How much will this CPU bottleneck this GPU?

anurok

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2007
64
0
18,630
0
hey guys, I am new to these forums and I thought I could come here for some advice. I am looking to build a new rig as it is time to upgrade...mostly because my current PC will not run vanguard SOH when it comes out.

My biggest concern is will an AMD Athlon 64 x2 5200+ bottleneck the 8800GTX 768 a GREAT amount? I don't really mind if it is a small amount of performance lost because I am not willing to pay 500+ for a CPU.

For about this price range does anyone have any suggestions? The new CPU I am building is:

AMD Athlon 64 x2 5200+
8800GTX 768
Corsair XMS DDR2 800 4GB
Asus M2N-E Socket AM2 nFornce 570 Ultra MB
630W Raidmax PSU
WD Raptor Drive 150MB

The rest of the gear is irrelevant to post on here...I want to stay under about 2 grand to spend, and this is what I have come up with.

Any suggestions? I am not looking for the best performance ever but I am looking to run vanguard flawlessly. That is my goal.

Anurok
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
0
A C2D class CPU (E6600 and above) would be a better match with the 8800GTX. It's simply a better gaming CPU overall, and overclocks much better also.

But to answer your question, the 5200+ is still plenty fast for the vast majority of games out there (Flight Simulator X excluded) and should not hold back an 8800GTX too much at high resoltions and graphics detail.
 

ajfink

Distinguished
Dec 3, 2006
1,150
0
19,280
0
Don't lie to the guy...the 5200+ is more than enough CPU power to run any game (and while Flight Simulator X is very CPU bound, enough to run even that) with settings maxed or nearly maxed at high resolutions thanks to the 8800. The GPU is far more important in most games than the CPU, and the 5200+ falls between the E6400 and E6600 in performance.

edit - FSX runs like crap on many of the highest end systems, too.

edit 2 - you haven't built it yet? While the rest of my post still stands, you can can get more bang for your buck by building a C2D-based system. And the 4GB of RAM might be overkill, but if you want to be REALLY Vista ready...I guess there is nothing wrong with it.
 

gOJDO

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2006
2,309
0
19,780
0
To have the best gaming performance, grab a C2D CPU. E6400 is a lot faster for gaming then 5200+. The E6600 costs same as 5200+, but it wipes the floor with the X2 5200+ in every benchmark known to mankind. The greatest difference in performance between 5200+ and E6600 is in gaming.
C2D CPUs are cooler, more energy efficient, and most important much more overclockable.
 

3Ball

Distinguished
Mar 1, 2006
1,736
0
19,790
1
I would also suggest a C2D, but the system looks like it would be fine either way if you prefer AMD. I just ordered myself an Intel Xeon 3040, which I plan to take to 2.8 - 3ghz...cant wait. Also the C2D build will use a little less voltage, not much in your case since you are building AM2, but that is one reason for me building mine, so I can put alil less strain on my PSU for when I drop my DX10 card in there. Good luck and nice build
 

niz

Distinguished
Feb 5, 2003
900
0
18,980
0
Don't lie to the guy...the 5200+ is more than enough CPU power to run any game (and while Flight Simulator X is very CPU bound, enough to run even that) with settings maxed or nearly maxed at high resolutions thanks to the 8800. The GPU is far more important in most games than the CPU, and the 5200+ falls between the E6400 and E6600 in performance.

edit - FSX runs like crap on many of the highest end systems, too.

edit 2 - you haven't built it yet? While the rest of my post still stands, you can can get more bang for your buck by building a C2D-based system. And the 4GB of RAM might be overkill, but if you want to be REALLY Vista ready...I guess there is nothing wrong with it.
Oh man, the AMD would cripple the 8800gtx. I'm running Flght Sim X on a 8800gtx sli system with core 2 extreme and 8888 dominator memory so I do have some actual experience in this.
 

3Ball

Distinguished
Mar 1, 2006
1,736
0
19,790
1
Man that 8800 system must really be crankin out some FPS if the 5200+ would cripple it as you say. Makes me glad that im getting my Xeon system.

Best,

3Ball
 

ajfink

Distinguished
Dec 3, 2006
1,150
0
19,280
0
I just checked Tom's Hardware CPU charts and I was right about the E6400 performance vs. 5200+. The E6400 is almost exactly matched to the 5000+ (there is no 5200+ on the charts). The only benchmarks that the E6400 would really shine above the 5200+ is heavy video encoding. In gaming, the 5200+ would be superior to the E6400. The E6600, however, beats them both.

