Half-Life 2 on AMD or Intel?

B

bullteef

Guest
This might be off topic or something... I don't care. Which CPU did/will you choose when you upgrade(d) for HL2?
 
Cybernoid said:
The type of CPU makes no difference in games.
Click to expand...


Um... FSB... cache's.. overall architecture... yeah.. cpus do make differences in games.

You won't see Valve running HL2 at E3 on a Celeron processor.
 
Cybernoid said:
The type of CPU makes no difference in games.
Click to expand...

well currently amd's 64 bit cpu's are the fastest cpu's for gaming, so yes it makes a difference (how much of a difference, and if it's appreciable in gameplay is another story).

[edit]

in addition, now-a-days the cpu is the biggest bottleneck for gamers, the videocards have plenty of power but most of the time it's held back by the cpu.
 
I'd go AMD, its faster at all games. Well the FX models are. Last year I bought a AthlonXP2600+, Nforce2, Radeon 9800Pro, and 512 MB of RAM, for $550. And it outperforms my friends 2.6Ghz P4, Radeon9800Pro, 512 MB RAM Dell that cost him $2700. You can't beat AMD's price/performance ratio. Plus their performance is top notch.
 
so is it worth goin 64bit now? or will 32bit be in for a while ? i don't want to spend £150 on a processor that'll be obsolete by 64bit chips anytime soon
 
I'd go AMD. I have an Athlon 64 bit 3000+ and I couldn't be happier with it.
 
The Athlon64 2800+ is suppose to be faster than the XP 3200+ and its cheaper (~$150 on newegg). If I was upgrading I'd go 64bit. But 32bit-ers will always work.
 
Headwires said:
so is it worth goin 64bit now? or will 32bit be in for a while ? i don't want to spend £150 on a processor that'll be obsolete by 64bit chips anytime soon
Click to expand...

The 64 bit processors are stupidly fast and some of the best processors avilable today, so you'd be getting your money's worth at least. Of course, if you waited until next year, the ones available now will be a lot cheaper, just not the best on the market anymore. The best processors available will always be expensive.
 
alehm said:
Um... FSB... cache's.. overall architecture... yeah.. cpus do make differences in games.

You won't see Valve running HL2 at E3 on a Celeron processor.
Click to expand...

CPUs doesn't give or take any features like display adapters. Therefore it doesn't matter.
 
Cybernoid said:
CPUs doesn't give or take any features like display adapters. Therefore it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

You are stupidly ignorant, don't post if you have NO idea what you are talking about... which, in this case is obvious for you.

Yes, AMD64's are faster than P4's for gaming, and no a 2800+ is not faster than a 3200+... where do you people come up with these things?
 
Cybernoid said:
CPUs doesn't give or take any features like display adapters. Therefore it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Where are you pulling this stuff from? They don't make a differenve in graphics, but that isn't the only factor in video games. An AMD 64-bit processor is going to be a LOT better than a Pentium 4 with the same clock speed (hell, even the 32-bit processors run faster), and because of this games will run faster. They may not look better, but you'll certainly get better fps etc.
 
On the topic of Athlon 64, do you suppose its worth paying more for the 3500 just because its 939 pin and supports dual DDR instead of buying the much cheaper 3400 which actually scores higher in games because it has twice the L2 cache that the 3500 has but has a practically obsolote pin config and is therefore not upgradable?
<hope I'm understood>
 
if i didn't have an overclocked mobile athlon, id have an a64 because many are overclocking their a64 3000+'s to 2.4 or 2.5ghz(more than 3800+ PR rating) .good chips.
 
Yes, if you are going to upgrade go with 939 pin, because they will not be upgrading (3400+) 734? pins. It looks like 939 is the future.
 
Im skipping upating with these new graphics cards. Im gonna update come december with an FX-55 and whatever the new generation of cards are.
 
KagePrototype said:
Where are you pulling this stuff from?
Click to expand...

The real world.

An AMD 64-bit processor is going to be a LOT better than a Pentium 4 with the same clock speed (hell, even the 32-bit processors run faster), and because of this games will run faster.
Click to expand...

It still doesn't make the game any different, it only affects speed. Benchmarks are largely subjective anyway. Some people swear on their mother's grave that 6800 > X800 and some people are convinced that it's the opposite. And so on.
 
Cybernoid said:
It still doesn't make the game any different, it only affects speed.
Click to expand...

Speed is a huge factor in enjoying games, so it DOES matter, contrary to your previous statement that CPUs don't matter unless they add features to the game. you can have the greatest graphics card in the world, but if you're running it at 3fps because of your rubbish processor, you're not going to have a lot of fun are you? To say that processors don't matter is like saying that HL2 will run just as well as on a Celeron 333Mhz as a Pentium 4 running at 2Ghz.
 
KagePrototype said:
The 64 bit processors are stupidly fast and some of the best processors avilable today, so you'd be getting your money's worth at least. Of course, if you waited until next year, the ones available now will be a lot cheaper, just not the best on the market anymore. The best processors available will always be expensive.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't software have to be optimized to take advantage of 64 bit processors? Without the optimization, isn't a 64 bit processor pretty much the same as a 32 bit one? So far 64 bit processing has not taken off, and to be honest, I don't really see it happening. I would think that dual 32 bit processors would be better than a 64 bit processor. What exactly is the advantage of having a register of 64 bits as opposed to 32? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to be a smartass.
 
