I have seen a few people complain about their processor bottlenecking the performance from their graphics card, I have been trying to research how much "bottlenecking" i have been subject to from my AMD Athlon X2 Dual Core 4200, was wondering if anyone could help me out, i seem to ghet about 40-60 FPS on battlefield 2142 at 1680x1050 resolution, it looks ok, but i was wondering if a change in processor would significantly improve my FPS for gaming, thanks for the help people.

Any links to charts would be helpful thanks!

Pretty much the only thing that WON'T bottleneck an 8800GTX is a C2D/C2E 6800 or better. My X2 3800 runs at the same speed as your 4200, and I know that, depending on the program, it can bottleneck my 7900GT. So any upgrade should show a proportional increase in performance.

The C2E 6800 is not free from bottlenecking the 8800GTX either. All current processors available on the market bottleneck the 8800GTX.

Thanks for the info, i was looking in to the processors you mentioned, the specs seem pretty good, now i gotta worry about compatibility issues with the mother board, unfortunately my mother board is a standard HP one, gotta look in to whether it will be able to run with existing mother board, thanks for the info though

You know of any tests done that show a percentage score or some kind of comparison about how much of the GPU we lose in respect to the type of processor?

It varies from system to system and depends on a number of other factors, apart from the CPU, as well. So, that simply can't be done.

Also, we don't have any software tools to find out how much the GPU has to wait before the CPU signals the green. So, IAC, that is impossible, I guess. Or, atleast until someone comes out with a software that will be able to calculate all this.

Well im sure there is someone out there with the brains to figure it out, it will save a lot of people some serious money and time.

AFAIK, D3D10 allows for the complete offloading of graphics-related processes to the GPU, so, I guess, we won't be needing any such programs.

Im pretty good with my abbreviations, but you lost me with AFAIK and D3D10?

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforc...aling/page4.asp

btw i have the same processor you have i think
amd64 x2 4200+
anyhow ive done a 25% oc which puts it up with the lowend FX series
same as the amd64 x2 5000+

but if you look at those charts it dont gain that much until you goto the intel 6800s

if you really want to look at something intresting look at this.

>>>>>> http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/video/g80-2.html <<<<<<<

that last article was pretty interesting, but i imagine that overclocking can potentially reduce the life expectancy of the card so I think I would still rather stick with the faster version rather then stick a GTS with steroids lol

Noticed any issues with ur overclocked CPU???

I have always wanted to OC my CPU but i was afraid that I will blow it up and then have to dump another portion of my paycheck in to getting new parts.

Where do i find out how to overclock my cPU? im tempted to see wht the results would be on my FPS for games.

That depends on the game and the resolution and image quality it is being played at. You will see a "proportionl increase in performance" only if you are playing at a ridiculously low resolution like 1024x768. With an 8800 GTX you would want to play at 1920 x 1440 and at that resolution games will not scale very well with CPU speeds.



FiringSquad have done a very good analysis of 8800 GTX performance coupled with various AMD processors. Actually I did a little analysis of their results to see the kind of perfromance you can expect from a CPU upgrade:


[attachmentid=3215]

You can see from the results that if you have a 8800 GTX, going from a X2 3800 to FX 62 you will gain about 11% while gaming at 1920 x 1200. On the other hand if you have a X2 8800 and an X1950XTX, you will gain over 65% if you upgraded to an 8800 GTX. In reality the 8800 GTX is well over twice as fast as X1950XTX in a lot of cases and if there was no CPU bottleneck at all, you would probably gain over 100% going from an x1950xtx to an 8800 GTX. This means that on average you are losing approximately 50% of the 8800 GTX performace with X2 3800 at 1920 x 1200..which also means that you are about 50% bottlenecked by your X2 3800 at 1920 x 1200 4xAA. This bottleneck will obviously be alleviated as you go from X2 3800 to an FX62.

An FX62 is approximately 45% faster than a X2 3800 (2.8 vs 2.0 GHZ and the higher cache) And if your games were 100% CPU bottlenecked you would see a 45% increase in performance going from X2 3800 to FX62, yet the increase is only about 11%. 11/45 = 0.24. This means On average, the 2.0 - 2.8 GHZ range is about 25% bottlenecked by the CPU at 1920 x 1200 which still puts the GPU incharge of a whopping 75% of the performance for the most part. By these numbers, all I am trying to say is that the whole "Your 8800 GTX is CPU bottlenecked" thing has been blown way out of proportion.

I have been doing a lot of CPU bottleneck analysis lately with my setup and was thinking of posting my detailed results. Once I am done, I will start a thread dealing with this topic.

Thanks for the that post gamer, when you complete your analysis please post it, it will be really useful to all the people including myself that have posted similiar topics.



I am sure i am getting much better performance using my 8800gtx compared to my old 7600 gs but all this talk about bottlenecking from other posts got me worried about how much extra performance i am getting as well as losing to the CPU. I want to upgrade my CPU later on but unfortunately i have a crap stock HP mobo, is there a way i can figure out esactly what kind of mobo i have without opening the pc panels?

I think what people need to understand that cpu bottlenecking is different with the Amd brand of chips. They scale differently from Intels Core Duo. Needless to say no-one can come to the coclusion that cpu-bottlenecking isnt that big a deal if they only have Amd chips to do their analysis on.

Intels core duo chips scale much better and when increasing clock speed they produce better results, entirely different from Amds own cpu scaling. Its the minimum fps that increase the most with Intels core duo, when increasing Amd chips the minimum fps you see arent increased anywhere near as much as with the Core Duo.

If firing Squad had added an extra column with a Core X6800 in the table cheetah posted Im sure you would see the fps much highers than what the Fx62 offers. Cpu bottlenecking needs to be tested across all brands of Cpus, not just the one family from the same brand. Results like that arent conclusive of anything other than what Amd chips alone are capable of.

I myself have Amd and Core duo results on a crossfire X1900 system and I can tell you that the Core Duo chip heavily increased most of my game minimm and average FPS.

Here is a post I made with Core Duo scaling on another forum, the results speak for themselves:

http://forums.tweakguides.com/showpost.php...7&postcount=128

Just because Amd cpu scaling doesnt produce as pronounced results doesnt mean that cpu bottlenecking is like that across both brands. Clearly Core Duo scales differently. Amd analysis alone on cpu bottlenecking is only half the story and inconclusive, you need side by side Core Duo analysis to come to any kind of rock solid conclusion on cpu bottlenecking otherwise your results are limited to what Amd is capable of only.

Here is a prime example of cpu scaling between Amd X2 and Core Duo, its using Oblivion, an extremley demanding game both with Cpu and Gpu. It was benched at high settings @ 1600x1200 on 2x X1900XT's in Crossfire:



The spread on The Amd chips from the 3800 X2 to the FX62 (lowest end to highest end) is 14fps, this scaling is relatively low. On the other hand the spread on the Core Duo when moving from a 6300 to a 6800 (lowest end to highest end) is 25fps. A very significant gain and almost double the scaling that Amd is capable of from lowest end dual core chip to highest end dual core chip.

Given that the Core Duo can overclock to 3.6ghz on Air fairly easily, with results of over 3.2Ghz a given this kind of cpu scaling to reduce cpu bottlnecking is far more pronounced on Core Duo chips than Amd. Its therefore conclusive to say that Amd do not reduce the cpu bottleneck as much as Core Duo as they dont scale the same with each increment in clockspeed.

Another take on cpu bottlenecking is people who play RTS games, these are extremley cpu limited as can be seen here with Rise of Legends:



The spread from the Amd 3800 X2 to the Fx62 is 26fps. The spread from the 6300 to the 6800 is 52fps. Clearly the Core Duo scales much better again.

Its indicative to say that cpu bottlnecking is apparent and real but scales very differently across both Amd and Intel platforms with each increase in clockspeed.

Thanks very much for the RTS part, Deeko. I understand(finally!) now why Age of Empires 3 gives me the same framerates at both 10x7 and 800x600. Hmm.. think I'll save to upgrade to a Core 2 Duo later next year.

Sorry Deeko, this isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be:

Let's look at Quake4, one of the games FS says is "cpu limited" on AMD/8800:

93.9fps at Q4 16X12 on a X2 3800+ on FS with 8800GTX

59 or 61fps on at Q4 16X12 on a C2D 6800+ on FS with X1950 or 7900GTX

Tough choice there- be "cpu limited" at 90fps+ with a 8800GTX and the X2 you already own at any resolution up to 19X12 4X16X, or wait it out at 60fps maximum with your last gen video card because you have no C2D.

What about HL2 Lost Coast, another game they claim is "cpu bound"? Which it is, but still not a reason for us AMD owners to avoid 8800GTXs:

X2 3800+ and 8800GTX at 71fps average on 19X12 HDR 4X16X HL2 Lost Coast on FS

C2D 6800 and X1950/7900 GTX at 62fps on 16X12 HDR 4X16X on FS

Again- you can have extreme high end performance with a relatively low end cpu using a 8800GTX and any of the X2 offerings- VERY high bang for buck.

While I can see their point about the lower speed X2s and 8800GTXs vs 8800GTs in some cases, I'd personally rather spend a $100 more and have the potential on the assumption I may OC or buy the new cpu.

Now, what about your Oblivion hypothesis?

X2 3800/8800 GTX at 80fps, 16X12 4X16XHDR, 62fps minimum

E6800/8800GTX at 79fps, 16X12 4X16XHDR, same demo!

Please do not misconstrue this as me saying you can't get better fps at some games using C2D, I realize you can.
However- I think the effect of this "cpu limited on AMD" cpus has been greatly exaggerated, often fueled by benchmarks at setting so low no one would actually use them. (at least no one who owned a 8800GTX)

The 8800GTX offers VERY high performance on AMD X2 cpus, far greater than any previous generation card. (although the 7950GX2 comes close sometimes)

IMO, if a buyer who owns a X2 cpu and last gen video card would be nuts not to buy a 8800GTS or 8800GTX just because it won't be as fast as a C2D board with a 8800. It will still be twice as fast as what he has (or more) and when you get up into the performance levels we're talking about here (both minimum and average) the extra 20 fps is sort of a moot point. I can't tell the difference between 90 and 110fps without FRAPs on.

My .02

No probs Rohith10, there is many games that benefit hugely from a faster Cpu but they arent as well spoke about. For example I play many driving games , mostly GTR2 and Rfactor. Both these games place a huge burden on the cpu as they are driving 'simulation' games and not arcade types. These games have massive physics calculations to take on as the car setups are extremley intricate and detailed with just about every setting to change as per real life car setups. For examply the amount of fuel you have in your tank can affect how your car corners as the fuel can swish from side to side in the tank, the cpu processes these details. All these settings impact car handling across the whole spectrum and the cpu processes everyone of them to give a unique driving experience. Then you throw in some simulated weather and the cpu has to process even more complex data to interact with the car, then finally in come other car AI that also implements all the complex physics to interact with other drivers.

Since moving to Core Duo I have experienced large gains in my fps in my driving games, particularly the minimums. On average I am seeing 25fps more in my minimum and average fps over the Amd 3700 @ 2.8ghz in GTR2 @ 1920x1200 with 10x supersampling AA with 16xAF HQ. A classic example of cpu bottlenecking at ultra high settings.

As previously mentioned before other game types like RTS games place huge mathematical demands on the processor with extremley complex AI. These type of games also now include very high quality levels of gfx and can use Sm3 to achieve this. They can be both heavily cpu and gpu dependent.

Edit: I can understand what your saying Brian, but I choose to ignore selected benchmarks that are way over 100fps, they are obviously using their own handpicked benchmarks in some instances that dont reflect real-life gaming as they are probably segments of a very undemanding part of the game. I choose benchmarks that better represent what the user will see in a demanding part of a game.

I never once said not to buy an Amd X2, I just pointed out that Amd chips dont scale as good as Intels core duo with higher clockspeeds. My point was to iterate that cpu-bottlenecking is present and that Amd chips dont scale well when overclocking vs CD. Thus it would seem to some Amd users that they only get a not-so-significant gain from more Cpu mhz, true on an amd platform.

Seeing as how there is so much bad information across different websites, I choose not to absorb firingsquads info as gospel because of my own personal findings/analysis as well as other websites like anandtech. Even more questionable is firingsquads results when pitting an X2 3800 vs an x6800 on Oblivion with 8800GTX same benchmark and the Core duo actually scores 1 fps less! IMO that sums up firingsquad and their questionable results. This is my prerogative however and each person can believe any websites findings as they so wish

im not even going to start trying to debate this to the extent you guys are, but i read something interesting in Custom PC magazine the other day. I cant remember the technical details as such, but it mentioned about forthcoming GPU's from Nvidia and that it may still be very possible to buy a high end gpu and use it with an ageing and low end cpu. The reasons they said were because of the design of the new cards and that the plan is for the graphics cards to take over most of the processes the cpu does at the minute in games, meaning that the games will run very well due to not being limited by the cpu, letting the gpu, in theory, do all of the work whether its graphics or physics. And they werent talking of having an SLI system with a 3rd card for physics, this was talking about single cards. If i find the article again il do a little quote from it, but in the mean time does any of this sound familiar and possible? cheers

That is the general idea behind the geometry shader in DX 10. To generate geometry on GPU rather than CPU. Though we're bit aways from having the GS take over CPU rendering charactoristics completely. I wouldnt be surprised if in 3 years this becomes the case though.

dam, so im not going to be able to upgrade just my gpu next year then thanks for clearing that up for me though Chris, it sounds like upgrading in the future is going to be easier, and cheaper... for gaming purposes anyway.


Bolter

And that's the way it should be...

I would agree that there are some types of games where cpu plays a bigger part, but FPS shooters (most commonly benchmarked) are not among them.

I trust FS. In the last few years when I did a lot of benchmarking for the focus group, my results always matched theirs.

Check this out:
E6800 vs FX62 at Oblivion on HardOCP
The difference between the two they found was two notches on the shadow setting. Yet your graph shows a 26%/16fps average difference between the two.

I think that for shooters and games where you need high minimums and averages, the AMD cpus are providing enough cpu power to provide a more than satisfying experience with the 8800s.
Check out FEAR cpu scaling:
FEAR cpu scaling, at 10X7
E6700@2.66GHz: 68/146/410
E6700@4.2GHz: 72/153/421 (both with 8800GTX at stock clocks)

So, going up 1.56GHz in C2D clock speed yielded on 4fps higher minimum and 7fps higher average. Not very much is it?

When you see things like a 59% increase in C2D clock speed yielding a 4.7% increase in average framerate in FEAR at 10X7, I can believe the C2D and X2 3800 had the same score at a 16X12 HDR 4X16X Oblivion test. The cpu wasn't the limiting factor.

Check out my own Fear results on my previous system with single core 3700 @ 2.8ghz and my current setup with core duo at 3.4ghz. Both systems running X1900 CF. I have provided both a low resolution (10x7) and a high resolution (19x12)

Both gpu and cpu at maximum @ 10x7: 93/140/492 ; Core Duo at 3.4Ghz



Both gpu and cpu at maximum @ 10x7: 62/130/392 ; Amd 3700 @ 2.8ghz



Step up to the same max settings @ 1920x1200: 56/89/248 ; Core Duo at 3.4ghz



Step up to the same max settings @ 1920x1200: 26/74/211 ; Amd 3700 at 2.8ghz



I know the 3700 isnt a dual core chip but its the best personal comparsion I can offer, esp since Fear isnt optimized for dual core.

What about my own Core Duo findings on FEAR at different clock speeds? Are these to be ignored? :



The jump in the minimum fps at at both resolution is pronounced when increasing the clockspeed. The average fps at 10x7 is the least affected by an increase in clockspeed. The most impressive increase extra cpu mhz gives is at 1920x1200 in both the minimum and averages.

First of all, I never said that AMD's scale better than intel or vice versa. I just made a general argument. But since you brought this up, we can test this hypothesis by simple calculations done on the scores that you have posted from anandtech. For now, I am assuming that these scores are accurate but I have good reason to believe that the Rise Of Legend scores are unreliable and I will prove this later in my post.



Could you post a link to that page please? What aa setting are they using? I doubt it is 4xAA. You said that they used "high" settings but the Return of Legend table clearly states "balanced quality" which is probably less than 4xAA. I dont believe these are good settings to test CPU bottleneck in the first place. But anyway....



That is very vague. Raw numbers tell you nothing and can lead to an incorrect analysis. We need to look at the percent change in clock speed across each platform and the accompanied percent improvement.

