Athlon 64 and Athlon XP FPS differential when benchmarking games

[KayKay]

I see in a lot of reviews for video cards, that Athlon FX-55 or Athlon 64 4000+ or what have you are used to benchmark the games.

How much slower are the FPS for similar setup systems but with Athlon XP chips instead?
I've read
http://www.firingsquad.com/har...half-life_2_athlon_xp/
which talks about high-end cards, but in terms of say 6800 or 6600GT or something like that, are the cards CPU limited that much?

thanks

 

[Gnoad]

Depends on the game. Some games will see little increase, when some will have a substantial increase. I believe half-life2 gets a pretty big boost, whereas doom3 sees just a slight boost.

 

[zerocool84]

well i went from a amd 2000+ to a 3200+ and let me tell you, whew huge difference. no more video lag. helped me out a lot but it depends on how big of a jump your going. playin cs:s is actually fun now

 

[imported_Computer MAn]

Originally posted by: Gnoad
Depends on the game. Some games will see little increase, when some will have a substantial increase. I believe half-life2 gets a pretty big boost, whereas doom3 sees just a slight boost.

It also depends on the resolution. At 800x600 you are mostly cpu limited so you will see a bigger difference. But at 1600x1200 you are mostly gpu limited and see a smaller differerence.

I found this benchmark to show how resolutions can affect the FPS. See at 1280x1024 the results are closer than at 800x600
here.

As you can see the FX-53 lead on the 3.4ee shrinks from about 15FPS to around 5 at 1280x1024

To sum it all up the difference depends on the game and the resolution

 

[RussianSensation]

People who buy fast cards like X800xt and 6800GT though, tend to play at higher resolutions, which transfers the workload of the cpu onto the videocard.

This helps to eliminate the problems associated with a slower cpu. Sure Axp won't be as fast as A64 even at higher resolutions, but you can be certain that if a game is unplayable on 3200+ XP processor at 1600x1200, it will certainly be unplayable on any A64 right now.

Chances are that at 1280x1024 4AA/8AF, for most games, you'll be 99% videocard limited.

For instance, look at this:

Half-Life 2 Performance with Athlon XP

Sure at 1280x1024 4AA/8AF A64 might have gotten 70 frames vs. 59.5 for 2100+ & x800xt, but 2100+ &x800xt still smokes AXP3200+ &6800U

You wont always get the benefits of the fastest graphics card if you pair it with a slow cpu (like X800xt + AXp2500+). But if you have something close to AXP3000+, just increase the resolution and laugh at everyone who has FX-55 and Radeon 9800Pro because gaming has always been and mostly is the priority of the videocard.

The golden rule you should remember: unless your cpu is really slow, it isn't going to make or break things in terms of playability, but a videocard most certainly will. Thus videocards almost always provide the best bang for the buck for gaming.

 

[BFG10K]

The performance difference can be quite large especially in modern games, even with the settings cranked. People think if they crank the settings up it makes no difference what CPU you have, but that's just plain false. AI & phsyics requirements are constantly increasing in games just like eye candy is.