PDA

View Full Version : Help Eidos out. What's your CPU?



Grey Mouser
13th Jun 2003, 18:42
Greetings fellow forum-dwellers,

In order to more accurately predict what system requirements should be for some upcoming games we are asking you - the players - how fast is your processor?

If you don't know, an easy way to check is to look at DirectX Diagnostics:

Start>Run>type in dxdiag>Hit OK...on the System Tab what does it say for Processor?

Please take a moment to fill out our poll, pick the CPU that is closest to your own, and thank you for helping Eidos out.

GM

Catman
17th Jun 2003, 16:40
Vote only -- no replies.

Since too many cannot be civil, any replies to this thread (after this one) will be deleted.

NoNicknameForMe
19th Jun 2003, 02:50
Catman is the sexist person alive, he/she is a god at all they do and is unmatched in any area of competence. Catman makes Jesus look like a slouch and Budda to be a dundering clutz. Oh Catman, your praises will be sung to the masses for all time and childeren will weep at your beatific visage.

RedLegg
19th Jun 2003, 03:55
Originally posted by NoNicknameForMe
Catman is the sexist person alive, he/she is a god at all they do and is unmatched in any area of competence. Catman makes Jesus look like a slouch and Budda to be a dundering clutz. Oh Catman, your praises will be sung to the masses for all time and childeren will weep at your beatific visage.

This member gottcha there Catman! :D

Grey Mouser
19th Jun 2003, 03:58
Mouser solemnly bows in the direction of the First Feline.

'Tis true, I have never met so cool a cat. :cool:

Catman
19th Jun 2003, 13:56
Sigh. What's a cat to do but fade into the background?

http://www1.iastate.edu/~wsthune/cps/tab/tabgrin.gif

Runtime
22nd Jun 2003, 22:39
I think catman is blushing. :D

[SYN] Nexus
13th Jul 2003, 10:07
Catman now you have to delete your own reply :p
Well I have a P2 but I can play all newest games so I filled in p3 LOL

weishaupt
16th Jul 2003, 19:05
i have a different processor - the Athlon Thunderbird, at 1Ghz, released after the K6-3s but before the Athlon XPs. i'll choose the K6-3 though.

wankeye
18th Jul 2003, 00:27
i have a 2600, so im not sure what to pick, but it is overclocked slightly, and i have a GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, so I'm sure I'll have no problem with whatever you throw at me:)

Jovena
25th Jul 2003, 06:12
I have the AMD XP 2100/266fsb...was thinking of upgrading to the new AMD Barton chip series. Anyone have this and how much better do the perform compaired to the other amd's?

lehjr
31st Jul 2003, 05:13
My system:


Athlon 1.4 Ghz (266)
256 MB PC2700 DDR
Matrox G550 (32MB Dual head)
Mandrake Linux 9.0
Windows XP Pro
DX9.0a
5+GB free HD space (after i delete some junk)
:cool:

From_God
31st Jul 2003, 06:22
How many ghz does an athlon 2600+ process? just curious

Xenon
2nd Aug 2003, 17:41
To From_GOD: 166*12.5 (2083) or 133*16 (2133) - there are actually 2 models of it.

To Jovena: Well, I own a 2500+ and was slightly disappointed since AMD seem to have overestimated their new core slightly. I'd recommend to wait until athlon64. (besides, your CPU seems to be quite enough for now)

drone1984
11th Aug 2003, 00:27
Originally posted by Xenon
I'd recommend to wait until athlon64.

Uh, yea no - that's a bad idea. You should avoid 64bit processors like the plague until proper software comes out. For 64-bit archetecture, you will need 64-bit software to utilize it. Don't expect to see many 64-bit games for 2-3 years after 64-bit processors become reasonably priced. This is actually a lot like the dual processors debate. Very few applications actually support SMP. I've one of those Pentium 4c chips with Hyper-Threading... The O/S sees it as 2 processors, and most the time an application will not utilize it. Even if it supports SMP, let's say you have a dual 2.4 gig system... The game will only run as fast as the slowest CPU in your system [clusters work this way as well] however you will find yourself in more resources. [for example, the game will only load as fast as the slowest CPU, however it will not run out of CPU as quickly in game] The game is true for a 64bit system. bit cpus are usually squared as they raise... 64bit CPU performing 4 times better than a like-matched 32bit cpu... Now lets say you have 1ghz 64bit CPU [equivelend to 4ghz 32bit] and you want to play your favorite game. Chances are likely that it will work - but it will only work in 32bit mode, and only at your current clockspeed. That's right, 1000mhz. Sounds like a waste of money to me.


