CPUs and Gaming

Fr0dders · 21 Aug 2006 at 21:54

When Core 2 was released, there was a lot of arguments about how much difference the CPU could make to games. Some said they were limited by the graphics card, others (including myself) were very much of the oppinion this was not the case, and had benchmarks to back it up

but then the doubters had benchmarks of their own

has any more proof arisen since then

im really after seeing if Core2 Duo will make my games any faster, as all i do is listen to MP3s, webbrowse and play games. And my current A64 does the first 2 flawlessly.

VeNT · 21 Aug 2006 at 22:01

I'm wondering what kinda difference you'll see aswell, I've been using a 2500 at 3200 since they came out, I've played all the latest games that have come out during that period and have upgraded my graphics card once (from a 9600 pro to a 6600GT)
games run at lower FPS now but tbh I've not had any real issues playing ANY game, even Oblivion.

TaKeN · 21 Aug 2006 at 22:13

The way i see it at the moment is..

AMD 64 is fast enough for the current games.

If you want to decode/encode and get uber Super Pi times, then get Conroe

Tumbletop · 21 Aug 2006 at 22:26

I don't think all games are necessarily graphics-card restricted. Everquest 2 for example, although have pretty nice graphics is supposedly heavily CPU dependent rather than graphics. Similarly DAOC always felt CPU limited rather than graphics (esp. considering the comparitively low resoluations of 1280x1024 that I play at).

At least thats the justification that I'm telling myself to order a swanky new Conroe box to replace my aging AMD64 3500+ (paired with a ATI 800XL graphics card). I'll tell you in a few days if you like what a difference (if any) it makes

UKTopGun · 21 Aug 2006 at 22:40

TaKeN said:
The way i see it at the moment is..

AMD 64 is fast enough for the current games.

Why do you say that? Thats a bit of a broad

.

And:

TaKeN said:
If you want to decode/encode and get uber Super Pi times, then get Conroe

And also get FX-62 speeds from a £125 chip? And if you think that that isnt worth it then surely no current chip is worth it!

AmaTeX · 21 Aug 2006 at 23:00

I think it’s quite simple really, if u are a gamer and your equipment cant run at suitable fps upgrade to Conroe as it’s the best chip about at the moment. If your system can play games at acceptable fps don’t bother.

I have a sempron 3000+ (socket a), fx5700le :eek:

and will be upgrading because I need a better system as it chugs in css. The conroe is the best chip for the money atm so I will be getting that.

Gashman · 21 Aug 2006 at 23:00

TaKeN said:
The way i see it at the moment is..

AMD 64 is fast enough for the current games.

If you want to decode/encode and get uber Super Pi times, then get Conroe

super-pi is just a way for people to say 'mines faster than yours' it has no real world use other than to justify saying 939 is obslete, 939/AM2 athlons, X2s and opterons will run games perfect as long as you have a good enough graphics card and ram to support them, conroe isn't showing its strength at the moment in anything but encoding, CPU limited games and benchmarks.

another thing 99% of people aren't inclined to waste there money on EE/FX chips, most just buy a cheaper one and overclock (most enthusiasts), im running faster than FX-57 speeds with my 100GBP athlon 3200+ so whats your point?

easyrider · 21 Aug 2006 at 23:07

I have noticed a big boost in oblivion with my conroe running at 3.8ghz
over my FX 62 speeds clocked AMD.

Charlatan · 21 Aug 2006 at 23:12

One of the games I play most is Fs2004, and general consensus is that this is more governed by CPU than the gfx card. After the upgrade to the system in my sig from an Opteron clocked at 2.75ghz, the difference is unbelievable.

UKTopGun · 22 Aug 2006 at 10:01

If a brilliant AMD chip was released, everybody who has posted in this thread saying "Conroe isnt worth it" would be saying yes this new AMD super duper 3 is worth it, but because its Intel a lot of people don't want to move over!

chaders · 22 Aug 2006 at 10:12

Charlatan said:
One of the games I play most is Fs2004, and general consensus is that this is more governed by CPU than the gfx card. After the upgrade to the system in my sig from an Opteron clocked at 2.75ghz, the difference is unbelievable.

I'm also a simmer and am about to build a new PC for that reason. Have you tried the FSX demo yet?? Any joy with it on your system??

drunkenmaster · 22 Aug 2006 at 10:20

UKTopGun said:
If a brilliant AMD chip was released, everybody who has posted in this thread saying "Conroe isnt worth it" would be saying yes this new AMD super duper 3 is worth it, but because its Intel a lot of people don't want to move over!

no, its because 99.9% of computer users don't heavily tax their cpu's and are being overly optimisitic about what a conroe's going to do for them. i can count the number of cpu limited games on one hand. 90%+ of all games are gpu limited, its a fact, no one can prove otherwise, everyone can prove thats the case.

theres a couple of RTS's, oblivion and a couple of flight sims that can be cpu limited. however most of the games in those catagories you can see the framerate counter going from 30-60fps but not see a lick of difference due to the slower nature of the games, 30-60fps change in some games will feel the same as going from 100-140fps in say half life, you just can't see it and almost any modern cpu can get you the lower end of these numbers.

i do encode now and then, often use my cpu quite heavily and have gone conroe. in hl2, quake 4, and all the other games i've tried i haven't been able to see a difference of more than a few fps, from numbers that were already high and the ever so slightly elevated numbers have made 0% difference to the feel of the games.

Charlatan · 22 Aug 2006 at 10:23

Yup, I have had the FSX demo running smooth as silk, full detail 25fps, well impressed.

I have always had AMD, not had an Intel since a P100. Always thought them to be overpriced crap. These Core 2 Duo's are a different story altogether, cutting edge performance at bargain basement prices

VeNT · 22 Aug 2006 at 10:31

I'm just wondering how intel can make a profit on these prices compaired to what P4s cost!
although the AMDs have collapsed in price recently too, making realy realy cheap PCs easyer to build again (and lets face it, 3700 with 1gig ram is easly good enough for a kids homework PC)

p4radox · 22 Aug 2006 at 10:41

VeNT said:
I'm just wondering how intel can make a profit on these prices compaired to what P4s cost!

They had to compete with AMDs cheap processors, and have priced the Core 2 Due accordingly. AMD then followed suit and dropped their own prices. From what I can tell, AMD have actually done a really good job of re-pricing their range and are still a very tempting option for the budget PC.

But yes, it does go to show that either they'd priced the P4 very highly, or they were very expensive to make!

UKTopGun · 22 Aug 2006 at 10:50

Gotta remember Intel have a load of contracts too with big companies like Dell for there P4, most pre-built PCs would have P4's in them over the past couple of years.

p4radox · 22 Aug 2006 at 11:10

UKTopGun said:
Gotta remember Intel have a load of contracts too with big companies like Dell for there P4, most pre-built PCs would have P4's in them over the past couple of years.

Yes I suppose high demand could account for the high prices.

VeNT · 22 Aug 2006 at 16:31

most pre built PCs (ie off the shelf) have smellerons in.

taz488 · 22 Aug 2006 at 17:26

this seems to be a bit of a stupid thread tbh, you system will clearly benefit from a better cpu, in pretty much everything. and conroe is better at the min so you gonna get better performance with it, DUH!!!

Fr0dders · 23 Aug 2006 at 17:17

taz488 said:
this seems to be a bit of a stupid thread tbh, you system will clearly benefit from a better cpu, in pretty much everything. and conroe is better at the min so you gonna get better performance with it, DUH!!!

thankyou for the intellectual reply to my thread

maybe if you had bothered to do some background reading, you could have made a more positive contribution to this thread

Have a read of this :

We have proven here that the flurry of canned benchmarks based on timedemos showing huge gains with Core 2 processors are virtually worthless in rating the true gaming performance of these processors today. The fact of the matter is that real-world gaming performance today greatly lies at the feet of your video card. Almost none of today’s games are performance limited by your CPU.

Taken from this [H]ard OCP article here

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Its discussed in this thread here

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17600312&highlight=conroe+ocp

Hard OCP very much came to the conclusion that for gaming conroe is pointless and provides no boost in FPS worthy of a £300 upgrade.

Anandtech on the other hand, had quite the contrary conclusion :

The Core 2 Extreme X6800 now attains a 19% performance lead over the FX-62, and the E6600 manages a 10.9% advantage itself

*snip*

Half Life 2: Episode 1 provided us with numbers closer to what we saw with Quake 4, the performance advantage here is just over 12% for the X6800 over the FX-62. With a couple of speed bumps, AMD could equal Intel's gaming performance here. But the real issue for AMD is the fact that the E6600 priced at $316, is able to outperform the FX-62 at over twice the price.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=14

Anandtech are very much of the oppinion that Core 2 thrashes the Athlon and that who needs to buy a FX62, when you can get the same performance from the entry level Core 2 Chip

question is, whose right ?