# GeForce 8800GTS terrible performance?



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 20, 2007)

Hey guys.

Ok um..I have bought the 8800GTS..with new PSU, OCZ 600WATT Game X Stream edition, and well..I tryed it out playing Medieval 2 Total war..I did not change any settings so I could see the performance increase.....and iam very dissappointed.
Before I got this card..I was using the X800GT 256mb, and was getting 22-25FPS average...with the GTS...iam only reaching 32-40FPS..not even double FPS increase??
Also..tryed oblivion...was getting average of 24-28FPS...now iam getting 33-40FPS...thats a terrible increase...fecking lag still!!!!

I have an AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz...I think thats the problem..but is it? ive the latest drivers also for the card..97.92 I beleave.
anyone have any ideas?? I downloaded the latest DirectX drivers also..made no difference.


----------



## DOM (Jan 20, 2007)

its your CPU

like with my 800XL OC with my P4 OC i only got like 5800-5900 in 3dmark05 and with C2D oc i got 7127

can you OC it ?


----------



## xman2007 (Jan 20, 2007)

i wouldnt say thats terrible but you probably are being held back by that 3200, tbh i would of upgraded my cpu/mobo + maybe ram before i got a high end card like that, you cant expect miracles with a 2ghz a64 especially not in a demanding game like oblivion

with a decent cpu that card should eat up oblivion


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 20, 2007)

yep I can overclock it..but got no fancy cooling system or better fan for the CPU..only with the one it came with..dout its safe enough to do it


----------



## xman2007 (Jan 20, 2007)

maybe take it up a little bit to 2.1/2.2 and see what the load temps are like and go from there. 

edit: you have a mediocre system with a high end graphics card in it, even with an oc, you will need to upgrade your cpu/ram at the very least to be able to take advantage of it unless you can get some insane oc's out of that cpu and ram


----------



## pt (Jan 20, 2007)

get a better mem and cooler and overclock it to 2.8/2.9 and see your fps go up


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jan 20, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> Hey guys.
> 
> Ok um..I have bought the 8800GTS..with new PSU, OCZ 600WATT Game X Stream edition, and well..I tryed it out playing Medieval 2 Total war..I did not change any settings so I could see the performance increase.....and iam very dissappointed.
> Before I got this card..I was using the X800GT 256mb, and was getting 22-25FPS average...with the GTS...iam only reaching 32-40FPS..not even double FPS increase??
> ...



LMFAO your trying to use that GFX card with that CPU!!!!  Thats your problem   Even a c2d E6300 bottlenecks a beastly card like that!!

Thats the trouble with PC's, once you upgrade one part you will probably have to upgrade the rest to keep your entire system at the same level 

ATM that card is a bit of a waste in your current rig m8 as the 8800GTS/GTX is very CPU dependent anyway


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 20, 2007)

darn it....ive had a guy look at a few things for meh...he beleaves its the actualy RAM thats the problem...its only DDR1 and its rather rubbish!
I will aim for a new mobo and CPU and DDR2 ram  

oh yes..the future is bright


----------



## HellasVagabond (Jan 20, 2007)

First change the CPU and then get a card that wont be bottlenecked by that CPU...


----------



## xman2007 (Jan 20, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> darn it....ive had a guy look at a few things for meh...he beleaves its the actualy RAM thats the problem...its only DDR1 and its rather rubbish!
> I will aim for a new mobo and CPU and DDR2 ram
> 
> oh yes..the future is bright



if you can afford that go ahead, if not a decent cpu and mobo will suffice, its nothing to do with your mem as timings make up for fsb on memory unless you get some good ddrII with good timings and high fsb


----------



## xman2007 (Jan 20, 2007)

HellasVagabond said:


> First change the CPU and then get a card that wont be bottlenecked by that CPU...



hmmm contradict yourself there mate, change the cpu and then get a card that wont be bottlenecked by it?? why get a slower card first off, and how will it be bottlenecked by that cpu if he changes it ?

a good 939 4000+ or x2 4600+ will do


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jan 20, 2007)

xman2007 said:


> hmmm contradict yourself there mate, change the cpu and then get a card that wont be bottlenecked by it?? why get a slower card first off, and how will it be bottlenecked by that cpu if he changes it ?
> 
> a good 939 4000+ or x2 4600+ will do



I agree, that wouldhelp and he can keep his mobo & ram etc


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jan 20, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> darn it....ive had a guy look at a few things for meh...he beleaves its the actualy RAM thats the problem...its only DDR1 and its rather rubbish!
> I will aim for a new mobo and CPU and DDR2 ram
> 
> oh yes..the future is bright



Well hes obviously a n00b as its your CPU thats bottlenecking that video card!


----------



## Zubasa (Jan 20, 2007)

HookeyStreet said:


> Well hes obviously a n00b as its your CPU thats bottlenecking that video card!


Agree~ 
The difference between DD1 and DDR2 is not that much, since DDR2 have higher latencies. 

I guess I did the right choice to use a X1950Pro on my setup instead of bottlenecking some higher end cards.


----------



## Rurouni Strife (Jan 20, 2007)

If you have decent air cooling, you can take that 3200+ up to 2.6 ghz no prob. That will help quite a bit. I'd imagine seeing your FPS go up noticably (5-15 ish? big range i know).  Those 3200+'s are great OC'ers.  Mine is at 2.6ghz on stock air, so you shouldn't have much of a problem.


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 20, 2007)

iam no expect with these cooling things...but the case I got...there is 3 fans in the case...one of them is pointing to the CPU..its right over it...wouldm that help it to cool down if I were to overclock it?


----------



## DOM (Jan 20, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> iam no expect with these cooling things...but the case I got...there is 3 fans in the case...one of them is pointing to the CPU..its right over it...wouldm that help it to cool down if I were to overclock it?



well OC it and you'll find out  

just start out small the if temps are good go higher 

lol man its snowing alot over here


----------



## Zubasa (Jan 20, 2007)

DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E said:


> well OC it and you'll find out
> 
> just start out small the if temps are good go higher
> 
> lol man its snowing alot over here


I never seen real snow in my life


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 20, 2007)

heh! make yourself a nice snow cooling system


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 20, 2007)

woops...I forgot to mention...how do I check the temp of my CPU??? where do I go?? or what do I download!


----------



## DOM (Jan 20, 2007)

Zubasa said:


> I never seen real snow in my life



i can take some pic if you want?

it kind of pissed off cuz it its fucking up the signal from the sat.  

i got to watch my cartoons later


----------



## xman2007 (Jan 20, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> woops...I forgot to mention...how do I check the temp of my CPU??? where do I go?? or what do I download!



well you can check your temps in your bios although that will only be good for giving you idle temps, see if your mobo manufacturer has a windows utility for monitoring your temps. or there is motherboard monitor and sysoft sandra also gives you the current temp of your cpu but the latter isnt really made for testing temps at load.


----------



## Zubasa (Jan 20, 2007)

The coldest it ever get in Hong Kong is around 9C.
So HK never snow. 

But for some weird reason, there was actually hailstones (is this how to spell? lol  basically ice came down from the sky) few summers ago.


----------



## HellasVagabond (Jan 21, 2007)

xman2007 said:


> hmmm contradict yourself there mate, change the cpu and then get a card that wont be bottlenecked by it?? why get a slower card first off, and how will it be bottlenecked by that cpu if he changes it ?
> 
> a good 939 4000+ or x2 4600+ will do





I said what people SHOULD do , wasnt refering to this exact case...


----------



## Wile E (Jan 21, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> woops...I forgot to mention...how do I check the temp of my CPU??? where do I go?? or what do I download!


Coretemp always worked for me. Just google it.


----------



## Kammster (Jan 21, 2007)

somethings when i used my 6200 and changed the drivers, i had to reinstall the game for the frames to change.

he said he didn't change the settings.
higher res and more effects the card might bootleneck , relieving the cpu

according to gamespot the difference in using an in oblivion
FX60 2ghz is 33fps at 1600x1200 max settings
FX60 2.6ghz is 40fps at 1600x1200 max settings
at 21% in game but a 30% increase in cpu


Geforce 7900 GTX SLI at max setting 1600*1200: 40fps.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 21, 2007)

Kammster said:


> somethings when i used my 6200 and changed the drivers, i had to reinstall the game for the frames to change.
> 
> he said he didn't change the settings.
> higher res and more effects the card might bootleneck , relieving the cpu
> ...