The Barton chips are actually much better than a palamino or thoroughbred chips, but not because of the core. Core designs may change thermal dissapation, chip size, & production costs. Barton chips have a far more stable temperature, however the reason they perform better is the 512k of l2 cache. Also most or all of the bartons run at the 333FSB, and a couple of them run at the 400MHz FSB. This IS a nice feature because of RAM speeds.

BTW - Avoid the pentium 4. If you're a graphics designer, and do a lot of HWT&L rendering, use a lot of auto-cad and other such proggies, then the P4 might just be for you. But if you want to play games, read email, watch movies, look at porn, and talk with your friends - get an AMD. It's faster. It's Cheaper.

Lawnboy360
11th Aug 2003, 16:11
:rolleyes: The Athlon64 can run 32 bit software, it just won't get the potential speed gain from 64 bit... it won't be anywhere near 4 times slower. The dual-cpu platform is not advertised as a mainstream/gaming solution and it's not good at it. The Athlon64 is a mainstream/gaming solution and will offer very good performance in 32 bit too (unless AMD really wants to go out of business which I doubt).
==============================================
Intel:

Fourth quarter 2003 : new "Prescott" P4 core launched at 3.40 ghz, same price as the 3.2 currently is but uses a new socket and new chipsets (= you need a new motherboard).

Second quarter 2004 : new "Grantsdale" chipsets introduction.
It uses DDR2 memory instead of "regular" DDR, uses PCI Express X1 instead of "regular" (and very old and slow) PCI, uses PCI Express X16 for graphics instead of AGP, and it has many serial-ATA ports (for HDDs). Big overhaul... of course, expect graphic cards coming out second half 2004 and later to use PCI Express.
==============================================
AMD:
nVidia chipset for Athlon64, PCI express (same as Intel), integrated GeForce FX on-board, supposedly Longhorn (new OS coming out in... 2005!?) ready, third quarter 2004.
==============================================

The strange thing is that all that new 2004 stuff was supposed to be supported by the next Windows OS known as "Longhorn" which as been pushed back to 2005...

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10028 (PCI Express, Longhorn: is too big a gap opening?)
==============================================
ATi's solution :
"How will ATI solve the problem that this chip will be PCI Express based, and all that you will be able to buy until Q1 2004 is AGP 8X at the best?

The answer is that ATI is going to develop a PCI Express to AGP bridge, so it will work with existing AGP platforms and still work when PCI Express boards hit the market."

Pretty much the same for nVidia it seems : "The NV40 will be a native PCI Express chip with some kind of bridge to make it work in current AGP boards that will co-exist for quite some time."

Xenon
11th Aug 2003, 20:07
To drone1984: sorry, you might have misunderstood me slightly.
By 'new core' I meant exactly these 512k l2 cache because as far as I know (I migh be wrong) there are no other major changes in barton core. I have just fiund out that this improvement doesn't increase the performance enough to represent the PR. (I used these benchmarks running my CPU at 11*200 (some of them are not very popular):CPUBench2003 (tests both memory & CPU, arithmetic, raytracing and 3d model software rendering tests), Realstorm benchmark (real-time raytracing benchmark), PCMark2002, Sandra 2003 (its benchmarks are too clock-deopndent, so, I'll disregard them). The results were not so bad but not what I had expected to see with this PR (3200+) and not THAT better than thoroughbred CPUs (although I used only the pre-recorded results and didn't test the CPUs myself). The results were actually comparable with the results of their short-lived 2800+ thoroughbred model.
As for the FSB - sorry, I thought that everyone was an overclocker deep in his/her soul... I was probably wrong...
And as for athlon64 - well, I just meant to wait for something newer (and it will be athlon64) hoping that AMD may improve their CPUs by increasing the frequency for example (Finally. Although I heard that their 1M l2 cache 1.6 Ghz model will have a PR of 2800+ (they probably really rely on 64-bit applications with this estimation)... but still (and their 256k l2 cache models will at least start at 2 Ghz)) or something like that. I didn't mean to emphasize the use of 64-bit architecture (and I don't think these CPU's will be really slow when working with 32-bit applications, see Lawnboy360's post).
And as for the last paragraph in your last post - I absolutely agree.
And sorry for a lot of brackets...

drone1984
11th Aug 2003, 22:50
Lawnboy: Unless there's some kind of adaptation software, 32bit software will only run at the clock-speed. And if that's only in 32bit mode...

