1. All games are coded differently; FPS is usually GPU-heavy, strategy and simulation is CPU-heavy, etc.  For those situations, bottlenecks become preference issues.
2. There is an optimal configuration, a balance of CPU and GPU with no bottleneck, but this requires you to lower your expectations (3D settings); not all the way, just somewhere in the middle.

vardenkastav
Dirt2, 1920x1080, Vsync OFF (hate to do it, but for sake of benchmarking), AA 8x, All settings to the absolute max

2.66GHz everything on stock
average FPS 79.8
min FPS 66.9

4.0GHz, RAM 1600MHz
average FPS 77.8
min FPS 65.1

So basically results are the same showing that  OCing of CPU didn't do ANY difference in benchmark (Vsync OFF).

CraptacularOne

8xAA in Dirt 2 with DX11 at 1920x1080 and you're surprised you didn't see a performance gain? Again you fail at your test for examining what we are talking about. It's pretty much common sense that as you increase resolution and graphic settings, you place more of a burden on the GPU slowing them down and thus removing GPU bottleneck.

As for v-sync, it's a matter of preference as to whether it's on or off. And again you fail at understanding what it does if you think it will always give you a min of 60fps. v-sync simply caps your fps at your monitors set refresh rate, it does not impose any limit to minimum frames per second. And stating that it's stupid for people to stat otherwise only shows your ineptitude in discussing the matter intelligently.

Lastly, people do still use CRT monitors for gaming and quite a lot of them actually. And 120Hz displays are also used. Perhaps not by as much but none the less they are in circulation and people do game on them. A good friend of mine has a 120Hz display that he uses with his 3D vision setup as a matter of fact.

reggiesanchez

+1

You are kind of comparing apples and apples if your using the same cpu with the same number of threads. If you want your answer pop your cards in a socket 775 setup and see how the gpus handle it, or throw more cards at it and see when your performance plateaus. It is very possible that 4 cores and 8 threads is not a bottleneck for your cards so you see no difference.

SR1945



Care less about the bottleneck issue...Until....I play all games at stock settings and only overclock the GPU when things begin to bog down.  If that does not work, I overclock the CPU with the GPU and play until that doesn’t work anymore.  After that, I build a new system  

Afterburner

Ok.... At that res no surprise. No one is saying that every "Game" needs a CPU OC. Go back and read the posts.... I think your fixated on one thought and possibly are not looking at the entire realm of this.

In addition I find it hard to believe that two 5870's running in crossfire only nets you 60fps???? Good God man... One of my systems with two 260/216's does a bit better than that. Now it concernes me that your fps is low, not that my 260/216's fair better. This is not a ATI vs Nvidia comment.

Allow me to explain a few items.

1. Your screen Res does play a roll in FPS. If you ran the same test on a 30" monitor there would be a change in FPS readings.
2. Games in general are not designed to stress your system. Benchmark tools are. If you want to see the real results of your system, run 3Dmark06 the same way you did Dirt 2. And report back your findings.
3. Many folks that have responded to your post in this thread have been around the block a few times and are not afraid to play with both camps of Video cards, and frankly all have pushed their parts to the max.... Many times.
4. Making a statement that many know is to not be true will get you attention. But you may not know that or think it to be the case. The best thing to do when that happens is to be open minded and be aware of the fact that if you are not, the responses will not help anyone.
5. This topic has been gone through more than once. Do you want to learn or argue?
6. The majority of games only stress portions of a system. Most games are designed for GPU's not CPU stressing. Um.. Duh. Your comment is only accurate to the majority of games. NOT Benchmarking and video rendering for example. 

Afterburner

vardenkastav
With addition that i also care less about anything more than 60 FPS.

I think I have an opinion on that........

For me now .... It is not just FPS..... It is what settings I can set on any game and not falll "Below" 60 fps.... Running a system that runs at no less than 60fps is very different than capping a system @ 60fps.

Then once I can no longer stay over 60fps.. I try the OC of the GPU or CPU. Then get a second card. And BAM!!! A whole new world of performance was at my fingertips.

After that it is more about the latest DX# and eye candy. Then, Benchmarking to see what my system can do vs the others wondering the same thing.

The level of performance needed in very different for everyone. For me, in general I want SLI or Crossfire performance running the latest DX# with the CPU having no bearing on the performance. This happens with the i7's I now run today. That to me is the cats meow.

Let me also say this..... I have had at least two 285's 280's 295's 260/216's 8800gt's and countless ATI cards in the past 18 months. It is a FACT that they all had been held back at factory CPU clocks on the 775 platform. As soon as I went to the i7's the performance increase of the high end GPU's was night and day. I got nearly the same performance from my 790 Ultra with a 9650 running 4.2 GHZ As I do with the i7 running @ 3.2GHZ.

More food for thought. A Game I once played over and over was System Shock (1994). At the time the game was just fun to play, but that was when I was "Un-educated"  in FPS and not much longer after that Nvidia started to bring out Video Cards. (Link).

Darn near overnight the game changed and it looked like crap!!! Ever try playing the original DOOM lately? lol...

The Games over the past 10 years have actually been held back because of the bottlenecks of the GPU's, some caused by the CPU's, mostly because of the GPU's though.

For example.... WOW is not GPU dependent. Folks buying Two video cards or a single powerful unit always come here to cry about there being nearly no performance increase. It is called know what your needs are and getting what you need for that need.

Lastly, you have some valid thoughts, but inaccurate points in the reality of how this all works together as a whole. But I think your getting it now

Nahte27

vardenkastav

So in 1280x720 the only bottleneck you have is your monitor, isn't it ? 2048x1152 is way too much for your GPUs, so i wouldn't call it cpu bottleneck either. Also remember that game is not only graphics. Slow CPU can effect other game mechanism and lower overall game performance.

Well, the point is that at high resolutions, the gpu would be the bottleneck right? So you would think that overclocking a cpu shouldn't get higher fps right? However, OCing my cpu boosted my fps average by about 2 fps average, and 6 fps minimum at high resolutions. So, CPU speed did make a difference, even though the gpu is the major bottleneck. And my CPU never reached near 100% so there must be something else working here.

So I guess a faster CPU really can help a GPU even if the GPU should be a bottleneck, although I still don't entirely understand all of it...

vardenkastav

gnfnr100

Ah its been a while, but i can see craptacular is still good at crushing peoples information related dreams. Sadly, he is right 99% of the time. =/

WOW, what a guy ! I wish i were like him !