CPUs dont really make that big of a difference for games

Geminiwave

http://216.92.52.205/index.html

Thats from THG. I checked my Athlon XP 28008(OCed well over a 3200+ but I picked a 3200+ on the ratings anyway) and checked it in all of the benchmarks. In most of them(especially gaming) I've noticed AT MOST a 4% difference between my processor and a high end P4. The Athlon 64 4000+ has only a fraction of a percentage point above the p4. So what I'm noticing is...when coupled with similar amounts of RAM and a kickass graphics card, the CPUs dont seem to matter that much. Sure the Hyperthreading is GREAT for encoding and photoshop, but for the majority of bechmarks my CPU stacks up extremely well.

why the heck am I considering buying a new mobo\CPU?

Ima save for me graphics card until PCIe is mega cheap.

edit: Ooops didnt see the FX-55 rating. ouch.

still thats like 20% or so for a thousand dollars or so.

the point is, do I(or anybody else in my similar situation) REAAAAALLLYYYY need to be upgrading? Or have I been letting all this hype get to me?

Lowfat

I somewhat agree I am in the middle of creating a new system, and i am cheaping out on the cpu....going for a 3000+ venice more than likely.

itchy5

not many people NEED to upgrade, but we upgrade cause we want to , im waiting for a venice

Geminiwave

whats so cool about the venice core?

mkk

It differs more in some games compared to others, but for pure gaming performance a decently clocked AthlonXP provides a good enough amount of tourque. Honestly I don't really do anything else often enough to need performance more than what an AthlonXP can give, but I'm upgrading anyway to gain a couple of new features and to move over to PCIe.

Venice is a nice little update to the Athlon64 core, giving even better overclockability and some improvements on memory module handling. I'll get me a 3000+ Venice when i upgrade with the idea to overclock it a lot more in the future than I can do initially due to using cheap RAM modules. Four 512MB PC3200 modules is hard to resist now that RAM has dropped so much in price, and Venice not having to lower the clock to PC2700 with four double banked modules. I just love the feel of a system that has a lot more RAM than the absolute need.

Son_of_Thunder

i somewhat agree w/ this thread, but not totally. i think that it's more like there isn't much difference between different athlon xp chips, and there isn't much difference between pentiums w/ a 533mhz fsb, but the 800mhz pents are better than both. then the 64bit athlons are better for gaming than any of them, but until you hit the fx mark there really isn't much difference between them.

i bought a 3500+ not because of how high i could overclock it, but because of it's higher stock speed.

on another note, my old system, using a 2800+ overclocked to 2.32ghz and a x800xt i couldn't get more than 50 fps in source, when i traded down for my 9550xt i found that i could run the same settings and get only about 5 fps less than the x800xt.

when i upgraded to the 64bit system and the x850xt (lets be realistic, the x850xt is better than the x800xt, but not by much) my fps went through the roof. i now average about 110 fps in source, w/ drops down to the mid 70's and spikes up to 250.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2330&p=2

i rest my case

Duranix

yeah, high end dont matter, but when you compare a

AMD 64 3400+ vs AMD XP 2400+


40 fps difference in doom 3
73 fps difference in farcry
74 fps difference in UT2k4

i really need a new cpu

Anupama

very interesting thread Im a begginer to building computers and have been wondering why my new amd only gives me 150 more in 3dmark 2005 when overclock it further from 2.4 to 2.6.

jasonbourne

so would the processor amd64 3200+ with the motherboard asus a8n-sli be a good choice for gaming??

Duranix

most definitely.

although id get a 3500+ 939.

Vikingod

anyone know when the venice core is coming out? Heard it was supposed to be here already. Also, how much more expensive is it going to be. I am going to be building a system soon, I want the 3200 venice.

Anupama

9#

I got an amd 3500 with an a8n sli, (got the sli cuz the a8n non sli wasnt available at the time). No I realy dont have a clue if it bether than something else, but from going from a pentium, its heaven.

Running cpu at 2.4 and my 800xl at 428\530. Gives me 5050 in 3d mark 2005.

Im a new to all this so I know I havnt got the memory setting all right yet and thers a problem with this mobo, Its dosent read the memory right and some stuff. And is not a good mobo for high overclocking, but you probably heard that story before

The_Neon_Cowboy

Cpu = A lot all around


sse3 and a improved memory controller are the biggest plus the tested
3200+ samples did the limits 2.8 GHz just fine on air massive o/cer...
a few other improvements


the memory controller allows you to populate all 4 slots with double sided
ddr with out it dropping you to 333 etc...

Judas

atm, i find UT2004 loves the CPU juice... simply increasing a 2500+ to 3000+ increases FPS quite a bit....

Some games i find today are more graphics limited then cpu limited when your pushing well over 3200+ speeds...

But this should change shortly with the more new game engines such as unreal 3 engine which is really driving up the physics.

HalfLife 2 loves having a good cpu as well..

Son_of_Thunder

also, my 3dmark05 scores went up from low 5000's to around 6300 when i upgraded from my agp system to my 64bit system.

Randy P

Judas makes a great point. I think a lot of it has to do with the G engine the game encompasses.

The_Neon_Cowboy

my system is and feels faster with my amd 64 (1.8 ghz) then with my XP 2500+ @ 2.2 ghz

Logla

There is a noticable difference on my p4 3.0 when its clocked to 3.6.
Ususally only get a few extra fps but the overall experience is increased.

Judas

there are other factors involved other then just a pure mhz push...

farkas

I agree with that.

In Windows XP and using apps, my 2.2 64 and 2.2 Athlon XP (mobileXP) feel pretty much the same, except I have dual channel for the Athlon XP and single channel for the 64. I guess the on die single channel memory controller evens out compared to a dual channel north bridge on Athlon XP.

In gaming though, I get up to 30 FPS more on the 64 on some games. I mostly observed a minimum of 15 FPS however while playing, and not focusing on the benches or time demo's etc...

At the end of the day, it's all a balancing act. Making sure that you do not have a substantial weak point in performance/bottleneck compared to that rest of the system.

Sargentwhitey

I think the WinRAR bench tells you a huge difference between old Athlon XP's and the 64's... that 2400+ gets about 10 mins while my 3200+ Clawhammer gets it in 3:48

itchy5

overclocks like none other if i recall 2.7-8ish @ stock Vcore (lower Vcore ) from a 3000+ (correct me if i over shoot the OC )

OldBuzzard

Evidently THG has never tried testing Flight Sims with different CPUs

Testing games that are GPU dependent is one thing, but when you are crunching the amount of data that it takes in a Flight Simulator/game like FS 2004, CFS3, or Il2 FB, the CPU speed makes all the difference in the world.

With the exception of the CPU, memory, and MB, my current system is identical to my old 1.2 Athlon, and in CFS3, and FS2004 using the same video settings, I doubled the FPS. This is with a 'humble' 9500 Pro.

I could have put an X800 inthe old 1.2 Athlon, and it wouldn't have given any better FPS than the 9500. At best, I may have been able to increase the IQ a bit, but as for FPS, I was definately CPU bound. I'm not so sure that an X800 would improve the FPS on my system now, but unfortunately I don't have the $$ to test that theory

Lowfat

ya but thats 1.2GHz...of course that CPU would be a bottleneck. but between a 2GHz CPU and a 2.4GHz i doubt it would make much of a difference.

HawgsHead

Lowfat