Xenon: Actually I was wrong about the Athlon64! UT2K3 is already being adapted to use it correctly. [of course the fact that UT2K3 is completely linux-based makes that a little easier]

Dual CPUs are actually quite nice when you're using a game with the Q3 engine. Games that can utilize DX8.1 & higher [games using the microsoft engine] will also utilize your SMP.

I havn't gotten a chance to mess with the Barton 3200 as of yet - only the 2500 - and the 3000... I was quite impressed with the stabillity it offered, and I noticed that just dinking around in the gui - it was a lot faster than the thouroughbreds... Really the only way to tell raw CPU power in actual use is to do things like compress videos. GUI-Type operations like that are related a lot to your L2, but I never had the chance to actually test real performance. To be honest, I've been satisfied with CPU performance since my T-Bird 1gig... Well, I take that back - My Palamino 1800+ was crap.

I actually got this P4 because I've been doing a lot more graphics-related junk, and I must say I like the overall stabillity ... It's just bloody slow. I got sick of using nVidia crap, and now I see that the Athlon64 will likely be exclusively nvidia chipsets.

nVidia sucks.

sneelock
19th Aug 2003, 18:50
what would you prefer,via or sis both cant compare the nvidia chip. and so far ati isnt making any chipsets. as for the p4 sucks argument, any of the ht cpus will blow the doors off most of the althons up to the 2800+. the p4s also overclock the best. the only way you could argue for the athlon is on the price but the 3000+ and 3200+ are still as much as a p4. I dont no how you guys do your bench marks but with the built in game ones the p4 is way out in front.

buddha
20th Aug 2003, 14:31
I believe that my 1.4ghz AMD Athlon should run deus ex 2 fine, It's my Geforce 2 graphics card that I'm worried about. I hate to say this but I may get an Xbox and play it on that since there is supposed to be such a little difference in the game. Also it's cheaper for me to do that than upgrade my comp so that I could play it on the PC at full spec, plus playing it on a 30 inch flat widescreen TV appeals to me more than playing it on a 12 inch montitor, hehe

Oh and I thought 64 bit was only really required for servers, surely us gamers don't need that sorta man power...yet

cneal
20th Aug 2003, 17:21
Pent III 1000mhz w/ 512mb and ati radeon agp

Zombi Z
20th Aug 2003, 23:44
What happened to deleting all posts? Nevermind, shouldn't jinx it further. I think the discussion is healthy enough really. Ion Storm could benefit from public opinion on the Athlon 64. In any case, as soon as I get back from BCT (Army; 11B) I hope the AMD64 tech will be public by then and ready to go in an Alienware box (financing, price/perfomance ratio, case design, being only a couple hundred dollars more than building it myself; in that order) or two in time for Christmas.

Should be neat to see what the Unreal and Quake/New Doom Tech can do at 64 bits a slam. Even if the benefit is nill for now (feel free to correct me on this) the 940-pin AMD's are supposed to debut at 3500+ (one of them anyway) I think? 3500 sounds like a nice round number, a good step up from my 2000+ (I don't remember which core).

I mean don't say it like you don't want it. Emulation of an N64 (don't do that, that's bad ;) ) alone should be worth the curiosity. A 32-bit proc. must work slightly more than twice as hard to emulate the N64- the N64 core runs at slightly less than 100Mhz whereas a worthy Pentium must be of at least a PII-233 variety to do the same job remotely worthwhile -so surely a 64-bit proc. would clean up here with some heavy interpretation? Could be fun.

I'm interested in, also, what kind of porting must be done to move the same C++/C# code from 32-bit x86 to 64-bit. Call me laymen, but my god, could it be as simple as using a 64-bit compiler? [Remembering announcer voice from Atari Jaguar commercials for some reason]

Non-gaming gruntwork also has me pumped: Cranking out my 320k MP3's, compressing my 40+ Gigs of untold amounts of Anime Music Videos and DivX movies (shh!) which took literally 28+ hours on my Athlon 2000+. Just wondering what a 64-bit optimized version of WinRAR can do has me close to the Tingle.

**Z to drone1984- Okay, Mega'n00b here. You say that 64-bit computing is four times better than 32-bit? The way I see it is 32 zeros and ones per slam ('clockcycle'?) moving through an assembly line, then 64 zeros and ones. Isn't this only 'twice' as spiffy? Please advise.

Xenon
21st Aug 2003, 13:26
To sneerlock: I agree about Nvidia chipset, I have one myself.
And price is quite important and that's mainly why I like athlons since I have limited resources and don't want to overpay for a cpu of certain class.

Lawnboy360
21st Aug 2003, 23:48
A 2.4ghz (800mhz FSB) P4 may be slightly faster than a 2400+, but the lowest price for a 2.4ghz, 800mhz FSB P4 is $165; you can get a 2800+ for $161. Somehow I doubt that the 2.4ghz would be faster than the 2800+.

( http://www.pricewatch.com/ )

grayfox148
22nd Aug 2003, 01:36
Originally posted by drone1984
Uh, yea no - that's a bad idea. You should avoid 64bit processors like the plague until proper software comes out. For 64-bit archetecture, you will need 64-bit software to utilize it. Don't expect to see many 64-bit games for 2-3 years after 64-bit processors become reasonably priced. This is actually a lot like the dual processors debate. Very few applications actually support SMP. I've one of those Pentium 4c chips with Hyper-Threading... The O/S sees it as 2 processors, and most the time an application will not utilize it. Even if it supports SMP, let's say you have a dual 2.4 gig system... The game will only run as fast as the slowest CPU in your system [clusters work this way as well] however you will find yourself in more resources. [for example, the game will only load as fast as the slowest CPU, however it will not run out of CPU as quickly in game] The game is true for a 64bit system. bit cpus are usually squared as they raise... 64bit CPU performing 4 times better than a like-matched 32bit cpu... Now lets say you have 1ghz 64bit CPU [equivelend to 4ghz 32bit] and you want to play your favorite game. Chances are likely that it will work - but it will only work in 32bit mode, and only at your current clockspeed. That's right, 1000mhz. Sounds like a waste of money to me.


The Barton chips are actually much better than a palamino or thoroughbred chips, but not because of the core. Core designs may change thermal dissapation, chip size, & production costs. Barton chips have a far more stable temperature, however the reason they perform better is the 512k of l2 cache. Also most or all of the bartons run at the 333FSB, and a couple of them run at the 400MHz FSB. This IS a nice feature because of RAM speeds.

BTW - Avoid the pentium 4. If you're a graphics designer, and do a lot of HWT&L rendering, use a lot of auto-cad and other such proggies, then the P4 might just be for you. But if you want to play games, read email, watch movies, look at porn, and talk with your friends - get an AMD. It's faster. It's Cheaper.

HA AMDS ARE NOT FASTER THERE NOT NEARLY AS GOOD ALL PROGRAMS WERE WRITEING on intels so there are made 4 intels

sneelock
22nd Aug 2003, 18:46
Actually Lawnboy the 2.4 will out preform the 2800+, i have actually seen this myself personally. as well the pentium can be overclocked to 3.0ghz easilly all you need is some decent memory.

Lawnboy360
22nd Aug 2003, 22:13
Actually Lawnboy the 2.4 will out preform the 2800+

If you say so...

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1033441653IhlYJefJEj_3_3.gif
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1033441653IhlYJefJEj_3_4.gif
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1033441653IhlYJefJEj_3_6.gif
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1033441653IhlYJefJEj_3_5.gif

Considering the 2800+ performs about the same as a 2.8 P4 on the popular nForce2 platform, I doubt a 2.4 P4 would outperform it. And it's true that the P4s overclock better, but how many people will overclock their P4 from 2.4 to 3.0, voiding their warranties and shortening the life-time of their CPU? (BTW the benchmarks are ran at low-res to stress the CPU, not the graphic card).

vick1000
23rd Aug 2003, 15:33
I love AMD,but those are very old results,pre P4c and the new
Intel chipsets.For the money,AMD still has the best budget
platforms,a 2500+ will run you $90,and a nForce2 mobo for
$85,make a killer budget combo.

vick1000
23rd Aug 2003, 15:44
Originally posted by Zombi Z
**Z to drone1984- Okay, Mega'n00b here. You say that 64-bit computing is four times better than 32-bit? The way I see it is 32 zeros and ones per slam ('clockcycle'?) moving through an assembly line, then 64 zeros and ones. Isn't this only 'twice' as spiffy? Please advise.

There are 4 digits (1s or 0s) in a bit.

Nazo
23rd Aug 2003, 19:05
First of all, one bit is one digit. A zero or a one. Two possibilities, not four. That's why you need 8 bits just to get one byte and even then you need another 8 just to make an ASCII character. However, it is kind of exponential in the way it adds up. One byte is only 16 possibilities, 0-15, which is why it's usually represented with hexadecimal. However, if you have two bytes, you have 256 possibilities, 16*16.

Anyway, I think you are asking the wrong thing. The cpu isn't TOO terribly important. Even the most powerful games can run on some pretty ancient processors. The limiter is generally the video card. If you have a TNT2 on a P4 2.8GHz, you are pretty much screwed with anything made at all recently, but if you have a Radeon 9800 Pro overclocked on an AMD Athlon 1.2GHz, you can pull off some pretty powerful games and have them run smoothly at that. Of course, I admit people change video cards much more easily than CPUs (esp since generally when one upgrades their CPU, unless they have been staying right on top of the latest stuff, they probably have to get a new MB too.) Still, It's better to ask what people think they will have by roughly around the time that game comes out.

To get the ball rolling, I have only a NVidia Geforce 4 Ti4200. Very overclocked, but it's still the "economy" low end model of the GF4 Ti family and DX8 at that. Hopefully by the time stuff like Doom3 come out I will have updated to a Radeon 9500 Pro or better.

sneelock
23rd Aug 2003, 19:14
sorry lawnboy i guess i didnt specifiy that the 2.4 is 800mhz fsb with dual ddr on a 865pe chipset. check this out http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030521/index.html
if you dont believe me.

Nazo
23rd Aug 2003, 19:24
Gimme!!! d-:

sneelock
23rd Aug 2003, 19:29
or this http://www6.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20030812/index.html
Basically the p4 800fsb is one hot cpu. the system in the second artical runs very stable with no overheating.

nazo, i agree you need at least 128mb video card.
but the 9500 pro is now discontinued, your stuck with the 9600pro which is not quite as fast but cheaper. but i think that a geforce 4 ti will be fine for a little while anyway.

Nazo
23rd Aug 2003, 19:32
You can still buy the 9500 Pro from sapphire at newegg and similar places. Also, with a slight modification, the 9500 non-pro can be oced to be more or less equivalent to a 9500 Pro, which is most likely why the pro was discontinued.


Anyway, it's that 800MHz FSB that definitely got my eyes to pop out. I can't even imagine what that would be like with my mere 145MHz (oced 133MHz) )-:

exo
23rd Aug 2003, 20:05
iirc it's not "actually" 800 but it uses some quad technique that makes it have that speed while doing certain operations.

I forgot what it was but I know for a fact it's not "really" 800 though, if it was pure that'd be cool but it's not, it's some trick thing that works good. Only thing left to see now is what amd's 64-bit can do and does it have a good enough bag of tricks to out do or even keep up even. Personally I'm rootin for the clawhammer. Intel's stuff is nice but we need amd to keep prices competitive and drive the market to continue to keep on moving forward.

sneelock
23rd Aug 2003, 20:15
exo your right its not. its 200mhz quad pumped. what that means is that i can do 4x as much per clock cycle. but it is not a trick it is a legitament way of increasing preformance. athlon does almost the same thing they just douple pump the clock. the have been doing it since the begining of Socket 462, 650 and up. pentium 4 was the same way.

Nazo
23rd Aug 2003, 21:16
Is that kind of similar to the way that DDR does operations twice per tick of memory clock?

Lawnboy360
24th Aug 2003, 14:34
sorry lawnboy i guess i didnt specifiy that the 2.4 is 800mhz fsb with dual ddr on a 865pe chipset. check this out http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030521/index.html

Well in fact I didn't believe you, but I read a few reviews (tom's hardware is so-so in my opinion) and it's pretty impressive! I thought only the 3200+ was definitely slower than it's P4 counterpart.

This Splinter Cell benchmark is interesting; it's a demanding game with real-time lighting (like DXIW). http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834&p=9
And in this benchmark, the 2.4C is almost as fast as the 3200+ ?! :eek:

Oh and here's a nice little article on a P4 overclocked to... 4.44ghz ! (Using phase-cooling) http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDIy

And "Overclocking the 2.4C" http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDcx .
"I personally think that most of the 2.4Cs that hit the shelves will have the ability to reach the 3GHz mark pumped with a 1GHz bus and DDR400. Mark my words, this box will be the backbone of the ultimate budget DOOM]|[ machine you will want later this year...unless we see really cheap Prescott Pentiums soon. "

Nazo
24th Aug 2003, 17:58
I hate you all for talking about such things. I'm stuck with an Athlon 1800+ on a MSI K7Turbo 2 which can't even set the memory clock higher than 133 even if I overclock the FSB up to 145 )-:

*sigh* I have GOT to get some money saved up...

EDIT: Oops, said K7Turbo2, that's what I had before. This is much the same thing, but with DDR, hence all that about the memory clock. It's the K7T266. Also, it's not that it CAN'T have a higher memory clock, it's that it won't. They made it seperate so you could set the memory higher or lower than the FSB if you had to use 100 or 133, but it has the bad effect of doing nothing to the memory if you o/c the fsb.

crimson_stallion
31st Aug 2003, 10:52
I have just gotten this information from
Computer and video games (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/previews/previews_story.php(que)id=95157) .

"Every light in DX2 is dynamic rather than fixed, which apparently comes at no extra performance cost - Ion Storm is working towards 30fps running on a minimum spec PC of around a Pentium III 850 and GeForce 3-level graphics card. An explosion in a room will cause the light fittings to sway, changing shadows in real-time. Flares can be used by your character to illuminate dark areas and new flying hunter-killer robots with built-in lights can throw their beam on you to reveal your supposedly well-hidden position. "

This must be the best news ive heard. 30 frames on an 850 with GF3!! Even if that is limnited to low detail and 640x480, at leat it will be playable.

Nazo
2nd Sep 2003, 02:20
Hope they have enough extras for the people with better stuff, but, it is good to know that it will run on a more normal PC. Of course, when you think about it, if they are really thinking of making a console version, they will almost certainly go with the XBox, which is very much like a PC. It's CPU is a little slower than what you said, but, the console is a lot more customized with more efficient software, drivers, etc, so it gets enough more power out of that CPU that it would explain their choice of target hardware. Most companies are just far too lazy and cheap to make two completely different versions or to otherwise make large deviations between the two beyond what's necessary. And it requires pretty minimal changes since the XBox is so PC-like.

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
2nd Sep 2003, 07:40
if they are really thinking of making a console version, they will almost certainly go with the XBox

they ARE making a Console version, Xbox will be the only console, and there are already screenshots on the official site

override367
2nd Sep 2003, 08:03
You can still buy the 9500 Pro from sapphire at newegg and similar places. Also, with a slight modification, the 9500 non-pro can be oced to be more or less equivalent to a 9500 Pro, which is most likely why the pro was discontinued.

Actually I bought a 9500 from allstarshop.com and after modding and overclocking I can reach an astounding 385mhz with the cards processor before it crashes with stock cooling (i see artifacts past 360 though, but it will run 10 3dmark2003 runs without crashing) I run it at 325/310 most of the time which (much to my surprise) gets me only about 5-10% lower performance than my friends 9700 pro which i tried in my computer

and that's just on benchmarks (pcmark,3dmark2001/2003), on games the difference is almost completely nonexistant, the 9700 pro being only about 5% faster in only a few games (doom3 alpha being one of them)

running xp2600 (the crappy one) with a7n8x, my friend with the 9700 pro runs a vapochill case with a 2.4c p4 (yes and all the best mobo/ram etc) running at very nearly 4ghz which get's him an overall performance boost of something like 25-35%

but since neither of us get any significant slowdown in ANY game we own even with 4xFSAA I would say for a new comp if computers aren't your life, get a 2500xp barton and OC it on a a7n8x, you get the best bang for your buck for sure

Brothers and Sisters, let us not quibble over AMD or Intel, the real enemy is mac! we must combine forces to defeat the G5!

The_Guided
2nd Sep 2003, 12:42
i have a AMD 2800, now this chip is the dogs bo***x compared to my previous chip (a AMD 2000) ann it is of 'the short lived' variety, the thoroughbred model b core, i wold like to know how this chip came to be not in production anymore alot earlier than it should of done because i think this is a stunning chip.

AMD Rules!

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
2nd Sep 2003, 12:49
i wold like to know how this chip came to be not in production anymore alot earlier than it should of done

If I understand the question, I think the answer would be "because they couldn't" or "because they didn't have the technology before"

The_Guided
2nd Sep 2003, 13:03
I think it would be a waste of time to worry about the G5 as it costs a staggering 1.5 grand in english money (someone tell me what this would be in $)sure it is the fastest pc out there at the mo but for how long? will IBM and other companies actually build a pc (AMD and such like) based on the new 64bit tech any time soon?


