• 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.

I backed off for way too long.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Zebo
You really never said how much you want to spend.

What's funny is with a underclocked 1.6 Ghz Al-AMD X2 chip everything is playable at highest res with a decent card. Thats an underclocked chip! Yours is 100% faster! However, throw a 7900 GTX in a 4ghz Napalm and it won't be any faster at the res your monitor demands. It will crawl compared to a 1.6 Ghz AMD with GTX 280.

I don't believe 'balanced' systems absolutely must be fulfilled like so many here do. Fact is most of us have a budget or just want to replenish our bankrupt 401K's while the price is low, anyway, you have to make sacrifices and the very first should be CPU upgrades because a year newer video card will give tremendous bang (usually double) for the buck while a year newer processor is barley noticed.

Anyway if your budget is $100 the 9800 GT will provide the most bang for the buck.

If it's $150 the 4850 1GB will do it.

If it's $200 the 260 GTX will.

If it's $ 250 I'd take a hard look at the 4870 512MB before having to have the expensive 1GB version.
Click to expand...

right, thx for you're input alb-late. hehe, The 4870 512 vtek, is coming TOMORROW. woooooo, gonna camp out in front of my door. hehe

I don't have 401ks, but i've been doing forex since age 16, and Been working with yen recently,, 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Please. C2D only has a 20% performance advantage per clock and it's not like it translates 100% in games which are video defendant.
Click to expand...

Not all games are video dependant. To give an extreme example... how much better will SupCom play on Calculator83's computer after the video card upgrade versus before the upgrade?
 
Originally posted by: Calculator83
What now peeps,, these reviews clearly show that you're precious c2d gives you a m00t 10 frames top on a 280.
Click to expand...

His link had no, as in zero, single core processors. That means you'll need to divide the score of the X2 5600 in half, to see what framerates you'll be getting.😉
 
Originally posted by: myocardia
Originally posted by: Calculator83
What now peeps,, these reviews clearly show that you're precious c2d gives you a m00t 10 frames top on a 280.
Click to expand...

His link had no, as in zero, single core processors. That means you'll need to divide the score of the X2 5600 in half, to see what framerates you'll be getting.😉
Click to expand...

I know Some of you are just kidding, and some of ya, trying hard to be dicks and justify you're e-penis investments. LOL, but common dude.
 
Originally posted by: Zap
Originally posted by: Calculator83
Also, 2.9ghz opteron single is still like a 6ghz p4
Click to expand...

And like a 1.2GHz Core 2 Duo.
Click to expand...

hahah, in games C2D was not that a big an impact i do agree that added L2 works wonder in some games but for that you freq. Maybe a 2.2 for a 2.9 opteron....!!


"BTW also see results of 2.0 turion "new" vs C2D's 5xxx in games...."
 
Originally posted by: ajaidevsingh
Originally posted by: Zap
Originally posted by: Calculator83
Also, 2.9ghz opteron single is still like a 6ghz p4
Click to expand...

And like a 1.2GHz Core 2 Duo.
Click to expand...

hahah, in games C2D was not that a big an impact i do agree that added L2 works wonder in some games but for that you freq. Maybe a 2.2 for a 2.9 opteron....!!


"BTW also see results of 2.0 turion "new" vs C2D's 5xxx in games...."
Click to expand...

Wheres, that?
 
We have a happy gamer. Clearly DMC4 runs fine with a single core CPU. Surprised you didn't shoot for the 1GB card with your ultra-res, but no doubt you have good fps/$.
 
Originally posted by: betasub
We have a happy gamer. Clearly DMC4 runs fine with a single core CPU. Surprised you didn't shoot for the 1GB card with your ultra-res, but no doubt you have good fps/$.
Click to expand...

Pshh, nawh, This card was 246 after shipping+ tax, no rebates 🙂 .

I'll just drop the AA if anything happens.

I think rebates is the gay, it's letting them borrow money at 0 interest, why should I do that.

This card should last me 1.5 years for sure, I'm not chasing the cutting edge no more, by the time you get your packages you're already behind.
 
Congrats man - great choice. Glad to hear even at that resolution you can still turn AA on just fine. That is why I continuously post how at 1920x1200 this 512MB card plays everything but Crysis just fine with AA/AF and NO NEED to go to 1 GB at all.
 
Originally posted by: deerhunter716
Congrats man - great choice. Glad to hear even at that resolution you can still turn AA on just fine. That is why I continuously post how at 1920x1200 this 512MB card plays everything but Crysis just fine with AA/AF and NO NEED to go to 1 GB at all.
Click to expand...

I hear that Grid needs 1gb, so, I'm hoping turning AA off for grid @ 25x16 is enough
 
True and let me edit to be exact; it plays ALL of my games such as Warhammer Online, COD4, etc. just fine. Cannot beat the $$ for that performance.
 
Bottlenecking schmodlenecking 😛:thumbsup: New cpu's, ram type, motherboards, etc are insignificant compared to a new video cards dramatic change. Lots of people don't like hearing they are saps hence the resistance that you to dare to grace their cards presence with your 'inferior' hardware..
 
zebo... i parroted that the GPU is what matters... and then I saw again and again where the CPU or ram is what matters and not the GPU. GENERALLY the GPU makes a better upgrade, but depending on the exact CPU / RAM / GPU and the type of game it could very well go the other way. People took the "gpu matters more" lesson too far and are now downplaying the CPU.
 
I'm not downplaying the CPU I'm just having some fun above there...- I understand the value but I also understand I won't play anything made today with a 6800 GTX and a 4Ghz C2D. While at the same time I could underclock to 1.8Ghz and play everything fine on a 280 GTX.

All the CPU scaling articles show that basically any CPU made in the last 4 years, let alone a 2.9Ghz A64, is playable with the best video card. The opposite doesn't hold true.

Ideally of course you want both system and card to match. But when other priorities conflict - card is still best bang for the buck.
 
I won't play anything made today with a 6800 GTX and a 4Ghz C2D
Click to expand...
Correct
While at the same time I could underclock to 1.8Ghz and play everything fine on a 280 GTX.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree, plenty of games you can not get playable FPS on with processors so slow, or playable load times (if you stare at loading screens more then you actually play, then something is really wrong).

All the CPU scaling articles show that basically any CPU made in the last 4 years, let alone a 2.9Ghz A64, is playable with the best video card. The opposite doesn't hold true.
Click to expand...
No they don't all show that, any series one I have seen show it to be false. And me and others have personally benchmarked it to be false on many games.

Anyways, we have a case here of paying 250$ for a video card... with an ANCIENT processor. I would have put 150$ on a video card (for a 20% slower vid card) and 150$ on a CPU. or even 70$ on CPU and 70$ on a ram upgrade (get 4GB)... And I can guarantee you that a single core slow CPU with a 4870 is not going to hold a candle to a modern dual core with a 4850 and 4GB of DDR2-800 ram.
 
from the review you posted:
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=775&p=10
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=775&p=14
And that is the AVERAGE FPS not the min... dropping from 56 fps to 36? tsk.

And those are still all modern dual cores, not an ancient single core. And all running at DDR3 speeds, not DDR1.

You said
All the CPU scaling articles show that basically any CPU made in the last 4 years, let alone a 2.9Ghz A64, is playable with the best video card.
Click to expand...
No, they show that if you downclock a spanking new modern CPU to 1.6 ghz you could maintain almost the same FPS in SOME games... while completely tanking in other games... and I am quite certain the a 2.9ghz single core athlon with DDR1 ram does not perform as well as a dual core 1.6ghz core2duo with DDR3.

every game also has a specific point at which FPS suddenly takes a nose dive. so once it starts going down, it goes down much faster.

AND you specifically said ANY CPU from the last 4 years.. I gotta tell you, a 2.9ghz A64 is pretty good for the last 4 whole years, there are much worse you could find from 4 years ago.
 
Ok, Just installed Grid applied 1.2 patch. NO GO, It runs at around 30 fps at 25x16 noaa, but at points on the track the game just freezes, and starts up again, and then freeze and starts back up. I changed the resolution to 19x12, same thing happens at the same point on the track.

Now I put the res to 16x10, and I'm able to go through further into the race, but eventually it'll do the stop go thing.

Do I not have enough ram or something? whats going on.
 
Originally posted by: taltamir

No they don't all show that, any series one I have seen show it to be false. And me and others have personally benchmarked it to be false on many games.

Anyways, we have a case here of paying 250$ for a video card... with an ANCIENT processor. I would have put 150$ on a video card (for a 20% slower vid card) and 150$ on a CPU. or even 70$ on CPU and 70$ on a ram upgrade (get 4GB)... And I can guarantee you that a single core slow CPU with a 4870 is not going to hold a candle to a modern dual core with a 4850 and 4GB of DDR2-800 ram.
Click to expand...

Show me the article.
 
not when it drops you from 34 to 16fps. and again, those are still much better then the worst processor produced 4 years ago. Not to mention this is average, not min FPS...

And those are not the most CPU intensive games out there...

Try running flight sim X, half life2, oblivion, or mass effect on one of those suckers.

I haven't seen anyone who uses a underclocked modern CPU with DDR3 ram...
Or DDR2-1066... Typically old processors are less efficient per mhz, and coupled with DDR1 ram and less of it as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top