xfx 7800gt kinda stinks...

speed bump · Oct 24, 2005

Umm would you like to say that to the top benchers in 3dmark05 that bench is supposedly bottle necked completely by the GPU but once you get over 11k its almost all about your CPU speed. If your CPU can't tell the GPU where to go fast enough or do the while doing the things it needs to then your bottlenecked

Also this may be a stupid question but did you reinstall windows when you switched cards?

Avg · Oct 24, 2005

RJARRRPCGP said:
Not so fast!!

The processor should actually work less hard with a newer video card!!

The processor is the bottleneck only if:

The game has a majorly high processor requirement.
(This is more common with emulating console games than when running real PC games)

The video card driver has to emulate functions, because of the video card you're using lacking them.

Thus, for example:

Your processor probably would work harder with a GeForce 4 MX than it would with a GeForce 7800 GT!!

Especially if you're emulating a console!!

Thus, a video card driver update alone could solve the problem.

But then, I dunno which games you're running.

Not true at all, as video cards become faster, the greater is the cpu bottleneck, mostly at lower resolutions and quality settings, because the card can put out so many fps that the cpu isn't able to process all the info, and it only get's worse as video cards become faster and cpus only have a small improvement.

tenarc · Oct 24, 2005

My drivers are 8.1.8.5

I sure wish I could find a game fps with X2 vs XP

And mother board monitor 5 didn't have my board in the list.

@ MassiveOverkill: Why do I need such a powerful psu? I doub't my comp will use more than 350 watt?

Turtle Shell · Oct 24, 2005

tenarc said:
My drivers are 8.1.8.5

I sure wish I could find a game fps with X2 vs XP

And mother board monitor 5 didn't have my board in the list.

@ MassiveOverkill: Why do I need such a powerful psu? I doub't my comp will use more than 350 watt?

its not really how much watta you need but you need a psu with strong specs

d94 · Oct 24, 2005

tenarc said:
My drivers are 8.1.8.5

I sure wish I could find a game fps with X2 vs XP

And mother board monitor 5 didn't have my board in the list.

@ MassiveOverkill: Why do I need such a powerful psu? I doub't my comp will use more than 350 watt?

doood. your computer may use 350 watts, but most psu's dont really put out how much is listed because they're not that efficient...plus its better to have an overkill, than have not enough and have your stuff go BOOM
bluestorm/powerstream would be good!

Yuriman · Oct 24, 2005

I just quickly glanced through the thread, but are you trying to run 16x AA in F.E.A.R. / FarCry?

RJARRRPCGP · Oct 24, 2005

speed bump said:
Umm would you like to say that to the top benchers in 3dmark05 that bench is supposedly bottle necked completely by the GPU but once you get over 11k its almost all about your CPU speed. If your CPU can't tell the GPU where to go fast enough or do the while doing the things it needs to then your bottlenecked

Also this may be a stupid question but did you reinstall windows when you switched cards?

B.S., for the most part, I hate to tell you. That was true with 3D Mark 2001 SE. Ever since 3D Mark 2003, it has been more video card oriented.

With 3D Mark 2005, as long as you have a good video card and the processor is at least 1.4 ghz, it often performs fine!

You probably only loose some points!

There's only some tests that explicitly test the processor-based speed.

3D Mark 2001 SE was more system oriented. It favors OC'ed processor cores and high bus clocks. The high detail Car Chase test depends on processor core speed! Bus clock speeds hardly matter with that test, except for if the processor core speed is low. (Less than 2.3 ghz)

I actually was required to run my processor at 2.4 ghz with a Radeon 9000 Pro 64 MB to score roughly the same as 2.28 ghz with a GeForce 4 Ti 4200 64 MB!!

If the processor frequency is at stock, then I do agree. It then would cause games to be slow.

tom10167 · Oct 24, 2005

Why are people dwelling on the power supply? It's not the issue.

Be more specific with graphic settings? What monitor do you have, what resolution are you trying to run these games at?

Realize that NO new game works fully with max settings with the latest video card.

MassiveOverkill · Oct 24, 2005

tom10167 said:
Why are people dwelling on the power supply? It's not the issue.

Be more specific with graphic settings? What monitor do you have, what resolution are you trying to run these games at?

Realize that NO new game works fully with max settings with the latest video card.

Because Turbo Link is a POS. It's not like he has a PC&P 350 watter. He has a POS Turbo Link 420, which only has +18A on the +12V rail:

My%20current%20Turbolink%20PSU%20-%2011-144-018-03.jpg

The GTX requires a minimum of 22A on the +12V rail, and I believe the GT requires +20A. That Turbolink doesn't even put out it's rated +18A.