In the end, though, for the budget you apparently have, the E6600 is the best choice, IMO. It has much more overclocking headroom than the 5200+, uses less power (there are more efficient X2's than the C2Ds at 90nm [lower end X2s] and midrange [65nm X2s], but there is not a 65nm 5200+ yet), and you would be able to upgrade to quad-core in the near future if you wanted to. By no means will the 5200+ system you have selected let you down, but you should know you can get more for your money.
 

zoridon

Distinguished
Dec 9, 2005
176
0
18,680
0
I don't have any experience with the flight sim mentiioned but I have to agree with the core 2 duo choice. a E6400 running at 400 mhz fsb with ddr2 800 memory on the gigabyte ds3 motherboard will wipe the floor with the processor you have chosen and provide a little future headroom at a lower total cost. Probably save you several hundred dollars. You can probably hit this on stock cooling but I'd get a aftermarket heatsink just to make sure for $30 or less "zalman" has served me well others would recommend a different brand.
 

anurok

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2007
64
0
18,630
0
To have the best gaming performance, grab a C2D CPU. E6400 is a lot faster for gaming then 5200+. The E6600 costs same as 5200+, but it wipes the floor with the X2 5200+ in every benchmark known to mankind. The greatest difference in performance between 5200+ and E6600 is in gaming.
C2D CPUs are cooler, more energy efficient, and most important much more overclockable.
From what I understand though...for the money...the amd would be a better choice simply because nothing can utilize the dual cores yet as far as gaming, let alone a quad core later on. Of course the upgradeability for the pentiums is nice and with the E6600 being faster and cheaper than the AMD that makes it a more effecient choice.

However, I have run my AMD and my Pentium on the same platform (MOBO and CPU on the AMD burned because of electrical issue on the MOBO and bought a P4 instead) and they both ran nearly the same while the AMD was 2GHZ and the P4 is 3.2Ghz with a radeon 9800pro...

So you all truly recommend an E6600 even though you can not utilize it yet? I don't really care for a flight sim x reference simply because I hate those simulators =D Except NFSU...

Oh, and yeah, I want to be vista ready, hence the 4GB of ram
 

3Ball

Distinguished
Mar 1, 2006
1,736
0
19,790
1
Flight Sim X does use dual core does it not? as do some other games and soon all will. Hell Crysis is going to require at least a dual core to my understanding? Dual Core is the way to go for sure, its just a matter of which one. Do not even consider single core as I am a heavy gamer and would never go back because my games run more consistently on my 3800+ X2 @ 2.4ghz than they did on my 3700+ Sandy @ 2.64ghz!

Best,

3Ball
 

anurok

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2007
64
0
18,630
0
Well, the price difference from the 5200+ and the E6600 is about 30 bucks. I do love AMD but if the E6600 is faster for that much more with being able to upgrade to a quad-core (if the MOBO allows it)..does anyone have a recommendation of a good MOBO and E6600 combo for about 400?

thanks~

ANurok
 

3Ball

Distinguished
Mar 1, 2006
1,736
0
19,790
1
well not sure I could recommend something at that price point for a 6600, but for ~$450 the E6600 and Abit AB9 Pro arent a bad combo. I would Say just buy a Xeon 3040 or 3050 with an after market air cooler like Arctic Freezer 7 Pro and the AB9 Pro then OC anywhere from 2.6ghz - 3.2ghz! That is what I suggest. Building a custom computer for games and not OC'ing is very similar to buying a sports car, leaving it stock and then going and racing against other cars that have been ported to something greater than themselves...its basically just not fun. lol...just my 2 cents! take it for what you will...

Best,

3Ball
 

anurok

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2007
64
0
18,630
0
well not sure I could recommend something at that price point for a 6600, but for ~$450 the E6600 and Abit AB9 Pro arent a bad combo. I would Say just buy a Xeon 3040 or 3050 with an after market air cooler like Arctic Freezer 7 Pro and the AB9 Pro then OC anywhere from 2.6ghz - 3.2ghz! That is what I suggest. Building a custom computer for games and not OC'ing is very similar to buying a sports car, leaving it stock and then going and racing against other cars that have been ported to something greater than themselves...its basically just not fun. lol...just my 2 cents! take it for what you will...

Best,

3Ball
Heh, I have a modded Scion tC so I know what you mean...

However, is that combo better than the AMD combo for the extra 150 bucks? I mean if it is I do not mind spending the money. The Xeon is not expensive either. That one is cheaper than my AMD that I picked out.

However, I have never overclocked a PC before so I dunno how into that I will be depending on what I get. Hrm this is a hard decision seeing as how I am personally in favor of AMD over Intel but then again I am willing to switch depending on the cost to improvement ratio.
 

3Ball

Distinguished
Mar 1, 2006
1,736
0
19,790
1
In my opinion yes the cost justifies the increase, but if you get the 3050 Xeon and the AB9 Pro and shoot for 3.2ghz (400mhz FSB) and set the divider of you memory to 1:1 then you will have your mem @ 400mhz and should be fine. Read the overclocking guide in the CPU forum, it is a good guide for first timers. You will find that OC'ing is alot easier than it seems. But the cost of the 3050 and the AB9 Pro will be ~$380. I myself just ordered that same Mobo and the the 3040 to replace my current CPU and Mobo in my rig, which I can take to the speed of the 5200+, which would make my current rig and your future one similar. except for the vid card...lol, a general rule of thumb to follow for comparison of the Intel Core arch and the AMD K8 arch is for the 2mb Intels for AMD to be the same it needs 300 - 400mhz and for the 4mb Intels AMD needs 500 - 600mhz to compete. If that helps you see the scale alil better.

Best,

3Ball
 

anurok

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2007
64
0
18,630
0
Yeah...what about overclocking the 5200+? It will go beyond your 3040 set up but it will not surpass a E6600 over clock. I dunno I am thinking that I will go with the AMD simply because I just like it better as a product. If I need to upgrade later on It will not cost me nearly as much seeing as how I will have the 4GB of ram and the 8800GTX. If I feel I need more than the 5200+, which I dont think will be the case, I will upgrade I suppose...

What do you guys think?

Anurok
 

gOJDO

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2006
2,309
0
19,780
0
What do you guys think?
1. AMD is not a product.
2. Don't ask for advice if you allready have decided what to buy.
3. AMD Athlon64 X2 5200+ is a good product, but there are better.
Core2 Duo E6600 is faster, has better performance/price ratio, runs cooler, is more energy efficient and it overclocks much more.
There is no AMD CPU that overclocked(on watter, dryice or whatever) can match the performance of an aircooled overclocked E6600 for anything.
 
I don't really foresee too much of a bottleneck except at low resolutions. I think you will safely enjoy a framerate which is higher than what your monitor can display for quite a while. Also, there's nothing shabby about a 5200+.

Maximum PC's February issue has an kick-ass $1,500 system that only need an extra gig of RAM and realistic OS pricing. That would take you to $1,700 USD with an 8800 and an e6300.
 

Eurasianman

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2006
883
0
19,010
5
Listen to the guys on this. I had an AMD for 2 years and loved it. But when it comes down to performance and price, you really can't beat Intel at the moment. As long as you have an Intel 965 or Intel 975 chipset you should be fine. Be sure to check on motherboards with the Intel 975X chipsets though. Some do not support Core 2 Duo, nor Core 2 Quad. For me, I buy what performs best at the right price. So don't call me a fanboy of Intel or AMD. I like both, and do not favor one over the other, unless it comes to performance/price :tongue:

Might want to go with 2 gigs to begin with and than go to 4 gigs if you plan on using Windows XP.

My $.02
 

NMDante

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2002
1,588
0
19,780
0
Since Vanguard is an MMO, flawlessly might not happen right away.

But the 5200+ and an 8800GTX should be more than enough. Yes, with a C2D you might see a little better performance, but I don't think it will be much at all.

More than anything, your internet connection will probably be your biggest headache, especially with MMOs. That and the fact that Vanguard is a new MMO, and it probably doesn't have all the kinks worked out of it's server farms until they start doing load testing and such.

But again, your setup is more than enough for most games. MMOs are a whole different breed to expect to run flawlessly, though.
 

heartview

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2006
258
0
18,780
0
Cpu bottlenecking a Gpu is a general statement and won't apply to every scenario. The games you play will also be an important factor.
Exactly. Different versions of Direct3D, for example, have different CPU requirements depending on how the game is interacting with the API. Some games are inherently more CPU-bound due to how they have made their 3D engine.
 

Similar threads