what processors do u really need for gaming?

easyrider · 20 Feb 2006 at 11:39

lowrider007 said:
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

no he didn't :confused:

he said

AWPC said:
when paired up with an X1800/X1900 or GTX256/512

I wouldn't call the gfx cards he mentioned "ok'ish" .Are they not top of the range?

he talks about high end gfx cards running fine on 2 year old cpu's.At low resolutions.

In fact I'm not really understnding what point he is making TBH

stigggeh · 20 Feb 2006 at 11:52

easyrider said:
In fact I'm not really understnding what point he is making TBH

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

i think we know the point you are trying to make

These results do say that P4's are still capable of gaming.

its just when you sli/ramp up the res i think you will be limited.

james.miller · 20 Feb 2006 at 11:55

awpc is right. the fastest cpu's will aloow you to go faster, but gradually the cpu is being taken further and further out of the equation. To that end that why i run my opteron @ 2.7ghz and not 2.9ghz. Really, the difference is so small when im gaming.

AWPC · 20 Feb 2006 at 12:03

easyrider said:
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

Not everyone has the money or maybe their priorities in life are beyond an extra few FPS that means nothing in the real world other than to the person who owns that PC.

Games are usually locked to 30FPS (some 60FPS). To use AA you need to enable vsync which then limits the FPS to a divider of the original FPS if it cannot achieve it.

For many the artifacts seen when disabling vsync are unacceptable. So to the vast majority of gamers 30FPS is enough. Most gamers also use either 1024x768 or 1280x1024.

Why on earth would you bother buying hardware which cannot be fully utilized unless your entire PC has expensive components. Waste of your own money as you will not see the benefit unless you buy even more expensive hardware like TFTs which are capable of 1600x1200 or higher then you need SLI/Xfire to get the best results etc etc.

Even OCUK have advised people on these forums its a waste to upgrade recent hardware unless you game @ higher than 1280x1024!

easyrider · 20 Feb 2006 at 12:05

james.miller said:
To that end that why i run my opteron @ 2.7ghz and not 2.9ghz. Really, the difference is so small when im gaming.

lol is your cpu not top notch?

200 mhz with regarding a opteron running at fx 57 speeds is hardly relevant.

What Awpc is saying is that a 2yr old cpu can play games at low res with top notch cards.

whats the point in having a top notch card at 1024x768 or 1280x1024 when you cant run AA or AF because the cpu can't hack it.

easyrider · 20 Feb 2006 at 12:12

AWPC said:
Why on earth would you bother buying hardware which cannot be fully utilized unless your entire PC has expensive components. Waste of your own money as you will not see the benefit unless you buy even more expensive hardware like TFTs which are capable of 1600x1200 or higher then you need SLI/Xfire to get the best results etc etc.

You have just stated a 2yr old cpu and a x1900 in the same sentance.
So why on earth would you bother buying a £350 gfx card which cannot be fully utilized unless your cpu can run it?

condradiction IMO

Things change I've changed · 20 Feb 2006 at 12:49

Then let me rephrase myself then

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 I AM saying is 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.

ok.

easyrider · 20 Feb 2006 at 12:56

lowrider007 said:
Then let me rephrase myself then

uuuurrrrrrr, what I AM saying is 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.

ok.

You are talking about an old game.

what about the latest games?

where a 2yr old cpu would struggle with the demands put on it by the gfx card.

FrankJH · 20 Feb 2006 at 13:16

I would say you might struggle to find a pcie mobo for a two year old cpu. S939 hasnt been out two years , so you are talking about Athlons or bartons from the AMD point of view, ( not sure from Intel) which would also mean that you are really talking about using a 6800 Ultra or something on AGP rahter than the latest graphics cards.

Ultra's were already struggling before fear and COD 2 came out, wonder what they would be like with even more testing games.......

even if my first guess is wrong and A64's where out ( and remember S754 was out as a premium for a while) the first chipsets wherent that good performance wise. anything from this time last year or more recent from a gaming pov on the amd platform with a 7800GT (which can be got 2nd hand for decent prices) would be good with at least a 1Gig of ram ( preferably two for COD etc)

westie17 · 20 Feb 2006 at 14:00

I went from a p4 2.4Ghz to a SD 3700+ and it made a big difference in FPS.

Ladforce · 20 Feb 2006 at 14:10

I found even by moving from a 3500+ venice to a opteron 146 both running at 2.8ghz made a lot of difference in games. This may have been due to the increased L2 cache as, although the frame rates were about the same, the game ran a lot more smoothly.

stigggeh · 20 Feb 2006 at 15:10

i didnt notice any difference going from a p4 [email protected] and [email protected] (using 6800GT), i guess i must have been 'playing' the games instead of looking how good the walls look or if i was getting 60 or 62 fps.

but my benchmarks looked good

m3csl2004 · 20 Feb 2006 at 15:19

you play counter strike source mate? - a dothan would give you a massive boost in fps

stigggeh · 20 Feb 2006 at 15:25

m3csl2004 said:
you play counter strike source mate? - a dothan would give you a massive boost in fps

nar i dont like CS, COD2 mainly, but have played others, doom3 f.e.a.r etc. i guess it was because i only had 6800GT,

edit: saying that i dont bother with fraps or measuing my fps i just use my eyes to tell me what settings to use...

BoomAM · 23 Feb 2006 at 15:30

Depends really.
I'd personally say that less than a 3000 rated processor is bad.
But its all about matching the processor with the video card really.
For example, a A64 3000 + A 6800GT or X800XL is the perfect combo.
Buying a X1900XTX for a A64 3000 would give a performance increase, but is a waste, because the A64 3000 would become a limiting factor.
So a FX60 would be better suited.

Dont skimp on one to get more of the other. Balance it out.

Jonners · 23 Feb 2006 at 18:38

My 3200+ Venice and X850 run things well.

raja · 23 Feb 2006 at 18:52

Hi,

I have a amd X2 4800, and 2 1900's in crossfire, most games will play smooth, though on some like N4SMW you have to turn off 1 processor to get around the jerk.

Many people **** you off when running these cards at 1280*1024 on a 19" monitor,but for me playable is at least 50fps and upwards. Newer games with maxed out details run better at this resolution, if you want 60fps. EA seems to use very brash coding in some of it's games, effects are just thrown out, without real optimisation at the code level, that's why they're games only look polished at max res, but then things seem to go jerky.

Thanks
Raja

juno_first · 23 Feb 2006 at 19:48

I went through 8500, 5900, 9800, x800 on my old Barton 2500 @ 2.3Ghz (9000 MIPS).
The CPU obiously helps but I recon higher resolutions in newer games depend more on the GPU.
E.g. fx57 at 3.1Ghz with 1x7800gtx is slower at 1280x1024 in COD2 than at 2.8Ghz with 2x7800gtx.
For interest to compare 3dmk05 scores I have tested on 2x7800gtx :
Intel PD dualcore @ 3.0Ghz (8000 MIPS @ singlecore) = 7700
AMD 4400 dualcore @ 2.75Ghz (12000 MIPS @ singlecore) = 13800
These score perhaps contradict the above statement but I am still mad at wasting a whole load of dosh on Intel.

techmonkey · 24 Feb 2006 at 00:20

I do notice a big difference between my current Pentium 4 650's stock speed (3.4GHz) now that it's running at 4.0GHz with my 7800 GTX. Obviously theoverclock has helped a little with the bottleneck.

BS Dave · 24 Feb 2006 at 01:01

i dunno about you guys, but i've found that a good cpu will bring up your minimum framerate, whereas a new graphics card will bring up the average/max framerate.

In 3d games if there's a lot going on game wise if you have a slow cpu then you'll get slow down. but if you have a fast cpu and slow graphics card then game wise - lots of people on screen, lots of ai etc isn't gonna hurt you as much as a load of flashy fx.

thats why you should spend as much as you can on both