-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
How fast are CPUs now?
- Thread starter glen
- Start date
GagHalfrunt
Lifer
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.
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
Diamond Member
You're not really a lifer asking this question are you?
RagingBITCH
Lifer
What do you have now? Your video card would seemingly make more of a difference.
RagingBITCH
Lifer
I think that TI4200 would hurt you a lot more than your CPU would. 2.09GHz is still pretty good for an AMD.
Electric Amish
Elite Member
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 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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