Yeah, I hadn't thought of that. At lower settings, the gfx card isn't getting pushed, the cpu is carrying all the weight. If you raise the graphics settings, the gfx card will be able to do more work, and the cpu will be less of a factor. Even so, I still recommend overclocking. lol


----------



## cdawall (Jan 21, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> yep I can overclock it..but got no fancy cooling system or better fan for the CPU..only with the one it came with..dout its safe enough to do it



if its a 90nm cpu you should be able to hit ~2.5-2.6ghz just fine if its 130nm then ~2.4-2.5ghz on all stock cooling just remember to drop you HTT to 4X and @ 2.4ghz+ you should so ok on the gaming front and you can save up for a brisbane


----------



## Wile E (Jan 21, 2007)

cdawall said:


> if its a 90nm cpu you should be able to hit ~2.5-2.6ghz just fine if its 130nm then ~2.4-2.5ghz on all stock cooling just remember to drop you HTT to 4X and @ 2.4ghz+ you should so ok on the gaming front and you can save up for a brisbane


Yep, and hopefully by then we'll have some better steppings on the Brisbanes. lol


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 21, 2007)

I think ill wait and buy a new mobo and cpu and ram..I think thats the ultimate choice


----------



## bigafroyo (Jan 21, 2007)

DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E said:


> its your CPU
> 
> like with my 800XL OC with my P4 OC i only got like 5800-5900 in 3dmark05 and with C2D oc i got 7127
> 
> can you OC it ?



no it's not his cpu.. cpu speed means little at high resolution.. at like 1280x1024 with like x4 anti aliasing and x16 anisotropic filtering the stress should be reliant of the gpu and cpu speed means little.. plus with dividers he could probley get cpu up to like 2.2 ghz. or more.


----------



## bigafroyo (Jan 21, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> Hey guys.
> 
> Ok um..I have bought the 8800GTS..with new PSU, OCZ 600WATT Game X Stream edition, and well..I tryed it out playing Medieval 2 Total war..I did not change any settings so I could see the performance increase.....and iam very dissappointed.
> Before I got this card..I was using the X800GT 256mb, and was getting 22-25FPS average...with the GTS...iam only reaching 32-40FPS..not even double FPS increase??
> ...




reformat..and install lastest drivers..then try...and turn up resolution to the max your moniter can get in game.. AA and AF levels  lol


----------



## bigafroyo (Jan 21, 2007)

HookeyStreet said:


> LMFAO your trying to use that GFX card with that CPU!!!!  Thats your problem   Even a c2d E6300 bottlenecks a beastly card like that!!
> 
> Thats the trouble with PC's, once you upgrade one part you will probably have to upgrade the rest to keep your entire system at the same level
> 
> ATM that card is a bit of a waste in your current rig m8 as the 8800GTS/GTX is very CPU dependent anyway



no.. if you play at high res.. cpu speed means little.. like 2-3 fps difference.


----------



## bigafroyo (Jan 21, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> Hey guys.
> 
> Ok um..I have bought the 8800GTS..with new PSU, OCZ 600WATT Game X Stream edition, and well..I tryed it out playing Medieval 2 Total war..I did not change any settings so I could see the performance increase.....and iam very dissappointed.
> Before I got this card..I was using the X800GT 256mb, and was getting 22-25FPS average...with the GTS...iam only reaching 32-40FPS..not even double FPS increase??
> ...



i suggest actually getting a 2gb dualchannel kit x2 1gb sticks.. of some good memory.. games like oblivion require lots of ram.. so does f.e.a.r.. hell i would suggest even more than 2gb ram...im about to go for 4gb.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 21, 2007)

afro it make a diff when you start out low on the CPU speed chart 30FPS is crap on a 8800GTS the CPU is holding him back more than the ram is in fact as he oc's if he leaves the ram on the DDR400 divider and clocks up to 2.4ghz (240X10) that would be the best thing for him to do and completely capable on that system without a hitch even if he happens to have a 130nm (my newcastle is  running 2.44ghz just fine on stock cooling ram is at 488mhz and it runs current games just fine on a ti4200 (340/600mhz) )


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 21, 2007)

well...I will be buying a good mainboard..I want a nice AMD Athlon 5200+ 2.6Ghz AM2 and 4 gigs of Corsair value PC5200 667Mhz RAM..I do beleave that this would love to work with the GTS no problem  

I hope to buy this stuff by end of FEB if iam lucky...but perhaps april would be a good time to hold back and wait for what hits the markets next! eg...QUAD core CPUs


----------



## cdawall (Jan 21, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> well...I will be buying a good mainboard..I want a nice AMD Athlon 5200+ 2.6Ghz AM2 and 4 gigs of Corsair value PC5200 667Mhz RAM..I do beleave that this would love to work with the GTS no problem
> 
> I hope to buy this stuff by end of FEB if iam lucky...but perhaps april would be a good time to hold back and wait for what hits the markets next! eg...QUAD core CPUs



just wait till brisbane is up to the top end cpus


----------



## Grings (Jan 21, 2007)

4 gig wont work in 32bit windows xp guys


----------



## bigafroyo (Jan 21, 2007)

cdawall said:


> afro it make a diff when you start out low on the CPU speed chart 30FPS is crap on a 8800GTS the CPU is holding him back more than the ram is in fact as he oc's if he leaves the ram on the DDR400 divider and clocks up to 2.4ghz (240X10) that would be the best thing for him to do and completely capable on that system without a hitch even if he happens to have a 130nm (my newcastle is  running 2.44ghz just fine on stock cooling ram is at 488mhz and it runs current games just fine on a ti4200 (340/600mhz) )



LOL.... THE CPU IS NOT HOLDING THE 8800 GTS BACK...BECAUSE VIDEO GAMES ARE GRAPHICS PROCESSOR LIMITED AT HIGH GRAPHICS SETTINGS/RES.

resolutions like 800x600 or 1024x768 are processor speed bottlenecked resolutions.


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 21, 2007)

ahh...ok 3 gigs so  

what or who are brisbane????

ok so..will I put my res up to 1200x1000 ??? so the CPU wont be called in to much?? or does the higher the res to more CPU power is consumed when gaming??


----------



## pt (Jan 21, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> what or who are brisbane????



amd 65nm cpu's


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 21, 2007)

ahhh!!! alritey then...what is a 65 CPU?? are they gonna be the QUAD cpus?


----------



## pt (Jan 21, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> ahhh!!! alritey then...what is a 65 CPU?? are they gonna be the QUAD cpus?



nop
it's the manufacturing process
65nanometers
there will be a quad cpu version for skt F making it a 8 cores system


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 21, 2007)

8 core...lol! I think thats going to far.....do we really need 8 core Cpus??
But hey..I guess the more the better! but not much games would take advantage of that tho


----------



## trt740 (Jan 21, 2007)

bro save your money sell your 3200+ for 35 buck added 49 dollars or so to that and buy a AMD 64 4000+ you can hit 3.ghz with that bad boy its really an fx chip and ive seen them as low as 79.00 here in the USA. That would make your system rock for a year or so!! check wit tatty one hes from your part of the world and will be soon selling his 4000+


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 21, 2007)

heh lol!!! thats one bad boy all right 

Iam not into overclocking and rather avoid that at all costs...I am perfectly happy going for a 5200 and spending 500 Euros for it also. I have a job...and every penny is been spent on the computer..so money is basicaly not an option at the moment  

I want to buy stuff that will last 2 years if possible, not a year or so. Thats my big aim. Its my first ever time going for high end gear....so I want it to be really high HIGH end


----------



## trt740 (Jan 21, 2007)

well how about a Opteron 185 939 dual core for 335.00 mine overclocks stable to over 3.ghz and if you don't want to change you core voltage it will go to 2.8 ghz by just upping the fronside bus 20 points. Its it fast at stock and its faster than a e6300, e6400 and near a e6600. It would last you a long time.


----------



## pt (Jan 21, 2007)

wrong thread


----------



## Wile E (Jan 21, 2007)

I say just raise the resolution of your games for now. You don't even know what that card is capable of yet. You haven't even stressed it. Turn the resolution to as high as your monitor allows.


----------



## DRDNA (Jan 22, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> ahh...ok 3 gigs so
> 
> what or who are brisbane????
> 
> ok so..will I put my res up to 1200x1000 ??? so the CPU wont be called in to much?? or does the higher the res to more CPU power is consumed when gaming??



I have run gaming benches and tested fron 1gig to 1.5gig to 2gig and found no difference , except for the fact that I had to loosen the timing up when I went to 1.5gig and more loosening on 2gig .But hey thats just me , I am currently useing 1gig=2x512 as i like that the best.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jan 22, 2007)

2x512 is better than 1GB for sure.. it gives like nearly a 20% performance boost, that only applies if you have a dual core CPU or a cpu with that "Hyper Threading" bullshit; a.k.a alternate thread calculations (which amd didn't brag about like intel did lol).


