• 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.

CPU performance in modern games at realistic settings

titaniumx3

titaniumx3

titaniumx3

Soldato
Joined
11 May 2006
Posts
5,786
Does anyone know of any sites that have done CPU benchmarks running games at realistic settings (i.e. max detail, high res, etc), with modern high end GPUs?

Most CPU benchmarks usually run games at very low settings and low resolution, which is generally nowhere near the settings people commonly play with (especially with most modern high end graphics cards).

I just want to see what impact my aging Athlon X2 skt939 system will have on a HD4870. I play at 1680x1050 and always like to max out detail and AA/AF.
 
I found it mattered far more at lower resolutions in the majority of games.

Some games (world in conflict? :confused:) require a bit more CPU power but besides that i wouldn't worry.

My opteron 165 @ 2.9ghz returned similar gaming results to my e6600 @ 2.7ghz when i first upgraded - gpu was a 7950GX2 and resolution was 1680x1050.

gt
 
a 4870 would hold back any x2 s939.
you'd need to upgrade your platform to a core2duo/quad or an am2+ x2/phenom setup to get the best out of the 4870. the intel way is recommended as its faster than the amd stuff right now.

if you know you're going to upgrade the rest of your pc in the not too distant future by all means go for it.
 
amkan13 said:
a 4870 would hold back any x2 s939.
you'd need to upgrade your platform to a core2duo/quad or an am2+ x2/phenom setup to get the best out of the 4870. the intel way is recommended as its faster than the amd stuff right now.

if you know you're going to upgrade the rest of your pc in the not too distant future by all means go for it.
Click to expand...

Old X2 or even the same one on an AM2 platform would still be a bottleneck, and a phenom aint much faster.
 
Nah, AMD's struggle to run anything right now, as soon as Core2 architecture came on to the scene, all AMD's downclocked to 1mhz and refused to run anything more demanding than Solitaire.
*cough*
 
I was going to upgrade my whole system (more like a totally new system really) but I just don't have the time to go through the hassle; everytime I build a new system something invevitably goes **** up and I'm left with no working computer and dozens of hours totally wasted. If i'm gonna upgrade my whole system it's gonna be in christmas or next summer when I have lots of time to burn.

I can understand games like SupCom and CoH, being affected by an old CPU, but surely most FPS games will run fine? I generally find that as long as the screen is packed out with detail, anything above 40fps is fine; if the game has very good motion blur effects (e.g. Crysis, Grid, MOHA, etc), even 25fps is still playable for me.

Multiplayer FPS I like fps to be as high as possible (60+fps), but I only really play BF2, which already runs 60-100fps on my x1900xt.

BTW, My Athlon X2 4400+ is at 2.5ghz, with 2gb DDR400 and running XP 32bit.
 
the system in my spec cost me around £450... and it can play crysis on very high, and I could actually play the game :p
 
As i said above - i'd imagine you would be fine.

If i was in your position i would personally get the gpu and try it - if there's little improvement then upgrade the cpu/mobo/ram if there's good improvement then you're good to go.

I wouldn't bother upgrading it all without first trying it out.

gt
 
gt_junkie said:
As i said above - i'd imagine you would be fine.

If i was in your position i would personally get the gpu and try it - if there's little improvement then upgrade the cpu/mobo/ram if there's good improvement then you're good to go.

I wouldn't bother upgrading it all without first trying it out.

gt
Click to expand...

Agree with gt_junkie
 
thesnowdog1971 said:
Generally processing power being used for AI in games is a myth. The majority of AI is scripted and takes up bugger all processing power. :)
Click to expand...

You know that's complete bullSH*T :D The AI kicks in BEFORE a scripted sequence is initiated to decide what to do. If let's say there are 50 npc's on screen and they have 50 different AI 'processes' running it can get quite heavy on the cpu.
 
Last edited:
Meloco said:
the system in my spec cost me around £450... and it can play crysis on very high, and I could actually play the game :p
Click to expand...

Same here, in fact i beat quite a few of the bigger Intel boys in the Crysis thread... lots of head scratching, all I know is my AMD system is a rocket and more than capable of running all of my current games at max everything.
 
your going to have to get the card eventually so why not get it now use it in the system you got and then when it comes to upgrade at christmas if you still feel you need it then the graphics card is one less thing you have to buy :)
 
AT 1680 x 1050 when I went from a 4200+ x2 at 3Ghz to a q6600 at 3Ghz my crysis framerates went up from 29fps to 40fps with the same graphics card - an 8800GTS watercooled running at 890 core.

So yes the amd held me back lots.
 
How on earth was there should a jump? Doesn't Crysis use just 2 cores?

I fail to see how you'd get a 35% hike at the same clock!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom