• 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.

CPUs and Gaming

No. it is clearly NOT (lol) worth it, just snipe at peeps who have been with AMD all their lives but changed to Intel for a laugh (lol), for the wars sake.

AMD were the best chips for gaming, now they are not for the moment; canna wait till they hammer the Intels, wont be long - I'll be there ;)
 
MrLOL said:
just having a read of the Anandtech Core 2 Duo overclocking article

the reason im considering an upgrade to Core, is that ive only got an old Winchester Athlon 64 3200. I cant get a stable frame rate in 1680 x 1050 in BF2 with 4 x AA and 16x AF

But the benchmarks done by others with faster processors but the same GPU clearly show a stable frame rate. So im guessing its my CPU thats holding me back

but have a look at this :

12737.png


this clearly shows the CPU limitation that every1 is talking about with games. the top 3 processors are all within 2/3 fps of each other. obviously reaching the threshold of the CPUs limitations

the 2.0ghz Winchester isnt tested here, but look what is, a 3800+ 2.0ghz. And thats a full 40 fps behind an overclocked 6300.

Now surely its gotta be worth an upgrade for 40 fps ?
Click to expand...

Ofcourse its worth an upgrade. I have a 3700 SD clocked at 2.8 that with an 1900XT, for me its not worth it at the moment for the price - gain, but thats just for now. I will go down the dual core route when the war heats up a little bit more and the prices drop.
 
If you are happy with your system (overclocked A64) then you dont need to upgrade.

An X2 overclocked to 2.8-3ghz will be plenty for gaming.

Tom
 
welshtom said:
If you are happy with your system (overclocked A64) then you dont need to upgrade.

An X2 overclocked to 2.8-3ghz will be plenty for gaming.

Tom
Click to expand...

Agreed, even my single core san diego has no problems in todays games.
 
My 6600, even clocked up to just over 3400Mhz shows very little NOTICEABLE difference to a mates 4400 X2 with the same graphics card in it. If you have something that high end from AMD, I haven't seen the point so far, in upgrading if you only game. Obviously I haven't played every game there is, and there are always anomalies you don't notice until they're staring you in the face. In general though, I personally wouldn't. I jumped to Conroe because my old system was a joke, and i'm currently enjoying converting mini dv files to divx in the background while gaming, and not seeing any sort of stuttering.

Those benches MrLOL was showing up above pretty much prove it. They tell me there's a difference of around 30fps, over and above the 100 frames that the AMD system could manage. While there are loads of arguments about the "magic 60 fps" and whether humans could potentially tell the difference between 70 and 100... my friend and I couldn't. So he's not bothered that he's gaming on an X2 and i'm not.
 
Last edited:
easyrider said:
I have noticed a big boost in oblivion with my conroe running at 3.8ghz
over my FX 62 speeds clocked AMD.
Click to expand...

Nice system in your spec, except I dont understand what that GFX card is doing there. Slight let down compared with the other bits.
 
raitasar said:
My 6600, even clocked up to just over 3400Mhz shows very little NOTICEABLE difference to a mates 4400 X2 with the same graphics card in it. If you have something that high end from AMD, I haven't seen the point so far, in upgrading if you only game. Obviously I haven't played every game there is, and there are always anomalies you don't notice until they're staring you in the face. In general though, I personally wouldn't. I jumped to Conroe because my old system was a joke, and i'm currently enjoying converting mini dv files to divx in the background while gaming, and not seeing any sort of stuttering.

Those benches MrLOL was showing up above pretty much prove it. They tell me there's a difference of around 30fps, over and above the 100 frames that the AMD system could manage. While there are loads of arguments about the "magic 60 fps" and whether humans could potentially tell the difference between 70 and 100... my friend and I couldn't. So he's not bothered that he's gaming on an X2 and i'm not.
Click to expand...

nice argument

if it wasnt the fact that you wont get 80fps at 1680 x 1050 with 4 X AA and 8x AF on all maps with a 3200 winchester and a Radeon X1900 XT.

its one thing benchmarking on say, kharkland, thats not very graphically demanding, and another benchmarking on sharqui which is very demanding

the benchies above dont say what map was used, but my problem is that i have to turn of all the settings on certain maps because the system cant handle it. Therefore an upgrade to conroe so i dont have to do this would be pointfull.
 
raitasar said:
Those benches MrLOL was showing up above pretty much prove it. They tell me there's a difference of around 30fps, over and above the 100 frames that the AMD system could manage. While there are loads of arguments about the "magic 60 fps" and whether humans could potentially tell the difference between 70 and 100... my friend and I couldn't. So he's not bothered that he's gaming on an X2 and i'm not.
Click to expand...

Then you have to chance to put more AA and AF on and still get same FPS.
 
thats what i thought

but some people (possibly AMD fanboys) were stating that the upgrade would yield no fps improvement whatsoever as games are GPU limited not CPU limited

for as many benchmarks showing big gains in 3Dgaming, there are just many illustrating the point above

anybody got a conroe and care to proove who's right ?
 
If you game @ 1600x1200 or higher then you need the fastest CPU you can afford as the higher up you go the more AA + AF you need to improve IQ + vsync is a must have. Having a faster CPU will help a bit here (especially if you have SLI/Xfire).

The exceptions to this are if you either use a TV instead of a TFT or sit such a long way from the screen then you will not notice the IQ difference as much.

Below 1600x1200 then for gaming only a Conroe upgrade is only worthwhile for future proofing or to improve non-gaming tasks.
 
so would you say if someones got a:
amd 64 x2 4800
2gb ram
x1900xtx
plays at 1280x1024

but then gets a conroe system like this:
e6600
2gb ram
x1900xtx
plays at 1280x1024

would there be a nice improvement or would it be best to save your money :confused:
 
Definately save your money, not worth it imho, unless you need to play oblivion at max with better frame rates :confused: .
 
Last edited:
bakes0310 said:
so would you say if someones got a:
amd 64 x2 4800
2gb ram
x1900xtx
plays at 1280x1024

but then gets a conroe system like this:
e6600
2gb ram
x1900xtx
plays at 1280x1024

would there be a nice improvement or would it be best to save your money :confused:
Click to expand...

because of the low resolution and the fact you are running a single graphics card (no extra cpu load from SLI/Crossfire) there would be absolutely no point in making that upgrade, while you very well may get a performance boost (only noticable by some measuring tool as opposed to physically seeing it) the cost of the upgrade would far outweigh the benefits.

Just overclock the 4800 to 2.8ghz and your laughing with an FX62. More than enough for current gaming, may be different in 6months or so, but for now the real world performance benefit will be minimal.

I'm gonna see what 2007 brings before upgrading my 3700+ @ 2.67ghz. It's more than adequate for me at the moment, just need a nice shiny new x1950xtx.
 
I play CS Source the most and have a [email protected] and a [email protected]. The video stress test reports about 190FPS (453on the 6300 and 641 on the 6700 )difference on the 6700 running only 200mhz faster and the extra two meg cache. Everything else the same with a x1900GT card. That's a huge difference. Made we wish I had gone for a 6600 instead of the 6300! Only had the 6700 for one night testing for a friend!
 
dazman said:
I play CS Source the most and have a [email protected] and a [email protected]. The video stress test reports about 190FPS (453on the 6300 and 641 on the 6700 )difference on the 6700 running only 200mhz faster and the extra two meg cache. Everything else the same with a x1900GT card. That's a huge difference. Made we wish I had gone for a 6600 instead of the 6300! Only had the 6700 for one night testing for a friend!
Click to expand...

I run CS:S at 193FPS on my rig, you put your 6700 against my 3700+ and tell me if you can actually spot a difference in gameplay. Forget what the FPS measaurements are, tell me if you can see a difference. I'll tell you that you can't, and therefore there is no need other than to say, look at my uber FPS. At that level there is no difference, considering your monitor doesn't refresh at anywhere near that rate, it is a complete waste of time to have such high FPS.
 
Soul Rider said:
I run CS:S at 193FPS on my rig, you put your 6700 against my 3700+ and tell me if you can actually spot a difference in gameplay. Forget what the FPS measaurements are, tell me if you can see a difference. I'll tell you that you can't, and therefore there is no need other than to say, look at my uber FPS. At that level there is no difference, considering your monitor doesn't refresh at anywhere near that rate, it is a complete waste of time to have such high FPS.
Click to expand...

Well he can shove a LOAD of anti aliasing and AF on. However CSS is hardly a thing to go by, it's pretty old now. Take a game like FEAR then see who has the better of the two machines and if you notice the FPS differences.
 
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.
Click to expand...

So the difference is unbeliveable? FS2004 is my most played game as well, but can't believe it's THAT much difference! :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom