1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Two 7900's bottleneck 4000+?

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Tubnotub1, Apr 14, 2006.

  1. Tubnotub1

    Tubnotub1 Private First Class

    Hey guys, was just wanting to get some opinions here. I need to know if two 7900's in SLI will bottleneck my CPU, a 4000+ Sandy oc'ed too 2.6. Full system specs are at the bottom of the page. Im sure I have a little more wiggle room on the OC as I ONLY wanted to OC the CPU to 2.6, once i got it there, i stopped oc'ing. So, bottom line, do I get another 7900 (knowing ofcourse DX10 is coming out yadda yadda yadda) or upgrade the proc? Thanks for your advice!

    PS. How can one tell if your CPU is bottlenecking your system anyways!?
  2. Adrynalyne

    Adrynalyne Guest

    Hmmm, you already have a 7900 series card?

    Your sig says 7800.

    I very much doubt you will be CPU bottlenecked.
  3. Tubnotub1

    Tubnotub1 Private First Class

    Ordered the 7900 off of newegg last night, so expecting it here at the beginning of next week. Just wanting to make sure that the CPU wont be bottlenecking the system, though I doubted it would, thanks for confirming my suspicions! Ill be sure to post benchmarks when i get it in... maybe ill compare the 7800 series to the 7900, get some solid benchmarks for people thinking of upgrading...
  4. Raistlyyn

    Raistlyyn Private E-2

    One 7900 shouldnt be a problem, but i think if you put 2 7900's in, then yeah i think the cpu will become the bottleneck.
  5. viper_boy403

    viper_boy403 MajorGeek

    id wait until the price drops so go SLI, you can max out pretty much all games with just ONE 7900gtx.....
  6. Adrynalyne

    Adrynalyne Guest

    Why do you say that? He's running at FX60 speeds.
  7. theefool

    theefool Geekified

    FX60 is dual core. :) 4000+ is single core :)

    Which I'm sure you already knew....

    Modern video cards do not use the full bandwidth that PCIE is capable of using. Just like when AGP first came out.

    If you want links for what I'm talking about, I can give them.


    What ram are you using? 400? 533?

    The word bottleneck...hrmmm....depends on what you are talking about.....
  8. Adrynalyne

    Adrynalyne Guest

    Aye, I know it :)

    I was just mentioning he hit those speeds.

  9. Tubnotub1

    Tubnotub1 Private First Class

    Ram I am currently using is 2 gigs of Corsair XMS PRO, timings are 2.5/3/3/6. It is 400 currently oc'ed too 434.
  10. Raistlyyn

    Raistlyyn Private E-2

    With 2 7900's in SLI, then im pretty sure the CPU will become the bottleneck, as in the video cards will be waiting on the CPU and not the other way around. And yes hes running at "FX60" speeds, but hell a p4 will run at "FX60" speeds. A p4 2.2 runs at that same speed as my amd64 3500. But it doesnt mean that the p4 will out perform my 3500.
  11. Adrynalyne

    Adrynalyne Guest

    That was totally irrelevant to this discussion.

    He is certainly faster than anything under an FX CPU, almost as fast as an FX57 and on top of that, dual core CPUs don't make the CPU any less of a bottleneck for the video cards.

    We are talking AMD to AMD here, not Intel to AMD.
  12. viper_boy403

    viper_boy403 MajorGeek

    yea dude ur a retard (no offense lol) you cant compare AMD to Intel as far as clock speeds go, at least not that way. If u didnt know already, the Athlon 3500 means it runs comparable to a pentium @ 3.5ghz
  13. Raistlyyn

    Raistlyyn Private E-2

  14. Adrynalyne

    Adrynalyne Guest

    Yep, and Intel and AMD do it differently.

    Hence my post.

    I don't think anyone can deny that the faster your CPU is, the less the bottleneck.
  15. Raistlyyn

    Raistlyyn Private E-2

    Im a retard? /sigh...nevermind. I worded that post funny, but you basically just repeated what i just said.

    Just depends on YOUR definition of "speed".
  16. viper_boy403

    viper_boy403 MajorGeek

    lol sorry about that
  17. Raistlyyn

    Raistlyyn Private E-2

    No problem.
  18. viper_boy403

    viper_boy403 MajorGeek

    so i guess your saying that they are the same SPEED rather than the same performance...?
  19. Raistlyyn

    Raistlyyn Private E-2

    Right.A 4000+ may run at the same GHz at a FX, but the 4000+ cant compete when it comes to performance.
  20. Adrynalyne

    Adrynalyne Guest

    It will certainly compete a helluva lot better than a 4000+ (and most other things out there), which was my point all along.
  21. Tubnotub1

    Tubnotub1 Private First Class

    Actually... a 4000+ is an FX53, with a locked multiplier, and built on the 90nm tech, as the original FX53 was built on the 130 if i remember correctly. The on-die memory controller is the exact same as the FX53, in essence it is a repackaged FX53 that produces less heat, uses less power, with a locked multiplier... that being said, i have managed to OC it to 2.7, so i cant see it becoming a bottleneck once i get my second 7900 SC in from newegg. Ofcourse... that will be a LONG time from now *sigh*. Looking back this was a dumb question to ask, I should have known the answer. >_<

    FX chips are overrated.
  22. viper_boy403

    viper_boy403 MajorGeek

    and then there was peace and happiness on Major Geeks.....

Share This Page

MajorGeeks.Com Menu

Downloads All In One Tweaks \ Android \ Anti-Malware \ Anti-Virus \ Appearance \ Backup \ Browsers \ CD\DVD\Blu-Ray \ Covert Ops \ Drive Utilities \ Drivers \ Graphics \ Internet Tools \ Multimedia \ Networking \ Office Tools \ PC Games \ System Tools \ Mac/Apple/Ipad Downloads

Other News: Top Downloads \ News (Tech) \ Off Base (Other Websites News) \ Way Off Base (Offbeat Stories and Pics)

Social: Facebook \ YouTube \ Twitter \ Tumblr \ Pintrest \ RSS Feeds