AMD good enough for HL2's graphics?

meh, i'm not gonna even bother with this thread any more, too many guys just mouthing off without any real knowing of what they're saying

and to the guy who said he notices a 3-5 FPS difference.... above 30 FPS, i can barely tell if there's an 8-10 FSP difference, i find it very unlikely you can see a 3-5
 
Just thought I would mention the there are new 1.2gig FSB mother boards comming out soon for Intel. I think at the moment Intel is the clear choice if you have the money.
 
My old specs -
I have no idea of the mobo
P1 166MHZ
16MB PC66 RAM
2Mb Intergrated Video Card

Current Specs -
I have no idea of the mobo
P3 1GHZ
256MB PC100 RAM
64MB GeForce4 MX-440 SE (i don't have a AGP slot so it's the best i can do)

Specs i'll have in 2-3 months (i'm building it myself :) )
ASUS nForce 2 chipset board
Athlon XP 2600+
512MB PC3200 DDRAM
128MB ATI RADEON 9600

guess the buying year of each PC and i'll give u a cookie!
 
get da 9900. Actually its just the 9800 pro with a higher clocking. other than that absolutely no new features. But its gonna ship with hl2 bundled with it. If you got the money, the 9900is your choice...
But for your moneys sake, get the 9800 pro, as soon as the 9900 is out.
 
/me spots sniper from SC in this thread
 
[
Originally posted by freddythefrog
get da 9900. Actually its just the 9800 pro with a higher clocking. other than that absolutely no new features. But its gonna ship with hl2 bundled with it. If you got the money, the 9900is your choice...
But for your moneys sake, get the 9800 pro, as soon as the 9900 is out.
Click to expand...


err....how do you know?



meh, i'm not gonna even bother with this thread any more, too many guys just mouthing off without any real knowing of what they're saying

and to the guy who said he notices a 3-5 FPS difference.... above 30 FPS, i can barely tell if there's an 8-10 FSP difference, i find it very unlikely you can see a 3-5
Click to expand...

you sound like you know as little as most of the other people who have posted in this thread......so i wouldnt talk.

i never said i noticed a 3-5 fps differance......read it again. above 20-40 fps ....it wouldnt matter if it were 1000fps....but anyway ..thats not what i said .

here ill make it easy.....

this is what i said.

"I garaun-mother****ing-ty i could tell the differance between a 2800+ and a new 2.8c with 800mhz fsb ........"

and i also said this

"the 2.6c is faster than the 2800+ ..not by a damn lot ..but will get you 3-5 more fps in most games......."

where did i say...that i could notice 3-5 more fps in a game(after 30 fps)???
 
sorry, jesus, i read your post too fast, misintereperated it

now, i base my statements on hours upon hours of research and experience, you wanna challenge my knowledge on the subject, go right ahead, i'll not stop you

the reason for my statement was the posts that seemed to be nothing but the misguided opinion of an Intel or AMD fanboy, if you don't see that, well, too bad
 
I don't normally post here and I certainly don't have anything of value to add to this thread, but I must say: This thread is just teeming with idiots who don't know what the **** they're talking about. The first page of this thread is just astounding, I couldn't believe what I was reading. If you're seriously looking for computer advice, get as far away from this forum as you can and go check out a reputable computer hardware froum.

As for which processor is better. Who the **** cares? Either high end chip, be it AMD or Intel, will run hl2 fine.

*Is it really necessary to censor every god damn cuss word? =/ HOW ELSE AM I SUPPOSE TO SHOW MY OUTRAGE AT THESE PEOPLE'S IGNORANCE?
 
2500+ will be more than enough. HL2 taxes the graphics card, not so much the CPU. See Ace's Hardware for an analysis of 3DMark03 where they show that in most game tests a Pentium II 350 MHz with a Radeon 9700 Pro beats a Pentium 4 2.8 GHz using a Radeon 9600! 3DMark03 supposedly shows how current and future games play on your hardware.

So the absolutly most important factors in building a HL2 machine is getting a good enough graphics card. The CPU to drive just has to be fairly modern, not the most expensive ones. A better hint is to make sure you have 512 MB RAM to avoid any ´disk swapping due to game size.
 
3D Mark 2003 will (if your card supports DX9 and 2.0 pixel/vertex shaders) leave almost all of the work for the video card.
Do not just pick one part of the article and say CPUs don't matter much for games... or did you not look at the benchmarks of the actual games later in the article?
The 350MHz Pentium 2 got beaten to a pulp in every real game.

The problem with using 3D Mark to benchmark gaming computers is that there isn't much for the CPU to do compared to real games... HL2 will have a lot more work for the CPU to handle than 3D Mark.
A game like HL2 has to process inputs, calculate advanced AI, physics, facial animation, etc... also playing online increases the load by adding the processing of network information, lag compensation, voice/text chat, and more.
 
Originally posted by OCybrManO
3D Mark 2003 will (if your card supports DX9 and 2.0 pixel/vertex shaders) leave almost all of the work for the video card.
Do not just pick one part of the article and say CPUs don't matter much for games... or did you not look at the benchmarks of the actual games later in the article?
The 350MHz Pentium 2 got beaten to a pulp in every real game.

The problem with using 3D Mark to benchmark gaming computers is that there isn't much for the CPU to do compared to real games... HL2 will have a lot more work for the CPU to handle than 3D Mark.
A game like HL2 has to process inputs, calculate advanced AI, physics, facial animation, etc... also playing online increases the load by adding the processing of network information, lag compensation, voice/text chat, and more.
Click to expand...

Of course.

But discussing whether an Athlon XP 2500+ or Pentium 4 3.2 GHz will play HL2 better, I think, is a waste of time. Both are good enough to drive a Radeon 9800 Pro, which is what is more important that you have. 9700 class graphics card is a requirement for all the goodies in the visuals of HL2 and any decent x86 CPU sold today is sufficient.
 
Originally posted by A2597
AMD XP 2600+
Radeon 9800np
512 megs DDR pc 2100

IMHO, AMD still kicks Intel, they may be lower megahertz, but intel also uses different standards to measure their mgz, making them appear faster then they are. I WILL say that the top of the line intel beats top of the line AMD (Until the 64 bit proccs are out). But who spends 700$ for a proccessor?!?
Click to expand...

Amen brother!

BTW A2597, we got almost the same specs. Except ofcourse I got 2 sticks of 512 pc 2700 on a NForce2 motherboard - hense TWICE the memory bandwidth of normal boards :dork:
 
Oh, and I paid $260 for my Sapphire Radeon 9800 from Newegg with free shipping. Best fuggin' deal in town.
 
Also, btw, only :imu:'s think that clock speeds are the true measure of cpu strength. Thats like saying whatever car has more cylinders has the most power. It's how EFFICIENT the core is really coupled with clock speed.
 
Buckaroo Banzai, if efficiency was the only thing that mattered AMD would be king... but the fact is that Intel now has faster (better performance, not just higher frequencies) high-end processors for less money (this wasn't true for a while).
I will admit that if AMD could have pushed the Athlons to an ACTUAL 3.2GHz the P4s would have been left in the dust... but they didn't.

I used AMD processors when the speeds were very close (even faster than Intel processors) and they were cheaper... but it's just not the case anymore.

"the top of the line intel beats top of the line AMD (Until the 64 bit proccs are out). But who spends 700$ for a proccessor?!?"
The third fastest P4 beat the fastest Athlon in at least 75% of the tests and it costs less than $275... compared to more than $425 for AMD's best.
Though, I am looking forward to the Athlon 64... it should help solve memory bandwidth bottlenecks and ease the move over to 64-bit computing... I may have to switch back to AMD if it does well.

BTW: 7 1/2... neener neener.
 
woodchipper.jpg
 
Thanks for the input guys.. I got to upgrade from a Athlon XP 2000+. So I wasn't sure witch to buy. Looks like the $90 2500 barton is the way to go.
 
Originally posted by nsxownzme
Thanks for the input guys.. I got to upgrade from a Athlon XP 2000+. So I wasn't sure witch to buy. Looks like the $90 2500 barton is the way to go.
Click to expand...

I would not make that upgrade. The difference between these two CPUs is not very much at all. Save your money and get a $90 CPU in January instead.
 
Originally posted by Pjotr
I would not make that upgrade. The difference between these two CPUs is not very much at all. Save your money and get a $90 CPU in January instead.
Click to expand...

wrong...i just upgraded from a 1900+ to a 2600+...


....dont try and tell me i dont notice a differance


Posted by OCybrManO
"Buckaroo Banzai, if efficiency was the only thing that mattered AMD would be king... but the fact is that Intel now has faster (better performance, not just higher frequencies) high-end processors for less money (this wasn't true for a while).
I will admit that if AMD could have pushed the Athlons to an ACTUAL 3.2GHz the P4s would have been left in the dust... but they didn't.

I used AMD processors when the speeds were very close (even faster than Intel processors) and they were cheaper... but it's just not the case anymore.

"the top of the line intel beats top of the line AMD (Until the 64 bit proccs are out). But who spends 700$ for a proccessor?!?"
The third fastest P4 beat the fastest Athlon in at least 75% of the tests and it costs less than $275... compared to more than $425 for AMD's best.
Though, I am looking forward to the Athlon 64... it should help solve memory bandwidth bottlenecks and ease the move over to 64-bit computing... I may have to switch back to AMD if it does well.

BTW: 7 1/2... neener neener"


This is exactly what i have been saying(or trying to) since the newer generation of p4s.......

I dont care wether amd's cpus are more effecient.......intels newer ones are much faster. ..and the 3.0 is considerably less expensive than a 3200+ and it beats it by a good margin in 99.5% of games and benchmarks....AMDs prices are actaully against it.
 
Intel > amd

Thats mostly true for prices. The barton 2500+ is the bets bang for the buck around as far as cpu's go. AMD try's to keep the core sizes less that 100mm^2, which is part of how they can keep their prices so low. the barton core is 102mm^2, so don't expect the prices on them to drop much more anything before the athlon 64 hits.

Now, for more detail about why amd can run faster at a lower clock rate. Part of it is the fact that AMD uses 9 metal layers in the core (or 10, i can't remember) and intel only uses 6 with the pentium 4's. This leads to more efficent power for the clockrate. However, it also leads to much more heat. Also the barton core has a bigger chache size i do belive.
 
<120-150 = AMD

Anything higher is Intel all of the way, P4C's leave all high end AMD's in the dust and get better overclocking
 
Getting Old

Intel and nVidia are alike,
AMD and ATi are alike.

Intel and nVidia go for clock speed and don't care too much what is accomplishied in each clock cycle

AMD and ATi both have slower clock speeds, but seem to accomplish the same if not a bit less or a bit more. They achive MUCH More per clock cyle than Intel and nVidia, which achive their results through brute force.

Just appreciate the choices, if every body wanted the same thing, apart from the horrible price increases that would be incurred, imagine how boring things would be if everybody was the same. rather than argue, try to embrace.

End of discussion. <-- That's a full stop, means end
 
i have owned both AMD and INTEL cpu's.. and from my experience and obsercations, i feel that the AMD cpu's heat up alot faster than INTEL cpu's.. this is just my personal experience/observation


and btw, about money.. lets all be sorta careful when we say stuff like "who would spend $700 bucks on just a processor?!" because $700 dollars Canadian certainly do not equal to $700 dollars American or Pounds or whatever..

btw, just FYI, $700 dollars Canadian is roughly $500 dollars American

and here in Canada we don't always get all the best brands/models and some times certain things are a bit pricey..

as for online shopping, not everyone is a fan of it.. including me.
 
Re: Getting Old

Originally posted by UDHA
Just appreciate the choices, if every body wanted the same thing, apart from the horrible price increases that would be incurred, imagine how boring things would be if everybody was the same. rather than argue, try to embrace.

End of discussion. <-- That's a full stop, means end
Click to expand...

i liked the way u put the last bit of ur post... it makes sense and doesn't insult anyone or any company :)
 
Originally posted by Dr. Freeman
i have owned both AMD and INTEL cpu's.. and from my experience and obsercations, i feel that the AMD cpu's heat up alot faster than INTEL cpu's.. this is just my personal experience/observation


and btw, about money.. lets all be sorta careful when we say stuff like "who would spend $700 bucks on just a processor?!" because $700 dollars Canadian certainly do not equal to $700 dollars American or Pounds or whatever..

btw, just FYI, $700 dollars Canadian is roughly $500 dollars American

and here in Canada we don't always get all the best brands/models and some times certain things are a bit pricey..

as for online shopping, not everyone is a fan of it.. including me.
Click to expand...

the 800 FSB HT 3.2GHz P4 does cost 700 american
 
Originally posted by Doobz
the 800 FSB HT 3.2GHz P4 does cost 700 american
Click to expand...

yes...but i wasn't talking about that particular piece of machinery.. i was trying to be general about pricing when i posted that.. :)
 
Both AMD and Intel makes great cpus. My bro has a Amd Athlon XP 1800+ @ 1900+, with 512mb DDR 333mhz and a Ati Radeon 32mb sdr. And this comp runs great, he can play most of the latest games with that one. It would't hurt with a better gfx card but it does the job. He gets a constant 100fps when playing hl/cs and he can play gta:vc without any lagg at all.
 
Originally posted by TrueWeltall
Again you get what you pay for AMD is cheap and breaks alot more then Intel cpu's its a fact. Hardocp is a crappy place for benchmark reviews
Click to expand...

Congratulations to TrueWeltall who wins the "I'm the brand name loving dumbass with the unresearched comments" weekly award.

:dozey:
 
Originally posted by D33
Congratulations to TrueWeltall who wins the "I'm the brand name loving dumbass with the unresearched comments" weekly award.

:dozey:
Click to expand...

Look another person who cant face the facts. Here is the worlds smallest violin playing just for you!
 
TrueWeltall, the fact is you don't know what you're talking about

AMDs do not break more often than Intels, they may run hotter because of the 10 layer construction, but they do not break more often, that is unless you try and turn it on without a heatsink *sizzle*
 
If i spent all day on these forums and cared about what you posted i would point you out to the thread where alot of people posted links to amd and their cpu's breaking more then intels.
 
Originally posted by Doobz
TrueWeltall, the fact is you don't know what you're talking about

AMDs do not break more often than Intels, they may run hotter because of the 10 layer construction, but they do not break more often, that is unless you try and turn it on without a heatsink *sizzle*
Click to expand...

The latest P4s produce more heat than any Athlon CPU today, cehck the thermal specs. The Prescott CPUs coming this autumn from Intel has specs over 100 Watts!

Tbred-B/Barton uses 9 layers, I think.
 
Originally posted by Doobz
TrueWeltall, the fact is you don't know what you're talking about

AMDs do not break more often than Intels, they may run hotter because of the 10 layer construction, but they do not break more often, that is unless you try and turn it on without a heatsink *sizzle*
Click to expand...

With TrueWeltall being so slow I can see him doing that tbh.
 
From this day forward I shall not be a complete pratt.

[ EDIT BY D33 : Ta. ]
 
It's one thing being wrong when it's simply a lack of research but it's another when you have several people more clued up on the subject who your ignoring.

Try to listen to the big boys please.
 
either way INTEL wins if you gonna spend 200+ dollars.
 
No, want to spend under 200 dollars...! Video cards cost enough nowadays.
 
something else you might want to consider, the chipset of your mobo matters quite a bit in terms of memory and processor performance, and the AMD processors have the best all around chipset in my opinion with the Nforce2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dekstar
Counter-Strike: GOing Deep - Part 1
Replies
17
Views
5K
Ennui
Ennui
Warped
The Witcher: Enhanced Edition for....
Replies
29
Views
2K
Laivasse
Laivasse
Terminator
Time for a new build!
Replies
11
Views
1K
Ren.182
Ren.182
Man|-|unter
Intel vs AMD - Integrated graphics shoot-out
Replies
2
Views
535
operative x
operative x
S
guess I need a processer upgrade..
Replies
2
Views
395
colonelkadaffy
C
Back
Top