I think the answer would be "because they couldn't" or "because they didn't have the technology before"

Eh? if they didn't have the tech how come i got it?
i don't get this, was it because the thouroughbred core was sh**? or was there a sort of compatability problem with the chip (plus could anyone tell me why games seems to be closing or restarting the system, i am not sure because my system suffered a rather expensive power surge that damaged a fair few components but i didn't replace the chip or ram as they seem to work)

xx love you

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
2nd Sep 2003, 14:09
tell me why games seems to be closing or restarting the system

usually due to overheating. change your fan and/or your climatisation

The_Guided
2nd Sep 2003, 14:28
The fan itself is an aero 7 which is suitable past 3200+ AMD, and the ambient air is at about 29C so this isn't a problem with heat. hmmmmmmmm i might of forgot something useful, after a game, lets say Return to Castle Wolfenstein, closes and goes back to windows it says on the task manager (for a short period of time after the game closes) that the CPU is running at 100%

crimson_stallion
3rd Sep 2003, 13:03
I think it would be a waste of time to worry about the G5 as it costs a staggering 1.5 grand in english money (someone tell me what this would be in $)sure it is the fastest pc out there at the mo but for how long? will IBM and other companies actually build a pc (AMD and such like) based on the new 64bit tech any time soon?

I read soemwhere ( i think pcpowerplay magazine actually) that the mac isnt as fast as they claim. Apparently the tests were run on software that was optimised for the mac setup, and thus the intel/amd systems didtn perform as well. Apparently when someone else ran them on soem type or more uniform system the PC's came out above the mac (or equal). Can remember much exactly about this, but it was something to that effect.

The_Guided
3rd Sep 2003, 13:43
the mac runs at about 1ghz right? what was the speed of the pc?

The_Guided
3rd Sep 2003, 13:55
oooh damn i think its the cpu thats ****ed not the ram (got them replaced) time for an expensive replacement (if about £120 is expensive compared to a pentium). If that don't work i don't know what it is, everything has got replaced except for that. I'll try the amd 2000 before i get it in case i'm wrong or playing on the gamedx:iw IS A NO GO FOR ME damn caps lock.

sneelock
4th Sep 2003, 22:39
the mac g5 runs two 2ghz cpus. as for the speed not being as fast they claim, mac has been doing that for years. i dont think that mac will be a serious threat simply because they dont have proper game support. and that people have used windows for years and they dont like change.

The Corinthian
5th Sep 2003, 01:45
Hmm, the processor I'm using isn't on here. It's a little thing Intel released way to early. An array of Itanium 2s, a 64-bit processor (read I could have up 16 trillion bytes of RAM, not just 4 billion; and process at speeds orders of magnitude higher). I do hear AMD is bringing out a 64-bit cpu in 2k5...

The_Guided
5th Sep 2003, 09:34
isn't it in like this month? not 2k5, also i doubt seriously that AMD would let intel that far ahead.

Lawnboy360
5th Sep 2003, 23:17
The server version of AMD's 64 bit CPU is out, (Opteron) and the mainstream version, the "Athlon 64" will be out shortly.

Neuromancer07
6th Sep 2003, 02:00
My CPU is a neural Net Processor.

The Corinthian
9th Sep 2003, 01:23
Oh, sorry guys, I was getting a tad mixed up on my dates there... I was thinking of another piece of an articale on it talking about how the new Windows that's due out in 2k5 will be offering full 64-bit support or some such.

Oh, and Neuromancer? I got you beat down *hooks up his own flatline*

Sadokitty
14th Sep 2003, 13:41
So no option for a 900MHz compy? :( damnit..

Frost Giant
15th Sep 2003, 12:40
You shouldn't be too upset about the 900MHz thing. Remember taht if you are worrying about the price, you are able to get a far more powerful computer for less than the 900MHz computer computer cost when it first came out. And sooner or later, you will be able to 64 bit processor for cheap also. Perhaps later.;)

Lawnboy360
23rd Sep 2003, 23:48
Athlon 64 launch !

If you thought the 64 would be slow in 32bit, think again. ;)
Pentium4 EE = extreme edition, with more cache on the CPU.
The Athlon64 is the "regular" one, and the Athlon64 FX is the high-performance one, for gaming amongst other things.


http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1063963274qjhbzk4xzd_5_5.gif

The benchmark is ran at low-res so that the video card doesn't influence performance.

