How fast are CPUs now?

[glen]

I used to follow this stuff so closely, and that is what got me over here at AnandTech.
My PC has not been updated in almost a year now, but I don't think anything out is significantly faster.
Have CPU speeds slowed in their rate of advancing?

 

[amcdonald]

video cards recently went crazy.

 

[dxkj]

Originally posted by: glen
I used to follow this stuff so closely, and that is what got me over here at AnandTech.
My PC has not been updated in almost a year now, but I don't think anything out is significantly faster.
Have CPU speeds slowed in their rate of advancing?

Has moore's law failed? Don't think so.


18 months on average!

 

[aircooled]

Non-overclocked, the fastest are mid 3ghz (I think 3.4 for intel). I personally run an AMD 3200+ (fastest Athlon Barton without going 64 bit) which I believe is around 2.2ghz, fast enough for me.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: dxkj

Originally posted by: glen
I used to follow this stuff so closely, and that is what got me over here at AnandTech.
My PC has not been updated in almost a year now, but I don't think anything out is significantly faster.
Have CPU speeds slowed in their rate of advancing?

Has moore's law failed? Don't think so.


18 months on average!

Moore's Law is alive and well, the problem is that there's very little out that requires the fastest processors, so the hype has died. Only a very few people need anything more than a midrange machine. If you're doing extreme video/graphics processing, CAD/CAM, heavy data-mining or the like you might need every available clock cycle. If you're playing games, net surfing, playing DVDs and mp3's, word processing, e-mail, chatrooms, downloading porn, etc etc you're just fine with a machine that's a couple of years old. Intel and AMD can't get into chest-thumping wars of processor speed upgrades without being able to point at something that it's good for. Without that killer app to entice people to upgrade a jump from 3.0ghz to 3.2ghz to 3.4ghz is utterly meaningless. The processors are still on the same speed improvement path, it's just happening quietly now instead of being on the cover of every magazine and newspaper.

 

[glen]

What will we need to run DooM3 and HL2 at 100 plus FPS with all goodies enabled?

 

[Turkey22]

Besides the fact that noone really knows yet I believe pcgamer put out an article (still havent read it myself) guessing what new games would require for everything enabled. I beleive the proc (they gave intel numbers) was about a 3.2 gig or somewhere in that range. The more important thing though was the video card as I believe it said 5900 for nvidia. Honestly since we are still talking at least a couple months til release I would wait to upgrade. Other than my video card I should be able to play it on my current rig with low to medium settings. 2000+Athlon, geforce4200 64 meg version will probably have to go though for something with a little more memory on it.

 

[CubicZirconia]

Originally posted by: glen
What will we need to run DooM3 and HL2 at 100 plus FPS with all goodies enabled?

You're not really a lifer asking this question are you?

 

[RagingBITCH]

What do you have now? Your video card would seemingly make more of a difference.

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
What do you have now? Your video card would seemingly make more of a difference.

Athlon 2.09 Ghz (I think that is between the speed of a P4 2.66 and P4 2.8)
1 G of Ram
GeForce Ti 4200 128 Meg of ram

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
What do you have now? Your video card would seemingly make more of a difference.

Athlon 2.09 Ghz
1 G of Ram
GeForce Ti 4200 128 Meg of ram

I think that TI4200 would hurt you a lot more than your CPU would. 2.09GHz is still pretty good for an AMD.

 

[Maximus96]

i'm on a lowly duron 800 with 384 SD ram and Radeon 9500 softmod. i can still play hitman contracts and manhunt on it...although at 1024... i'm also putting off the major upgrade till doom 3/ HL 2

 

[glen]

any other opinions?

 

[spanky]

upgrade ur video card

 

[brigden]

I'm running an XP2700, 9700 Pro, and 512 PC2700 Corsair XMS. I run Far Cry at max details, no AA or AF, 1024x768 with no chugging at all.

I'm not going to upgrade for D3 or HL2.

 

[Electric Amish]

Originally posted by: glen
any other opinions?

Yes.

Why do you need to run a game at 100 fps??

As long as your minimum doesn't fall below ~60fps you should be fine.

 

[fredtam]

I don't think the CPU speed is going to have a large effect on HL2. Any above a 2.4c should be fine since it will be more of GPU intensive. Doom3 may see larger gains based on processor speed in comparison. Both will require high end graphics cards for all the eyecandy but will be playable on lower end cards. I would dump money into the video card when they are released and hold off on the CPU. I doubt anything will be pushing 100FPS with eyecandy provided the games actually hit the shelves in the next two years.

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: glen
any other opinions?

Yes.

Why do you need to run a game at 100 fps??

As long as your minimum doesn't fall below ~60fps you should be fine.

I agree.
But, generally to get 60FPS min, you need 100FPS average.

 

[Sid59]

my system used to be so kick ass .. now it sucks ass.