Can an Intel Core 2 Quad processor (4 cores) overclocked to 3.2 GHz that has 8 gigs of DDR2 run a Club 3D R9 290 graphics card without bottle-necking it?
>why wouldn't it ?
Because I bought the Q6600 in 2008, that's why. It just seems like my computer is lasting a lot longer than it should. I can't find any way to determine if the R9 290 is too much card for my rig.
Bottlenecking isn't a general term. Yes, it will bottleneck it hard in CPU-intensive games and areas within games. Others will be completely GPU-bound and run fine.
This guy uploads videos of him running games with a Phenom II X4 at 3.2GHz, which is basically identical to your C2Q in terms of performance, along with a GTX 970, so it should give you an idea of where you're going to be bottlenecked:
Although AMD's drivers have a higher CPU overhead, so you can probably expect slightly worse results.
IPC. Things like clock speed and cache are irrelevant really. It just isn't as fast as a modern CPU, clock for clock. It's still fine for most things, just not many of the latest demanding games.
Buy the best graphics card you can afford. It doesn't really matter if it's bottlenecked, it's still offering the best performance you could possibly have with the CPU you've got, and can be easily transferred to another machine later when you upgrade.
Op it will 1. Because it's 4 threads max and 2. It's pcie 1.1. The bandwidth hit is real. Good news is this doesn't really matter that much, all new games will run pretty well. If you have a newer c2q then you can use Ddr3 and over clock the fsb higher than 400. Your chip is good to 3.6 ghz with the stock cooler but the north bridge might get hot. This is still a viable gaming platform though
>small facial bone structure
I don't see how that can be a guy. Never seen a male facial bone structure so narrow and delicate. The big bulky face is always a giveaway for traps.
I have a EVGA nForce 780i SLI FTW board.
I believe that I have PCI-E 2.0. However, my board limits me to DDR2 and caps it at 8gig. I have a Zalman cooler (pic related) and it works very well, but I can't get my overclock above 3.2 for some reason.
Why? It has worked very well for me for nearly 8 years now and I haven't had any problems. It's a quad core, it has 8 gigs of ram and with my GeForce GTX 660 EVGA SC Signature 2 Edition, I can play most games on high settings. Sure, there are a few games that came out last year that I can't play on high settings, but that's only because I built this thing in 2008.
In terms of 'bang for your buck', I doubt you could do much better.
This was true for the 5xx and 6xx chipsets, but they got their shit together and fixed these overclocking issues for the 7xx chipset. But by then it was too late, the damage to their rep was done.
It wasn't their chipset, it was their bios. Nvidia released an update for the 680i and after people flashed it, they started producing remarkable overclocks. This is making me Nostalgia pretty hard.
nForce chipsets were the bomb in the Core 2 days. What are you smoking?
>A core 2 quad should be similar to an i3 4160.
On paper maybe but then you have to take into account old and slow bus speeds, legacy memory controllers, DDR2 RAM on a significant amount of C2Q systems and the fact that we are talking about two C2D CPU's put together.
Running DDR3, but its pretty much identical
Of course he will. The question isn't whether or not he will be able to game with it, the question is whether or not buying a 290 would be a waste of money because his rig can't use the 290's full potential.
The answer to that question is yes. His Q6600, despite being overclocked to 3.2 GHz, will bottleneck a 290 because of it's 8mb cache. Effectively, it's only 4mb, unlike Intel smart cache, the full 8mb is not available across all 4 cores. It was for this reason the Q6600 was excluded from this benchmark comparison:
He would be better off getting a R7 370 4G, which would be half of the cost of the 290 and he'd be able to use all of that card, not half of it, and save himself ~$140 -$180.
With an overclock it's about 500 points slower than the i3 on geekbench. Which really isn't much.
They also came with ddr3 as well you know.
He's just missing out on pcie 3.0, usb 3, sata 6gbps
That's in single thread performance.
The i3 also does have newer instruction sets, but unless he upgrades to an fx 8350/i5 4460 then it's not worth it in my opinion, if he can overclock to 3.2
Buy one of those Socket 771 Xeons for like 20 dollars on ebay and pin mod it to fit inside of a 775 board, that's what I did.
They have surgery for that you know...