It is safe to assume that FX62 is ~45% (2.8 GHZ vs 2.0 GHZ plus the extra cache) faster than X2 3800. An FX 62 yields 30% and 51% gains in oblivion and ROL respectively which gives us (30/45)= .67 and (51/45) = 1.13 as the level of GPU bottleneck (or percent gain in FPS per percent gain in CPU clock speed). You average them out to get ~0.90

An X6800 is ~58% faster than an E6300 and the gains in oblivion and ROL are 46% and 77% which gives us (46/58) = .79 and (77/58) = 1.3. The average is ~1.05.

In other words C2D scales approximately 10% better than the AMD which I dont believe is a huge difference.



Just to clarify, firing squad did not make that table. I created that taking the results from firing squad's analysis. And if they had an x6800, instead of the 11% performance gain that I calculated it would have been 10% more i.e 12% which means nothing!




I have seen your results a number of times posted across this forum and no one is taking the facts away from you. We all agree that a better CPU improves minimum FPS but that is not exactly the point. What Brian and I are trying to say is that if someone wanted to improve their min FPS at 1920 x 1200 they are better off upgrading the GPU rather than the CPU since it would give you a lot greater bang for your buck. Obviouly the ideal case would be to upgrade both but most people dont have that kind of cash.

Like you, I have also performed analysis on FEAR using my setup and take a look at this graph that combines CPU and GPU scaling for FEAR's minimum FPS at 1920 x 1440.



It shows that if someone had a 1.93 GHZ AMD and a 7900 GT, moving to FX 62 will make absolutely no difference at all. Yet going SLI will drastically improve performance. I know an 8800 GTX cannot be compared to a 7900 GT but 1.93 GHZ ridiculously slow even for a 7900 GT and it does give you an idea of how CPU bottlenecking works.

I mentioned earlier that the Anandtech results for Rise of legend seem false to me. Here is why I believe so:

Through pure logic and then confirming it through extensive testing I have come to the conclusion that The performace gained by upgrading a single hardware component can NEVER exceed the percent by which the component is upgraded. Any review site that tells you otherwise is either deliberately falsifying results or their results are just plain inaccurate. To prove this, I am posting my results from testing two games known to be CPU dependent. I tested them at 640 x 480 with a single 7900 GT for two CPU speeds, 1.4 GHZ and 1.93 GHZ. At these settings no one can deny their is no GPU bottleneck whatsoever.



You can see that even at these setting I never get over 96% performace boost. It just wont happen( Anyone that doubts this theory can test it out on their own). However the calculations that I did earlier in this post yielded as high as 130% for C2D performance gain in ROL and that too at 1600 x 1200. I believe that using FRAPS accounts for some of the discrepency but that is still quite unacceptable to me. On the other hand what Brian posted makes more sense and is consistent with logic. I hope this post will get my point across

1. Yes your results are to be ignored. LOL JK. Actually, at 19X12 your averages sort of illustrate the phenomenon, but the most important point here is I don't think we can compare a CF setup to a discussion of cpu limitation for 8800GTXs because CF brings different variables to the equation, such as balancing overhead, and the way CF AA is done.

2. You said you trust AT.
Observe:
E6800/8800GTX FEAR scores on AT
Notice the 16X12 and 25X16 at 84 and 32fps average respectively.

E6800/8800GTX FEAR scores on FS
Notice the 16X12 and 25X16 at 83 and 32fps average respectively. Looks the same to me?

Now the good part!

X2 4200+/8800GTX FEAR scores on AT
76fps at 16X12? Can you tell the difference between 73 and 83fps average? Is it worth the difference in cost of a 4200+ and 6800?

The 19X12 is the same tale on the two FS links-
66fps for the 4200+, 69fps with a 6800.

NOW, I guess you're going to have to say FS and AT both are wrong if you want to disagree with me about this?

The C2D has it's uses, but IMO high res gaming with AA/AF isn't among them for the FPS games out now.

Thank you both for replying back with your own opinions My point was never to to tell someone not to buy an Amd cpu for their new 8800GTX. My point was to illustrate cpu bottlenecking and the reasons why it happens with my own explanations how and with figures from my own benchmarks and links to websites. I also gave real world benchmarks of my own. Being purely academic cant put into context real world results across all platforms.

I also explained how and why a cpu bottleneck happens for example in a game like GTR2. If someone is buying a new platform I will advise them to buy a core duo to go with their new 8800gtx/motherboard. If someone has an X2 4400 dual core chip already with motherboard and wants to upgrade to a card like the 8800GTX I wont tell them to dump the whole platform. Ive never once told anyone not to buy a 8800GTX to my knowledge because they have an Amd X2.

Each person has their own opinions on bottlenecking. Through my own testing and experience with Amd and Core Duo chips I can see the results in front of me on my own screen.

It now looks like the whole cpu bottleneck deal has been well and truly strangled to death in this thread and has become a borefest. I think everyones points regarding it have been made clear.

Cheetah Gamer has also done a very good job in his own analysis and must have took him some time and patience to complete. Well done mate. Hopefully at the end of it all anyone reading this thread will at least be informed on cpu bottlenecking with all the different takes on it to think over themselves.

Knowledge is of course power

So after reading all of these posts, ive realized that there are about a million different performance differences that depend on different combos of CPU's/GPU's/RAM/MOBO, I posted this topic to see whether it would be worth it to dig a few hundred bucks out of my checking acct to upgrade my processor, after all the charts and personal feedback that i have poured through, it seems that the concensus is fairly balanced between getting an upgraded CPU or just sticking it out with the current one, thanks to all for the charts and feedback!

If anyone else has some more feedback or info/charts to share please do, i am sure that many people are benefitting off of this complex issue.

I wouldn't call this thread a borefest Deeko- I'd call it the reason this forum exists.

You and the CheetahGamer both had good points, hopefully I made a few of my own, IMO, this is what the forums should be:
Gamers helping others make decisions based on their own experiences and what they've read.

It can be a pretty time consuming process researching this stuff, you can walk away from individual articles with misconceptions or incomplete info, and upgrades are expensive. If what we've posted here helps the OP decide on his CPU dilemma, or others in a similar situation, this thread had great value.

I guess that was a bit strong of me, it was however 4am here in the UK when I posted so needless to say I had lost full concentration and interest in the thread with the one word 'borefest' springing to mind

Im sure I can just presently pour myself a nice big strong coffee and carry-on right were we left off Nah........its been a great and informative read, a civil debate is what keeps a good forum alive and gives its a reason to exist.

I know how time consuming it is to go ahead and perform your own analysis like Cheetah gamer did and posting it knowing fine well the results are open to all kinds of criticism. Once again good job.

I find the whole concept of a cpu bottlnecking a gfx card a facinating one and it would be nice one day if it was fully and inconclusively described in a professional article. A document with all current high end tech included would be appreciated. Details such as exactly how the operating system prioritzes a games process and how the operating system deals with processing data via the display device driver while the games process is running. The approx cpu cycles used and the amount of time the processsor is allocated for device driver data processing would be good quality info when multiple high-priority processes are waiting on processor cycles. I know interrupts must also play a part in this as the card itself will signal the cpu it needs serviced with more data, same goes with a plug in sound card, all this needs cpu time. Interrupt requests made by a gfx card/sound card flag will first flag their device id onto the bus signalling a service request to interrupt the cpu amd make use of its cycles to process its service request. There is a a lot of elements to take into account when analysisng cpu bottlenecking at a more transparent level that the common user is unaware of.

A process cycle is already well documented on a single core cpu with the three state model were a process has three main states, READY, RUNNING and BLOCKED.Ive yet to see concrete detailed information on a modern high end system on how the operating system deals with a modern demanding game process while dealing with feeding the gfx card complex vertex/geometry data on a dual core cpu with dual gfx cards system. This kind of info is specialist I suppose and not really of high value to most people. Im sure both Nvidia and Atis driver teams could enlighten us on these technical aspects on how cpu time is shared and if and how much the driver uses dual cpu cores to communicaate its data to the Gpu. That kind of info would be a quality read.

Double post I know but I am entitled to a little sin every now and then

I dont usually follow toms hardware at all but they have just published this article that I think is most definteley relevent to this thread:

Its titled, "Geforce 8800 needs the fastest cpu"

http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/11/29/gefor...fastest_cpu_uk/

Ive not read it all yet, just started so I dont know the details of their results as I post this.

Thanks Deeko. It is my hobby to perform analysis on computer hardware and I am always open to criticism:)



You are spot on there. I could'nt agree more and I also find the CPU bottleneck "science" extremely fascinating. Hopefully some day we will see a thorough professional analysis on this topic.



Oh no! Here we go again

I am at work and cant go through it right now. When I get home I will, but there is a good chance I have already read it.