AMD 3700 & 8800 good match?

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

Thanks in advance.

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.

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

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

I forgot . .

with single NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

The FX5600 is nothing like the 8800!

I have no problem with the 3700+ (other than the price I paid for one over a year ago).

I don't know what that means. Please define what "real world gaming" represents. I offered comparative benchmarks of cpu's at 2600MHz and the 8800 GTX & GTS. I was impressed that Zeapoorte *pegged* the similarity between an X2 5200+ @ 2600MHz and Core2 6400 @ 2100 MHz with an 8800gtx.

I also posted scores with a comparable CPU that were similar. The conclusion which could be drawn (which I'm sorry I did not point out clearly) was that the 8800gtx was cpu-bound by a single core AMD cpu (hence the higher score with the 8800gts with a similar cpu @ 2600 MHz).

The Futuremark ORB Project Search allows an individual to compare the performance of their rig as configured to the mobo, cpu, clock speed, graphic subsystem, ram, driver and OS to the millions of systems posted to the database. It is arguably one of the finest *real world* indicators because performance claims are consistent and repeatable under the same conditions and queries can be ranked, examined and compared by hardware and drivers.

I think it's certainly nore imformative and a better indicator of performance than a pretty colored line (no offense, THG!).

The Futuremark BDP includes all the industry *heavyweights*. HA! What do they know ??

NOW - the matter at hand. I agree completely with the post by halbhh - except - there is no "...70 fps limit of the display monitors..."

Google vertical sync or refresh rate. A refresh rate of 150MHz would support 140 fps.

The maximum refresh rate is determined by three factors:
1) The rate your video card supports;
2) the rate your monitor supports; and
3) the resolution at which your monitor is set.

Lower resolutions (i.e., 800x600) support higher refresh rates versus higher resolutions (i.e., 1920x1,080).

Visual acuity is actually limited by the interpretative capability of the brain. Your brain cannot concienciously make the distinction between 140fps and 100fps - but your eyes will!

Your brain does not physically **see** the difference but your eyes will 'process' the higher frame rates.

The result??? Your eyes will be less tired and blurry and those brain-pounding headaches from 4 straight hours of gaming will be less severe - lol

Yall have a good day!

Are you asking for socket 939? If you are and you're looking at buying a cheap single-core processor get the 4000+. It's much better, it's basically the FX-53. These single cores beat out dual cores in single core applications, but the dual cores are better for multi-tasking and applications that can use both cores. Oblivion can use both cores, for instance. I recently did research on this and decided to splurge for the much more costly Opty 185, which can still keep up well with Core2Duo's. The truth is that if you're going single-core you should go with the slower 8800GTS models and save your cash. When they become worth nearly nothing due to new product arrivals, you can OC it and not worry about the warranty anymore (cuz it won't be worth $300). Will a slower CPU bottleneck framerate? Yes. But will the two work together and still get you good framerates in today's games? Yes. Your CPU here will be a bottleneck, but then, so might your ram be (I'd recommend 2 gigs of DDR400 if you're on 939). If you're going socket AM2, the best possible cost/performance choice is the X2 5600 matched with DDR2-800.

Hey, halbhh . . .

I'll get back to you with some links later on this evening. But quickly LCD/TFT refresh rates are no where near the refresh rates of CRT's - especially the high-end CAD/Graphic varieties. LCD's use *response time* and I've seen a conversion chart somewhere that compares refresh rate to m's/response.

The one I'm looking at now as I type this to you is like 120MHz @ 1600x1200.

Check with you later . . .

Since you built with a new motherboard, it's a new system, and you'd have to say whether the Ram amount was the same for both, or not, and whether the resident background programs are the same or not. And what those programs are. And there are hidden programs many people don't know they have, which a clean install eliminates.

For instance, Norton is a hog, and it's distinctly better to have 2 cores if someone runs Norton antivirus, etc., since one core can help maintain all the overhead, while the other runs a single-thread app like a game.

In contrast, if the OP's system runs fairly well in general, he might not have norton, and might do OK yet with a single core. No doubt if he upgrades to a dual core, it will help with system overhead while a game runs.

But, if he's broke, and wants to do a lot with a little, he could close programs, leaving his single core free to focus on the game.

Thanks all for the help full comments and advice. So I guess I'll get the GTS and the once I get some extra $$$ I'll buy a new cpu/mobo and some cheap ram. Since like some people said the 3700 will be fine for todays games. Might get a bigger monitor also.

BTW: I did read the TG articles about the 8800 but I made this topic to hear some peoples opinions since they learned form experience not just a single site.

Just read the reference article in THG (system builders marathon day 4 I think), about the 8800GTX paired with a lowly cheap X2 3800, and the surprising (not to all of us!) result.

Just read it for yourself. Should be interesting.

oh....and one more piece of info for your hopper!!!: Your eye can't distinguish those framerates above 70 fps! (and your nice LCD monitor won't get much above 80 refresh rate I bet)

ah, here it is:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/0 [...] age10.html

Sure, having a faster CPU would enable the card to spit out more frames...the CPU is going to be the bottleneck. But if he gets a 7900 then his card is the bottleneck, and he can get a lot more frames on the 8800 with a "lowly" (LOL?) 3700+ Athlon than he could with an X1900XT and a Core2Duo in most DX9 games. I keep saying this...for Oblivion and other games that utilize two cores he's better off getting a dual core 3800+ for $80.

Ah....it's a socket 754 !!

So, he probably would have a hard time finding chips, although I wouldn't entirely rule out finding one somehow, but that's a search challenge thing.

But it does have PCIe x16 graphic slot.

In view of that, Karol, you should carefully read my posts in the thread.

In short, you can get as good a video card as you like, and it will be advantageous, even the top dog 8800GTX! (for the reasons I clearly state).

Later, when you upgrade your system, you can take this expensive graphics card and put it in the new system, so you get double use.

In the meantime, it will have a dramatic positive effect for you.

Ahaha....754. Sell your current chip, buy a slow ass sempron, save up and build a new system. :-P Or, we can help you find a decent chip. Rather than look it up I feel like being lazy and asking if the Turion's fit in desktop boards. Turion's might be your best bet for an upgrade.

He should do what I suggest. And after the experience of a top graphics card on a modest cpu (which he might like a long time), he'll know without any risk at all, the truth in what I said. Of course, he already has graphics in his current system, and that will let him sell or give it away eventually, keeping the 8800 (or whatever graphics he gets).

He could read my link to "system builder marathon day 4", where a 8800GTX is tested in a X2 3800 against a much faster cpu with a 8800GTS.

Basically, all the conventional wisdom about what cpu for what graphics card has been wrong, and the new understanding appeared here in the forum in my posts months ago now.

Just read that link, and learn up. btw, if you want respect, never make insults. I have no respect for those who make insults. I don't trust anything said by those who make insults.

To answer your strawman (you only get to insult 1 time, after that you get ignored, as you should be in that case).... any high end graphics card will serve, and the X1900s are fine too, etc., etc., ad nauseum. It's written in many places the 8800GTS is a good buy. I think the 2900s are too. He should plan to take the graphics card with him, and get as good as he is willing to spend.

chill lol, its not a big deal. Jonny is some what correct that I am looking for a upgrade but I will consider everything everyone said about getting a better cpu. halbhh made sense in saying that I should take a card into my next pc when I get a new cpu.


btw my current mobo is a pci-e that why im getting a 8800. And I will work on my future pc.

Well you where kinda rude, common we are all adults here no need to make insults or comments

i dont think that a game more like a bench mark program