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jan 22, 2007)

bigafroyo said:


> LOL.... THE CPU IS NOT HOLDING THE 8800 GTS BACK...BECAUSE VIDEO GAMES ARE GRAPHICS PROCESSOR LIMITED AT HIGH GRAPHICS SETTINGS/RES.
> 
> resolutions like 800x600 or 1024x768 are processor speed bottlenecked resolutions.



Thats BS, the 8800GTS is very dependant on the CPU performing well! ie the CPU has to be good enough to match the 8800 series card or it will perform like a piece of crap


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jan 22, 2007)

DRDNA said:


> I have run gaming benches and tested fron 1gig to 1.5gig to 2gig and found no difference , except for the fact that I had to loosen the timing up when I went to 1.5gig and more loosening on 2gig .But hey thats just me , I am currently useing 1gig=2x512 as i like that the best.



I agree, sometimes less is more, he should ditch the 1.5gb and just have 1gb (or get another 512mb to make it 2gb)


----------



## Frick (Jan 22, 2007)

HookeyStreet said:


> I agree, sometimes less is more, he should ditch the 1.5gb and just have 1gb (or get another 512mb to make it 2gb)



I don't think he'll see a noticable difference in either case.. Maybe when he quit games or something, but not ingame.


----------



## AshenSugar (Jan 22, 2007)

beisbane is the new core for athlon64 am2 setups, honestly just overclock that chip, stock PIB cooler(comes with the chip) is plenty to hit 2.5 or higher, i got my 3500+(2.2gz) at 3gz on PIB cooling 

that will help, then save up and get

biostar tforce 570sli board, 2b ddr2 533mhz or better rated for 4-4-4-12 at 1.8-1.85v and a freezer64 pro cooler , throw on a 3600+ x2 and overclock that thing to hell  (2.9+ for sure)   tforce boards kickarse for clocking !!!!


----------



## Mussels (Jan 22, 2007)

Guys, please stop confusing the guy.

Going back to 2x512 = 5% gain at best

Faster CPU in 939 ~30% gain, depending on model.

You need to run 3Dmark 05 and 06, and see how it compares. Did you uninstall your older drivers before reinstalling? do you have up to date drivers for the GTS? Are your mother board drivers installed?


----------



## bigafroyo (Jan 22, 2007)

HookeyStreet said:


> Thats BS, the 8800GTS is very dependant on the CPU performing well! ie the CPU has to be good enough to match the 8800 series card or it will perform like a piece of crap



LOL...no GOING FROM 2.0 GHZ A64 TO 2.8 GHZ A64 IN F.E.A.R STRESS TEST MAKES NO FPS DIFFERENCE on my 7800 GTX .. AT 1600X1200 X4 AA X16 AF.

CPU SPEED MEANS LITTLE AND IM TIRED OF DUMBASS PEOPLE OMG YOUR BOTTLENECKING BS.


----------



## DOM (Jan 22, 2007)

bigafroyo said:


> LOL...no GOING FROM 2.0 GHZ A64 TO 2.8 GHZ A64 IN F.E.A.R STRESS TEST MAKES NO FPS DIFFERENCE.. AT 1600X1200 X4 AA X16 AF.
> 
> CPU SPEED MEANS LITTLE AND IM TIRED OF DUMBASS PEOPLE OMG YOUR BOTTLENECKING BS.



well show some PROOF then, pics speak louder then works

well lets see if your right im going to try with my X1950XT  what speed should i have my CPU stock?


----------



## DRDNA (Jan 22, 2007)

bigafroyo said:


> LOL...no GOING FROM 2.0 GHZ A64 TO 2.8 GHZ A64 IN F.E.A.R STRESS TEST MAKES NO FPS DIFFERENCE on my 7800 GTX .. AT 1600X1200 X4 AA X16 AF.
> 
> CPU SPEED MEANS LITTLE AND IM TIRED OF DUMBASS PEOPLE OMG YOUR BOTTLENECKING BS.



That would tell me that your GFX card was 'your' bottle neck but this guys bottle neck is probably his CPU,he should see noticeable difference when clocking to 2.4GHZ+ ...I have seen a difference in performance on every thing from a x800xt pe to x850xt pe(on a 3400+512,and 3400+1mb ,3700+1mb) to a x1800xt to the x1800xt in crossfire to the x1950xtx to the x1950xtx crossfire(on a fx57) and CPU clocks changed scores greatly when CPU clock are higher.


----------



## DOM (Jan 22, 2007)

Well i tryed it at Stock and at 3.6GHz hes right it doesnt change at higher Res. but look at how much it drops from 1024X768 to 1280X1024 they where done at same settings just diffrent Res.


----------



## Beomagi (Jan 22, 2007)

Settings really make or break a pc game as far as what's overkill for particular cpus. The 3200+ from the *op* isnt a bad chip if oc'd. rts games with numerous units, heavy geometry, and shadow all bring a cpu to it's knees. kill shadows (very heavy), kill geometry, distance ai, physics (usually the LEAST taxing on a cpu, and usually little more than simple ragdoll).


----------



## INSTG8R (Jan 22, 2007)

bigafroyo said:


> no it's not his cpu.. cpu speed means little at high resolution.. at like 1280x1024 with like x4 anti aliasing and x16 anisotropic filtering the stress should be reliant of the gpu and cpu speed means little.. plus with dividers he could probley get cpu up to like 2.2 ghz. or more.




He's right you know. the Higher the Res the less CPU dependant more GPU dependant it becomes. The OP would benefit by just turning everything up as high as it will go(Resolution wise) then start turning up settings forcing the card to work.
I know some of my games run better if I force 8XSAA on them then they do running in normal 4xAA. 
I will agree to at least he should attempt to OC it some as it will help all round with prolonging that older systems life until his card can find a home in something with some more horsepower


----------



## Beomagi (Jan 22, 2007)

there's no way it would work better/smoother, as the cpu isnt getting any less wok to do. The ratio of work changes making it more dependent on the gpu than before, as the gpu takes longer per frame, but the fps can only drop is you're increasing load via aa or resolution.


----------



## Rhino666 (Jan 22, 2007)

bigafroyo said:


> LOL.... THE CPU IS NOT HOLDING THE 8800 GTS BACK...BECAUSE VIDEO GAMES ARE GRAPHICS PROCESSOR LIMITED AT HIGH GRAPHICS SETTINGS/RES.
> 
> resolutions like 800x600 or 1024x768 are processor speed bottlenecked resolutions.



Of course it is. Whatever the resolution is, the CPU is responsible for moving data on both PCI-E and DIMM rails. Where the hell should the GPU get the info what should be drawn on the screen? Straight from the HDD or what?


----------



## cdawall (Jan 22, 2007)

bigafroyo said:


> LOL...no GOING FROM 2.0 GHZ A64 TO 2.8 GHZ A64 IN F.E.A.R STRESS TEST MAKES NO FPS DIFFERENCE on my 7800 GTX .. AT 1600X1200 X4 AA X16 AF.
> 
> CPU SPEED MEANS LITTLE AND IM TIRED OF DUMBASS PEOPLE OMG YOUR BOTTLENECKING BS.



let me put this simply it does make a difference when the chip is only @2ghz that does make a diff. compared to 2.5ghz 

not to mention on YOUR 7800GTX no his 8800GTS


----------



## bruins004 (Jan 22, 2007)

Your CPU is def. the bottleneck.
TomsHardware.com had an article up about this and the benchies showed that the 8800 series cards are easily bottlenecked by any system, hence, your system is completely bottlenecking your system.
Hell I have a 3200 w/ 1 GB of RAM and that system is bottlenecking my 7800GT (and this GPU would get blown away by the 8800GTS).

Next time do your research before you get a brand new card in a 3 year old system.


----------



## DRDNA (Jan 22, 2007)

WOW HE IS RIGHT ABOUT PERFORMANCE WITH CPU AND FEAR !!! I DONT BELIEVE ME OWN EYES!! Actually the underclock almost identical lol 






P.s. This is the first bench that I have actually seen this happen , I have read about it but now I have some actual proof.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 22, 2007)

its a benchmark and only one game :shadedshu check all the others


----------



## DRDNA (Jan 22, 2007)

cdawall said:


> its a benchmark and only one game :shadedshu check all the others



I agree , and this is the first I have seen it.Even had doubts if it were true.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 22, 2007)

DRDNA said:


> I agree , and this is the first I have seen it.Even had doubts if it were true.



not to mention it is a BENCHMARK for vid cards not cpus so it should show the same score on the same vid cards


----------



## Rhino666 (Jan 22, 2007)

His CPU sure ain't an AthlonFX...


----------



## DRDNA (Jan 22, 2007)

Yes just as I and cdawall had figures it is just the bench , as in game play was greatly affected when underclocked.I did an in game bench with FRAPS and also just did a user feel as well, and the higher the CPU the better!!!

OVERCLOCKED BENCH 3GHZ
 Max>140 FPS	 Avg >55.95  FPS


Underclocked Bench 2.577GHZ 

 Max>26 FPS	 Avg>9.5 FPS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is what I figured , strange how they eliminated the cpu figure altogether in fear benchie


----------



## Beomagi (Jan 22, 2007)

DRDNA said:


> \OVERCLOCKED BENCH 3GHZ
> Max>140 FPS	 Avg >55.95  FPS
> 
> 
> ...



WAY too big a difference there, your prior test seemed more accurate.


----------



## DRDNA (Jan 22, 2007)

Beomagi said:


> WAY too big a difference there, your prior test seemed more accurate.



The first test was FEAR'S test...The second test was done by FRAPS ...Also in game feel testifies to the results....Test your self and see , just check out end user game feel, proof in the puddin


----------



## DRDNA (Jan 22, 2007)

And yes I do realize that FRAPS plays a role in the in game benchies i did but like I said ,in the game with out fraps on my CPU underclocked it became unplayable at the setting at hand.


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 22, 2007)

I have the latest drivers for my video card..I got rid of everything to do with ATI..dont think so when it comes to my mainboard...no idea how to update it:shadedshu 

hmm..I played HL2 lost coast..with everything on high and AF set to 4X and no AA...I got 70.31FPS...with RES at 1024x768
I then put the res up to 1280x1024 and all the same settings..I got 71.68FPS..1fps better lol...but it looks better anyway.

theres so much talk going on at the moment..iam not sure whats wrong..or what I should do...people saying its my CPU...and others saying that the CPU has no effect over it...I do beleave its the CPU...in my old comp I have an intel pentium 3 667Mhz and an BFG GeForce 5700OC 256mb AGP...and I can tell you..I had the Radeon 9200 128mb before that..and going from that to 5700 made little difference in FPS..very little..Its def the CPU!!!!! it has to be 


If anyone knows where to find drivers for my Mobo..id love you for it..is there any for AMD CPUs??


----------



## DRDNA (Jan 22, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> I have the latest drivers for my video card..I got rid of everything to do with ATI..dont think so when it comes to my mainboard...no idea how to update it:shadedshu
> 
> hmm..I played HL2 lost coast..with everything on high and AF set to 4X and no AA...I got 70.31FPS...with RES at 1024x768
> I then put the res up to 1280x1024 and all the same settings..I got 71.68FPS..1fps better lol...but it looks better anyway.
> ...



Dude sorry  for all the confusion ...I dont have your card and dont know that vender very well (Nv),but i hope you get a resolution!


----------



## Rhino666 (Jan 22, 2007)

Driver for CPU? What the hell?!


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 22, 2007)

heh no idea if there are any!! thats why i asked


----------



## DRDNA (Jan 22, 2007)

Rhino666 said:


> Driver for CPU? What the hell?!



AMD actually does have a driver for there cpu's>>link>> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_9706,00.html

10th one down and the title is  >>AMD Athlon™ 64/FX Processor Driver for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 Version (x86 and x64 exe) 1.3.2.16


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 22, 2007)

heh would yua look at that thanks


----------



## cdawall (Jan 22, 2007)

im telling you 2.4ghz would make you much happier


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 22, 2007)

thanks for telling!!!!!!!! Iam not overclocking  

ill just buy a new mobo,cpu,ram..


----------



## Flow (Jan 22, 2007)

I read this thread with interest,and I want to say that you need a decent cpu for the mentioned games regardless of the videocard.
If one thinks his graphic card will run games better without thinking of the cpu ,this person is misstaken.This doesn't mean the cpu is bottlenecking anything.It's plain lacking,nothing more,nothing less.
Running amd64 chip at 2.4 or 2.5 Ghz will give around 52 fps outside in oblivion at ultra settings (that's without altering the sliders individually).I had this with x850pro,and have this with x1900xt.The difference between both cards is looks.The x1900xt shows a much nicer looking game without loosing performance.
It's still the case that you need certain cpu power to run certain games.

It should be clear however that a powerfull graphics card is better served with a powerfull cpu etc.


----------



## pt (Jan 22, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> thanks for telling!!!!!!!! Iam not overclocking
> 
> ill just buy a new mobo,cpu,ram..



overclock is fun, try it, you won't regret, and your wallet will thank you
besides it's pretty easy


----------



## cdawall (Jan 22, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> thanks for telling!!!!!!!! Iam not overclocking
> 
> ill just buy a new mobo,cpu,ram..



you could sned me your stuff when you upgrade it would make me happy


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 22, 2007)

well my CPU will burn


----------



## JUDAS3 (Jan 22, 2007)

I had the same issue, the cpu causes a bottleneck.

I had the same issue when I had a Pentium 4 - 660 - 3.6 ghz

I changed to a core 2 duo and got 80fps extra - go on you know what to do.


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 22, 2007)

80FPS extra..that sounds wrong..but I hear what you mean   thanks for the advice!


----------



## Rhino666 (Jan 22, 2007)

DRDNA said:


> AMD actually does have a driver for there cpu's>>link>> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_9706,00.html
> 
> 10th one down and the title is  >>AMD Athlon™ 64/FX Processor Driver for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 Version (x86 and x64 exe) 1.3.2.16



Definately didn't see that coming...


----------



## overcast (Jan 22, 2007)

JUDAS3 said:


> I had the same issue, the cpu causes a bottleneck.
> 
> I had the same issue when I had a Pentium 4 - 660 - 3.6 ghz
> 
> I changed to a core 2 duo and got 80fps extra - go on you know what to do.


Can't really expect any type of performance with a P4. 80FPS gain is GROSSLY exaggerated though.


----------



## Rhino666 (Jan 22, 2007)

Well, depending to what a piece-of-crap CPU the p4 is and what a catch-up the c2d means, I'm not surprised...


----------



## pt (Jan 22, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> well my CPU will burn



reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaly doubt it


----------



## JUDAS3 (Jan 22, 2007)

overcast said:


> Can't really expect any type of performance with a P4. 80FPS gain is GROSSLY exaggerated though.



sorry, I forgot you sat next to me when I did the bench................ 

prior to changing the processor, I was getting 149fps with everything maxed out.

I then changed the processor and motherboard to 965 and an e6600, I'm now getting 270.01fps with the res. set @ 1200 x 1000.

I have change the fps max though to see that score though.

the processor was causing a major bottleneck. 

hang on, let me check if you are behind me before I post..................


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 22, 2007)

nice bench!!! 270Fps...good lord...what game was that tested on??

as for meh CPU...if I OC it from 2.0Ghz to 2.2Ghz....wont that slower fry the cpu?


----------



## Rhino666 (Jan 22, 2007)

Roflmao @ Judas3

270 fps what? I'm getting 500 fps in Quake3 maxed out with no overclock.

...and that's because 500 fps is the maximum refresh rate the engine could handle... lol


----------



## Kammster (Jan 22, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> I have the latest drivers for my video card..I got rid of everything to do with ATI..dont think so when it comes to my mainboard...no idea how to update it:shadedshu
> 
> hmm..I played HL2 lost coast..with everything on high and AF set to 4X and no AA...I got 70.31FPS...with RES at 1024x768
> I then put the res up to 1280x1024 and all the same settings..I got 71.68FPS..1fps better lol...but it looks better anyway.
> ...




your frames didn't change because the cput is the bottleneck.
a video bottleneck would have cuased a drop.
only using even higher res will solve you prob with your current system

half-life is fast on any card, try a new game like 
Ghost recon:advanced warrior
Age of empires 3
rainbow six:vegas
they slow x1900s at 1280x1024 

if you are intent on buying new stuff.
you would still have overclock only 3.5ghz Core 2 duo doesn't bottlneck at all.

and you should look for benchmarks with that card and compare the system specs to see what to buy.


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 22, 2007)

I play GRAW anbd AOE3....I coudl only put RES to 800x600 and everything on low but textures were on medium....but with the GTS./.everything is on HIGH and res is 1280x768 and AA is edge smoothing..the gam,e runs like a dream with no lag at all..whihc is surpriseing to me


----------



## JUDAS3 (Jan 22, 2007)

Rhino666 said:


> Roflmao @ Judas3
> 
> 270 fps what? I'm getting 500 fps in Quake3 maxed out with no overclock.
> 
> ...and that's because 500 fps is the maximum refresh rate the engine could handle... lol



Quake 3 - pmsl

How old is that, without the bull sh it. what did you get on something like COH, CSS. 3dmark06 or 3dmark05.

Dont forget we can see your spec- they aint worth a bean m8...............lol

380w PSU - I nearly wet myself..................see I'm still laughing.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jan 22, 2007)

JUDAS3 said:


> Quake 3 - pmsl
> 
> How old is that, without the bull sh it. what did you get on something like COH, CSS. 3dmark06 or 3dmark05.
> 
> ...



Get it right m8!  360W


----------



## JUDAS3 (Jan 22, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> nice bench!!! 270Fps...good lord...what game was that tested on??
> 
> as for meh CPU...if I OC it from 2.0Ghz to 2.2Ghz....wont that slower fry the cpu?



Css bench.

everything maxed and the res set @ 1200 x 1000.

3dmark05 - 13,500+
3dmark06 - 8533
company of heroes - 101.5
Css - 270.01


----------



## Rhino666 (Jan 22, 2007)

JUDAS3 said:


> Quake 3 - pmsl
> 
> How old is that, without the bull sh it. what did you get on something like COH, CSS. 3dmark06 or 3dmark05.
> 
> ...



Bean?! Hell no. It's worth more than your rig, dude.

Oh, and it's a 360w PSU. Still don't know why you need a ~600w PSU for a 250w-eating rig... Duh...

BTW 3DMark06 is a crap. Getting different scores with different platforms or different OS's. That's for the you-kind-of-ppl, m8...


----------



## JUDAS3 (Jan 22, 2007)

Rhino666 said:


> Bean?! Hell no. It's worth more than your rig, dude.
> 
> Oh, and it's a 360w PSU. Still don't know why you need a ~600w PSU for a 250w-eating rig... Duh...
> 
> BTW 3DMark06 is a crap. Getting different scores with different platforms or different OS's. That's for the you-kind-of-ppl, m8...



DONT PLEASE I CANT TAKE ANYMORE.................    

I got a question for you, my boy gets his pocket money on saturday, he wants to know if he can buy your system................................. 

HE WANTS CHANGE THOUGH..................


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 22, 2007)

jeeez chill out.....my god..


----------



## Rhino666 (Jan 22, 2007)

Well 8533 points in 3DMark06? Shame, that an X7950XT beats that! As for me, I'm on top of the list of 7600GT's, I even top a few 7800GT's running @ retail with the whole rig cooled by passive cooling!!! Try to beat this, DX10-man...


----------



## JUDAS3 (Jan 22, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> jeeez chill out.....my god..



I'm only joking m8, just having a laugh..........

lol


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 22, 2007)

heh i knew that  lol


----------



## Rhino666 (Jan 22, 2007)

So yeah, you need a new mobo CPU and some RAM...

JUDAS3: Oh, and BTW I see your CPU's running @ 2,4MHz. Hardcore downclocking, I must say... lol


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 22, 2007)

I sure do 

I have my eye on the AMD Athlon X2 5200+ 2.6Ghz...and Corsair Value S. PC5300 DDR2 1024MB 
RAM...no idea about Mobo yet!


----------



## Rhino666 (Jan 22, 2007)

I think you should go TwinX PC6400 about Corsair. Maybe the 5000+ would be more suitable, just for matching the FSB...


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 22, 2007)

I was told the 5400 would be great...CAS latency to be like CL4.....or is he wrong???


----------



## cdawall (Jan 22, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> nice bench!!! 270Fps...good lord...what game was that tested on??
> 
> as for meh CPU...if I OC it from 2.0Ghz to 2.2Ghz....wont that slower fry the cpu?



nope it works just fine even if you went for a 2.4ghz you would be a ok by the time the cpu died it would be so outdated you wouldnt use it anyway


----------



## Rhino666 (Jan 22, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> I was told the 5400 would be great...CAS latency to be like CL4.....or is he wrong???



Hey, TwinX PC6400 is CL4, 800MHz.


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 22, 2007)

ive checked...not all of them are CL4...most are CL5 from what ive been looking at


----------



## Rhino666 (Jan 22, 2007)

Yeah, there's both CL4 and CL5 kits. Maybe you should look at the TwinX Dominator PC6400 KITs. 100% CL4.


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 22, 2007)

heh I found one of the that have CL3 lol..pretty expensive!!!!


----------



## AshenSugar (Jan 23, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> well my CPU will burn



who told you that?

im on a 800mhz overclock with STOCK AMD COOLING 2.2gz to 3gz no swet, on a 3000+ you can EASLY AND SAFELY get 2.4-2.6gz, if its a venice core then 2.8-2.9gz.

anthlon will throw errors LONG befor they take ANY damnage from heat or overclocking(meaning if you go t far ur not gonna break it just gonna get errors and have to back it down a bit.)

i have a 3000+ 754 chip, newcastle its doing 2.65gz (stock 2gz) on PIB cooling(stock amd cooling that comes with the retail box chip) and its been running that way for over 2years 24/7 never one error!!!


----------



## Mussels (Jan 23, 2007)

AshenSugar said:


> who told you that?
> 
> im on a 800mhz overclock with STOCK AMD COOLING 2.2gz to 3gz no swet, on a 3000+ you can EASLY AND SAFELY get 2.4-2.6gz, if its a venice core then 2.8-2.9gz.
> 
> ...




Not quite. I have had more than one or two good chips, i've OC'd a good 15 of them, of various cores. Expect 200Mhz guaranteed, perhaps 400Mhz. Use core temp and dont let it get near the Tcasemax.

You should never say massive overclocks are guaranteed - as the people with cheap conroe mobos and  DDR2 533 ram find out


----------



## AshenSugar (Jan 23, 2007)

conroe is a diffrent story, i have overclocked more then 15, i work at a shop(same as spoon) and have yet to see a newcastle (754) i couldnt get to 2.5+ gz or venice i couldnt get to 2.7 using PIB cooling even with a so/so board(needs the basics like mem devider and such) and what i could find about the MSI AMETHYST-M 1.0 said it had the basic options needed to overclock the cpu and most ppl could get 260-280 on the fsb without to much trouble.

worst case he could get to 2.5+ if form some reasion he didnt have luck on that board, thats between 3700+ and 3800+ clocks!!!!

alot of people find out they couldnt get a decent athlon oc because they didnt lower the HTT multi a notch then lower the ram devider a notch b4 they tryed, had a guy bring in his system he INSISTED it couldnt be overcloked, 5 min later i had it overclocked from 1.8 to 2.8(opte) using the stock heatpipe cooler temps maxed at 52c,  the clock could have gone higher but his board was unable to clock up any higher :/ (board limmited arggg) and the multi was only 9 
the board could do 323fsb any higher and it wouldnt post :/

blah my point is that after years of exp overclocking athlon(tbird and up) 32 and 64bit i normaly can give an easy avrage on what the chips gonna get.

no guarntees in life ever but if he couldnt get to 2.5gz i would be SHOCKED SHITTLESS!!!


----------



## Zubasa (Jan 23, 2007)

MSI AMETHYST-M 1.0 <= This is the board I am using right now O.O
Where is the CPU OC option?


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jan 23, 2007)

HookeyStreet said:


> Well hes obviously a n00b as its your CPU thats bottlenecking that video card!



I have recieved a warning for this post (I think its because I used the word 'n00b')  But if you read the thread you will see that I have not insulted another TPU member.  Th comment was about a 3rd party that is NOT a TPU member 

But if I somehow offended 'Irish_PXzyan', I am sorry


----------



## bigafroyo (Jan 23, 2007)

DRDNA said:


> That would tell me that your GFX card was 'your' bottle neck but this guys bottle neck is probably his CPU,he should see noticeable difference when clocking to 2.4GHZ+ ...I have seen a difference in performance on every thing from a x800xt pe to x850xt pe(on a 3400+512,and 3400+1mb ,3700+1mb) to a x1800xt to the x1800xt in crossfire to the x1950xtx to the x1950xtx crossfire(on a fx57) and CPU clocks changed scores greatly when CPU clock are higher.



AHAHAHAH...the cpu never increases the average framerate only the minimum by a few frames.. no big deal... plus at really high res which you should be using 8800 gts with cpu means even less.


----------



## bigafroyo (Jan 23, 2007)

check this out...1600x1200 x4 anti aliasing x16 anisotropic filtering f.e.a.r max stress test no soft shadows..look at score 

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7219/fearmpdemo20070124015641rs.jpg

40 fps average 22 fps minimum on a 7800 GTX 256 mb clocked at 495/1450 and 2.4 ghz athlon 64 3800+ venice.

if i bought another 7800 GTX for sli.. i wonder what i would score same settings? im guessing high 60s 70s or maybe 80 fps

i could give a rat's ass about like direct x 10, gotta buy vista, like 500/600$ dx10 highend gpu, i might aswell get another 7800 gtx for like 250 and get close to dx10 8800 gtx performance just without dx10 eyecandy...plus crysis dev said it looks almost as good in dx9 as dx10.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 23, 2007)

bigafroyo said:


> AHAHAHAH...the cpu never increases the average framerate only the minimum by a few frames.. no big deal... plus at really high res which you should be using 8800 gts with cpu means even less.



Ummm.... dude, really. If you increase the minimum, the average increases. Thats how averages work...

Please think about your posts before posting them.


----------



## bigafroyo (Jan 23, 2007)

Mussels said:


> Ummm.... dude, really. If you increase the minimum, the average increases. Thats how averages work...
> 
> Please think about your posts before posting them.



LOL no... because.. f.e.a.r stress test shows average is gpu limited.. the minimum is gpu/cpu limited.. the minimum is how low the framerate dropped with the most action going on.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 23, 2007)

dude - YOUR tests dont mean squat. AVERAGE is the AVERAGE frame rate, calculated based on min and max - if min and/or max change, the average will change. Just because your results 'didnt change much' doesnt mean that the word average has changed its meaning.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 23, 2007)

bigafroyo said:


> LOL no... because.. f.e.a.r stress test shows average is gpu limited.. the minimum is gpu/cpu limited.. the minimum is how low the framerate dropped with the most action going on.


Mussels is right, if you raise the minimum fps, the overall average will also technically increase, as the average includes the minimum in it's calculations. The increase may not be a huge amount, but it's still an increase. Now, this is very simplified, but for example, the average of 60 and 22 would be 41, but the average of 60 and 30 would be 45. I know the FEAR benchmark averages together many more numbers than that, so the effects might be be as profound, but any increase is better than none.


----------



## bigafroyo (Jan 23, 2007)

Wile E said:


> Mussels is right, if you raise the minimum fps, the overall average will also technically increase, as the average includes the minimum in it's calculations. The increase may not be a huge amount, but it's still an increase. Now, this is very simplified, but for example, the average of 60 and 22 would be 41, but the average of 60 and 30 would be 45. I know the FEAR benchmark averages together many more numbers than that, so the effects might be be as profound, but any increase is better than none.



yea.. the average might increase about .1 fps.. but cpu speed increases minimum more than average.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 23, 2007)

bigafroyo said:


> yea.. the average might increase about .1 fps.. but cpu speed increases minimum more than average.


Which helps alleviate choppiness and slowdowns. So why are you so against raising the minimum fps?


----------



## bigafroyo (Jan 23, 2007)

Wile E said:


> Which helps alleviate choppiness and slowdowns. So why are you so against raising the minimum fps?



actuallly ram helps choppiness and better graphics processing unit, a decent cpu is all that is needed with any card.

you definitly need more ram.

playing quake 4 at 1600x1200 x4 aa x16 af on ultra quality textures isnt playable with 1gb, throw in another 1gb and it's butter smooth.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 23, 2007)

But the point of the matter is that a faster cpu does help. Other things do too, obviously, but overclocking is free. Better memory kits and gpus cost money.


----------



## bigafroyo (Jan 23, 2007)

overclocking does help alittle, but it's not worth the results are poor and stressing cpu and memory for little performance gain , just run cpu at stock clocks and gpu, better off..plus if you ever want better performance just upgrade lol...when it becomes really dated because alittle overclocking anit gonna help a dated cpu/gpu.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 23, 2007)

I think it's perfectly worth it. It get a performance boost for free, and I have no stability issues, whatsoever. If you don't push too much voltage and can keep it cool, it has very little effect on the life span as well. By the time I burn this thing up, I'll probably be ready to upgrade again, anyway.


----------



## Schnookums (Jan 23, 2007)

Wile E said:


> But the point of the matter is that a faster cpu does help.



Agreed. This 9550 is nothing without a decent CPU. And as you can see in my specs...I have a netburst CPU  Horrible :shadedshu


----------



## pt (Jan 23, 2007)

bigafroyo said:


> overclocking does help alittle, but it's not worth the results are poor and stressing cpu and memory for little performance gain , just run cpu at stock clocks and gpu, better off..plus if you ever want better performance just upgrade lol...when it becomes really dated because alittle overclocking anit gonna help a dated cpu/gpu.



a example that overclocking the cpu compensates big time in games:

i had my 3000+ at stock and a x1800gto at stock
and in rtw, in nmight battle it was choppy and haad slowdowns, lots of them special when flaming arrows where fired, then, after i overclocked to 2.7 and the ram from 533 to 800, i was able to play at max settings in every night battle with lots of troops with no lag at all, and the gfx was still stock
 how do you explain this?


----------



## Schnookums (Jan 23, 2007)

pt said:


> a example that overclocking the cpu compensates big time in games:
> 
> i had my 3000+ at stock and a x1800gto at stock
> and in rtw, in nmight battle it was choppy and haad slowdowns, lots of them special when flaming arrows where fired, then, after i overclocked to 2.7 and the ram from 533 to 800, i was able to play at max settings in every night battle with lots of troops with no lag at all, and the gfx was still stock
> how do you explain this?



 Wow..I can't wait to OC my Pentium D on my other PC   Waiting for P5B Deluxe...


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jan 23, 2007)

Guess you have your answer


----------



## pt (Jan 23, 2007)

Schnookums said:


> Wow..I can't wait to OC my Pentium D on my other PC   Waiting for P5B Deluxe...



the hp one that also has a x850 and a coolermaster case?   
now be my slave


----------



## Mussels (Jan 23, 2007)

On overclocking and performance: The venice 3000+ was poo cause its stock speed was 1.8Ghz, the 3200+ was 2Ghz - 200Mhz for 200PR gain. Later models increased only a little, so the 3000+ was more like a 2900+, rather slow.

Anyway- most overclockers increase teh cooling, making the rig cooler than stock anyway, therefore it will last LONGER than if left alone at stock. Benchmark your OC: if you add 50Mhz at the cost of 10C of heat, it aint worth it - for the same 10C if you get 500Mhz and a 20% speed boost, thats worth keeping.


----------



## pt (Jan 23, 2007)

Mussels said:


> On overclocking and performance: The venice 3000+ was poo cause its stock speed was 1.8Ghz, the 3200+ was 2Ghz - 200Mhz for 200PR gain. Later models increased only a little, so the 3000+ was more like a 2900+, rather slow.
> 
> Anyway- most overclockers increase teh cooling, making the rig cooler than stock anyway, therefore it will last LONGER than if left alone at stock. Benchmark your OC: if you add 50Mhz at the cost of 10C of heat, it aint worth it - for the same 10C if you get 500Mhz and a 20% speed boost, thats worth keeping.



what about 50% overclock and 0ºc hotter 'cause i bought a new cooler


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 23, 2007)

Ok so..basicaly..I can OC my AThlon 64 3200+ 2.0Ghz up from stock without getting any fancy cooling system for it??
Ok so...Can someone give me a link to download a program or whatever is needed to OC the CPU and to keep an eye on the temps??? many thanks.


----------



## pt (Jan 23, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> Ok so..basicaly..I can OC my AThlon 64 3200+ 2.0Ghz up from stock without getting any fancy cooling system for it??
> Ok so...Can someone give me a link to download a program or whatever is needed to OC the CPU and to keep an eye on the temps??? many thanks.



yep, to about 2.4/2.5 with stock  
use bios to overclock cpu, and systool/speed fan/coretemp. beta to watch temps


----------



## Beomagi (Jan 23, 2007)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> Ok so..basicaly..I can OC my AThlon 64 3200+ 2.0Ghz up from stock without getting any fancy cooling system for it??
> Ok so...Can someone give me a link to download a program or whatever is needed to OC the CPU and to keep an eye on the temps??? many thanks.



you dont need a program (thought there's clockgen), you can simply use the motherboard bios
here's a program you can google for : prime 95 - use it to stress your cpu to test stability.

in your bios, you should see something like FSB (though ath64 and other hammers don't use an fsb) or HTT bus or something at 200MHz. That's the stock speed of the main bus clock.

There should be an HTT multiplier in the bios - for most 939 mobos, it's 5. lower it to 4, because above 1000MHZ (base x htt multiplier) instability can occur, and you REALLY dont see any penalty for lowering it.

lower your ram ratios as well - if you increse the main bus, your ram speed will increase.

now start increasing the main bus by say 10MHz. each time, run prime 95 on max cpu to stress it for 10 minutes or so. if it fails, try increasing the cpu voltage - dont exceed 10% on stock cooling, less the merrier. and keep an eye on temps. 

continue increasing the cpu speed until you're at the maximum stable/maximum voltage/temp you get. Determine the new memory speed - some mobo's will use ratios, other will state the actual spee din the bios, some just use settings - they'd say 533fsb or something.

use a program like cpu-z (google) to show you your ram speed. new ram speed  = unoverclocked ram speed (you should be on a lower ratio prior to oc!) * (new fsb/old fsb)
you can try increasing the ram ratio to see if it's going to work well, prime95 can test memory too.


