CPU bottleneck with Graphics card? - Tech Support Forums

hanguker · November 28th, 2005, 10:11 PM

Hi everyone. I was wondering if you could help me with some tech expertise. I have a Pentium IV 2.4c (OC3.0)and 1Gig of DDR3200 and AGP. I'm currently running a FX5200 graphics card (I know..I know...).

Thing is, I want to upgrade to the best AGP graphics card I can get without having a CPU bottleneck. That is, the CPU hindering the performance of the Graphics card. Can my config handle a 6600GT or 6800LE (hopefully with pipelines opened!)?

I've googled this and searched around awhile...but I can't find any agreement. Please help.

P.S Basically, I want to get a carry-over card that will work well with the new games at 1024x768. I am going to upgrade sometime next year to a 775pin and pci-e. What's the best bang for my buck in this situation?

Cheers

ShuckyD · November 28th, 2005, 10:14 PM

Welcome To TechIMO !!!

You should definately take a look into getting a 6600GT it would be the best upgrade you can do with your system right at this time. i had a fx5200.. and they just plain ol' suck

mateo leet-o · November 28th, 2005, 10:21 PM

Well if you are switching over next year, I would get a 6600gt or possibly even a refurb 9800pro for ~$95. Either one will be good for your system and hold ya off

Oh and welcome to techimo

edit: I wouldn't go with the 6800le, you could unlock the pipes...even if you did it would most likely be just 12 pipes, not 16. Then it would only be about 5% better than a 6600gt. Not worth the risk imo

hanguker · November 29th, 2005, 12:03 AM

Hey thanks for the advice guys. The 6600gt has had rave reviews. I just didn't want to dish out for the extra DDR3 memory bandwidth if my computer couldn't utilize it. Otherwise, I would just go with a vanilla 6600 256mb. So the 6600GT is the right choice over vanilla 6600 on my oldish system, right?

BTW- I've had my fx5200 128MB/Bit card for a couple of years and it has served my well on pre-directx9.0c games I don't know why it had gotten so much flak. I've OCed the poop out of it, too! but yah...its time is about over. I'm getting sick of playing old regular battlefield 1942 and desert combat.

Cheers

edit: Thanks for the kind welcome!

SoloCamo · November 29th, 2005, 12:11 AM

Welcome to TechIMO!

Honestly, a 2.4C overclocked to 3.0ghz isn't a bad cpu at all, it still has a good amount of life in it, especially due to the bandwitdh produced by oc'in it.

You could slap in a card as good the x850xt and it wouldn't bottleneck it too bad. I'm using a 2.8E @ 3.0ghz in single channel and i've ran it with a x800xt fine.

But since you are upgrading in the next year, the best bang for the buck is the 6600gt. Never go with a vanilla 6600, they just plain suck aswell, atleast for today's games.

Also, if your a gamer, don't go Intel

A lot can change in a year, but the way it looks AMD will still be the best for gaming.

hanguker · November 29th, 2005, 12:16 AM

I've been reading about AMD recently kicking the poop out of the Intel chips with games. I'll seriously be looking into that in the future.

RedFury · November 29th, 2005, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hanguker

I'm getting sick of playing old regular battlefield 1942 and desert combat.

Hey, I resemble that comment! I'm kind of in the same boat as you are. I'd like to upgrade my motherboard to something with PCI-e and get a card to match instead of buying something now and wishing I'd had gone to PCI-E later...but then again, to go that route, I might as well go Athlon 64 and then I'm up to building a whole new system, which isn't in the cards for at least a full year.

I'm looking at either a 6600gt or a 9800pro to hold me over ( will I be able to play BF2 with a gig of Corsair XMS DDR400 and a barton 2500+ though? )

SoloCamo · November 29th, 2005, 12:46 AM

you will be able to play it, of course not at that high of settings, but nonetheless it will be playable.

RedFury · November 29th, 2005, 01:03 AM

meh, define playable..I could "play" bf vietnam, but according to the minimum specs I was above them slightly. Tell me that "playing" a game means dealing with graphical artifacts and exaggerated animation stuttering. Whomever is writing the minimum specs for todays games needs a shot to the groin.

And has anyone seen the minimum specs the the new King Kong game? 2Gb of ram!

hanguker · November 29th, 2005, 03:47 AM

LOL@RedFury...I get yah. The min specs are hilarious. They assume you're going to play at 640X480 on low settings. Just get a PS2 if you wanna do that and have more fun.

I can "play" BF2 with my system (believe it or not FX5200) on low settings at low res...almost ok...but not quite :-).

BTW- I'm in Korea and they have access to a VIVA 6600 card with DDR3 memory and a big zalman cooler on it for overclocking. Its about 20% cheaper than a GT Word is, it can surpass the GT at a lower price. Check out the Galaxy version here:

The one available to me is the "Korean" version. Check out the overclocks!!!!
http://www.cpluse.com/Module/Show.aspx?ID=2606

edit: The "Korean edition" is not clocked so high. Its base core is 400/mem 800. But the mem is DDR3 there should be no prob bringing it up to 1000 like the GT...same mem right?

What do you think?