Cybernoid, honestly, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't post in a hardware related thread. You are full of shit.
 
benchmarks from reputable hardware sites aren't subjective. numbers are numbers.
 
Cybernoid said:
It still doesn't make the game any different, it only affects speed.
Click to expand...

First you say "It makes no difference in games"
Now you say "It only affects speed."

Thanks for confirming what we were saying all along when we said you were wrong. But you are back peddling saying that a CPU "doesn't make the game any different" a refute to an arguement that doesn't exist in this thread. So.. you win that imaginary arguement.

If you had bothered to click the link I posted:

Pentium 4 2.8 Ghz Prescott Core - 347.2 FPS Quake 3 1024x768
Celeron 2.8 GHz Prescott Core- 298.7 FPS Quake 3 1024x768
Celeron 2.8 GHz Northbridge Core- 192.1 FPS Quake 3 1024x768

3 different processors... running at the same speed producing a wide range of FPS. Which shows that a CPU can affect the performance of a game.

Henceforth, when the original poster asked what CPU someone would use with HL2 it is obvious your statement that a CPU will have no difference is false underscored by you later comment that is does.
 
KagePrototype said:
Speed is a huge factor in enjoying games, so it DOES matter, contrary to your previous statement that CPUs don't matter unless they add features to the game. you can have the greatest graphics card in the world, but if you're running it at 3fps because of your rubbish processor, you're not going to have a lot of fun are you? To say that processors don't matter is like saying that HL2 will run just as well as on a Celeron 333Mhz as a Pentium 4 running at 2Ghz.
Click to expand...

Choosing between a Pentium 4 and an AMD 64 is a matter of preference. Therefore it doesn't matter which cpu you use for Half-Life 2.

iamaelephant said:
Cybernoid, honestly, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't post in a hardware related thread. You are full of shit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, f-ck you too.
 
kaellinn18 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't software have to be optimized to take advantage of 64 bit processors? Without the optimization, isn't a 64 bit processor pretty much the same as a 32 bit one? So far 64 bit processing has not taken off, and to be honest, I don't really see it happening. I would think that dual 32 bit processors would be better than a 64 bit processor. What exactly is the advantage of having a register of 64 bits as opposed to 32? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to be a smartass.
Click to expand...

I personally don't know the technical specifics, all I have to judge from are benchmarks and people's opinions. And as far as I can tell, they give a lot more performance, especially when you get up into FX-53 territory.

Choosing between a Pentium 4 and an AMD 64 is a matter of preference.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it isn't (even though, as far as I can tell, the 64 bit processors are better overall). I'm challenging your statement that CPUs don't matter, which is rubbish.
 
KagePrototype said:
I'm not saying it isn't. I'm challenging your statement that CPUs don't matter, which is rubbish.
Click to expand...

You're comparing Celerons with 64-bit processors, I'm not.
 
Cybernoid said:
You're comparing Celerons with 64-bit processors, I'm not.
Click to expand...

I was trying to make a point, that the CPU does matter. Why must you constanly try to avoid the argument?
 
Avoid what? I just don't think that it matters what kind of CPU you buy for HL2.
 
Cybernoid said:
Avoid what? I just don't think that it matters what kind of CPU you buy for HL2.
Click to expand...
Of course it matters. The release of Doom 3 has sparked many sites to do a "CPU scaling" and "Intel vs. AMD" benchmarks to determine which processor is ideal.

Doom 3: CPU Battlegrounds
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

For example, with a 6800 Ultra, the difference between an XP 3000+ and P4 3.0C is nearly 10 FPS at 800x600.

There's another 10 FPS jump from a 3.0C to a 3.4E.

With HL2 the difference may be more or less, but the processor certainly _does_ affect performance.
 
kaellinn18 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't software have to be optimized to take advantage of 64 bit processors? Without the optimization, isn't a 64 bit processor pretty much the same as a 32 bit one? So far 64 bit processing has not taken off, and to be honest, I don't really see it happening. I would think that dual 32 bit processors would be better than a 64 bit processor. What exactly is the advantage of having a register of 64 bits as opposed to 32? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to be a smartass.
Click to expand...
The 64-bit feature of a processor isn't just "tacked on." (Which why by looking at early die plots of the Prescott, some individuals were able to determine that it had x84-64.) Adding 64-bit affects the entire architecture of the processor. I'm not going to go into details but there are general pipeline, cache, and memory improvements with the K8.

For instance, compared to the K7, the branch predictor has been reworked. A few other things I can think of at the moment... the integer scheduler has more entries, 32-bit integer multiply is faster, translation look-aside buffers latencies are lower, DRAM latency is much lower (due to the on die memory controller), the FSB runs at core speed, et cetera et cetera.

Combine all of this and you'll see for instance, that the Athlon 64 2800+ outperforms the XP 3200+ is nearly all benchmarks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mr Stabby
Half-life 2 20th Anniversary
Replies
1
Views
293
Xtremecherry95YT
Xtremecherry95YT
Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Lizardizzle
  • Poll
A proposition: ValveTime Half-Life 1 co-op event
Replies
5
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Lizardizzle
2019: The year of Half-Life SFX videos
Replies
4
Views
2K
Ennui
Ennui
bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top