CPU bringing down 8800?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

gnu611

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2006
12
0
18,510
hey i just got a Evga 8800 gtx and i think that im not getting everything out of it. Everything high on cs, i run the video stress test and get about 86 fps! I have an amd 64 x2 4600, i know it not the best but could this me bringing down the performance so much?
other benchmarks (everything on high)-
3dmark06-5460!!! 🙁
battlefield 2-avg-99fps
Half Life 2 lost coast- 164 fps
 
Why the heck does it matter??

As long as the CPU can give u 60 FPS ur fine.

You want worthless benchmark scores? Buy a Core 2 Quad and throw out ur radiator.
 
Im wondering why mpilchfamiliy didnt asked that one:

What PSU do u use ? ?? ? :lol:

I had problems with mine 8800 gts and thanks to mpilchfamily who helped me figuring the problem out 😉
 
battlefield 2-avg-99fps
Half Life 2 lost coast- 164 fps
Click to expand...
These FPS are awesome! :twisted:
why are you unhappy?
3DMark?
Forget it, it's not something that you should worry about!
But as Armanox said, you should tell us your Power Supply spec?
 
what resolution do you play at? low resolutions show cpu bottlenecks the most, as a graphics card like that woould be practically idling at 1024x768
 
Dont listen to Intel boy, All Cpus right now will hold back a GTX, especially at higher resolutions. Wait a little longer and go Socket AM2+ with Amd's new Quad series Phenoms. Keep your existing Mb and just add the new processor. Forget C2D its not all that! Also try a new branded Ps with more Amps per rail.
Click to expand...

LOL this is my favorite Fanboy of all times :lol:


I will ask you again soldier since you ignored me the past 20 times in regards to this question.

Tell me which is faster? your 6000+ at 3ghz or a E6400-E6600 at 3ghz? :lol: :lol: :lol:Well, the 6000+ would has higher thermals... :lol:
 
Dont listen to Intel boy, All Cpus right now will hold back a GTX, especially at higher resolutions. Wait a little longer and go Socket AM2+ with Amd's new Quad series Phenoms. Keep your existing Mb and just add the new processor. Forget C2D its not all that! Also try a new branded Ps with more Amps per rail.
Click to expand...

LOL this is my favorite Fanboy of all times :lol:


I will ask you again soldier since you ignored me the past 20 times in regards to this question.

Tell me which is faster? your 6000+ at 3ghz or a E6400-E6600 at 3ghz? :lol: :lol: :lol:



no doubt the x2 6000+ is much better than E6400
 
Once again... compare apples, people. I'm not defending anyone, but Soldier SEEMS to be arguing STOCK speed benches, not OC'd c2d's. I love when people get into this argument.... always the same with the Intel people..."Yeah, *sniff*, but *sniffle* you didnt OVERCLOCK the cpu like I do!" Well, they dont OC the x2's either when they test them, so what's your point? Compare apples, guys. The STOCK speeds on the c2d's are stock for a reason. The chips just have more headroom and a higher thermal threshold to take the high overclocks. They aren't engineered to work at those higher speeds, because if they were, Intel would have set their clocks there to begin with. The added headroom is a bonus from the design of the chips and the smaller dies.

To all Intel fanboys: comparing an overclocked CPU to a stock one is not a comparison. Comparing overclocking potential of both chips would be, but since only .01% of all computer users overclock their computers, what good would that do for 99.99% of users? NONE

As a side note, before I get flamed for being an AMD fanboy, I bought my rig about a year ago before the c2d's were released. I didnt have a real choice in the matter.
 
Yeah, I bought an AMD 5000+ myself last time, and it works very nicely. I guess AMD will be very successful if they can come up with a processor that costs $200 and beats Intel's $200 processors, without any overclocking on either side. That's where the big money is, not at the high end.

I think it's more than 1 in 10000 computer users who overclock but your point is well taken.

BTW, I read an article recently where Microsoft developers were complaining that Windows crashes a lot because CPUs are overclocked :roll: :lol: I'try to use that excuse for my own programs...
 
I just ran the stress test on cs running at 1920 x 1200 resolution and everything else max and got 245 fps

specs
e6700 @ 3.66
XFX 8800GTX

So you are right to be a little concerned about getting 89 fps, damn I know I would be, why the hell would anyone be happy with 60fps when they should get well over 200.[/quote]
 
I just ran the stress test on cs running at 1920 x 1200 resolution and everything else max and got 245 fps

specs
e6700 @ 3.66
XFX 8800GTX

So you are right to be a little concerned about getting 89 fps, damn I know I would be, why the hell would anyone be happy with 60fps when they should get well over 200.
Click to expand...
[/quote]

Because they have an LCD monitor that only shows 60 frames anyway? That's what refresh rate 60 Hz means, and it's pretty frequent these days. Also, I believe most people can't really see a difference between 60 fps and 200 fps, that's the theory anyway.
 
Why the heck does it matter??

As long as the CPU can give u 60 FPS ur fine.

You want worthless benchmark scores? Buy a Core 2 Quad and throw out ur radiator.
Click to expand...


i think it matters pretty much, its about 45% less what the card should perform..
 
well something is wrong thats for sure.. i dunno how much money u have but u could try a new PSU.. or if u got a friend who has one
 
Microsoft developers were complaining that Windows crashes a lot because CPUs are overclocked
Click to expand...

I know this is off topic, I just found it funny. MS tends to blame everyone but themselves for everything like Balmer blaming piracy in Asia for the slow sales even though they made record profits.

Here is a great PSU and only $125 after MIR
Check this out
 
I don't think a new PSU will solve his low FPS problem.
Click to expand...

I agree although I don't think he has the best PSU and could benefit from something else I don't think that's the reason. All the FPS look good the only problem is the 3DMark score. 3DMark has CPU tests which combined with the others gives you an overall score. I think it might be these tests that are dragging your overall down but at those frame rates your games are perfectly playable.
 
I just ran the stress test on cs running at 1920 x 1200 resolution and everything else max and got 245 fps

specs
e6700 @ 3.66
XFX 8800GTX

So you are right to be a little concerned about getting 89 fps, damn I know I would be, why the hell would anyone be happy with 60fps when they should get well over 200.
Click to expand...

Because they have an LCD monitor that only shows 60 frames anyway? That's what refresh rate 60 Hz means, and it's pretty frequent these days. Also, I believe most people can't really see a difference between 60 fps and 200 fps, that's the theory anyway.[/quote]

IN terms of HZ ....what is the maximum for LCD monitors nowadays?
Must suck to have such a high end card and only have 60 HZ refresh rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom