CPU Scaling and New Video Cards

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:20:25 GMT, "Frodoh" wrote:


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.

As others have said... you'll need to wait and see...

But Far Cry runs very good on todays system. You could use a new
video card today... then get a new CPU/mobo combo tomorrow.

The AMD64-3200 is about $200, not bad... cost less than your original
AMD CPU.

I play Far Cry on both of my systems.

SYS1: AMD 2500+ 1gb with ATI9800Pro
SYS2: AMD 2000+ 512mb with FX5900 (not XT or PRO)

With higher detail settings, SYS1 smokes SYS2. the extra 512mb helps
a bit (and no swap file either). But I saw this kind of performance
difference before I added the 512mb.

I would recommend the AMD64 for the next CPU upgrade... cause todays
top cards will be held back by your CPU.

For the $200 range today, the ATI9800... but if you want to get the
next gen card and $400 is okay with you - wait about a month when both
ATI and Nvidia cards are on the market. We only have a glimpse of the
6800Ultra - which is $500 when it hits the streets....


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 ... ???

Tom hardware does this every once in a while... is a very detailed
review... takes a long time... but heres the curent one:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/index.html


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:20:25 GMT, "Frodoh" wrote:


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.

I forgot to add:

With the last screen shots and videos of Doom3 and HL2 - Far Cry is
very close to the abilities of those other modern games. (hopefully
HL and Doom3 would learn from Unreal to use MOVING sky "clouds").

Being that LH2D3 are soooooo late, I'm guessing they are doing some
improvements to the graphics... will they be the NEXT Duke Pukem?

As of this moment after playing Far Cry, HL2 doesn't look as
advanced... I still like UT2004... (A lot more maps and end user
modifications).


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

This doesn't compare different CPUs with video cards, however.

Darthy wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:20:25 GMT, "Frodoh" wrote:

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.

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 ... ???

Tom hardware does this every once in a while... is a very detailed
review... takes a long time... but heres the curent one:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/index.html

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:04:12 GMT, Eep² wrote:

This doesn't compare different CPUs with video cards, however.

Darthy wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:20:25 GMT, "Frodoh" wrote:

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.

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 ... ???

Tom hardware does this every once in a while... is a very detailed
review... takes a long time... but heres the curent one:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/index.html


Its about the best youre gonna get... the combonation would be huge.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/200...charts-23.html

--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Quoting a different link from the same article does nothing to rebutt what I said. CPU comparisons alone are fairly worthless (especially when no actual GAMES are even tested). Note this thread's subject: "CPU Scaling and New Video Cards". The point being to see how video cards (new but old too) compare in terms of performance with different CPUs.

Darthy wrote:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:04:12 GMT, Eep² wrote:

This doesn't compare different CPUs with video cards, however.

Darthy wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:20:25 GMT, "Frodoh" wrote:

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.

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 ... ???

Tom hardware does this every once in a while... is a very detailed
review... takes a long time... but heres the curent one:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/index.html

Its about the best youre gonna get... the combonation would be huge.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/200...charts-23.html