----------



## DOM (Jan 23, 2007)

Beomagi said:


> you dont need a program (thought there's clockgen), you can simply use the motherboard bios
> here's a program you can google for : prime 95 - use it to stress your cpu to test stability.
> 
> in your bios, you should see something like FSB (though ath64 and other hammers don't use an fsb) or HTT bus or something at 200MHz. That's the stock speed of the main bus clock.
> ...



  you can find all that here "google" 

http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Jan 23, 2007)

Ok I downloaded Prime 95...ill just wait till meh mate comes on and he will guide me threw it with care 

Thanks for your help ladies


----------



## Flow (Jan 23, 2007)

clockgen is excellent for trying out how far you can go,when your system locks up you simply have to reboot.Change values too high in bios and you can reset the cmos by jumper or button on mainboard,or remove the cmos battery for short time.

Just keep in mind when raising the fsb,your memory goes up also.So you might wanna lower the cas latencies for your memory or lower the fsb for memory in bios,then you can raise the cpu fsb.

Happened to me a few times I forgot to raise the overvolting for vcore or lower the memory settings,making clockgen lockup hard.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 23, 2007)

bigafroyo said:


> AHAHAHAH...the cpu never increases the average framerate only the minimum by a few frames.. no big deal... plus at really high res which you should be using 8800 gts with cpu means even less.



pls stop posting you are spitting out the wrong idea you starting to sound like RPG  you had *1*_VIDEO CARD_ Benchmark that was it and as the name sais it was for *VideoCards*


OH and s754 newcastles are VERY hard to oc consistantly well 2.45ghz max 2.48ghz on my X newcastle they are very voltage tempramental and the stepping makes a HUGE diff
newest stepping does 2.45ghz (PIB cooling) @1.65V
oldest stepping does 2.48ghz (PIB cooling) @1.58V


----------



## bigafroyo (Jan 24, 2007)

cdawall said:


> pls stop posting you are spitting out the wrong idea you starting to sound like RPG  you had *1*_VIDEO CARD_ Benchmark that was it and as the name sais it was for *VideoCards*
> 
> 
> OH and s754 newcastles are VERY hard to oc consistantly well 2.45ghz max 2.48ghz on my X newcastle they are very voltage tempramental and the stepping makes a HUGE diff
> ...



umm ok, my 3200+ s939 winchester first 90nm a64 does 2.0 ghz stock to  2.6 ghz @ 1.5 vcore  and my s939  venice does 2.4 ghz stock to  3.0  ghz @ 1.6.vcore 

i cant even tell the difference from stock/overclocked... like i said performance gain from overclocking is crap.


----------



## bigafroyo (Jan 24, 2007)

Beomagi said:


> you dont need a program (thought there's clockgen), you can simply use the motherboard bios
> here's a program you can google for : prime 95 - use it to stress your cpu to test stability.
> 
> in your bios, you should see something like FSB (though ath64 and other hammers don't use an fsb) or HTT bus or something at 200MHz. That's the stock speed of the main bus clock.
> ...



lowering the hypertransport speed decreases performance.


----------



## Beomagi (Jan 24, 2007)

bigafroyo said:


> umm ok, my 3200+ s939 winchester first 90nm a64 does 2.0 ghz stock to  2.6 ghz @ 1.5 vcore  and my s939  venice does 2.4 ghz stock to  3.0  ghz @ 1.6.vcore
> 
> i cant even tell the difference from stock/overclocked... like i said performance gain from overclocking is crap.



for games i'd agree, but for video encoding it's a godsend.

as far as HTT clock making a difference - try it yourself. I can drop it to x3 from x4 and my scores and times to encode are within the usual variance. virtually nil.


----------



## bigafroyo (Jan 24, 2007)

Beomagi said:


> for games i'd agree, but for video encoding it's a godsend.
> 
> as far as HTT clock making a difference - try it yourself. I can drop it to x3 from x4 and my scores and times to encode are within the usual variance. virtually nil.



yea, definitly overclocking works for watching HD videos smooth them out and encoding, it does improve performance in games some, but the peformance isnt greatly improved so that little bit of overclocking isnt worth it.


----------



## AshenSugar (Jan 24, 2007)

cdawall said:


> pls stop posting you are spitting out the wrong idea you starting to sound like RPG  you had *1*_VIDEO CARD_ Benchmark that was it and as the name sais it was for *VideoCards*
> 
> 
> OH and s754 newcastles are VERY hard to oc consistantly well 2.45ghz max 2.48ghz on my X newcastle they are very voltage tempramental and the stepping makes a HUGE diff
> ...



duno m8, could be the board ur clocking with.

vnf3-250
4x3000+ newcastles all  2.55-2.65gz on 1.5-1.65v using PIB cooler

also had a 3000+ that was a FIRST RUN chip(varifyed by amd tech even said i shouldnt have gotten one of them because when wherent ment for retail distro, it was alwase querky but at 1.65 it would do 2.55gz, it died(alwase was querky even at stock clocks/volts) they sent me a 3700+ clawhammer!!!!  2.4gz to 2.65 was easy any higher, well u better have phasechange or something like it because that sucker wasnt going past that point(stil got that in my 1 vnf3-250 i kept  (first one o ever used, good board, i fryed one of the front usb ports, then solder fixed the trace i shorted out(dont ask) still a fast stable board )

none of these where cheery picked chips all just off the shelf parts, also used alot of them from frys OEM sales(came with ecs nf3 board, decent clocker that)  never saw one i couldnt get to 2.5x gz on PIB cooling, at least not on a 1/2 decent nf3 or nf4 board.

via, well dont even bother talking about overclocking and via to me, its like slaming ur head in a car door.

sis, nobody made a good clocking board with the 755 or 756 chipsets(bastages, the 756 refrance board clocked GREAT) 

Uli till the last gen for 754 didnt clock well because nobody bothered to emplement the pci/agp locks properly.


the only chipsets for 754 worth talking about are the last gen ULI(epox made a good clocking board with them,) and Nforc3/4/6100 then you gotta look at what board ur getting, tforce6100 acctualy got 3 of the 3000+ chips that had been stuck at 2.55 up to 2.65+ at same volts(probbly more stable vcore or something) my buddy rod is stillusing the last 3000+ i setup in his 6100 board with a 1600 video card( 96bucks for a x1600pro iceq card last july, good value) 

gues what im saying is that you cant go by what you have seen on 1 or 2 boards, because i have seen some boards clock INSAINLY WELL but not be known well or known well for overclocking, and others that got great overclocking reps give meger/poor overclocks(msi neo plat....pfffft POS)  

vnf3 and vnf4 kicked arse for their day, and where 70-80bucks new, msi neoplat was 120-150new and didnt overclock neerly as well!!!!  hell i have seen the vnf3/4 boards outclock their DFI counterparts at 1/3-1/4 the cost!!!!!  (misses chaintech motherboards.....)


----------



## Mussels (Jan 24, 2007)

bigafroyo said:


> lowering the hypertransport speed decreases performance.



you just proved you dont know anything on A64 overclocking: please stop commenting here. You can lower the HTT to 3x from the stock 5 and not notice a difference.


----------



## AshenSugar (Jan 24, 2007)

bigafroyo said:


> lowering the hypertransport speed decreases performance.



as said above clealy you dont know jack sh!t about athlon64 overclocking.

ht can be lowered to 600mhz b4 you will start to see performance impact, ht only controls IO between devices and cpu, ram is dirrectly connected to the cpu, and isnt effected by HT clocks.

the reasion current HT is so high is t leave room for the server side to have multi-multi core chips in one system, think 4-dual core opterons, or 8 dual core opterons, this in no way effects even quadcores that are due out mid year, ht has more then enought bandwith for dual core chips at 3+gz even if you set it all the way down to 600.


now i have seen some twisted results on MSI neo plat boards where anything but the default 4x or 5x multi could cause perf hits, BUT this was due to bios not due to HT changes, some other hidden things changed when you changed HT multi that acctauly effected memory bandwith and IO latancys, AFIK that was worked out long long ago on those boards.

please dont post FUD, read more about what your going to post about 



ps. if it was intels FSB i would agree droping the FSB on intel systems is BAD for perf but the fsb on intel is used for EVERTHING the chip has to depend on it for everything.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 24, 2007)

bigafroyo said:


> umm ok, my 3200+ s939 winchester first 90nm a64 does 2.0 ghz stock to  2.6 ghz @ 1.5 vcore  and my s939  venice does 2.4 ghz stock to  3.0  ghz @ 1.6.vcore
> 
> i cant even tell the difference from stock/overclocked... like i said performance gain from overclocking is crap.


Then there's something wrong with your setup, period. Took my X2 3800+ from 2GHz to 2.84GHz and I run almost identically to FX-62 setup with similar hardware in every benchmark I ever ran, except sciencemark, I beat the FX-62 in that. At the time of purchase, my cpu was $150, the FX-62 was still $900. I'd say that overclocking is worth it.


----------



## AshenSugar (Jan 24, 2007)

bigafroyo said:


> overclocking does help alittle, but it's not worth the results are poor and stressing cpu and memory for little performance gain , just run cpu at stock clocks and gpu, better off..plus if you ever want better performance just upgrade lol...when it becomes really dated because alittle overclocking anit gonna help a dated cpu/gpu.



god you are a stupid noob, sorry but i cant help myself you really are about as bright as a box of rocks you know that?



bigafroyo said:


> AHAHAHAH...the cpu never increases the average framerate only the minimum by a few frames.. no big deal... plus at really high res which you should be using 8800 gts with cpu means even less.




omfg, you need to go back to school and take MATH

ok i will explain what an avrage is. say you masure fraims per second, then you masure that over a 1 minute period,  you take each poll time and add them togather then devide them by 60 (there are 60seconds in a minute)  if the minimum fps raises the avrage also raises.

and depending on the game you may get a larger fps boots, your 7800 cards far from what fear would really like to run on you know?  the test isnt cpu limmited its GPU LIMMTIED

run 3dmark 2001se, or lower fear settings to 1024x768 no aa or af with softshadows and such enabled and lets see the overclocking results.

oh and dude you truely and honestly SUCK AT OVERCLOCKING, 2.4 out of a venice PLEASE i got my worst newcastle to 2.55 and most to 2.65 with very little effort.

your noobishness needs to not post FUD to confuse people who acctualy want to learn!!!!!!


----------



## Mussels (Jan 24, 2007)

AshenSugar said:


> oh and dude you truely and honestly SUCK AT OVERCLOCKING, 2.4 out of a venice PLEASE i got my worst newcastle to 2.55 and most to 2.65 with very little effort.
> learn!!!!!!




ash: one argument, i've had venices (3000+) that wouldnt even do 2.2Ghz, dud chip (i tried 3, one did 2.0, one did 2.15 and the third did 2.4.... there was dud ones out there)


----------



## AshenSugar (Jan 24, 2007)

weird, what board?

boards i used, vnf4, vnf4ultra, biostar tforce4u and a foxconnboard, never tryed clocking on other boards, mostly used ecs sis755/756 boards for builds that wherent gonna overclock, mainly due to the fact that u couldnt screw much on in bios and they performed very well (sis chipsets=rock sold stable and fast)

if it was that dfi board, they are VERY picky due to default timings used by dfi, realy PITA to try and get stable alot of the time, gave up after trying for WEEEEK to get a dfi expert board stable and having dfi blame everything but their board, tryed it with 6 psu's, 8 or more ram kits, diffrent hdd's diffrent cables, diffrent video cards even diffrent cpu's it never was 100% stable even at stock, did rma it 2x then said screw it and we ebayed it(got more then it cost on newegg ROFL) 

alot also has to do with the board i should have asked what board hes using, but common anybody who insists overclockings totaly pointless then insists that lowering the ht clock is going to hurt perf.....well......total newbert who needs a good overclocking lession!!!!!


----------



## Mussels (Jan 24, 2007)

DFI ultra-D that ran 316FSB on my DDR600... there really is just some poo CPU's out there, like there are champs.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 24, 2007)

bigafroyo said:


> lowering the hypertransport speed decreases performance.



it doesnt do anything mine oc'd to (4x)960 and dc'd to 733(3x) does nothing to any performance on my system games etc. anything on the HTT over 600mhz has no performance effect.


pls stop posting noobishly if what we say is right stop posting that we are wrong it makes you sound stupid


----------



## Beomagi (Jan 25, 2007)

Best oc result with my newcastle 3400+. Best stable is at 2.64 though. (volts here are off )

and yup, it's a VNF3.


----------



## Kammster (Jan 25, 2007)

increased framerates from overclocking depends on the game and what effects use the gpu or cpu.

example:
call of duty2 will have little on no increase over 2ghz cpu(amd)
need for speed:most wanted (shadow detail effect+car reflection effect): totally proprotinal incearse with cpu speed.

it just depends the game. xbitlabs had two articles about it.

raising Hypertransport (25%) took 1/2 cycle of my windows load time (3cycles now). 
i think hypertranport is mainly from the cpu to interact with board? no effect on games i think.

my sempy is based on the venice, its memory controller does real nice with my small sticks
and according to newegg customers shoukld be stable at 2.2~2.4 @1.4v (300fsb LOL)


----------



## Beomagi (Jan 25, 2007)

Kammster said:


> increased framerates from overclocking depends on the game and what effects use the gpu or cpu.
> 
> example:
> call of duty2 will have little on no increase over 2ghz cpu(amd)
> ...



Pretty accurate.

Sweet Guyana! Trini here!


----------



## AshenSugar (Jan 25, 2007)

Beomagi said:


> Best oc result with my newcastle 3400+. Best stable is at 2.64 though. (volts here are off )
> 
> and yup, it's a VNF3.



yeah, my newcastles overclocked well in the vnf3,, great boards, miss chaintech mobo's, venice overclocked a bit better and at lower volts, winchester(not seen on 754) didnt overclock very well, first gen new prosess chips never do(first 90nm chips where winchester)


----------



## AshenSugar (Jan 25, 2007)

cdawall said:


> it doesnt do anything mine oc'd to (4x)960 and dc'd to 733(3x) does nothing to any performance on my system games etc. anything on the HTT over 600mhz has no performance effect.
> 
> 
> pls stop posting noobishly if what we say is right stop posting that we are wrong it makes you sound stupid



hes trolling check his posts, the more i see him post the more he comes off as a pure troll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll


----------



## cdawall (Jan 25, 2007)

AshenSugar said:


> hes trolling check his posts, the more i see him post the more he comes off as a pure troll.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll



lol he was just like that


----------



## Dewla (Feb 26, 2007)

Hello All!

I have a problem, and i am starting to go crazy here.

My system is Core2Duo 6400@3.5 Ghz, 2 gig DDR800, 450W Coolermaster Realpower, and Leadtek 8800GTS 320 Mb. Mobo is Asus P5B Deluxe.

Problem is that i am getting rediculously low scores in 3dmark06. I get around 3600, should be in the 8000-s i suppose. Both under Vista and XP, during the frist test it even reaches 5 fps. Installed and reinstalled latest forceware on both systems.

I have no idea what it could be. Could the PSU (being not enough) cause a degree in speed? (i have 2 hdds and 1 dvd-rw-s)

Please someone help, i am really going crazy...


----------



## pt (Feb 26, 2007)

Dewla said:


> Hello All!
> 
> I have a problem, and i am starting to go crazy here.
> 
> ...



could be the psu, what's the tram timmings also?


----------



## DOM (Feb 26, 2007)

check on CPU-Z if yout MOBO PCI-E is 16x and not 1x


----------



## Dewla (Feb 26, 2007)

OMG PCIE is indeed set to 1x. I guess i can set this in bios...but not sure i remember if there is such a setting...


----------



## DOM (Feb 26, 2007)

Dewla said:


> OMG PCIE is indeed set to 1x. I guess i can set this in bios...but not sure i remember if there is such a setting...



you need 2 up the SB voltage up one and see it again, cuz are your voltages in auto?


----------



## Dewla (Feb 26, 2007)

w00t m8! You rock    

This solved the problem, got 8800 under vista x64, guess it would be a bit more under xp 

PCI-e voltage was indeed on auto...

And i was about to change my psu 

pt asked about my ram timings, they are 5-5-5-16 (factory settings for my geil ultrakit is 4-4-4-12), but once they get OC-d to 900 mhz, they dont manage to get along on the original timings. I guess there would be more in my cpu, but cannot oc more, cause my RAM cannot stand more fsb (running 8x435 now)...


----------



## cdawall (Feb 27, 2007)

try 5-5-5-20 might give you some more speed if that wont get it try 6-6-6-24 that should let you hit a higher FSB


----------



## Dewla (Feb 27, 2007)

cdawall said:


> try 5-5-5-20 might give you some more speed if that wont get it try 6-6-6-24 that should let you hit a higher FSB



Gonna try that as soon as i get home


----------

