Upgrade dilemma: where does CPU bottleneck on 939 boards

I sort of have a similiar question. I didn't want to start a new thread so I thought I would post it in here. I am looking into a GTX260 too and wondering if I am going to have the same problem or is my AM2 system new enough that it won't matter since I have ddr2 and 4gb?

 

It wont effect the speed or efficiency of your RAM's performance colt. But it will make some of it inaccessible if your running a 32-bit version of Vista/XP.

My advice to users with 4GB is stick with 32-bit unless you are losing over 1GB of system memory. In which case upgrade to a 64-bit operating system.

 

I think you misunderstood me. I was wondering if I would have any of the bottleneck like the 939 boards?

 

I apologise Colt. I did misunderstand your query.

 

np. is it going to be any of a big deal to run a GTX260 or is my system new enough it doesn't matter?

 

I remember when I first got my 8800 GTX when I was still running a 4400+. It was a fair deal more powerful than my prior 7800 GTX but I still had issues with frame rates bottoming out during CPU intensive areas (this was at 1680x1050). Upgraded first to an E6600 and bam, all of the lag just up and went. I was able to run at higher in-game settings as well. I eventually upgraded to a 24" monitor just to take advantage of the additional overhead I had.

 

But all the benchmarks show little to no difference between the CPU you use on 1680x1050, with the exception of a select few, and there's not even a huge difference on 1280x1024, so how is that possible?

 

what is the point in having a gtx 280 or 4870 or even gtx 260 when you game at 1280 x 1024. the cards are not even used to there potential until you but the res up. your 8800 gts 640 is plenty card to game at the resolution you game at. save your money and buy a new monitor first.

 

Common misconception, that I often hear. Some of us prefer to game at high frames per second. You still need raw horsepower to run at this resolution, and at this resolution FSAA is of great benefit, again a tasking operation for most cards. It is of course less demanding, but still you won't be able to make do with a slouch of a card either. Take a gander at Crysis as an example of a game, that eats up gpu power.

I choose to keep my Viewsonic vp191 with a 1280*1024 resolution for a long time yet, so that I don't have to upgrade all the time for the higher resolutions, and have the option of dropping the FSAA when even more demanding games come out. I choose to keep it for the extra "headroom"

(I know I'm sort of contradicting myself here, but I hope the point gets across, that you need more than a 8400GS to run current game even if you don't game at 1900*1200, and that there are benefits to keeping a monitor at 1280*1024)

 

Benchmarks, more often than not, show only the average FPS. They do not include the minimum framerate or what percent of the time is at the minimum. From what I remember of FEAR for instance, my minimum with the 4400+ was 0 FPS. With the E6600 the minimum was 30 FPS. Both were close in their average, about 60 FPS, but there was far more fluctuation with the AMD system and it was much choppier.

 

i like this thread because it addresses the weakest links in my rig (mobo/cpu). i look forward to when i can save up enough to make the jump to a new mobo w/ e8400, and then add 4GB RAM and 64bit Vista.

as for OP, at your resolution i believe your 8800GTS is great. your money would be better spent on a new mobo/cpu so you will reap the benefits when you do upgrade your GPU.

 

My 5c:

I had opty 165@2.9ghz and upgraded from 3870 to 4850--> hardly any difference. As commented before, I had serious problems with sudden fps dips.

Then i changed my rig to q6600@and oc it to 3.2ghz-->all lagging/stuttering went away. The most notable diff. was in grid and dirt which I had to play at low setting to get constant 60fps (a must a for racer, at least for me). Now everything is maxed out and my fps never go below 60 fps. So do not waste money on new cards if you do not change the whole rig.

 

The 939 can't really keep up with the software these days. Save your money and upgrade mobo, cpu and gpu....good 754's are pretty cheap so are 6x00cpus.

btw, lol on 32 vs 64 bit OS's!
2^32=4,294,967,296
2^64=1.84467440737^19 (BIG)
Minus the overhead of needed memory for mapped stuff (bios, drivers...everything...usually a little over a gig depending on how you have your system optimized)

And the farther 2 slots are not as fast as the closest slots to the CPU....we have hit the limit of lightspeed in the distance to these pathways (with current gigahertz ram speeds). DDR3 has adjustments that can be made to improve this to the max but the closer the ram to cpu, the more overclockable with everything else being equal. BTW light travels .3 meters in a giga/sec in a vacuum

Lex
(Superman can only go lightspeed when he's chasing me!)

 

You're recommending a Socket 754 mobo? So replace old tech with even older tech? :grab:

 

An X2-6000 cpu in a 754 mobo????? You're good. :smack:

Hmmm 754 beats 939 and ram talks at the speed of light on todays mobo's........pffffft who needs photons huh? :smack: lmao

Indeed, lol

:crapper::thumbdown:stewpid::bang:

 

939 Still Going Strong

Ok everyone now don't laugh at this. My internet box is a AMD 4000+ San Diego (1MB Cache) 939 processor. I have it overclocked to 2.8Ghz and some change. This is the equivalent to the FX-57. I have this paired with a couple of EVGA Nvidia 7600GT KO graphics cards running SLi 8x per card along with 2GBs of Muskin PC4000 (991493) RedLine DDR memory. Now believe it or not this configuration will run Crysis at 1024x768 with medium detail and get pretty good FPS. :nerd: I know the resolution is not much but hey it works on this old girl. I really don't game on this thing. I mainly just net and ripp with it. It is more than adequate for these tasks. Just a little bit of FYI to say that the 939 is still alive and breathing atleast for me it still is. :infinity:

 

Nobody is going to laugh. As long as you're happy with it, that's all that matters.

Personally, I don't think the S939 boards have outlived their usefulness. There are Athlon64x2 processors that will use this board. The x2 4800+ was the last dual core made for this board and I don't think that would bottleneck a current gen card. The memory would probably be the biggest bottleneck seeing as these boards only use DDR RAM.

 

im not laughing i was in a simlar situation but i thought sod it. i upgraded my 939 motherboard and i am much better off. you would probably be better off doing the same.

 

939 dead......nooooooooo waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

I've still got my dfi ultra-d and sli-dr mobo's.

I have an A64 3200+ runs at 2700mhz, an A64 3500+ (2900mhz) and an A64 X2-4400 (2800mhz) which all hold a place in my den. I couldn't sell them even if I wanted to...........939 was the dogs bollox, and still holds it's own against a newer AM2 platform in real-world scenarios. Only the tri/quad cores we see now can start to distance themselves from socket 939 rigs in terms of cpu horsepower.

 

Ah this computer will probably be here until it decides to die on me. For what I use it for I really don't have any complaints against it. If and when if it does lay down on me I will probably just move my gamer hardware over and upgrade my gamer rig again. I use my X2 6400+ for gaming on and my 4000+ mainly just as a desktop machine.