ShadowClock59 · Oct 24, 2005

MassiveOverkill said:
Because Turbo Link is a POS. It's not like he has a PC&P 350 watter. He has a POS Turbo Link 420, which only has +18A on the +12V rail:

The GTX requires a minimum of 22A on the +12V rail, and I believe the GT requires +20A. That Turbolink doesn't even put out it's rated +18A.

Exactly!

Im geussing that the Turbolink is rated at around 60-65% efficiancy, so that would mean your putting out a max of 256watts. The GT at load puts out, I beleive, 116w, your processor is putting out anywhere between 89-100watts at load. Throw in all the other components, and your cutting it very close.

Trust me, I wouldnt have stated that it was possibly the powersupply if I didnt have a reason to back it up, I just havnt been able to find any real specs on the Turbolink 420 though. But, it might have better efficiency, so dont lose hope.

JigPu · Oct 24, 2005

RJARRRPCGP said:
B.S., for the most part, I hate to tell you. That was true with 3D Mark 2001 SE. Ever since 3D Mark 2003, it has been more video card oriented.

With 3D Mark 2005, as long as you have a good video card and the processor is at least 1.4 ghz, it often performs fine!

That is true. But there is a point where once you have a fast enough card (or slow enough CPU), the difference will begin to show itself. My XP1800 is the cause of ~400 lost points in '03. In '05, I'm only 30 points or so behind what a more powerful system gives. This is with a (card when OCd is equivlant to) 9800np though, so '05 is definatly video card limited. If I were to throw a 7800GTX into my system though, I know I'd be missing at least 100 points, and wouldn't be supprised at 200 since even though 05 is much more stressing of the video card (thanks to copious shaders, high-res textures, and tons of polygons) the CPU is still somewhat involved -- and a slow one like mine will definatly be limiting a 7800GTX somewhat.

Of course, whether 100, 200, or even 400 points is significant is arguable (to 3DMark junkies, definatly. to others, probably less)

JigPu

cooper15 · Oct 24, 2005

". but FEAR runs at 30fps average, while 6800 ran it at like 15fp"

since when is double the performance sucky

Illyest · Oct 24, 2005

cooper15 said:
". but FEAR runs at 30fps average, while 6800 ran it at like 15fp"

since when is double the performance sucky

/agree. Also, expecting to play F.E.A.R. at max settings (and above 1024x768 res) using ANY equipment on the market will caue you computer to seem dated....its the most system demanding game on the market currently. BF2 a close second.

Some will argue those 2 games are "poorly coded" however.

Sniper.nkc · Oct 24, 2005

Get rid of that Turbolink PS. I had this PS on another computer and it won't even supply enough power to run an AIW 9800 Pro. Do yourself a favor and get a name brand PS.

grayg · Oct 25, 2005

no problems running things on my xfx 7800gt

Mooyo · Oct 25, 2005

Mine hasn't arrived yet unfortunately, but this thread title scared the crap out of me till I read through it all.

EDIT I swear, I cannot type correctly.

noxqzs · Oct 25, 2005

Illyest said:
/agree. Also, expecting to play F.E.A.R. at max settings (and above 1024x768 res) using ANY equipment on the market will caue you computer to seem dated....its the most system demanding game on the market currently. BF2 a close second.

Some will argue those 2 games are "poorly coded" however.

I disagree.

Im able to play FEAR on max settings with 1920x1200 resolution no problem. A few others here also. Granted the system is almost current, but nonetheless, still able to crush these games.

BF2 is a walk in the park compared to FEAR, and never even comes close to dipping below 60fps. ALso on HIGH everything 1920x1200.

Mr.Guvernment · Oct 25, 2005

^^^ you say max settings - cause u got 2 7800GTX"s..lol

dbut evens till look at your averages - i would expect 100+ all the time with 2 7800GTX's

repilce · Oct 25, 2005

Yeh are those with SLi specs.. no wonder..

noxqzs · Oct 25, 2005

Mr.Guvernment said:
^^^ you say max settings - cause u got 2 7800GTX"s..lol

dbut evens till look at your averages - i would expect 100+ all the time with 2 7800GTX's

You don't even want to see the results from 1280x1024 let alone 1024x768, not until you sign a waiver of not blaming me for soiling your pants. Lets just say that minimums are in the 100's. Your expectations are technically unrealistic for the resolution and settings I am using.

my original point was to disprove the statement that: "expecting to play F.E.A.R. at max settings (and above 1024x768 res) using ANY equipment on the market will caue you computer to seem dated"

xfx 7800gt kinda stinks...

Member

Senior Member

Registered

Member

$30 a phone

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Inactive Pokémon Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads