Would upgrading to a GPU with more ram stop stuttering?

[BababooeyHTJ]

Q9650 has how much more cache? There's a reason it has more...and an E7400 @ 3.0ghz would be like the q9650 @ 2.0ghz. Every 2MB of cache is Core2 cpus = 200mhz in performance. But you also lose an avg 200mb/sec in memory bandwidth by the addition of that extra 2MB of cache. The same loss of memory performance was seen in 512k cpus vs 1mb cpus.





Well, I was speaking speciifcally to the performance increase by disabling sound. I'm being very specific. You are being very general, speaking about the app overall. The reason for Oblivion's very variable framerate is due to what, exactly? And yes, of course I have that game. I own almost every mainstream title Since 1995 on pc. Played probably 95% of them to completion, too.

The poster made no mention of disabling sound. Secondly, processing sound in a game should have little to no impact on performance on that cpu. Especially in Oblivion where it still would have to go through the shoddy memory heap manager even if using a sound card.

You were mentioning memory bandwith and I don't see how L2 cache would effect that since the MCH connects directly to the FSB and not L2 on 775, afaik.

The famous Oblivion stutter has nothing to do with framerates, it's an issue with the engine. It's not really even a classic stutter to begin with. The only workaround that I know of is to cap the framerate and no V-sync does not do the trick. I'm not sure if Oblivion Stutter Remover uses just caps the framerate as a workaround. You would have to ask SkyRanger from Bethsoft forums for a real answer as to why Oblivion and FO3 tend to have this stutter.

 

[cadaveca]

The poster made no mention of disabling sound. Secondly, processing sound in a game should have little to no impact on performance on that cpu. Especially in Oblivion where it still would have to go through the shoddy memory heap manager even if using a sound card.

Um:

Has anybody thought of getting a sound card? My cousin has a dual-core with a Radeon 5500 HD, and he can barely play Oblivion because he uses on-board sound, and any more than like 5 or 6 sounds playing together makes it stutter really badly (it gets even worse when he's on a horse).

Whoo.... I almost forgot the 's' in horse. That would've sounded funny.

You were mentioning memory bandwith and I don't see how L2 cache would effect that since the MCH connects directly to the FSB and not L2 on 775, afaik.

Uh, dude, what purpose does the memory serve, but to hold data not possible to hold in cpu cache? Of course it has an effect! In EVERY cpu!

Screen/vga are the book you are reading, cpu is the table that organizes that data you read, memory... the shelves of the library, the HDD the library itself! It's all inter-related, and each presents bottlenecks.

The famous Oblivion stutter has nothing to do with framerates, it's an issue with the engine. It's not really even a classic stutter to begin with. The only workaround that I know of is to cap the framerate and no V-sync does not do the trick. I'm not sure if Oblivion Stutter Remover uses just caps the framerate as a workaround. You would have to ask SkyRanger from Bethsoft forums for a real answer as to why Oblivion and FO3 tend to have this stutter.

And that's 'nuff said.

 

[BababooeyHTJ]

Um:







Uh, dude, what purpose does the memory serve, but to hold data not possible to hold in cpu cache? Of course it has an effect! In EVERY cpu!

Screen/vga are the book you are reading, cpu is the table that organizes that data you read, memory... the shelves of the library, the HDD the library itself! It's all inter-related, and each presents bottlenecks.



And that's 'nuff said.

Where does he say that when he disables sound that these "stutters" go away? He may think that this only happens during sound effects but, tbh that may not be the case.

You still have yet to explain how l2 cache effects memory bandwith and/or latency on 775. You are way oversimplifying how memory works, btw.

On a side note not all applications are that dependent on cache. For all either one of us knows Oblivion might be one of those applications.

 

[cadaveca]

I'm not simplifying it...larger cache means longer times for data to travel physically within the cpu, thus affecting memory transfers. This has been offset over time with smaller processes, but cpu cache is the main limiting factor in cpu speed, today. Cpu's can run @ faster than 4ghz. But because of the heat generated(and thereby power consumption) by cache running at the speeds to match cpus @ 4ghz, this is currently impossible in large quantity. A large reason why the 45nm chips scale farther than 65nm in clocks is directly due to the ability to keep the cpu fed with data from the added cache (4MB vs 6MB) of these parts.

Because we use the cpu to calculate memory bandwidth, it's easy to see how cache affects bandwidth.

The 45nm Intel chips are 50% smaller than thier 65nm cousins, and this allows for a 10% increase in bandwidth, using the same board.

Had they used just 4MB, this increase would have been much larger, as L2 cache latency would have been halved, just by physical size alone. But, becuase more cache allows for a higher scxaling of clocks, they increased the cache as well, and still maintained an overall bandwidth increase.

It's the differences in cache and memory that prevent AMD chips from hitting the same clocks as Intel chips on air.

 

[Wile E]

Cache does not make that big of a difference in games. You are hugely overstating it's effects on performance. At best, a larger cache is a few percentage points faster than a smaller cache, all else being equal. Those percentage points are easily made up with OCing.

At worst, there is absolutely no difference at all. There are plenty of programs that the cache makes no difference in whatsoever.

Additional bandwidth does not always equal additional performance, period. Some things just don't need it.

And AMD clocks differently, not because of Cache, but because it's a completely different architecture in general. The architectures are so vastly different between AMD and Intel, that you CANNOT attribute their clocking differences to anything in particular. People used to say AMD didn't clock as well because the IMC held them back, and Intel didn't have that burden. Well, guess what, Intel has an IMC now, and STILL out clocks AMD. Intel's smaller cached cpus still tend to out clock AMD cpus anyway, so your point is moot.

For the Oblivion issue, ANY dual core is capable of processing sound without stuttering, especially considering Oblivion primarily uses one core, leaving the other core(s) to process sound on their own. A sound card won't help at all. Besides, the only sound cards that are actually capable of processing the sound in hardware are the X-Fi cards, and only on XP. If you use any Windows newer than XP, you are using you cpu to process sound, if you use anything other than X-Fi, you are using your cpu to process sound. He has a software or driver problem, or a bottleneck elsewhere in the system.

 

[Mussels]

best case, cache gives you a 10% boost or so - in massively CPU intensive applications.

higher clocks gets you back up there anyway.

i went from a 2MB allendale to a 4MB conroe to an 8MB kentsfield - and at the same clocks (which i did test each time) the performance difference was negligible. there was no magic cure for stuttering or sudden epic smoothness... just the fact that a higher clocked CPU performed better.

 

[kid41212003]

I thought the only different between Celeron and P4 is Cache? And they're so different in gaming performance...

 

[Mussels]

I thought the only different between Celeron and P4 is Cache? And they're so different in gaming performance...

they had lower clocks, lower FSB, lower cache speed, and MASSIVELY reduced cache - we're talking 2MB vs 256KB, that kind of difference.

 

[cadaveca]

best case, cache gives you a 10% boost or so - in massively CPU intensive applications.

This is my point. The OP had occasional stutter. The second was a laptop. Both instances I think are due to a lack of cpu grunt.

A 4870 is really anemic, in most games, until you hit 3.6ghz on a 4mb 775 cpu. His cpu did not equal this, I said he needed a new cpu.

And now look, he got a new one, and has no problems. Go figure.

The difference in the cpus? IMC/NB and larger cache(well, cores too, I suppose).

i7 hasn't brought any major changes from Core2. The base core is the same, but the IMC/NB is there, and the bus has changed from FSB to QPI. It wasn't the cpu cores that were too slow, nor the mhz ...purely the cache and interface with rest of the system were at fault here, in the case of the OP.

Fact of the matter is, most cpus they sell today aren't up to snuff for real gaming. It's why most of us overlcock, isn't it?

 

[DaedalusHelios]

This is my point. The OP had occasional stutter. The second was a laptop. Both instances I think are due to a lack of cpu grunt.

A 4870 is really anemic, in most games, until you hit 3.6ghz on a 4mb 775 cpu. His cpu did not equal this, I said he needed a new cpu.

And now look, he got a new one, and has no problems. Go figure.

The difference in the cpus? IMC/NB and larger cache(well, cores too, I suppose).

i7 hasn't brought any major changes from Core2. The base core is the same, but the IMC/NB is there, and the bus has changed from FSB to QPI. It wasn't the cpu cores that were too slow, nor the mhz ...purely the cache and interface with rest of the system were at fault here, in the case of the OP.

Fact of the matter is, most cpus they sell today aren't up to snuff for real gaming. It's why most of us overlcock, isn't it?

Am I the only one thinking that statement is a little strange. Under that train of thought AMD Phenom II wouldn't be great for gaming. When PII is on par with the LGA775 top end offerings. Nobody needs an i7 for just gaming with a single GPU. Although multiple GPUs scale better with fast quads like i7s as I have seen.

i7 was a huge change IMO. How is it not. What did you expect?

 

[cadaveca]

It's not that it isn't good for gaming...it is, it's jsut that I feel that different vgas require different supporting cpus...the cpu provides a bottleneck to the gpu's performance.

3ghz phenom vs 3.6ghz, I usually see about a 20% improvement in FPS. If the cpu wasn't a bottleneck, I'd see NO improvement.

i7 are Core2Quads with hyperthreading/IMC/NB tacked on, basically, to me. There's no real large perforamcne increase that cannot be explained by that change, which, although quite complex, isn't really anything new.


I eman really...we've been running chips 3.6ghz+ for how long? Adding new cores may give false bench numbers that make the sytems seem faster, and the added ram channel on i7 really does help 3D, but i7 is hardly anything fantastic, like Core2 was when it come out.

 

[angelkiller]

3ghz phenom vs 3.6ghz, I usually see about a 20% improvement in FPS. If the cpu wasn't a bottleneck, I'd see NO improvement.

I don't mean to take sides here, but consider this:

If I overclock my graphics card while leaving the Phenom at 3GHz, I'm still going to see an improvement. But I thought you said the CPU was the bottleneck?

 

[cadaveca]

Well, depending on situation, one will give a GREATER improvement. There's no set rule as to what will be a bottleneck...depends on alot of things.

Specifically, in the OP's instance, the cpu was bottlenecking. Increasing gpu clocks wouldn't fix the issue.

You cannot just take pure perforamcen numbers when looking for bottlenecks...typically, gains should be linear when increasing clocks, and if this does not happen, then something else is the bottleneck.

 

[hellrazor]

Where does he say that when he disables sound that these "stutters" go away? He may think that this only happens during sound effects but, tbh that may not be the case.

You still have yet to explain how l2 cache effects memory bandwith and/or latency on 775. You are way oversimplifying how memory works, btw.

On a side note not all applications are that dependent on cache. For all either one of us knows Oblivion might be one of those applications.

Here's the deal: He didn't have any stuttering problems until he got a couple of crappy-ass hspeakers and decided to turn the sound on in all of his games, and all of a sudden he can barely play Oblivion, Doom 3 stutters whenever something is yelling at him and he shoots it before the sound stops playing, and Battlefield 2 stutters during gun fights.

I know it's a lack-of-sound card issue (and he IS running XP), because it's all fine and dandy until I had the hunch and told him to run Winamp and Windows Media Player at the same time (a dual-core should be able to handle both with no problems).

 

[BababooeyHTJ]

Here's the deal: He didn't have any stuttering problems until he got a couple of crappy-ass hspeakers and decided to turn the sound on in all of his games, and all of a sudden he can barely play Oblivion, Doom 3 stutters whenever something is yelling at him and he shoots it before the sound stops playing, and Battlefield 2 stutters during gun fights.

I know it's a lack-of-sound card issue (and he IS running XP), because it's all fine and dandy until I had the hunch and told him to run Winamp and Windows Media Player at the same time (a dual-core should be able to handle both with no problems).

I didn't mean to sound condescending. I just wanted some clarification on how you came to the audio as the issue. Hell, yesterday I was cursing Nvidia's latest driver for crappy performance in a game and when I went back to the driver that I was using before with no issues or so I thought there was no difference. People tend to jump to conclusions, myself included. Sorry if I came off badly.

Honestly, to me it sounds like a software issue. I would play around with some audio drivers and see if it helps. Creative has their own issues too and afaik Oblivion doesn't even support EAX so I can't see it really helping there.

Well, depending on situation, one will give a GREATER improvement. There's no set rule as to what will be a bottleneck...depends on alot of things.

Specifically, in the OP's instance, the cpu was bottlenecking. Increasing gpu clocks wouldn't fix the issue.

You cannot just take pure perforamcen numbers when looking for bottlenecks...typically, gains should be linear when increasing clocks, and if this does not happen, then something else is the bottleneck.

How do you know that? You are just jumping to conclusions again. Could be and most likely is a software issue.

Also you do know that the FSB directly communicates with memory, right?

It's not that it isn't good for gaming...it is, it's jsut that I feel that different vgas require different supporting cpus...the cpu provides a bottleneck to the gpu's performance.

3ghz phenom vs 3.6ghz, I usually see about a 20% improvement in FPS. If the cpu wasn't a bottleneck, I'd see NO improvement.

i7 are Core2Quads with hyperthreading/IMC/NB tacked on, basically, to me. There's no real large perforamcne increase that cannot be explained by that change, which, although quite complex, isn't really anything new.


I eman really...we've been running chips 3.6ghz+ for how long? Adding new cores may give false bench numbers that make the sytems seem faster, and the added ram channel on i7 really does help 3D, but i7 is hardly anything fantastic, like Core2 was when it come out.

I'm not even sure how to respond to that. Not every application relies on cache, bandwith (which is why you don't see the jumps in performance on a desktop than you would on a server going from Core2 to Nehalem), and even clock speed. Secondly that does not explain the massive increase in bandwith. If what you are stating were the case i7 would see AM3 like bandwith and latency. It's a completely different architecture.

 

[hellrazor]

It's fine, I'm just having a bad day so I might sound a little PO'd at the moment.

 

[cadaveca]

How do you know that? You are just jumping to conclusions again. Could be and most likely is a software issue.

Yes, of course I'm jumping to conclusions. Playing 1920x1080 on a 512mb card requires alot of cpu, cpu he didn't have. While there may have been software at play causing the issue for him, I know for a fact to get he most out of his vga required more cpu. Sure, less would have done the job, but not optimally.

Also you do know that the FSB directly communicates with memory, right?

Actually, the FSB communicates with nothing. The cpu, using the FSB, communicates with the chipset. Insisde the chipset is the memory controller and PCI-E, not the memory itself. Drive control and other things are in southbridge. The voltage of the FSB must be converted to the voltage of the ram FIRST, and vice-versa. The link between the cpu itself, and the FSB, is via cache and a crossbar, that converts the cpu volts to FSB volts, like the memory controlelr converts the FSB voltage to Memory voltage.

Also, see here:

http://download.intel.com/design/intarch/manuals/318476.pdf


http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture/coremicro/demo/demo.htm

I'm not even sure how to respond to that. Not every application relies on cache, bandwith (which is why you don't see the jumps in performance on a desktop than you would on a server going from Core2 to Nehalem), and even clock speed. Secondly that does not explain the massive increase in bandwith. If what you are stating were the case i7 would see AM3 like bandwith and latency. It's a completely different architecture.

Different memory controllers, and add another memory channel, you get better bandwidth. And no, it's not really all that different...or it they would not both be using DDR2/DDR3. Timings and tolerances are different, but they are essentailly the same, conforming to JEDEC specs.


Also, note that the "pro benchers" are still getting FPS increases by upping CPU speed. If the vga was a bottleneck, there'd be NO increase at all. Fact of the matter is that even 6ghz doesn't fully utilize a gpu to it's fullest extent. A cpu will only not be a bottleneck when increasing it's speed yeilds no perforamnce increase in FPS.

 

[phanbuey]

Yes, of course I'm jumping to conclusions. Playing 1920x1080 on a 512mb card requires alot of cpu, cpu he didn't have. While there may have been software at play causing the issue for him, I know for a fact to get he most out of his vga required more cpu. Sure, less would have done the job, but not optimally.


Actually, the FSB communicates with nothing. The cpu, using the FSB, communicates with the chipset. Insisde the chipset is the memory controller and PCI-E, not the memory itself. Drive control and other things are in southbridge. The voltage of the FSB must be converted to the voltage of the ram FIRST, and vice-versa. The link between the cpu itself, and the FSB, is via cache and a crossbar, that converts the cpu volts to FSB volts, like the memory controlelr converts the FSB voltage to Memory voltage.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=33917&stc=1&d=1267738078

http://forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=33918&stc=1&d=1267738090

Also, see here:

http://download.intel.com/design/intarch/manuals/318476.pdf


http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture/coremicro/demo/demo.htm



Different memory controllers, and add another memory channel, you get better bandwidth. And no, it's not really all that different...or it they would not both be using DDR2/DDR3. Timings and tolerances are different, but they are essentailly the same, conforming to JEDEC specs.


Also, note that the "pro benchers" are still getting FPS increases by upping CPU speed. If the vga was a bottleneck, there'd be NO increase at all. Fact of the matter is that even 6ghz doesn't fully utilize a gpu to it's fullest extent. A cpu will only not be a bottleneck when increasing it's speed yeilds no perforamnce increase in FPS.

not necessarily true... probenchers use 3dmark benches which also bench CPU. You will NOT get any more FPS out of a Vcard if the CPU is fast enough.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/cpu_scaling_with_the_radeon_hd_5970,1.html

 

[cadaveca]

Of course, it goes without saying that it's app-dependant. But those same apps can help us pinpoint difficiencies.

When I play games like Dragon Age, and COD6, my frame rates are nice, from 40-60 fps @ 1920x1080. But the games often stutter or freeze for a split second.

What is causing this? Will upgrading to a 4870 1gb help?

Now, given that Dragon age only uses about 80% of a 4870@ 60FPS, and COD6 is somewhat the same, I made judgement. Specific quesiton...would upgading to a 1GB gpu fix the issue...I said no..cpu cache was causing the issue. Clear as day, to me, what the problem is. Simply making a lateral move to a 1gb gpu with the same core WOULD NOT have fixed the problem, no matter what everyone else wants to blame the problem on.

Also, that legion Hardware review presents the wrong idea...trying to increase FPS by cpu with 5970 @ 2560x1600 is kinda silly, IMHO. it would present a different perspective @ 1920x1080. 2560x1600 purposefully creates a gpu-bottleneck. No cpu is gonna help a gpu bottleneck. You need to eliminate the gpu bottleneck, not create it.

 

[angelkiller]

Of course, it goes without saying that it's app-dependant. But those same apps can help us pinpoint difficiencies.


Now, given that Dragon age only uses about 80% of a 4870@ 60FPS, and COD6 is somewhat the same, I made judgement. Specific quesiton...would upgading to a 1GB gpu fix the issue...I said no..cpu cache was causing the issue. Clear as day, to me, what the problem is. Simply making a lateral move to a 1gb gpu with the same core WOULD NOT have fixed the problem, no matter what everyone else wants to blame the problem on.

Also, that legion Hardware review presents the wrong idea...trying to increase FPS by cpu with 5970 @ 2560x1600 is kinda silly, IMHO. it would present a different perspective @ 1920x1080. 2560x1600 purposefully creates a gpu-bottleneck. No cpu is gonna help a gpu bottleneck.

I find it hard to believe that a game would stutter becasue of lack of onboard cache. But unfortunately, I have nothing that disproves you. OTOH, you have no proof that you are right.

The Legion Hardware review was meant to answer the question "At what speed does the CPU need to be at in order to fully utilize a 5970?"

 

[cadaveca]

I find it hard to believe that a game would stutter becasue of lack of onboard cache. But unfortunately, I have nothing that disproves you. OTOH, you have no proof that you are right.

Well, other than the fact he got a new cpu like I suggested, and now no longer has the issues. COuld be software...but there's no way to know...the only thing we know, 100%, was he changed his cpu, and the problem is gone.

The Legion Hardware review was meant to answer the question "At what speed does the CPU need to be at in order to fully utilize a 5970?"

I know...but only with those apps, @ 2560x1600. I mean, truly, to me, they should have tested 5870x1080 or 1200. You don't need a 5970 for 2560x1600, a single 5870 will do(being both a 30-inch monitor and 5870 owner).

 

[BababooeyHTJ]

Yes, of course I'm jumping to conclusions. Playing 1920x1080 on a 512mb card requires alot of cpu, cpu he didn't have. While there may have been software at play causing the issue for him, I know for a fact to get he most out of his vga required more cpu. Sure, less would have done the job, but not optimally.

You don't know that. Once again jumping to conclusions.

Actually, the FSB communicates with nothing. The cpu, using the FSB, communicates with the chipset. Insisde the chipset is the memory controller and PCI-E, not the memory itself. Drive control and other things are in southbridge. The voltage of the FSB must be converted to the voltage of the ram FIRST, and vice-versa. The link between the cpu itself, and the FSB, is via cache and a crossbar, that converts the cpu volts to FSB volts, like the memory controlelr converts the FSB voltage to Memory voltage.

What do you think that the northbridge is? Unlike that diagram there are multiple traces between the northbridge and cpu. When the cpu needs to "speak" to the MCH it doesn't speak to this magic northbridge it speaks directly to the MCH. Same deal with the pci-e controller.

My point is that this does not happen through the L2 cache like you seem to think. Once again How does L2 cache effect memory bandwith?

