well if the system is pre C2D that's going to be a problem running modern games. should I dig my old 286 out of the closet and complain it wont run fallout 4?
Complaining won't do any good of course. But if a motherboard is incapable of supporting enough RAM or a modern CPU, or only AGP graphics, then the motherboard is certainly a HUGE bottleneck in your goal for good gaming.
What I meant is this: too little ram is just a temporarily bottleneck whereas too little bandwidth is a steady bottleneck. I called it "different" bottleneck. Actually read and understand what I say for a change.
Simple I can exchange that GPU easier than half of the system (CPU+MB+Ram). So a GPU bottleneck is way better and also the one most (good) gaming computers have.
This is where you just don't make any sense.
You call me opinionated - I'm going by facts, not opinion. No bottlenecks are good. And at least I have been consistent with that throughout. You keep changing your tune. NOW you are saying too little RAM is a "temporary" bottleneck, a "different" bottleneck!
Temporary??? Different??? Huh? And so what? Are delays and disruptions caused by insufficient RAM acceptable but delays and disruptions caused by the graphics solution not? Are "different" bottlenecks not "wanted" but GPU bottleneck are? That makes no sense. I say again, a 3ms delay is still a 3ms delay.
But not only that, you try to obfuscate and justify your "new" opinion by comparing exchanging the GPU with exchanging the CPU
and the motherboard
and the RAM too!!!!!!! That's not half the system! A new CPU, motherboard and RAM is basically a whole new computer! You totally ignore the possibility simply adding more RAM or replacing the CPU clear bottlenecks too! Or are those not bottlenecks worth clearing?
You ignore the fact (and hope no one notices) that adding or replacing the RAM alone is not only cheaper than replacing the graphics card, but it is an extremely easy task to perform! And often more RAM is all that is needed. You are ignoring the fact that upgrading the CPU is not an option either. Yet it too is typically easier on the budget and is an easy task to perform too. And you ignore the fact adding RAM or upgrading the CPU typically does not require a bigger PSU whereas adding a more powerful graphics card often requires a bigger PSU to support it.
Just because something is unavoidable that in no way makes it neutral. Just because you might be happy with 120FPS and likely will not perceive a difference at 144FPS (for most tasks), that does not make it neutral.
The facts are, bottlenecks exist. All are unwanted. Some are unavoidable. Some can be alleviated. Bottlenecks can be introduced at any point in the data path, including the disk, motherboard bus, network/internet, RAM, CPU, graphics, even the monitor as yogurt noted, and more.
My "opinion" is,
IF I have a choice, I would much rather the biggest bottleneck be cause by insufficient RAM because that typically is the least expensive to replace and typically provides the most bang for the money (depending on the starting point). Are there exceptions? Of course.
That's why blanket statements are wrong!!!
Now unless someone new would like to express their
technical opinion that contributes value to the debate, I see no reason to continue this topic.