
maybe i should return it for a 512MB ver.
:Q
well, i didn't really *quote you* ... "you guys" referred to several posts about "offloading work".Originally posted by: Assimilator1
apoppin
these guys eXaggerate the CPU "bottleneck" ... yeah, sometimes the CPU is so overloaded that 'offloading' work to the GPU doesn't do much ...
... that said, A64 3000 or P4 3.0 will NOT bottleneck the x1950p [noticeably/practically] and you CAN crank up the AA/AF and details so your CPU will not be a problem whatsoever.
My own upgrade from x850xt>x1950p is not [obviously] bottlenecking the proc
You seem to misunderstand the situation & what we've said.
The GPU does not offload work from the CPU anymore at hi res than at low res.
IF the CPU was too slow in the 1st place cranking up the res will not help the situation (if that's what you meant?).
If you have a CPU which was too slow to handle the most CPU intensive moments of a game/benchmark ,say a P4 1.3GHz & you benchmarked it in for example Farcry, at the lowest res & detail (e.g. 640x480,so the vid card is not a bottleneck) with an X1950 Pro & the FPS was 10 ,if you cranked up the res to 1600x1200 the FPS would still be ~10.The CPU load is the same regardless of resolution (unless you go way beyond the grx cards limit).A min of 10 FPS would naturally be unplayable.
Though if you had a faster CPU which was able to 'supplie' a min of 30FPS then yes you could wang up the res & detail* & make very good use of your shiny new 1950 Pro ,in that respect the CPU would not hinder playability at hi res.
(*excluding details which relie on the CPU)
As I said though,I do agree that a Ath64 3000 or a P4 3GHz is likely to be plenty fast enough to play modern games.Benchmarking at a low res would confirm/denie that.
Btw the bit you quoted wasn't written by me
greyeyezz
If your minimium FPS in a low res is 30* or above then you can make good use of a 1950 Pro ,your CPU 'limitation' won't be a problem as its above the min threshold
*min acceptable FPS depends on the game & personal preference ,30FPS leaves a little safety margin.
To find out if your CPU is fast enough benchmark your rig at your normal resolution & work your way down resolutions until there is no increase in FPS ,at that point that is the max FPS your CPU can provide.
If your card is sufficently slow enough in the game tested that you don't reach a FPS plateau then you need to use FRAPS for many games (except Farcry) to measure what the min FPS is within the whole run of the benchmark.
I hope that lot makes sense
I believe a better way to say this is: "Unless the CPU is too slow to handle the non-graphics part of the game, then upgrading the video card and cranking up the resolution will ALWAYS help the situation."Originally posted by: Assimilator1
apoppin
IF the CPU was too slow in the 1st place cranking up the res will not help the situation (if that's what you meant?).
Originally posted by: apoppin
well, i didn't really *quote you* ... "you guys" referred to several posts about "offloading work".Originally posted by: Assimilator1
apoppin
these guys eXaggerate the CPU "bottleneck" ... yeah, sometimes the CPU is so overloaded that 'offloading' work to the GPU doesn't do much ...
... that said, A64 3000 or P4 3.0 will NOT bottleneck the x1950p [noticeably/practically] and you CAN crank up the AA/AF and details so your CPU will not be a problem whatsoever.
My own upgrade from x850xt>x1950p is not [obviously] bottlenecking the proc
You seem to misunderstand the situation & what we've said.
The GPU does not offload work from the CPU anymore at hi res than at low res.
IF the CPU was too slow in the 1st place cranking up the res will not help the situation (if that's what you meant?).
If you have a CPU which was too slow to handle the most CPU intensive moments of a game/benchmark ,say a P4 1.3GHz & you benchmarked it in for example Farcry, at the lowest res & detail (e.g. 640x480,so the vid card is not a bottleneck) with an X1950 Pro & the FPS was 10 ,if you cranked up the res to 1600x1200 the FPS would still be ~10.The CPU load is the same regardless of resolution (unless you go way beyond the grx cards limit).A min of 10 FPS would naturally be unplayable.
Though if you had a faster CPU which was able to 'supplie' a min of 30FPS then yes you could wang up the res & detail* & make very good use of your shiny new 1950 Pro ,in that respect the CPU would not hinder playability at hi res.
(*excluding details which relie on the CPU)
As I said though,I do agree that a Ath64 3000 or a P4 3GHz is likely to be plenty fast enough to play modern games.Benchmarking at a low res would confirm/denie that.
Btw the bit you quoted wasn't written by me
greyeyezz
If your minimium FPS in a low res is 30* or above then you can make good use of a 1950 Pro ,your CPU 'limitation' won't be a problem as its above the min threshold
*min acceptable FPS depends on the game & personal preference ,30FPS leaves a little safety margin.
To find out if your CPU is fast enough benchmark your rig at your normal resolution & work your way down resolutions until there is no increase in FPS ,at that point that is the max FPS your CPU can provide.
If your card is sufficently slow enough in the game tested that you don't reach a FPS plateau then you need to use FRAPS for many games (except Farcry) to measure what the min FPS is within the whole run of the benchmark.
I hope that lot makes sense
we are NOT talking about a 1.3Ghz Celeron ... we are talking about 3Ghz P4/A64 3000+ processors being bottlenecked [specifically] by an x1950p.
in THIS case ... you can offload work to the GPU by cranking up the details and turning up AA/AF and HDR [if available] ... works for me for all current new games
forget benchs ... PLAY the game and see the difference
... the x1950p is an excellent match for a P4@3Ghz or an A64300+
:thumbsup:
Originally posted by: Assimilator1
Originally posted by: apoppin
well, i didn't really *quote you* ... "you guys" referred to several posts about "offloading work".Originally posted by: Assimilator1
apoppin
these guys eXaggerate the CPU "bottleneck" ... yeah, sometimes the CPU is so overloaded that 'offloading' work to the GPU doesn't do much ...
... that said, A64 3000 or P4 3.0 will NOT bottleneck the x1950p [noticeably/practically] and you CAN crank up the AA/AF and details so your CPU will not be a problem whatsoever.
My own upgrade from x850xt>x1950p is not [obviously] bottlenecking the proc
You seem to misunderstand the situation & what we've said.
The GPU does not offload work from the CPU anymore at hi res than at low res.
IF the CPU was too slow in the 1st place cranking up the res will not help the situation (if that's what you meant?).
If you have a CPU which was too slow to handle the most CPU intensive moments of a game/benchmark ,say a P4 1.3GHz & you benchmarked it in for example Farcry, at the lowest res & detail (e.g. 640x480,so the vid card is not a bottleneck) with an X1950 Pro & the FPS was 10 ,if you cranked up the res to 1600x1200 the FPS would still be ~10.The CPU load is the same regardless of resolution (unless you go way beyond the grx cards limit).A min of 10 FPS would naturally be unplayable.
Though if you had a faster CPU which was able to 'supplie' a min of 30FPS then yes you could wang up the res & detail* & make very good use of your shiny new 1950 Pro ,in that respect the CPU would not hinder playability at hi res.
(*excluding details which relie on the CPU)
As I said though,I do agree that a Ath64 3000 or a P4 3GHz is likely to be plenty fast enough to play modern games.Benchmarking at a low res would confirm/denie that.
Btw the bit you quoted wasn't written by me
greyeyezz
If your minimium FPS in a low res is 30* or above then you can make good use of a 1950 Pro ,your CPU 'limitation' won't be a problem as its above the min threshold
*min acceptable FPS depends on the game & personal preference ,30FPS leaves a little safety margin.
To find out if your CPU is fast enough benchmark your rig at your normal resolution & work your way down resolutions until there is no increase in FPS ,at that point that is the max FPS your CPU can provide.
If your card is sufficently slow enough in the game tested that you don't reach a FPS plateau then you need to use FRAPS for many games (except Farcry) to measure what the min FPS is within the whole run of the benchmark.
I hope that lot makes sense
we are NOT talking about a 1.3Ghz Celeron ... we are talking about 3Ghz P4/A64 3000+ processors being bottlenecked [specifically] by an x1950p.
in THIS case ... you can offload work to the GPU by cranking up the details and turning up AA/AF and HDR [if available] ... works for me for all current new games
forget benchs ... PLAY the game and see the difference
... the x1950p is an excellent match for a P4@3Ghz or an A64300+
:thumbsup:
Mate you just don't get it! ,work is not off loaded to the GPU its merely that when you play at higer res/details the GPU is 'loaded' more heavily than the CPU therefore you don't see the FPS being limited by the CPU as its more limited by the GPU ,and as I said before if its above ~30FPS it doesn't matter anyway.
So yes you can play at higher res without problems & gain all the eye candy,(I never argued that) as long as the CPU can do min ~30FPS ,which as I said I'm sure the P4 3GHz/Ath64 3000 can do easily ,did you actually bother to read what I said? doesn't seem like it
To say work is offloaded to the GPU because the res is cranked up is just plain wrong.
In many ways, the message this article sends is something we've already known: a fast GPU needs a fast CPU. The difference with Oblivion is that the impact of a slow CPU on a fast GPU is far more noticeable than on many games we've tested in the past. While we can't realistically provide a CPU scaling chart for every GPU we tested in the last review, you can draw some general conclusions based on the four GPUs we focused on in this review. If you're using an older Athlon 64 3000+ or 3200+ with anything around the speed of a Radeon X1800 XT or faster, you'll want to look at upgrading (or overclocking, naturally) your CPU; otherwise, you'll be leaving a decent amount of GPU performance on the table.
Coming out next month for $209.00?Originally posted by: honestjohn
A Review in English for a change courtesy of The Firing Squad ....... and in this corner we have ...... the PowerColor X1950 Pro AGP
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/pow...adeon_x1950_pro_agp_review/default.asp
It looked to me like the FiringSquad results showed the Powercolor card performing MUCH better than the German review of the Sapphire card. It doesn't seem like there should be that great a difference between two cards with the same chipset.Originally posted by: sum1
I haven?t had a chance to soak up the FiringSquad review yet, but what did you all make of the first benchmarks? I was rather underwhelmed.
Originally posted by: Assimilator1
Cool ,thanks
apoppin
lol ,well maybe what we've got here is just a language problem then
Though I did ask at least twice if that's what you meant
maybe you don't get it
you tell me that i am wrong then say exactly what i said
No I didn't ,how on earth did you get that idea?
Suffice to say that the GPU does not offload any more work from the CPU at high res than it does low res.So cranking up the res does not offload more work from the CPU.If your CPU is fast enough at low res it will be at high res.
Do I make sense now?
in OTHER words, the x1950p [which is ~the speed of the x1800xt] is a reasonable match for the p4@3Ghz or an A64 3000+ ... except for the MOST cpu-intensive games....
and from 'experience' it is still a noticeable improvement.
Now I get it ,you really aren't bothering to read what I've said at all! ,for the third time I never argued that point!
When you guys get your 1950's it'd be cool to see some before & after benchmarks