I am no electrical engineer much like yourself obviously. There is no voltage of the FSB being converted to the voltage of the ram, thats just gibberish.

Different memory controllers, and add another memory channel, you get better bandwidth. And no, it's not really all that different...or it they would not both be using DDR2/DDR3. Timings and tolerances are different, but they are essentailly the same, conforming to JEDEC specs.

Thats a small part of the difference between the two architectures. They are nowhere near the same. Nehalem doesn't even have a FSB for starters. If the MCH was "just moved on die" you would see bandwith results much like we see on AM3. Have you ever seen a Nehalem memory bandwith bench it's very impressive and thats for a reason. There is also a reason that the chip is faster on apps that don't require much memory bandwith.

Also, note that the "pro benchers" are still getting FPS increases by upping CPU speed. If the vga was a bottleneck, there'd be NO increase at all. Fact of the matter is that even 6ghz doesn't fully utilize a gpu to it's fullest extent. A cpu will only not be a bottleneck when increasing it's speed yeilds no perforamnce increase in FPS.

No, shit. A cpu scales very well with cpu benchmarks like 3Dmark06.

Have you ever seen a benchamrk on the effects of overclocking while gaming, especially at higher resolutions? Diminishing returns would be putting it mildly, also normally non-existant past 4.0ghz and thats being generous. Your 6ghz comment is BS.

 

[cadaveca]

You don't know that. Once again jumping to conclusions.

Actually I DO know this, having had all these parts myself. You're jumping to conclusions here, bud. You have no idea how much experience I have specifically with 775 cpus.

What do you think that the northbridge is? Unlike that diagram there are multiple traces between the northbridge and cpu. When the cpu needs to "speak" to the MCH it doesn't speak to this magic northbridge it speaks directly to the MCH. Same deal with the pci-e controller.

It's not the FSB. Really, the FSB is the interconnecting copper on the motherboard between cpu and chipset, and nothing more. QPI differs in that it's a point-to point connection(direct device-device exclusive), rather than a "bus"(many devices inclusive) the data travels along. They still serve the same purpose, however.

My point is that this does not happen through the L2 cache like you seem to think. Once again How does L2 cache effect memory bandwith?

I am no electrical engineer much like yourself obviously. There is no voltage of the FSB being converted to the voltage of the ram, thats just gibberish.

Really? Gibberish? You might want to check it out. Data travels along the FSB using GTL, and magically, according to you, increases itself in voltage to make it on to the ram. We have Memory Controllers for what, then?

Thats a small part of the difference between the two architectures. They are nowhere near the same. Nehalem doesn't even have a FSB for starters. If the MCH was "just moved on die" you would see bandwith results much like we see on AM3. Have you ever seen a Nehalem memory bandwith bench it's very impressive and thats for a reason. There is also a reason that the chip is faster on apps that don't require much memory bandwith.

QPI and FSB are the same thing..an interconnect between cpu and chipset. How they do it differs, so the name is different.

If I have ever seen a i7 bench? LoL. You realize it was me that spawned the B2B tweak going public for i7?

No, shit. A cpu scales very well with cpu benchmarks like 3Dmark06.

Have you ever seen a benchamrk on the effects of overclocking while gaming, especially at higher resolutions? Diminishing returns would be putting it mildly, also normally non-existant past 4.0ghz and thats being generous. Your 6ghz comment is BS.

You're talking to the guy that has been running Crossfire since it was released to public, 30-inch monitors, S3D, and now, eyefinity. I know all about high-res gaming, been doing it for years. CAre to explain why the returns are diminishing? Perhaps yet another system bottleneck?

Cache and bandwidth...

Get and E2400, clock it to 3ghz.

Get an E8400, same settings for 3ghz.

Compare bandwidth.

Done.

As to why...maybe look at a die shot.

http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT030906143144&p=7

And with that, I'm done. BFBC2 is calling.

 

[BababooeyHTJ]

I'm not going to continue to argue with you. I'm not sure if your bragging about I'm not sure what is supposed to impress me but it doesn't but if it satisfies your e-peen then whatever. Reputable posts with some good advice like we see from people like Mussles does on the other hand. Not saying buy a sound card and upgrade your cpu, I'm sorry but that is just poor advice. I'm done here believe what you want but apparently gaming can't be done on anything but a high end overclocked cpu.

Bye

 

[cadaveca]

Wasn't me who said to buy a sound card. Perhaps you are confused.