Pentium 4's with HT. Since apps are now multithreaded, does it help a lot now?

[0roo0roo]

My P4 2.4C cannot even maintain a minimum 60 fps in UT99 (Now a 11 year old game) with full bots. Now imagine it running newer games...

no kidding, i had a pentium d that could barely decode 1080p, over two cores. a pentium single core would just get rocked by anything modern. not sure what the exact equivalent would be but a pentium d could get rocked by an original core 2 at about 2ghz. never mind i5 and such. and those were all true dual cores, a mere 10% improvement is nothing from ht, thats a nice little efficiency improvement but its nothing compared to an actual second core. for games? hell no, if a 3ghz p3 is about a 2ghz core 2 or less, thats not sufficient for even old games like team fortress 2, it would be a bottleneck.

 

[0roo0roo]

I seriously doubt you are averaging 50 fps with that 2.8 P4 when techreport got just 32fps with a 3.8 P4 and gtx260. I doubt turning any cpu related settings down would get them to 50fps even with the 3.8 P4 so I just dont see it possible with a 2.8 P4. http://techreport.com/articles.x/18448/8

ouch yea
its just bad at any reasonable settings. the other guy was setting the graphics so low that its just too ugly to play
even with multi thread support team fortress 2 on a lower end core 2 would dip into yellow framerates in busy areas. Big difference between silky smooth and getting by.

 

[wirednuts]

arent there dual core pentium 4's too? pentium-d's? i just sold a 940, which was dual 3.2ghz with ht... was actually a nice chip but yuck on the power draw. no speedstepping either, so full blast all the time. and to think i used it for a server chip; probably cost me $50 over a few months just to idle.

 

[toyota]

arent there dual core pentium 4's too? pentium-d's? i just sold a 940, which was dual 3.2ghz with ht... was actually a nice chip but yuck on the power draw. no speedstepping either, so full blast all the time. and to think i used it for a server chip; probably cost me $50 over a few months just to idle.

the 940 is a 3.2 Pentium D which yes is just two P4s on the same die. the Pentium D cpus do NOT have HT though so you are mistaken there.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

the 940 is a 3.2 Pentium D which yes is just two P4s on the same die. the Pentium D cpus do NOT have HT though so you are mistaken there.

the p4d-ee was a dual core w/ ht, iirc

 

[toyota]

the p4d-ee was a dual core w/ ht, iirc

no the 940 was a 3.2 Pentium D like I said and none of the Pentium D cpus had HT.

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=27519

 

[jimmyparky]

It is always my graphics card that leaves me hanging.

 

[bunit]

ouch yea
its just bad at any reasonable settings. the other guy was setting the graphics so low that its just too ugly to play
even with multi thread support team fortress 2 on a lower end core 2 would dip into yellow framerates in busy areas. Big difference between silky smooth and getting by.

How was I setting the settings too low?
1) The res is completely playable @ 1680x1050. 1280x800 is a fair bit lower for optimal performance, but judging by my benchmarks I can probably game comfortably @ 1440x.
2) Textures were on HIGH, Specular/Normal map which don't make a huge difference in the first place were on low. I'm sure I could turn them up I just choose not to to stay competitive in online MP, I haven't really tinkered extensively with the settings + frame rates at all.

either way I'm clearly getting averaging above 50 frames at both 1280x800 + 1680x1050 by turning down some "cpu-related settings", so yes, the game is playable to say the least. My KD jumped from a horrible .8 (first entry in CoD series for me) to a 1.8 after switching from a HP dv2 laptop to my current (6+ year old) desktop solution. A lot of that was due to higher consistent frames. I haven't even really tinkered to with the settings to get the highest visual quality/frame rate combination because I haven't even bothered to since it's OK for me now.

I'm not expecting anything amazing - I've played the same game countless times on my friend's GTX260/quadcore rig and the experience is similiar, obviously he is able to turn on vsync so that makes it better + all the eye candy and stuff. But that's not the point.

The OP asked whether or not you people could possibly play games ("on low") on their aging dells with HT P4s with the addition of cheap AGP graphics cards around the 3650 level, and while my 4650 is a tad better, the answer to that is still YES, THEY CAN. I"m using an aging COMPAQ thats at least 6+ years old. You can even turn the settings up (Read: high/low/med combination) on certain modern games.

 

[toyota]

How was I setting the settings too low?
1) The res is completely playable @ 1680x1050. 1280x800 is a fair bit lower for optimal performance, but judging by my benchmarks I can probably game comfortably @ 1440x.
2) Textures were on HIGH, Specular/Normal map which don't make a huge difference in the first place were on low. I'm sure I could turn them up I just choose not to to stay competitive in online MP, I haven't really tinkered extensively with the settings + frame rates at all.

either way I'm clearly getting averaging above 50 frames at both 1280x800 + 1680x1050 by turning down some "cpu-related settings", so yes, the game is playable to say the least. My KD jumped from a horrible .8 (first entry in CoD series for me) to a 1.8 after switching from a HP dv2 laptop to my current (6+ year old) desktop solution. A lot of that was due to higher consistent frames. I haven't even really tinkered to with the settings to get the highest visual quality/frame rate combination because I haven't even bothered to since it's OK for me now.

I'm not expecting anything amazing - I've played the same game countless times on my friend's GTX260/quadcore rig and the experience is similiar, obviously he is able to turn on vsync so that makes it better + all the eye candy and stuff. But that's not the point.

The OP asked whether or not you people could possibly play games ("on low") on their aging dells with HT P4s with the addition of cheap AGP graphics cards around the 3650 level, and while my 4650 is a tad better, the answer to that is still YES, THEY CAN. I"m using an aging COMPAQ thats at least 6+ years old. You can even turn the settings up (Read: high/low/med combination) on certain modern games.

I guess its hard to believe how many of those settings actually had a huge impact on cpu performance. a lot of times people with a really poky cpu think getting a new gpu will allow them to crank settings when in reality many of those settings actually depend on their cpu too. GTA 4 for instance is playable on lower settings with a low end dual core cpu but once you turn up some settings you really need a fast dual core or better to keep the framerates up.

I do hate to tell you but many games would not be playable on a P4 even on lower settings. I know Assassins Creed 1 and 2, Red Faction Guerrilla, Bad Company 2, Metro 2033, Anno 1404, ARMA 2, Ghostbusters and GTA 4 are some that would not stand a chance.

 

[bunit]

Yeah, I agree with you.
MW2 seems to be an exception is all. GTA4 is definitely CPU-heavy though.
I was just trying to make a point, because people kept on doubting me.

I think people will mostly be safe playing games where the minimum recommended processor is a P4 (or lower lolol), but other then that no go. It's a guessing game basically.

And I updated one of my older posts with a 1680x1050 screenshot @ underpass that I think actually looks pretty decent, MW2 was never a pretty game in stills to begin with, but yeah. The one on Quarry was surprisingly bad.

WHAT DOES suck though is that, with the lack of dedicated servers, I NEVER get host online because of my P4 hahaha.
I'm still in high school and today I went to the school library for the first time in a while only to find out that even they had upgraded to core 2's....
-_-

edit// here is the better-looking SS again

 

[Avalon]

Had a P4 3.4 system w/HT that took DDR2 and PCI-express at work. We popped in 2GB of RAM, a 160GB Seagate 7200.10 drive, and a Radeon 5670 in there, and it was running Bioshock at 1280x1024 on a 19" LCD like a dream.

Was fun

 

[toyota]

Had a P4 3.4 system w/HT that took DDR2 and PCI-express at work. We popped in 2GB of RAM, a 160GB Seagate 7200.10 drive, and a Radeon 5670 in there, and it was running Bioshock at 1280x1024 on a 19" LCD like a dream.

Was fun

yeah thats not a very demanding game and at 1280 a 5670 can easily max the game out. it would certainly be a little smoother with a dual core instead of that P4 though.

 

[0roo0roo]

How was I setting the settings too low?
1) The res is completely playable @ 1680x1050. 1280x800 is a fair bit lower for optimal performance, but judging by my benchmarks I can probably game comfortably @ 1440x.
2) Textures were on HIGH, Specular/Normal map which don't make a huge difference in the first place were on low. I'm sure I could turn them up I just choose not to to stay competitive in online MP, I haven't really tinkered extensively with the settings + frame rates at all.

I guess you have different standards. First of all non native on such a low native resolution screen is already heavily degrading your graphics. With all the textures on high your image quality is still garbage. The aliasing in your screen shots is just awful, it reduces the perceived resolution yet another notch below 1280x800. i don't know if you have aniscopic filtering on either. It doesn't look like it, while you claim its ok, it looks like counterstrike pre source resolution textures regardless of how you claimed to have set your texture setting. I guess you have to experience it or something, but without 16x aniscopic any high texture setting becomes pointless, only the stuff thats within the bottom two inches of your screen will be anywhere near sharp without it, the rest a muddy mess.

either way I'm clearly getting averaging above 50 frames at both 1280x800 + 1680x1050 by turning down some "cpu-related settings", so yes, the game is playable to say the least. My KD jumped from a horrible .8 (first entry in CoD series for me) to a 1.8 after switching from a HP dv2 laptop to my current (6+ year old) desktop solution. A lot of that was due to higher consistent frames. I haven't even really tinkered to with the settings to get the highest visual quality/frame rate combination because I haven't even bothered to since it's OK for me now.

I'm not expecting anything amazing - I've played the same game countless times on my friend's GTX260/quadcore rig and the experience is similiar, obviously he is able to turn on vsync so that makes it better + all the eye candy and stuff. But that's not the point.

The OP asked whether or not you people could possibly play games ("on low") on their aging dells with HT P4s with the addition of cheap AGP graphics cards around the 3650 level, and while my 4650 is a tad better, the answer to that is still YES, THEY CAN. I"m using an aging COMPAQ thats at least 6+ years old. You can even turn the settings up (Read: high/low/med combination) on certain modern games.

Sure you "can" but i'm just not sure its worth it when to play a modern game you have to reduce it to a level where it looks worse than old games.

 

[bunit]

I'm going to have to disagree with the looks worse than old games because I also play CS Source on the same setup @ 1680x1050 regularly, but to each his own I guess.

I don't know if you looked at the newer MW2 screenshot @ native (1680x1050) but that one looks significantly better than the one at 1280x800 in my opinion. Textures do look surprisingly crappy close up though on that 1280x800 shot, its definitely not a flattering shot to say the least.

MW2 doesn't offer any sort of AA except for basic AA in 2x/4x flavors - its by no means a technical masterpiece. So..

And please. CS pre source? Lol. Come on now.
Point is I spent $90 (PSU/GPU) to be able to play a few games that I enjoy on an aging P4 machine, because I wasn't going to upgrade anytime soon (plan to build a whole new rig in July).