• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

X1800XT vs GTX8800 (but with AMD socket 939 3700 CPU)

I will go against the grain here and say that the GTX will offer a huge performance leap even with the 3700. And that getting a faster CPU will not make a lot of difference.

I run an Athlon 64 3000+ @ 2.5ghz (about 4000+ speed but half the L2 cache) and an X1950XT, and I am GPU-bound in things like Bioshock, Dirt, etc, at 1440x900.

I did a little test on how my CPU speed affect HL2: Lost Coast and CS:Source, here's what happened..

CPU Mem CS:S Lost Coast
2500 358 2.5-3-3-6 74.89 58.91
1800 333 2.5-3-3-6 72.86 51.87

40% increase in CPU speed (also, increased RAM speed) gave a 3% and 14% increase in FPS.

Sure, you might get more FPS from a fast cpu+GTX than from a slower CPU+GTX, but these fps will take it from very playable to....very playable. Whereas going from a 1800XT to an 8800GTX will take games from not playable to very playable at a high res.

If you game at 640x480 though, then spend more money on the CPU :P
 
ffs, same old same old. 99.9% of games are gpu dependant, there is simply no arguing this.

world of conflict is an RTS, company of heroes is an RTS, and flight sim X is a massively accurate simulator, these make up, with all other stupidly complex sim's and other rts's, 1-2% of games released. flight sim x is barely played by anyone at all, and rts's DO NOT need the same framerate as fps's and anyone that tells you otherwise is telling porkies.


a gtx would should a pretty big improvement over a 1800xt on a 3700+, other than the fact that i would be completely surprised if the cpu couldn't overclock to at least 2.7Ghz, probably higher if not bought exactly when it was released. its a fine cpu, most games still don't need a dual core. however, a dual core 3800+, 4400+ or something which most will do 2.5Ghz, again, up to 3Ghz really will be just as good, within a few% of a c2d setup.

play something like bioshock on a 8800gtx at 1680x1050/1920x1200 and a 2.4Ghz c2d would be within 2-3 % of a 3.5Ghz c2d. likewise a 2.4Ghz ath x2 would be within a few percent aswell.

also worth noting, world in conflict is utter pants :p and company of heroes runs in high detail on a slower cpu fine, it just won't get 60fps+ in a game that you can't tell the difference past 20fps.

the main and definately FIRST question to ask(mighta been in page two but not seen it) is this, what resolution are you playing in? if its 1280x1024, then a 8800gtx is a complete and utter waste, for that res probably the best card would be a 2900pro, or 8800gts 320mb. those cards are still incredibly good at 1680x1050, i really would only ever recommend a 8800gtx for 1920x1200 gaming to be honest, more so over the last however long its been since the release. now a gtx might just about be worth it at 1680x1050 with more powerful games coming out, and coming soon with the likelyhood that a 8800gtx will lose a little speed as all cards will.

cheap x2 now, and a 2900 pro would be a lot better, and cheap, and shockingly, be right up there with a hugely overclocked c2d. only in low res benchmarking will cpu's show increases, and they are useless, IE 80fps up to 120, not from an unplayable 25 to a playable 45.
 
no_1_dave said:
Nope,
Mine is clocked at 2.6 and I get 9300 in 06
A C2D setup with the rest of the system matching mine gives 10800 roughly
Click to expand...

Yeah but close enough. The large differences in 3dmark06 between dual amds and C2D are not carried over into game results due to most games being graphic intensive. Take the bipshock link, only 10% difference in fps between the slowest and fastest processor you can get yet 100% difference between thw x1950xtx and the 8800 GTX.

Your looking at almost a 20% differenc in your 3dmark06 scores there but in games this might only be 1-2 fps and a few percent.

Since you have both setups post some results in a few games.


Also my setup did 9771 at 2.9 Ghz and 10,401 at 3.24 GHz. I find 3dmark06 too skewered to cpu. I find 3dmark05 gives a better indication of graphics performance.
 
no_1_dave said:
Nope,
Mine is clocked at 2.6 and I get 9300 in 06
A C2D setup with the rest of the system matching mine gives 10800 roughly
Click to expand...

Eh?. Who said anything about playing 3dmark?. It was World in Conflict I said that a dual core would help out over a single core if you had cared to remember your own post and to what I commented on. Your post doesn't make sense at all :confused::confused:.
 
Well I just borrowed my mates 8800 GTS for the night (I currently have a 3500+ 64 AMD and an x1800 512) and what a DIFFERENCE!!!! Enough to warrant me to spend £150 - £200 on a new card and my cpu isn't really that great (overclocked though)

I was playing Medal of Honour Airbourne with everything Maxed out and 4aa / 16 AF totally smooth 1280 by 1024 :) ... before i had to play on med 1024 and without AA :/

So it does make a big difference in some games anyway ... even the CPU intensive source saw a nice 30 odd fps increase (maybe more)

So yes imo it is a way better upgrade choice than a new cpu/mobo/mem if you are tight for cash and are a serious gamer!
 
The £15 it would cost to swap the 3700 single core for a nice 3800+ x2 or 4200+ x2 wouldn't go amiss though ;)
 
Greebo said:
The £15 it would cost to swap the 3700 single core for a nice 3800+ x2 or 4200+ x2 wouldn't go amiss though ;)
Click to expand...

Seconded, I'm getting a 4200 as an upgrade for a mate whos still on s939 to go with a second had 7900GT. Can be had for £45 + post if you shop around

AD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom