Will AMD 3700 bottleneck the 8800 by alot and will it be a good set up for the future?

Thanks in advance.

sure why not.

ok would there be a big diffrance between he GTX and the GTS? Because if is just 10 fps the extra 200$ isin't worth it in my opinion.

wow. do you actually read any of the articles or charts on this site?

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html

Any 8800 GPUs need Core2 duo 6400 or Athlon X2 5200 at least .

Dude, you don't need to be a jerk. Drop it.

From Futuremark ORB Project Search

with single NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX

AMD Athlon(tm) 64 3700+
3DMark06 Score: 6644

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6400
3DMark Score: 9203

AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual-Core 4400+
(OC'ed to 2611 MHz - roughly X2 5200+ stock)
3DMark Score: 9273

Nice call, Zeapoorte

You don't "need" anything that powerful for a 8800. Sure it will give you a little more out of it then a 3700 will, but you do not need to.

I say get the gts, since your cpu is going to be the limiting factor anyways. That way you can save 200$ and really not have any drop in performance.

I forgot . .

with single NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS

AMD Athlon(tm) 64 3500+ @ 2574 MHz
3DMark Score: 6707

There is just an article in Tomshardware that discussed about this matter.
"8800 needs faster CPU " or something like this .
You may check it out

It will work fine.
A dual core would be better but the 3700 should be fine.

I know i have one and an fx 60 see no difference.

Bullshite

That old article was ripped to shreds in the comments (at end of article after first few comments).

The flaws in reasoning include the idea that 140fps is somehow better than 100fps to use a random example -- that is, that huge framerates well past the 70 fps limit of the display monitors and the human eye matter to a gamer!

Not!

It's just common sense 150 fps is no better than 100 fps. And then when you get a really big monitor with high resolution on the other hand, then even the mighty 8800gtx is humbled, and can be slowed well below 60fps (like at 2500x resolution in oblivion outdoors for one), and a faster cpu won't help! It's called "gpu bound".

See?

This is were common sense helps. More than just looking at one benchmark number.

This was discovered by me (and others I'm sure -- it wasn't hard to reason out -- no great insight even), and is also in several articles since that time, if you seek them out.

So: go ahead and get that 8800, which ever you want, and have fun, and later, when you finally upgrade your cpu someday, just put your 8800 to work with the new cpu, no prob.

Finally, for those that can't get past the fact that the 3700 isn't enough for a couple of new games (e.g. new flight simulator) really -- so what? He'll upgrade the cpu when he wants, and the 8800 will serve well both now and after the eventual cpu upgrade.

i have the same setup right now with a amd athlon 64 3700+ and a 8800 gts, and i run all current games at max everything, (stalker, spiderman3) and they all run pretty smooth. i also get around 6400 in 3dmark 06. its a pretty good combo, and like it was said before u can always upgrade your cpu and stick in your 8800

I have an E6300 and an 8800 GTS and it runs fine. Overclocking the CPU results in only a minor performance increase in games running at 1680x1050 with the eye-candy on.

People with faster dual core CPUs will get much higher results in 3DMark06 than people with single core CPUs, but the difference in most games isn't all that great. Grab the 8800 now. You can always get a dual core CPU later if you want to.

i'll be as sweet as a cinnabon just for you, mmk pumpkin?

if he/she can't figure out how to use this site and what it has to offer before mindlessly creating stupid threads, then he/she deserves to take shite.

you don't know how this works, do you?

In multithreaded games, it will be a bit of a bottleneck I suppose, but you'd have to expect that. This isn't to say that the game won't be playable, it'll just run a bit slower than on a dual core or better CPU.

On single threaded games a 3700+ is more than enough for a 8800GTS, though it may bottleneck the more powerful 8800GTX.

CPU Intensive games (with alot of ai etc, like RTS etc) will see average performance, graphics intensive games it will see a huge boost and AA and AF performance especially since its totally GPU related.

When they say it needs at least a x6800 etc what they mean is that the video card out powers the cpu, and that you will get better performance from a better cpu, it doesnt mean it wont perform well.


Im doing experiments at home atm, runing socket 7 cpus with an FX5600 video card (and 1gb of ram!), if you run 3DMark2001se with an AMD K6 166mhz (YES 166MHZ, IT DOES RUN!) half the benchmarks will run with decent FPS where as some will not for obvious reasons.

In every situation, either the CPU, or the GPU is limiting the FPS.
When it's the GPU, you won't have a problem unless you get lower than 30-60 FPS, and when it's the CPU you won't have a problem unless you get lower than 30-60 FPS.

The AMD 3700 will not be a problem for any of todays games.

Unless you want to play games at 1024X768 or less its all about the GPU. I seen a benchmark with a 1GB, 8800GTX, and X2 3800+ which above 1280X1024 beat a 2GB, 8800GTS, and E6600. Im not putting down Intel here im just saying the GPU is more important than the CPU and memory give a high but reasonable res for the 8800's.
The benchmark is on thg comparing low end v/s mid range.