11 replies to this topic

[DavARei]

I've come across ref. that an SLi setup with 8800 GTX's can take more than my FX 60 can feed to them.
In fact, I've been told that a single 8800 GTX can take everything my FX 60 can give it and still have some head room.

So, my question is this?
is the bottleneck truely caused by the CPU?
... in other words, in perfect conditions, would the 8800 GTX be sitting around twiddling it's thumbs while my FX60 gave'r all she's got?

Or, is it a 32 bit lagacy issue?
... in other words, my CPU is slowed down by lagacy programing running 32 bit single core optomized code.
Or ... she can't chew her food captian!

OOOOORRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrr ....
Is DX10 the missing link?
... I was under the impression that the big wwwooooraaahhh with DX10 was the reduction in CPU utilization when performing GPU processes.

It's the question that plagues my brain housing group.
Because if my FX60 can't keep up ... then it wouldn't be worth going SLi until ????
...... and then, an SLi 8800 GTX will take me until ???????
I mean, are we talking tarahertz

Thoughts?
Lack of ...

[m.oreilly]

i think it's a combination of all you listed. quad cores, and more "mature" platforms will "open it up", along with the newer games and dx10...

[DavARei]

I'm ready for the AM2+ quad to hit the streets then ... and DX10 !
Some faster RAM ...

And I believe that the AM2+'s will incorporate a PCIe on chip controller. Maybe that's the AM3?
Anyway, I suppose all I can do is sit and and some more.

[BlueScreenOfDeath]

DavARei, on Mar 30 2007, 06:57 PM, said:

I've come across ref. that an SLi setup with 8800 GTX's can take more than my FX 60 can feed to them.
In fact, I've been told that a single 8800 GTX can take everything my FX 60 can give it and still have some head room.

So, my question is this?
is the bottleneck truely caused by the CPU?
... in other words, in perfect conditions, would the 8800 GTX be sitting around twiddling it's thumbs while my FX60 gave'r all she's got?

Or, is it a 32 bit lagacy issue?
... in other words, my CPU is slowed down by lagacy programing running 32 bit single core optomized code.
Or ... she can't chew her food captian!

OOOOORRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrr ....
Is DX10 the missing link?
... I was under the impression that the big wwwooooraaahhh with DX10 was the reduction in CPU utilization when performing GPU processes.

It's the question that plagues my brain housing group.
Because if my FX60 can't keep up ... then it wouldn't be worth going SLi until ????
...... and then, an SLi 8800 GTX will take me until ???????
I mean, are we talking tarahertz

Thoughts?
Lack of ...

If your looking at raw computing, GPU's can out compute CPU's because they deal with alot more calculations. A game isnt going to tax the cpu as much as the gfx card is anyway. No your CPU isnt the bottle neck, the FX60 is a very high performance chip and is fully capable of handling its part of the job. Games now days are more gpu dependant than cpu dependant. Going SLI would benefit you all the more because you'll get higher frame rates. However, remember that the games primary needs are: GPU, RAM, and Clock speed of CPU ...the first 2 are always the most crucial

[m.oreilly]

BlueScreenOfDeath, on Mar 31 2007, 09:03 PM, said:

If your looking at raw computing, GPU's can out compute CPU's...

if that's the case, why isn't nvidia the most popular cpu? and why would ati be bought out buy amd? i think we are talking about "biased" information processed from one or the other (gpu vs cpu). all in all, i still want a tall mem controller an a gig of it on my next gpu

[BlueScreenOfDeath]

the reason why Oreilly is cause its a GPU not a CPU..its catered to crunching Graphics stuff. ATI got bought out by AMD because ATI was having financial problems..it has nothing to do with the quality of their gpu. If you wanna call it "Biased" information then go right ahead. Theres no need for a memory controller on a gpu anyway at this time, they are following the cpu trend by going with multiple cores...Why would u need a memory controller on a gpu anyway?

[DavARei]

I don't know.
The 8800GTX w/ 3/4 TB of DDR3 ...
The new R600 (someday) w/ a full TB of ~DDR4?
And no mem controller needed.
You sure that's not because the GPU has 100% of that memory dedicated to it's whim?
... that's got to be a GPU-ego thing.

All the ref I've come across indicate that there is "no reason to SLi the 8800GTX" as a single 8800GTX will still be bottlenecked at the CPU.
So a dual 8800GTX would yeld no bene's.
... just jack my power bill!

But that loops back to the question of DX10 being the cure?
lagacy 32 bit and single core code being the cause?

* and why can't the GPU go all CPU on us? The ATI cards can fold like a MoFo!
Why can't they chew on something their own size?

Edited by DavARei, 01 April 2007 - 03:40 PM.

[m.oreilly]

BlueScreenOfDeath, on Apr 1 2007, 07:10 AM, said:

the reason why Oreilly is cause its a GPU not a CPU..its catered to crunching Graphics stuff. ATI got bought out by AMD because ATI was having financial problems..it has nothing to do with the quality of their gpu. If you wanna call it "Biased" information then go right ahead. Theres no need for a memory controller on a gpu anyway at this time, they are following the cpu trend by going with multiple cores...Why would u need a memory controller on a gpu anyway?

huh?

Quote

THE UP AND COMING R600 will have a real 512 bit memory controller. Unlike its predecessors which had an internal 512 ring memory bus, the R600 will have it externally as well.

you posted that the gpu is way more powerful than a cpu, then you state that it can only do "graphic stuff"...
i guess F@H is a FPS???
by "biased", i meant the data processing that a gpu is "geared" toward, as apposed to a cpu. not meant to be a slight on your opinion. so where is this gpu without the mem controller? i guess i must have overslept this morning, and pulled a rip vanwinkle or sumpin...

[DavARei]

512 bit
512 bit
512 bit

... it's got a 512 bit mem contorller

I thought this site was all about 64 bit ... ah ... 'er stuff.
........... guess I gotta do a little more research now.

Does that imply that someplace down the road, there'll be a gigabite controller?
... and Gigabyte could make the gigabite ...

Sorry, I went a little there.
.... just a little though ...

Edited by DavARei, 01 April 2007 - 05:53 PM.

[BlueScreenOfDeath]

m.oreilly, on Apr 1 2007, 11:37 AM, said:

huh?

you posted that the gpu is way more powerful than a cpu, then you state that it can only do "graphic stuff"...
i guess F@H is a FPS???
by "biased", i meant the data processing that a gpu is "geared" toward, as apposed to a cpu. not meant to be a slight on your opinion. so where is this gpu without the mem controller? i guess i must have overslept this morning, and pulled a rip vanwinkle or sumpin...

GPU's are designed to do what they were ment to do, if they werent they wouldnt be called GPU's ... u dont see an Nvidia GF 8xxx series chip being used to multitask and stuff that a Core 2 or Athlon 64 would be doing. Why because GPU's dont have SSE2,3,4 and 3dNow..and they arent Made to do what CPU's do.

[m.oreilly]

BlueScreenOfDeath, on Mar 31 2007, 09:03 PM, said:

If your looking at raw computing, GPU's can out compute CPU's because they deal with alot more calculations.

WTF! so this statement negates your last response, unless you are negating this, your previous statement...lol, what a boilerplate answer. before you try to tell me what is what, and stand by it (which you haven't), do us all a favor and think things through before you post the most unfounded, outlandish, self opinionated views you seem to need to express (and then refuse to correlate with your own previous statements)...

[m.oreilly]

topic closed.