Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Originally posted by: mwmorph
In most games, with your cpu and gpu combo, a amd64 athalon 3500+ will be between 15-40% faster in newer games like BF2 and Farcry at 1280x1024.
How about NO.
Battlefield 2
F.E.A.R.
COD2
Quake 4
Serious Sam 2
If you have CPU faster than P4 3.0, CPU speed between AMD and Intel is actually a lot closer than people on these forums believe since 90% of all new games are GPU limited. How so, because you dont buy a 7800GTX or X1800XT to play at 1024x768 where you actually expose the huge advantage of an A64 system. You will ideally (if not limited by monitor resolution) want to tax your videocard to the max, while having playability => at which point CPU speed will not have an effect.
You should benchmark some games (demos) to see if everything is in line.
OP, you should check if you have settings in ATI control panel set to Performance, no AA, no AF enabled.
1. JUST 1280x1024 none of this aa/af and it's clear the pd 820 loses out to about 20-40% slower.
2. youre trying ot debunk what i say but selectively leaving out the review link and providing your own with a different test situation! It's a different card, different tests!
here's the rest of my post
1. yes it wil limit game performance. there are almost no reviews for 830s but many for 820s and at Tbreak, with a 7800gtx, they still only scored 6500 in 3dmark05 so the ORB results are confirmed. In most games, with your cpu and gpu combo, a amd64 athalon 3500+ will be between 15-40% faster in newer games like BF2 and Farcry at 1280x1024. so instead of say 73fps, you might get 62 or 65fps average. it;s still playable and enjoyable by far, just that you are being limited by your cpu. a weaker 6800gs would've been a better pairing of value and performance.
a better question will be if it will affect your gaming enjoyment?. to that, i would say not too much. the games still run at good framerates and the difference between say 170fps and 110fps isnt noticible to normal people. it really more affects your price/performance value standpoint seeing as you overspent by around $300 on the video card.
here's the review
http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?cat=cpu&id=391&pagenumber=4
Games certainly dont take advantage of dual-core CPUs at the moment. We also know that the Athlon64 performs very well in games and putting that two things together, even though we're using 1280x1024 resolution where the graphics card play a reasonable role, the 820 doesnt come out as the best CPU to play games on. However, by no means is the 820 slow in games as all the above games are posting very much over the suggested 60fps except for Far Cry which is almost there as well,
The 3500+ wins every test against a 820d from 19% to 39% in high end gaming. It wins 3dmark05 at 16% and Aquamark at 15%
The PD830 isnt much different save for a 200mhz clock bump that helps alleviatr it a little. only problem is there are are a dearth PD830 reviews.
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Originally posted by: mwmorph
I was just looking up the Futuremark ORB results and the 2 people with intel dualcores get 6488 on the 3ghz dualcore and 6243 on the 2.8ghz dualcore with x1800s.
Switching over to 7800gtx results, 6721 at 3.2ghz, 6849 at 3.011ghz, 6887 at 3ghz, 6939 at 3.0ghz, 7135 at 3.36ghz and 7198 at 3.2ghz and 8434 at 3.2ghz. Everyone has 2gigs of ram except for 1 that has 1 gig and these are all the default settings.
it's not a card issue op, your cpu just sucks. sorry you spent so much on it.
How do you know those X1800 cards were X1800XT and NOT
X1800XL? futuremark does not specify that unless the user who posted their scores does. Neither of the users said their card is X1800
XT.
Actually both scores of 6243 and 6488 say the video memory is
256mb. So your comparison of those scores to 7800GTX is somewhat unfair in the first place as well as your conclusions that it's his CPU that is slow since the scores only refer to X1800XL cards which score near 7000.....and tell us nothing about what Pentium D with X1800XT should achieve. Sounds like the OP should try checking settings and reinstalling to new drivers or other versions -> or simply benchmark with games.
omfg i'm not trying to compare video cards! I'm just stating that his cpu max 3dmark05 score should only be in that range and everyone else with top of the line or near top of the line video cards are only getting scores in that range. The 3dmark score is fine. it's normal and repeatable with top of the line cards couple with that processor. I'm sorry ot dump it on you but the cpu limits you in this POS benchmark.
Im saying 3 things.
1. 3dmark is a bad bench of gpu speeds since the top of the line gpus are cpu bound at default tests.
2. it wont affect the gameplay much(who the ****** cares about 160 v.s. 120 fps?) but it will be slower at 12x10 noaa/af as done in the reviews.
3. X1800xl and xt are same except for a clock bump genius and even a x1800xl is enough to get more than a 6900 in 3dmark. I'm just showing his results are normal!
please stop trying to debunk my freaking posts! If you just read more into it and sytopped jumping to conclusions. I do not favor any companies. Intel is fine as is AMD just that each has it's own applications.
and op, give up nothing is wrong with your system or drivers. Your score is fine and it's not going to rise unless you overclock your cpu.
Facebook
Twitter