HD 7950 bottleneck?

D

Dirk Kuyt

New member
anyone who may have experience with this feel free to give me some feedback:

I upgraded my video card yesterday from an xfx HD 6870 to a sapphire HD 7950. expected to get a decent performance improvement in far cry 3 and come to find out, it seems like im actually getting LOWER? average fps in game. i was contemplating spending the money to upgrade my cpu (pentium G860) to something like a i5 2500k but i just couldnt pass up the new card. i picked it up for $200, which is quite the steal. but anyways, any idea why i havent seen much of a performance increase at all really? i assume it's because i need a cpu upgrade but i figured the G860 wasnt THAT bad. i mean, in most benchmarks ive seen it outperforms almost every amd cpu at stock speeds, in games. maybe i just really need something with 4 cores...i dunno. any feedback is welcome!
 
Yeah, you're CPU limited, and that can have an effect of graphics especially if you've upped the settings.

What settings and resolution are you playing at?
 
Yup, CPU limited. Dual core, 3MB cache and only 3GHz. Go for a 2500k or something.
 
what resolution are you running at?

Fairly easy test is to try lower resolution and compare performance. In a GPU limited scenario the frames will go up roughly proportional to the reduction in pixels. If you are cpu limited then the frames will stay the same

my phenom 955 sometimes bottlenecks my 7950 which is why I'm getting a new cpu soon.
 
Yeah im only running in 1280x1024. i figured what my cpu lacks in technology, it would make up for in a lower-than-usual resolution (by todays standards). i guess i just didnt realize how much a quad core cpu would help up until now. almost wish i stayed with the hd 6870 and got a SB or IB core i5. oh well. got a great deal on the card so i couldnt pass it up....onto a cpu upgrade i guess.
 
it's weird though. in far cry 3, with the 6870, i would get max of like 59 fps and min of about 28 fps in crowded or action-packed areas (more so on the lower end on average, though. i'd say about 38 was the average fps). now the hd 7950 wont even touch 59 fps but also doesnt go below 30 fps. its kind of rock-solid in the 40's for the most part. i dunno just kinda surprised me. since im not really into overclocking, for the most part, anyone think an locked i5 2400 would be an ok choice for a decent performance increase? or should i really just quit pussyfooting and get a 2500k. would an i3 2100 provide any significant improvement, you think? since it's basically a hyperthreaded version of the cpu i currently have? lemme know whatcha think.
 
oh im running at the highest graphics setting in dx11 in far cry 3 as well. as opposed to "very high" with the hd 6870. post fx is set to high instead of ultra though. no AA and fov set to ~105.
 
+1 for a 3570k

I know you dont oc, but imo give it a small bump anway. It's so easy, you're ripping yourself off by not doing so.
 
Don't think HD 7950 is the bottleneck here.
Also you upped graphical settings, ofcourse the performance would be on par with previous card and not higher considering your cpu sucks.
 
KickAssCop said:
Don't think HD 7950 is the bottleneck here.
Also you upped graphical settings, ofcourse the performance would be on par with previous card and not higher considering your cpu sucks.
Click to expand...

well i know the gpu isnt the bottleneck. i was asking if it was being bottlenecked by my cpu, possibly. plus the g860 doesn't necessarily suck. its a pretty capable gaming cpu, especially when you consider it was $70. its at least on par with several amd cpus that are twice the price. just cause my cpu isnt an SB or IB i5 doesnt mean that i wouldnt get at least a small performance increase from a newer/more powerful card, but not as much of an increase if i were to have a more capable cpu. its not like an hd 6870 is the limit that a g860 can handle, and no gpu upgrade above that would provide any sort of improvement on fps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top