CPUs dont really make that big of a difference for games

Geminiwave · Apr 15, 2005, 04:18 AM

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 · Apr 15, 2005, 05:03 AM

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 · Apr 15, 2005, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

not many people NEED to upgrade, but we upgrade cause we want to

, im waiting for a venice

Geminiwave · Apr 15, 2005, 06:57 AM

whats so cool about the venice core?

mkk · Apr 15, 2005, 07:33 AM

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 · Apr 15, 2005, 09:45 AM

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 · Apr 15, 2005, 10:00 AM

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 · Apr 15, 2005, 02:22 PM

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 · Apr 15, 2005, 05:06 PM

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

Duranix · Apr 15, 2005, 05:07 PM

most definitely.

although id get a 3500+ 939.

Vikingod · Apr 15, 2005, 05:38 PM

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 · Apr 15, 2005, 06:16 PM

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 · Apr 15, 2005, 08:04 PM

Cpu = A lot all around

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geminiwave

whats so cool about the venice core?

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 · Apr 15, 2005, 08:11 PM

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 · Apr 15, 2005, 08:26 PM

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 · Apr 15, 2005, 10:09 PM

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

The_Neon_Cowboy · Apr 15, 2005, 10:24 PM

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

Logla · Apr 16, 2005, 02:51 AM

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 · Apr 16, 2005, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Neon_Cowboy

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

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

farkas · Apr 16, 2005, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Neon_Cowboy

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

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 · Apr 16, 2005, 03:55 AM

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 · Apr 16, 2005, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geminiwave

whats so cool about the venice core?

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 · Apr 16, 2005, 05:44 AM

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 · Apr 16, 2005, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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 · Apr 16, 2005, 06:13 AM

[color=DarkRed]I was reading something on the HardOCP website the other day.They got a new P-4EE Duel Core CPU to test.I cant recall the clock speed but it was not at all impressive.They said it pretty much ran about like an AMD FX-53.Which is just fine but I just expected ALOT more.I figured it was gonna blow the FX-55 outta the water.I cant wait til June or July when the AMD duel cores come out!
[/color]

Lowfat · Apr 16, 2005, 06:16 AM

If they were testing it on games i dont doubt it wasn't that great. Dualcore cpui's aren't going to help with games @ all for the time being.

Geminiwave · Apr 16, 2005, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulcakelume

If they were testing it on games i dont doubt it wasn't that great. Dualcore cpui's aren't going to help with games @ all for the time being.

word.

in fact generally the CPU was slower in EVERYTHING. Thats the saddest part. Alot of the shit it was way slower on. A few benchmarks(like two of the video encoding ones) were better but that was it.

farkas · Apr 16, 2005, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geminiwave

word.

in fact generally the CPU was slower in EVERYTHING. Thats the saddest part. Alot of the shit it was way slower on. A few benchmarks(like two of the video encoding ones) were better but that was it.

That's quite true. However, When having apps running in the background while gaming, the dual cores manage to get playable frame rates and that's not just in 1024 x 768 in low details

Also, those apps running in the background, obviously there is overkill on some benches from Anandtech's article on multitasking on Intel Dual CPU, but there are as many or more "real" world multitasking benches and new ones for sure that demonstrates it's quite helpfull and practical.

I often have eMule, Bit Tornado, Deamon Tools, 1 Firefox window or more and my Anti Vir (but real time scan disabled while gaming, but engine still on) and I get great FPS in any game, and no pauses either. No BS, but I would never get anything playable while plaqying flight sims or encoding in the background.

So when dual core from AMD becomes mainstream, I'll be really happy !

Judas · Apr 16, 2005, 11:00 AM

as i understood it.....the dual core Intel cpu's are being registered as to completely DIFFERENT CPU's alltogether... while the AMD part will not... meaning it'll be seen as a single cpu.... but internally will manage the threading of programs automatically.

This is why from what tests we've seen of a AMD Dual Core running Dual Core mode, preforms rather quite excellent....

farkas · Apr 16, 2005, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas

as i understood it.....the dual core Intel cpu's are being registered as to completely DIFFERENT CPU's alltogether... while the AMD part will not... meaning it'll be seen as a single cpu.... but internally will manage the threading of programs automatically.

This is why from what tests we've seen of a AMD Dual Core running Dual Core mode, preforms rather quite excellent....

Man, I'd like to read up on that. Can you send me a link or something, I did not get to read up on juicy stuff from AMD's upcoming dual cores, just the general assumptions.

