Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Stone on April 20, 2006, 07:56:03 AM
-
If I understand correctly, AMD64 CPU is the best CPU for gameing PC.
Strange that the range of what is available is from 2.0GHz up to 2.6GHz. Not a huge difference it seems?
Still the 2.6GHz cost 3x more than the 2.0 Ghz.
If GHz is the only factor in game speed, the 2.6GHz is ~30% faster and 300% more expencive ?
Putting it an other way.
If a game is slow with a 2.0GHz CPU, will it realy make any difference if you have a 2.6 GHz CPU ? (+30%)
Say FPS drop down to 20, you get +30% = 26 FPS ?
Is this realy how it works? Or have I got it all wrong ?
- AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz, Venice
vs
- AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 boxed prosessori, 2.6GHz, Clawhammer
-
You've got it somewhat confused. Your computer as a whole needs the cpu & gpu & hd & memory to run the game ( & more actually ); but these four are the most important in my opinion assuming you have a good power supply.
The AMD is the best for games in most benchmarking tests & in public opinion. Single core CPU's are the way to go currently because of support issues in some games; dual core is the wave of the near future & will be great when 64bit operating systems become the normal OS ( vista ) XP64 is in reality a stop gap beta OS & it has issues that Vista should address.
Rating a CPU by Ghz isn't really an accurate way to distinguish the performance ( it's simpler for the average guy like us to understand ) & is something Intel started & even they are drifting away from the Ghz standard. It seems like there isn't much of a difference between 2.0Ghz & 2.6Ghz but there is; it's not an enormous difference ( not enough to justify the huge cost difference you mentioned ) but you will notice it.
I guess it boils down to this: Get the fastest CPU you can afford & the best quality/fastest memory, get at least 1-2Ghz ( 1Ghz should be enough ) Get the best GPU ( video card ) you can afford, this one piece of hardware is usually the most expensive single piece in a good system. And get a fast hard drive with a good sized cache ( the faster the HD & bigger the cache - the less latency for retrieval of information )
That should give good frame rates in just about any game. You could still have a bottleneck somewhere else that slows down these components like the bridge or monitor for example; a CRT monitor is better for gaming by the way; it will not give you as high a frame rate as an LCD ( usually ) but has a better picture in most public opinions. You will get as many differing opinions as the number of people you talk too; some will say the GPU is the single biggest factor & some will say memory & some will say CPU; I say it's a pretty equal mix of all of the above. Skimp in one area & pay in another...heck; it can even be said that your power supply is the single most important piece of equipment in your system. ( I agree with that by the way - Bad P.S. = bad system )
-
I was looking at some random CPU reviews again. It does seem, that the FPS are very much in the +-30% range.
So I think I beter save my euros on the cpu, and put the saved money on RAM :D
And for gameing, single core is the way to go right?
At least for a year or two?
-
I think a single core CPU would be the way to go until at least 2007, then take a wait & see approach as to how well & how fast peripheral support develops with the Microsoft Vista 64bit OS. Dual core is great right now for 90% of the applications out there (or more); but apparently not for AHII, you have to disable one of the cores to play or suffer lock-ups from what I've read in here. Like it or not Microsoft is the driving factor in todays hardware & software development.
I like my current system:
Asus A8-N SLI Premium mobo
AMD 4000+ single core San Diego
7900GTX EGS video card
80Gig Raptor HD ( getting raid set-up soon )
2Gigs of Patriot Dual channel memory
550Watt Antec Tru-powerII
This set-up gives me solid frame rates of up to 100 fps depending on how much detail I use & whether or not I am on full view or ground view & what I have the refresh rate of my monitor set at. I can get frame rates of 75fps that never vary no matter what I'm doing with the right settings.
P.S. DX10 is just around the corner & is only waiting on Vista, then the 8000 series Nvidia chipsets will come out. It's a tough time to be thinking of upgrades or new builds...so many choices to make so everything is strong now...but also easy & relatively affordable to upgrade in a few months.
-
hmm. maybe I just beter wait for Vista ?
Its out this year I think?
-
Lol.. he said Vista. :lol
After buying a brand computer that's the second biggest mistake you can do.
-
Originally posted by Stone
hmm. maybe I just beter wait for Vista ?
Its out this year I think?
It won't be out until next year at least (according to Microslave). All the release of Vista is going to do is usher in the 64bit, DX10 & dual core age & make them common like 32bit, DX9 & single core are today. I like the 6 month delayed acquisition rule; wait at least 6 months after hardware or software release for other people to work out the bugs, then take a look at it.
After buying a brand computer that's the second biggest mistake you can do.
That's debatable.
-
i have 2 pretty good systems below. They both cost about 1100 dollars, that includes a legal:mad: copy of windows xp. The amd doesnt blow it out oif the water, but it is defanately smoother. But I think if I swapped the ram and the vid cards, the difference would be much less. The AMD chip runs MUCH cooler though. I will probably go with AMD until Intel gets that heat issue resolved.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Lol.. he said Vista. :lol
After buying a brand computer that's the second biggest mistake you can do.
What IS your problem dude ?
-
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to side with MrRipley.
Purchasing a brand-name system when you have the knowledge to build one yourself (or have a friend build one for you) is a bad idea and a great way to get ripped off.
Dell, HP and Alienware are prime examples of these rip-offs, charging hundreds (and sometimes thousands, in the case of Alienware) more than the system is actually worth.
Vista should be avoided for the short-term after its birth, like every Microsoft OS has, in recent memory. Windows 95, 98, ME, NT 4, 2000 and XP have been rife with problems at their inception, fixed only by massive patching.
Expect Vista to be buggy.
At any rate, back on topic...
As stated before, there is a lot more to raw CPU speed than "megahertz/gigahertz". Notice that 2.6Ghz Athlon 64 FX57 CPUs completely stomp even the fastest Intel processor (3.8Ghz, IIRC) on the market right now, and it all has to do with the architechture of the CPU itself, not the gigahertz it runs at.
Currently, the sweetest price/performance point with a solid future, is an Athlon 64 X2 4400+, 1GB of DDR400 and a 7900GT or a 7800GS (depending on what you're willing to shell out). Pick and choose your motherboard wisely, for it will make or break your system and will mean the difference between a mediocre system that crashes often and a rock-solid desk-rocket that chews up and spits out even the toughest games. Stay away from Via and ATI chipsets for the Athlon 64 series; only consider nVidia nForce 4 and its variants.
-
Subject is AMD 64 GHz VS AMD 64 GHz CPU. Not Intel CPU GHz vs AMD CPU GHz :)
When looking at different CPU reviews, it realy does seem that the difference between the different AMD64 CPU's are minimal even if the price difference is huge.
(Well huge prize difference for me with limited ammount of money ("married with children" u c))
You realy think the 4000+ is the best bang for buks? How come ?
Consider :
- AMD 64 3000+ ~115$ (1,8 GHz 512MB L2)
- 2GB memory ~140$
- GF 7900GT ~330$
-------------------------------> ~585$
- AMD 64 3500+ ~180$ (2,2 GHz 512MB L2)
- 1GB memory ~70$
- GF 7900GT ~330$
-------------------------------> ~580$
vs
- AMD 64 4000+ ~335$ (2,4 GHz 1024MB L2)
- 1 GB memory ~70$
- GF 7600GT ~180$
-------------------------------> ~585$
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=244&chart=68&model2=260
AMD 64 4000+ 2,4 GHz is 25% more GHz compared with 3000+ 1,8GHz
Farcy bench mark 193.2 vs 163.8 ~15% faster
Quake III Team Arena 253.1 vs 208.8 17% faster
Wolfenstein 189,9 vs 159,9 ~15% faster
Too bad toms hardware dont test AH2 :cool:
But you see what I am wondering abot ?
Then the thing about Vista. I was not planning to buy a new computer this year, and then again a new coputer when the first DX10 game i want comes out. Again, my money recurces are very limited....
-
If you're money limited, go with a Sempron. Sure, it's only s754, but it's a lot cheaper than an A64 or Opteron.
-
Nice to see you staying on subject :rolleyes:
-
...What?
I just recommended an economical, and fast CPU.
The Sempron 64 3400+ is less than equivilent Athlon 64 CPUs, and is a very strong performer. If you're looking to keep your costs down as much as possible, yet still build yourself a fast rig, the Sempron 64 is a good choice.
-
actually id say the 3700+ is the best bang for the buck . 2.2ghz stock , and a great overclocker .
-
or the 3000+ mine is runnuing at 2.4
-
2.2 -> 3.0 on water cooling. Nice !
1.8 -> 2.4, thats like 3000+ upgraded to a 3800+. Is that with special cooling system also?
I have not been planning on OC, but I hear it is prety "standard" these days.
-
nope , it's with the stock AMD aircooling :)
-
Originally posted by straffo
nope , it's with the stock AMD aircooling :)
Wow, stock cooling? Sounds good :cool:
How good is the game running on your system?
What kind of system do you run on?
Must bee a good case :aok
-
The biggest prob with Vista is that it will be a huge resource hog and completely tied down with DRM systems, even at privacy intrusive levels.
That's one OS I'll never buy.
-
My 3700+ ran at 2.8ghz with stock cooling 38c idle 48c load. Well within AMD thermal specs. The water is nice for that extra few hundred mhz , and silence . The FX-57 is based on the exact same core as the 3700+ and runs stock at 2.8ghz . My neighbor has a stock FX-57 ,with the same exact setup that i have , and mine was faster in benches @ 2.8ghz (mostly because my memory had to be overclocked for me to reach 2.8ghz) . He was pretty unhappy that he spent almost 1000 dollars on his CPU , and i had spent 250 heheheh
-
Originally posted by Stone
Wow, stock cooling? Sounds good :cool:
How good is the game running on your system?
What kind of system do you run on?
Must bee a good case :aok
It's a good CPU batch :) I was lucky , the mobo it's a ultra cheap Asrock Dual Sata ,I've 2Go of samsung (which can stand 275 mhz ) + a Ati 9800 pro
And all is overclocked ,my configuration is not a speed deamon but a very low cost speed deamon ;)
3D mark2003 score about 24000 (I don't remember the exact number)
-
Everyone bashes microsoft - intel - dell etc. In the end it all depends on what you like. ( I have a Dell that's been going strong for 7 years & I can still play AHII on it today; low fps but I can do it & it's never had one failure)
back on topic;
The price difference between the lower end AMD's & the higher end AMD's is a somewhat recent development. I would get the best athlon64 I could afford & build the system around it. No one is in your situation but you & therefore can't make decisions for you. This game requires a lot of CPU & lot of memory & a decent video card...most decent video cards require a lot of power....so you see it's a balancing act.
We might be able to help suggest a good build in your price range if we knew how much you wanted to spend?...are you upgrading or building from scratch?...where do you live? Etc.
-
I do not have a budget at the moment. I am, in this thread, just trying to understand the difference between the different AMD64 Athlons.
I belive that a AMD64 3000+ has all the same funcktions a AMD64 4000+ has. The only difference is that 4000+ has double L2 memory, 0,6GHz faster clock and costs three(3x) times more.
3000+.........4000+
111$...........336$
1,8GHz........2,4GHz
512MB_L2...1024MB_L2
----------------33% more speed with MHz
----------------Larger L2 memory
UT bench-----29% more FPS
Wolfenstein-26% more FPS
Doom3-------26% more FPS
So if I get in some game bad FPS with a AMD64 Athlon64 3000+, I can expect ~25-30% more FPS if I have similair PC with a Athlon64 4000+ ?
20FPS +30% ->26FPS
30FPS +30%->39FPS
40FPS +30%->52FPS
50FPS +30% ->65FPS
So if there is nothing I am missing, I have to wonder why it would be a good idea to spend 200$ more on a 4000+ ?
That 200$ spent on any other component would probobly make a much bigger difference in the overal?
-
I have a s754 mobo sitting in a box and I was about 2min away from getting on Newegg to order the CPU,Ram,HD. I too have been agonizing over this decision. The "high end" Semprons are very attractive but I can't seem to find out how they differ in performance. This will be my sons PC. I also have to build a network and get myself a new system (giving my brother the one Im using). So - Im looking at shelling out quite a bit by the time you add it all up. I'd forgotten about Toms hardware guide and I appreciate the link. Im going to spend some more time researching this.
Almost a year ago - when I purchased the s754 mobo, I found a website that compared the performance between many of these processors. I cant find it now. I seem to recall that "the most bang for the buck" was the 2800+ or 3000+. The difference in performance between those and the 3400 wouldn't have been noticeable to a human user. Now there are even faster CPU's and they are even more expensive. Im going to research the Sempron option now, hopefully some of you will comment here.
For the record, I've been playing AHII over 2 years on a Intel Celeron 1GHZ w/ 256mb of ram and an nvidia (4400 mx? - 256mb) video. I'm probably going to stick another 256mb SDRAM in it when I give it to my brother. Any of the processors you guys are discussing are light years ahead of what I've been using, successfully, for over 2 years.
-
Well stone I don't care much for benchies, they rarely accurately reflect game performance when you try to apply them to AHII. But as I said before, there really isn't a justifiable reason (in my mind) for the huge price difference, yes the 4000+ is a better-faster cpu than the 3000+, but the 3000+ will perform just fine; AMD has them priced too high I.M.O. It's all about what you personally can afford, & if you are willing to shell out extra cash for the cumulative difference in performance. All the things I mentioned before work together to give a cumulative difference in performance. If you save a little on the CPU you can spend a little more on the video card etc. but asking if the price difference between cpu's is worth it is hard to say....it was from where I stand...might not be from where you stand. I had considered getting the FX or the Opteron but I can overclock mine & come real close to their performance. Here's one for you....why is the 4000+ with the clawhammer core more expensive than the 4000+ with a san diego core by a single dollar U.S.? Seems sort of silly doesn't it?
-
I'm from the software development world. I have trouble working copy machines and printers. My hardware knowledge in general is higher than most 14 year-olds, but that's about it. I had to learn tcp/ip when I ran a unix uucp relay network 20 years ago, now i can't figure out how to hook-up dsl w/out help. With that said, in my experience, the GPU will do more to make or break you - ceteris paribus. I'm assuming you don't already have a bottleneck (like i have w/ 256mb ram). Everytime I've upgraded video in anything I've seen a big performance jump in my application. *Until* on this PC, I went from a 128 mb video card to a 256. I saw no difference. Why? the 256mb of ram. Nothing I can do to this PC will make a difference until I upgrade the memory. WOuld I see a big jump between 512 and 1gb? I suspect not. going to 512 will be the big leap. anything more is wasted money on the 1ghz celeron mobo using 133 SDRAM (not ddr)
Interpret what Im saying this way stone - fretting over a 3000+ or a 4000+ cpu for gameplay might be a little academic if the 4000 costs three times as much. Bank your price difference, and wait till the price drops.( You may want to consider mobo's w/ socket 939 for the upgrade path. my s754 is limited to the older amd processors.)
-
Well stone I don't care much for benchies, they rarely accurately reflect game performance when you try to apply them to AHII.
This is true as far as synthetic benchmarks go , thats why you have to look at game benches . With 3dmark-05, 06 , this is especially true .