what processors do u really need for gaming?

dgmug cod uo · 18 Feb 2006 at 18:43

well im intrigued to see what peeps think what do we really need for decent gaming min spec (for games now)and what we need to get the best out of todays graph cards ,cause we buying these great new graph cards and being held back by cpus so for eg to run a 7800gtx or 1900xtx what would not bottleneck these cards anyone know?

galadial · 18 Feb 2006 at 18:59

Not sure about exact specs but my guess is Oblivion which is graphics intense needs something like a 7800GT or equivalent paired with an AMD64 3700 for optimal performance.

AWPC · 18 Feb 2006 at 22:12

All depends on what res you game @. 1024x768 or 1280x1024 + any AMD/Intel from the last 2 years will be enough to give a smooth experience on a X1800/1900 or 7800GTX256/512.

The real advantage a fast CPU gives is when you game @ 1600x1200 or higher with max AA + AF & or SLI/Xfire. Then the CPU just cannot keep up with all the gfx card data being pumped into it.

Anything else for gaming only is not strictly required and you can do with a lot less.

Obviously faster is always better but do a real world comparison between a 2 year old CPU with a newer decent gfx card & a new CPU with the same card the difference is not that noticeable and unless you saw the FPS figures from FRAPS or benchmarks like 3D Mark you would be hard pressed to tell the difference if you did not know which CPU was which.

easyrider · 18 Feb 2006 at 22:31

AWPC said:
Obviously faster is always better but do a real world comparison between a 2 year old CPU with a newer decent gfx card & a new CPU with the same card the difference is not that noticeable and unless you saw the FPS figures from FRAPS or benchmarks like 3D Mark you would be hard pressed to tell the difference if you did not know which CPU was which.

I noticed a big boost going from a P4 3.4 ghz to a 2.6ghz athlon 64.

The game had more grunt and responsiveness.

So i dont agree really with a 2yr old cpu and new gfx card.

You would find that the cpu would bottleneck the card.

Explicit · 18 Feb 2006 at 22:45

Things can only get better with dual core

But a 3700+ should run games nicely for now

niteflite01 · 19 Feb 2006 at 01:14

Massive jump from my P4 3.2 to my AMD64 4000+....

m3csl2004 · 19 Feb 2006 at 01:20

games like counter strike source see a massive difference with a fast cpu - ie - i have a 9800pro and a 2.8 celeon northwood and i cant play the game at 640x480 smoothly - but when i can play it at exactly the same fps i get at 640x480 low at 1024x768 high 4x aa 4x af - welcome to a whole new world of cpu limitation

i would say a 3700 and a 7800gt are a very nice paring

Jimbo Mahoney · 19 Feb 2006 at 07:28

I'm 'only' running an X850XT and I found quite a drop in performance after I killed my 2.9 Ghz 3000+ Venice and had to settle for a 2.5 - 2.6 Ghz 3000+ Venice.

Then, I noticed a nice jump back up when I got this 2.9 Ghz Opteron 144.

Scooby-DoobyDoo · 19 Feb 2006 at 08:10

I have a AMD64 3400 (newcastle) and 6800GT, everything I play runs fine.

barney_rebel · 19 Feb 2006 at 09:23

I have a FX-55 and radeon x800xl

No problems whatsever here with any game

Yet!!

Thinking of going dualcore very soon though

Used to have a P4 2.93 prescott and that used to be a nightmare sometimes

juno_first · 19 Feb 2006 at 12:33

I know someone with fx57 @ 3.1 & 7800gtx & can only play todays games like cod2 & Lockdown at 1024 otherwise its too stuttery.
My 4400 @ 2.75 is slower if the game only uses 1 core but can handle all games at 1280 because of 2x 7800gtx.

And before people say i've got a venice 3700 & x800 and play games at 1600x1200 4x aa etc., thats all crap unless you like playing a slide show, I recon more than 60fps / 80fps (depending on game) & the game is "smooth" and playable, don't sacrifice quantity for quality !.

AWPC · 19 Feb 2006 at 12:41

easyrider said:
I noticed a big boost going from a P4 3.4 ghz to a 2.6ghz athlon 64.

The game had more grunt and responsiveness.

So i dont agree really with a 2yr old cpu and new gfx card.

You would find that the cpu would bottleneck the card.

Thats because you went to a completely different architecture which is much faster in games.

All I'm saying is that unless you are an FPS junky and must have high scores in everything you game in the difference between a newish CPU & one up to 2 years old is not huge @ all.

Obviously if you game @ 1600x1200 or higher & want all the gfx details + AA + AF then faster the better. If you are prepared to make do with 1024x768 then an older CPU can give very good results paired up with a good gfx card as @ lower res the CPU can keep up.

As both AMD + Intel have newer CPUs scheduled for Q2 06 better to wait until then unless money is no object & or you cannot wait as existing components always get good discounts once a newer CPU is released.

In the last year I went from an AGP6800GT256 to 7800GTX512 and did not notice a massive night & day difference other than gaming @ 1920x1200 was smoother than before. To eliminate my CPU (upgraded from a P4 3.2C to P4 3.8G) also tested the gfx cards against friends AMD FX57 systems and side by side the difference was not that big and certainly not worth the £2K+ upgrade costs. Motto here is I should have waited before upgrading. If I had been happy to game @ 1024x768 then there was no need for me to upgrade just yet but as I bought a Dell2405 that only looks good @ 1920x1200 so had to upgrade to power that more smoothly.

m3csl2004 · 19 Feb 2006 at 12:57

generally the cpu wont affect the res you game at - it will give your crumby fps at every res

easyrider · 19 Feb 2006 at 13:02

AWPC said:
All I'm saying is that unless you are an FPS junky and must have high scores in everything you game in the difference between a newish CPU & one up to 2 years old is not huge @ all.

I'm sorry but that is rubbish

The newer cards need fast cpu's to feed them data.
Older cpu's with lower speeds and smaller cache's are not enough for the job.

The question is If you game why have an intel cpu in the first place?

AWPC · 20 Feb 2006 at 10:06

easyrider said:
I'm sorry but that is rubbish

The newer cards need fast cpu's to feed them data.
Older cpu's with lower speeds and smaller cache's are not enough for the job.

The question is If you game why have an intel cpu in the first place?

I stand by what I said.

Almost any up to 24 months old AMD or Intel CPU (excluding Celerons) will be able to easily run recent games when paired up with an X1800/X1900 or GTX256/512 if you game @ 1024x768 or 1280x1024. Obviously you will lose features like AA +AF in some games but you will still be able to reach 30FPS more often than not.

3-4 years ago gfx cards were still heavily dependent on the fastest CPUs, in the last 2 years most high end gfx cards do not require a high end CPU to get playable results.

A faster/recent CPU will obviously be the best but for those on a budget something older/slower will still get by quite happily as long as you tweak the settings a little.

If you have money to burn or are an upgrade junky then obviously this means nothing to you. If money is tight or you only want to spend a little you can save 100s by getting slightly older hardware as the difference is just not night & day.

BurntCarcus · 20 Feb 2006 at 10:09

I went from a AMD2600+ to a AMD64 3700 clawhammer with the same graphics and there was one hell of a difference. Went from 60/70fps is cs:s to 130/140fps So there's your answer. Old cpu's suck at todays games!!

Ruhbarb · 20 Feb 2006 at 10:26

Graphic cards used will make the biggest differance, a recent benchmark of all cpu's did not notice great differances from using a 3000 amd cpu up. Its just a few extra percentage points. Though obviously with a higher cpu the games will be smoother load faster etc.

Unless like has been said your using two monitors or high details or you are a gamer with money ;p.

easyrider · 20 Feb 2006 at 10:32

AWPC said:
I stand by what I said.

Almost any up to 24 months old AMD or Intel CPU (excluding Celerons) will be able to easily run recent games when paired up with an X1800/X1900 or GTX256/512 if you game @ 1024x768 or 1280x1024. Obviously you will lose features like AA +AF in some games but you will still be able to reach 30FPS more often than not.

If you have money to burn or are an upgrade junky then obviously this means nothing to you. If money is tight or you only want to spend a little you can save 100s by getting slightly older hardware as the difference is just not night & day.

so what you are saying is that a person has £350 to run an x1900 but they forget to upgrade their cpu?

lol

whats the point in running a x1900 with the cost involved @ 1024x768 or 1280x1024.?

lol

easyrider · 20 Feb 2006 at 10:33

Ruhbarb said:
Unless like has been said your using two monitors or high details or you are a gamer with money ;p.

so someone is a gamer with money but forgets to upgrade their cpu? :confused:

lol

the two go hand in hand

Things change I've changed · 20 Feb 2006 at 10:33

BurntCarcus said:
I went from a AMD2600+ to a AMD64 3700 clawhammer with the same graphics and there was one hell of a difference. Went from 60/70fps is cs:s to 130/140fps So there's your answer. Old cpu's suck at todays games!!

uuuurrrrrrr, what AWPC is saying that most of the high end processors over the last 2 years, paired with an ok'ish graphics card can play most games fine and what you,ve just said proves that b-cos you was playing cs:s at a blinding 60/70fps, when your playing a game at thoses types of fps then it don't matter if you get a million extra fps b-cos all you,ve gone from is extremly playable to, uuurrrrrrrr, xtremely playable.