Apr 15, 2005, 04:18 AM	#1
Geminiwave I Have lovely Breasts Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: In the closet... Posts: 5,395 Rep Power: 62	CPUs dont really make that big of a difference for games 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? __________________

Apr 15, 2005, 05:03 AM	#2
Lowfat Xtreme Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Grande Prairie, AB, Can Posts: 4,251 Rep Power: 99	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. __________________ 27" iMac: i5 750 * 80GB X25-M G1 * 4GB DDR3 * HD4850 Stacker: 2600k * P8P67 Pro * 4GB DDR3 * 80GB ioXtreme * 30GB X25-E * (2) HD6950 * Asus D2 * Enermax Revo85+ HWD: (2) Xeon E5649 * EVGA SR-2 * 6GB DDR3 * 8800GTS * 1000W Antec FT01BW: (2) Xeon E5645 * EVGA SR-2 * 6GB DDR3 * GTS210 * Gigabyte 800W Odin GT Storage: (2) Sans Digital TR8M-B * 29TB

Apr 15, 2005, 06:57 AM	Thread Starter #4
Geminiwave I Have lovely Breasts Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: In the closet... Posts: 5,395 Rep Power: 62	whats so cool about the venice core? __________________

Apr 15, 2005, 09:45 AM	#6
Son_of_Thunder HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Kalamazoo, MI Posts: 1,441 Rep Power: 50 System Specs	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 __________________

Apr 15, 2005, 10:00 AM	#7
Duranix DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 614 Rep Power: 0	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 __________________

Apr 15, 2005, 07:33 AM	#5
mkk Cthulhu/Dagon 2012 Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Gefle, Sweden Posts: 4,384 Rep Power: 120 System Specs	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.

Apr 15, 2005, 02:22 PM	#8
Anupama DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 46 Rep Power: 0	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.

Apr 15, 2005, 05:06 PM	#9
jasonbourne DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: great yarmouth uk Posts: 1,082 Rep Power: 0	so would the processor amd64 3200+ with the motherboard asus a8n-sli be a good choice for gaming?? __________________ http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y28...asonBourne.jpg

Apr 15, 2005, 05:07 PM	#10
Duranix DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 614 Rep Power: 0	most definitely. although id get a 3500+ 939. __________________

Apr 15, 2005, 05:38 PM	#11
Vikingod Int'l Fish Liaison Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: By the light of lamp I sit and type... Posts: 16,187 Rep Power: 109 System Specs	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. __________________ *How You Can Help DriverHeaven By Using Digg*

Apr 15, 2005, 06:16 PM	#12
Anupama DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 46 Rep Power: 0	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 Last edited by Anupama; Apr 15, 2005 at 09:54 PM.

Apr 15, 2005, 08:26 PM	#15
Son_of_Thunder HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Kalamazoo, MI Posts: 1,441 Rep Power: 50 System Specs	also, my 3dmark05 scores went up from low 5000's to around 6300 when i upgraded from my agp system to my 64bit system. __________________

Apr 15, 2005, 10:09 PM	#16
Randy P HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 476 Rep Power: 48 System Specs	Judas makes a great point. I think a lot of it has to do with the G engine the game encompasses.

Apr 15, 2005, 10:24 PM	#17
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 90 System Specs	my system is and feels faster with my amd 64 (1.8 ghz) then with my XP 2500+ @ 2.2 ghz __________________

Apr 16, 2005, 02:51 AM	#18
Logla HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 3,311 Rep Power: 62	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.

Apr 16, 2005, 03:55 AM	#21
Sargentwhitey Has a JOB.. Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: NJ Posts: 1,473 Rep Power: 0	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 __________________ Mobile:Intel Celeron M 1.5GHz, 40GB WD, 1GB PC24000, Intel Mediocre Graphics 2, SB Audigy 2 Notebook

Apr 16, 2005, 05:44 AM	#23
OldBuzzard DH's oldest Geek Join Date: May 2003 Location: Oberlin, OH Posts: 2,781 Rep Power: 141 System Specs	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 __________________ When looking for a reason as to why things go wrong, never rule out sheer STUPIDITY

Apr 16, 2005, 06:13 AM	#25
HawgsHead Rest In Peace Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Danville Virginia.The United States of America"In the God of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob We Trust" Posts: 2,012 Rep Power: 0	[color=DarkRed]I was reading something on the HardOCP website the other day.They got a new P-4EE Duel Core CPU to test.I cant recall the clock speed but it was not at all impressive.They said it pretty much ran about like an AMD FX-53.Which is just fine but I just expected ALOT more.I figured it was gonna blow the FX-55 outta the water.I cant wait til June or July when the AMD duel cores come out! [/color] __________________ Rig specs to the left in the boxes....X-Box 360 w/Hitachi 42" HDTV....If Darwins theory of evolution is true then why are monkeys still monkeys?It takes much more faith to believe in Darwin's theory over the Genesis account of creation.

Apr 16, 2005, 06:16 AM	#26
Lowfat Xtreme Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Grande Prairie, AB, Can Posts: 4,251 Rep Power: 99	If they were testing it on games i dont doubt it wasn't that great. Dualcore cpui's aren't going to help with games @ all for the time being. __________________ 27" iMac: i5 750 * 80GB X25-M G1 * 4GB DDR3 * HD4850 Stacker: 2600k * P8P67 Pro * 4GB DDR3 * 80GB ioXtreme * 30GB X25-E * (2) HD6950 * Asus D2 * Enermax Revo85+ HWD: (2) Xeon E5649 * EVGA SR-2 * 6GB DDR3 * 8800GTS * 1000W Antec FT01BW: (2) Xeon E5645 * EVGA SR-2 * 6GB DDR3 * GTS210 * Gigabyte 800W Odin GT Storage: (2) Sans Digital TR8M-B * 29TB