HardOCP:
"The Pentium4 EE has a good showing here when compared to its non-EE sibling, but beyond that, AMD and the Athlon64 line give it a thorough beating even with an AMD non-FX CPU. "

"Bottom line?
The Good - The Athlon64 3200+ and FX 51 deliver the best overall performance we've seen from any CPU line to date.
The Bad - The Athlon64 3200+ and FX 51 are going to be overpriced for the gaming and enthusiast market.
The Ugly - The Athlon64 and FX 51 will very likely not be available in any great quantity until next year...but that remains to be seen. "

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI0LDU=

God damn Terrorists
24th Sep 2003, 03:26
Hey,I need help,well,not really my comp is fast enough.But im ready for an upgrade I have an athlon prosessor 1.2ghz,I want to go as big as possible.lemme know,it is an alienware setup.thanks.--G.D.T--

sneelock
24th Sep 2003, 17:41
sorry lawnboy i couldn't help it, here is what tomshardware said

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/index.html

"Summary: The P4 3.2 EE wins 32 times, the Athlon 64 FX-51 15 times - an uncertain 64-bit future for AMD"



not that they totally support intel it just that the amd could have been better.

Lawnboy360
24th Sep 2003, 21:13
In the end, P4 EE vs Athlon64 FX doesn't matter much; they cost around $750!!!

P4 3.2 vs Athlon 64 3200 is more interesting.

TehFreak
28th Sep 2003, 09:39
GDT, if you can give the manufacturer's code, or something similar (or the exact name of your motherboard), then someone might actually be able to help you.

-=ThøR=-
18th Oct 2003, 11:32
Mine sucks!

Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 1.40GHz 256 MB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce2 MX/MX 400

What do you recommend I should Increase the most to mine?

Lawnboy360
18th Oct 2003, 14:13
The video card; you can't even play DXIW with a GeForce 2. (No DirectX8 support)
I suggest you get a Radeon 9600. An additional 256mb of memory would be nice too, of course.

-=ThøR=-
19th Oct 2003, 11:47
However, I am not so rich. How expensive is the Radeon 9600? Or a Geforce 4?

Lawnboy360
19th Oct 2003, 12:50
GeForce 4 Ti4200 128mb $95
GeForce 4 Ti4600 $160
GeForce 4 Ti4800 $130

Radeon 9600 $110
Radeon 9600 Pro $135

(from http://www.pricewatch.com , if you shop on this site also use http://www.resellerratings.com/ , those are the lowest prices so you'll probably pay more than this; for example the cheapest 9600 pro on newegg.com is $148 http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduct.asp?DEPA=1&submit=Go&description=radeon%2C9600%2Cpro )

Random
19th Oct 2003, 13:32
If you can, go with the 9600 because it's a DirectX 9 card, meaning it'll take advantage of fancy features in upcoming games like Half-Life 2 and Stalker.

-=ThøR=-
19th Oct 2003, 16:17
That's in the US, but in my country (we don't use dollars, we use bolivares), They would sell something twice as expensive as it's original price. GOddamn it that really pisses me off!!!! :mad:

Also, how much MB RAM does the Radeon 9600 eat up?
And, adding an extra 256 of MB RAM would cost how much?

Lawnboy360
19th Oct 2003, 16:45
Also, how much MB RAM does the Radeon 9600 eat up?

"Radeon 9600 Pro 128mb" doesn't mean it uses 128mb of system memory, it means there's 128 mb of memory on the video card.


And, adding an extra 256 of MB RAM would cost how much?

It depends on the type of memory you use. Your 1.4ghz P4 probably uses PC600 RDRAM, which is $45 / $50 for 256mb.

lpthirdcaliber
19th Oct 2003, 17:44
personally I have 2 systems in my room running on amd 1800s.

msi kt4ultra
msi g4ti4200 128 meg
512 ddr 2700

asus a7v8x-x
evga g4mx440 128 meg
512 ddr 2100

both run very well.. but as you can see I could up the cpu if it was needed.. but its not really needed for most games, I use the msi for gaming mostly, the other is a spare rig for tv/dvd/friends comming over/etc. The point is I paid $50-70 for each 1800 when I got them.. the 2500 barton was still $170. If you go broke buying a cpu thats waaaay over powered you kinda lose money that could go to vid/ram/drives/monitor/computer chair.

my other rigs are

athlon TB 1ghz
asus a7a266
64 meg g4mx440se
320 megs pc133

p3 800eb
32 meg geforce256(hey still works with anything but morrowind)
256megs pc133

the point is this, alot of gamers are not really heavily funded, but we can get what we need as long as we dont blow it all on 1 top product.. I skipped on the ati 9700 pro due to I wanted another HD & flat screen monitor. Plus all those products which you could afford go well for handme downs. when my parents k6-2 machine got old, I gave them another p3 I had from back in the day.

cpu is a mute point when it comes to requirements, its the combined effort of the cpu/vid/ram that makes the game playable & not choppy.