CPU Scaling and New Video Cards

Oh waiting is the most important component ad far as I am concerned. I
probably won't build a new rig until Doom 3 is out for a while. There's
nothing dumber than having built a new machine at any point over the last
few months.

The wait is on!


"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Sept1967" sept1967@highstream.(Erase)net wrote in message
...
New cards almost always NEED a fast CPU to "push" them. Take a look at
Toms'
Hardware. They have several charts (benchmarks) with the same video
card,
using a slower CPU, and faster CPU. The same video card can gain as much
as
25% (or more) performance just by having a faster CPU pumping out the
data.


I was just saying that if he wants to play Doom 3 to the best possible
rate,
its worth waiting to see what it actually needs, there's nothing really
been
confirmed yet.

"Frodoh" wrote in message
et...

I hope this crosspost is ok.

Ok here's my problem with where PC gaming is going. I built an AMD
1.53 GHZ
machine w/ 512 megs of ram and a Geforce 3 Ti200 in 2002. Obviously
this
system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of games.

Ok fine ...

So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide
enough
power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ
system
with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
potential?

For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen
of
video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1,
1.4,
1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ???



I have seen some reviews in the past which put different video cards
with processors of different speeds, but such reviews are the exception
rather than the norm. It seems to me that most reviewers hand-pick the
very fastest processor (like as if everyone owns one) and then does
video card benchmarks with it. I agree it's good to know how a video
card will perform with high-end processors, but I think such reviews way
more useful if you benchmark using processors that people are more
likely to have in their computer at any given time. I think it's
reasonable to bench with processors ranging from 1.3GHz and up in this
day and age, not always 3.2GHz or 3.4GHz. Sometimes I swear it's
marketing at work...

The slow CPU will limit your video speed.

--
DaveW



"Frodoh" wrote in message
et...

I hope this crosspost is ok.

Ok here's my problem with where PC gaming is going. I built an AMD 1.53
GHZ
machine w/ 512 megs of ram and a Geforce 3 Ti200 in 2002. Obviously this
system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of games.

Ok fine ...

So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide enough
power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ system
with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
potential?

For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen of
video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1, 1.4,
1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ???

"Phil" wrote in
:


You know you could always wait until Doom 3 to see what it *really*
needs...just an idea...



That's what I'm going to do. But the waiting is killing me! Argh!

"Frodoh" wrote:

So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide enough
power to the new card?

Of course not! You need a new vid card, processor, and therefore new
motherboard ... basically you need a new computer except for
peripherals like your mouse/kb and monitor.

Remember the hype a few years back about how you wouldn't need to do
this in the GeForce age? Nothing but marketing lies.

Joe

"Frodoh" wrote:

Xbox 2 anyone?

Almost everyone ... extreme hardware requirements are killing the PC
game industry.

Joe

On 4/18/2004 5:35 PM Mr. Grinch brightened our day with:

"Phil" wrote in
:




You know you could always wait until Doom 3 to see what it *really*
needs...just an idea...





That's what I'm going to do. But the waiting is killing me! Argh!




I've already got what I need to play Doom3, an XBox.

--
"Cocaine's a hell of a drug" - Rick James

Steve [Inglo]

"Inglo" wrote in message
om...
On 4/18/2004 5:35 PM Mr. Grinch brightened our day with:


I've already got what I need to play Doom3, an XBox.


Oh yeah baby! Nothing like Doom3 at 640x480 resolution.

(I know the XBox can do higher resolution than that... but even the scaled
down Doom3 that the XBox may get will bring it to it's knees...)

then all the industry has to do is not write games that require extreme
hardware? obviously people wanting extreme games is what is pushing the game
industry. people who can afford 600$ video cards are more likely the ones to
buy the games

"Joe62" wrote in message
...
"Frodoh" wrote:

Xbox 2 anyone?

Almost everyone ... extreme hardware requirements are killing the PC
game industry.

Joe

Joe62 wrote:

"Frodoh" wrote:


Xbox 2 anyone?


Almost everyone ... extreme hardware requirements are killing the PC
game industry.

Joe

Link?

The Gaming Industry, are the ones who create those new 'hardware
requirements' by putting those new features 'in there new games'.
They knows the statistics on hardware and what people are buying or are
currently using from past sales. If they wish to create a game that only
performs great on 1% of the hardware. They have no one to blame but
themselves, if they are shrinking there market.

The last PC to be pushed to it's hardware limits (besides the PSX that
is a console) was the Commodore 64! Unfortunately, well written software
that pushes the hardware to the limit. Has been replaced by,
faster hardware to push along buggy, bloated software at an satisfactory
speed.