Gaming Performance with a 1000MHz Duron vs. 1400MHz Athlon.

[rogue1979]

Just for grins I fired up an extra Duron 750 I had lying around and put it at 1GHz. My video card is a Geforce Pro 64MB at 218/475. I benchmarked at 4x FSAA, 32-bit color and 1024 x 768. Using 3DMark 2000 the difference between a 1GHz Duron and a Thunderbird 1000@1463MHz was only 1.5%. This leads me to the conclusion that if you are a big time gamer just save money on your cpu and get a Geforce 3.

 

[HappyGamer2]

well it just depends on the game, the game settings, fsaa or non fsaa, try it without fsaa, ???????😉

 

[Mingon]

Using fsaa at that resolution you will always be video card limited, try disabling hard ware TnL and see if that makes a difference.

 

[HappyGamer2]

well if I had two options, being:
1) a geforce3 and decent 1 gig cpu
2) a geforce2 pro and a 1.4 gig cpu

I would take number one, but i wouldn't want a cpu much under 1 gig these days for heavy duty gaming

 

[BFG10K]

It depends entirely on what game settings you play at.

If you're an extremely hardcore gamer who plays competitively you'll want the fastest CPU you can get because the video card makes no difference with the ugly settings you'll use. If you're a casual gamer you'll appreciate eye candy more than high FPS, so your CPU doesn't have to be bleeding edge.

As for me, I like to get games to look as good as possible while still running fast.

 

[EMAN]

Games like Unreal Tournament will definitely benefit with better processor.

Many games are dependent processor but a duron and geforce handle anything.

 

[Innoka]

What rogue1979 says is true and unfortunately not widely appreciated by users.
I've done benchmarks where a chip clocked to 733 (fsb133) will do as well as at 950 (fsb100). Not all games do, but most do. Quake III results correlate well with the majority of other game benchmarks.
I am talking about 1024x768x32 here. You have to have a very fast processor to make it worth playing at 640x480 applying fsaa or other image tweaks, compared to a naturally decent resolution.

 

[Rand]

<< What rogue1979 says is true and unfortunately not widely appreciated by users.
I've done benchmarks where a chip clocked to 733 (fsb133) will do as well as at 950 (fsb100). Not all games do, but most do. Quake III results correlate well with the majority of other game benchmarks.
I am talking about 1024x768x32 here. You have to have a very fast processor to make it worth playing at 640x480 applying fsaa or other image tweaks, compared to a naturally decent resolution. >>



You should remember there that the 133MHz FSB on the slower processor makes things a lot closer then MHz alone would indicate.
It really does depend upon what type of game it is and the settings applied.
There are entire genres of games and many many games that aren almost entirely processor limited, while there are also quite a few that depend mostly upon the video card especially at 1024x768x32bpp.

In the end, I'd personally prefer the faster processor... because a faster processor will benefit you in virtually anything you do. While the difference between a GF2 Pro and a GF3 is extremely minimal in most areas besides gaming.