Hey guys and gals, thanks for taking a look at this topic. As the thread title says 'Am I bottlenecking?' Here's my current specs Amd Phenom x4 940 - @3.6 GTX 480 (Stock) DDR2 6GB (667MHZ timings) PSU - 650W OCZ Xstreme I can run pretty much all games maxed out but I've noticed that some videos of other people with a similar GPU and CPU seem to run games slightly better than me. My biggest example would be GTA IV. Where people would be able to max it out, I'm struggling to obtain a constant 30FPS. Metro 2033 is the same, Where people would get about 40-50FPS maxed out average I barely pull 30. Probably just supesition but if someone could clear up wether I have a bottleneck or not would be golden! Much appreciated! ~Blood487 P.S: If there is any additional infomation you need, feel free to ask. (I also have a 750W PSU lying around but it's a cheap £30 one (Colour IT) and I assume I'd be getting more performance from my OCZ as it's a decent make) Do you think I should my 750W or stick with my 650W? The 650W OCZ PSU also has the 4pin AND 8pin connectors already, if I switch to the 750W PSU I'd have to use a molex connector for the 8pin (Which I have lying around)
I disagree with you that his cpu or ram is bottlenecking his system. His ram isn't the best there is but his cpu is good enough for 90% of games. Reason why he is experiencing problems with games like GTA IV & Metro 2033 is simply because the 2 games are poorly optimized as well as buggy. For some people it works ok and others it does not. He may need to update his video drivers, directx, physx, etc to get some improvement. He may also overclock his cpu/gpu to gain even a 10-15% performance increase. As for myself GTA IV runs like 5hit, one minute it's silky smooth and the next it's lags like crazy. I could't be bothered to mess about and see what the problem was as I already have GTA IV on ps3, so I couldn't care less why it was performing like $hit, as I said before POORLY optimized. As for Metro 2033, it's so poorly optimized and buggy as hell it didn't even WORK for me, even after a recent format it continues to crash in the menu... I am sure if he runs a PROPER game such as Battlefield Bad Company 2/Bioshock 2/Call Of Duty Black Ops/Dead Space 2 he will get more or less 50+ fps near maxed out...
I agree with Kane. Your system's fine. The problem is with the games you're referencing. There are variables beyond simply the CPU/RMA/GPU equation that affect performance and some of these are inherent to the games themselves. Someone with your exact configuration could find themselves with better or worse performance than yours.
That's the correct answer. Besides you can work on your settings in both games if you want more than 40 FPS. I don't really believe in this bottlenecking stuff, there are games that are more CPU dependant and others stress the GPU more but I think that a four core system clocked at 3.5 is able to get everything out of a GTX480. Yes there are differences between CPUs regarding clock per clock comparison but I think with your ONE GPU will work at its best.
Ram bottlenecking a system?? Thats a first! Unless he had like 512Mb or less, I really don't see the ram making a difference at all. Especially not in gaming, where DDR2-800 will give near identical performance to the fastest DDR3 (few frames difference maybe). Metro is a hog of a game, and doesn't even look great considering its supposed flashy features and system hogging performance. I played it for about 30 minutes, and haven't look at it since. The OP's CPU is fine for his system. As others have said, if he played a decently coded game, he'd see his system fly.
If you want to see whether your CPU is bottlenecking, use task manager to see if any core hits 90% or higher. The whole CPU doesnt need to be over 90%, just any single core.
Can I ask what cooler you are using to get 3.6ghz on your phenom 940 and what your max temps are? I've got the same but can only get 3.5 on mine without bumping the voltage up.
I appreciate all the responses guys and gals! I was tempted to update my Mobo to a DDR3 compatible mobo, but then that would mean I'd have to scrap my processor too, which is really not worth the hassle. I'd rather update the mobo when I update my CPU. \/ FOR FLIMBO Code: My current CPU Cooler is the OCZ Vendetta 2 - It's not the best cooler, but it gets the job done. Average temps: 26C when idle, 30-40C under load To achieve a STABLE 3.6+ here's what I've done. I've set the CPU Voltage to 3.55 CPU MHZ to 204MHZ (OC) in the bios And installed this program here. http://phenommsrtweake.sourceforge.net/ Download install and launch Then on the main window you'll have a list of tabs (Stay on P0, this is the full performance tab) Then on Core Multis set it to 17.0 (Use CPU-Z to check your speeds) the only downside to this method is that I have to keep setting the multiplier in the utility rather than using the bios. The system becomes unstable otherwise. If you need any help, just PM me. Hope that helps Flimbo
Also disagree. This crap has to stop, the mods should really block out the word "bottleneck" like they do other words... No a quad core or even dual core cpu @3.6 will not be bottlenecked by a 480 and it's absurd that anyone would say so!
You read it right but must be a typo cause he'd have fried his cpu. 1.55v is probably what he meant although that's still pretty high.
I spotted the problem immediately. You're using an odd number of RAM sticks/slots. 6GB is not compatible with dual channel operation. Your CPU would get a significant boost if you went from 6 to 4. Two slots or 4 slots are what you want to be running, not 1 or 3.
Please avoid posting false claims like this.... Yes, the OP's memory can hinder performance....but ONLY in memory intensive applications. In his case, he might see a 1-2% performance degradation due to using DDR2-667 instead of DDR2-800....but nothing even remotely close to what he's describing. No PhenomII X4 processor bottlenecks any single graphics card on the market. Dual-channel has nothing to do with capacity at all.... It's the configuration used to achieve the capacity that matters. Having 6GB does not immediately mean Dual-channel is disabled...nor does having 6GB mean an "odd" number of memory modules.... See below... Dual-Channel Memory Configurations: 1GB - 2x512MB 2GB - 4x512MB 3GB - 2x1GB & 2x512MB 4GB - 4x1GB or 2x2GB 5GB - 2x2GB & 2x512MB 6GB - 2x2GB & 2x1GB 8GB - 2x4GB or 4x2GB 10GB - 2x4GB & 2x1GB 12GB - 2x4GB & 2x2GB 16GB - 4x4GB
Possibly but even then it's still mismatching RAM, which isn't optimal. I'm not sure it would explain such low FPS in those games (as I can run them flawlessly), but it's a problem nonetheless.
Dual Channel requires matching memory per memory bank.... So, works out like this... 2x2GB in Bank 1 & 2x1GB in Bank 2 = Dual-Channel enabled 1x2GB & 1x1GB in Bank 1 & 1x2GB & 1x1GB in Bank 2 = Dual-Channel disabled There has never been any requirement to have matching memory in all occupied DIMM slots....nor does it degrade performance to have different modules in each bank, so long as the memory per bank is identical.
Oh it's density and not slots, guess I didn't read closely enough. Well it's something to look at at least to make sure it is dual channel, because that can impact CPU performance.
That's actually a common misconception. Memory transfer and read/write speeds don't actually impact CPU performance at all. The CPU will maintain it's designed level of performance regardless of the installed memory. Slow memory can degrade system response...and as a result, overall system performance, but the CPU will always perform at it's intended level. We simply perceive the processor to be running slower due to the longer wait for data to be transfered to and from RAM... But, yes, ensuring the memory is operating in "dual-channel" mode will provide some performance benefit....though it's really not as large as people seem to imply in regards to gaming.
