Lets see some lower CPU Benchmarks people!

[Yapa]

All current benchmarks are with either P4 2.8 or 3.0c.... These are pretty high-end CPU's and I doubt most Valve customers would be running these.

Im on a 2000+Xp and my friend whos also been anticipating HL2 since news about it came out is on a P4 1.6. These are lower end CPU's but we still play any current game at max settings and high res (10x76).

We are wondering how much HL2 (source engine) is affected by the CPU... we are both getting the radeion 9800 cards next week, but want to know how much the game depends on the CPU even though we will have good cards.

I bet most gamers out there want to know about lower end CPU benchmarks too!!!!!

Yapa

 

[TAZ]

Yeah!! HERE HERE!!

I have 2 pretty high end computers and know the game will run well on both, but I also have what they call a 'MINIMUM REQUIREMENT' computer, a 1 ghz Athlon with a GF 3 ti 200 (well, maybe a little better then their min req) and would like some benchmarks on lower end systems since they said it will run on them..

If the game won't run more then 30 fps on these systems, which I doubt they will, then what's the point of saying it just to play the game at 10 fps? I would feel sorry for anyone who tries to play at that horrific of a framerate

 

[wormstrangler]

I'd like to see some bechnmarks of mid range systems at lower res. Seeing that I only have a 15inch monitor, I play at 800 * 600. Now, I'm pretty sure my system (1.4ghz t-bird, 256mb, GF4 ti 4200) will handle it at that res, but still, I'd like to know what frames I can expect.

 

[Fuzzy]

"I have 2 pretty high end computers and know the game will run well on both, but I also have what they call a 'MINIMUM REQUIREMENT' computer, a 1 ghz Athlon with a GF 3 ti 200 "

sounds like my BEST system, except i have a geforce2

 

[Headwires]

i have a geoforce4 mx :/ probably looks like shit

 

[Mjolnir]

Originally posted by wormstrangler
I'd like to see some bechnmarks of mid range systems at lower res. Seeing that I only have a 15inch monitor, I play at 800 * 600. Now, I'm pretty sure my system (1.4ghz t-bird, 256mb, GF4 ti 4200) will handle it at that res, but still, I'd like to know what frames I can expect.

I also own a 15inch monitor and play at 800x600....I would like Valve to release the stand alone benchmark before Sept 30th so I can see if I need to upgrade and what FPS I am likely to get (double figures hopefully).


Athlon Xp1800
512 ram
Geforce FX Lemon....

 

[City Hunter]

I have a P4 2.0 and 512MB. But only a geforce4mx. Is it worth to buy a new card for this system? Because I think about buying a Radeon 9800Pro. Which card would you suggest?

 

[SLH]

Originally posted by City Hunter
I have a P4 2.0 and 512MB. But only a geforce4mx. Is it worth to buy a new card for this system? Because I think about buying a Radeon 9800Pro. Which card would you suggest?

Your graphics card is definatly the bottle-neck. As for the card, it depends on how much you want to spend. Have a look at some of the benchmark posts, and make a decision.

 

[AlCapucci]

If you buy a high-end card like 9800 pro, than you must also have a fast CPU. Even your motherboard can have influence on your performance. The difference between a 2 ghz CPU and a 2.8 ghz CPU is huge when it comes to your (3d)performance.

 

[PvtRyan]

Originally posted by City Hunter
I have a P4 2.0 and 512MB. But only a geforce4mx. Is it worth to buy a new card for this system? Because I think about buying a Radeon 9800Pro. Which card would you suggest?

Well, your cpu is the bottleneck on that 9800 pro vid card, it holds back it's performance a bit. Unless you're planning to replace your cpu any time soon, you'll probably get around the same results with a 9600 pro as with an 9800 pro (a bit lower, but still plenty fps)
We've all seen the 9600 perform excellent in the benchmarks, and it's expected to perform just as well in other full dx9 games.
Or maybe the 9700 pro is a good intermediate between the two (9600 pro and 9800 pro).

 

[crabcakes66]

Originally posted by AlCapucci
If you buy a high-end card like 9800 pro, than you must also have a fast CPU.

No. You dont have to have anything more than a 1ghz to use a 9800pro.


Will it be as fast as a p4 3.2 ? no..........but its not required.

 

[Gorgon]

I am building a PC this month. P43.0+9800PRO with 256+Abit MAX3 motherboard+Corsair ddr500.

 

[FluxCap]

I think it would be great to have some benchmarks with processors ranging from 1ghz to 2ghz with cards like the 5200, 9100 to 5600, 9500.

 

[PvtRyan]

Originally posted by crabcakes66
No. You dont have to have anything more than a 1ghz to use a 9800pro.


Will it be as fast as a p4 3.2 ? no..........but its not required.

Sure, but on a 1 ghz it won't outperform a Geforce 4, which is 250 dollars less expensive. Why buy an expensive card if you don't use it to the fullest.

 

[Kamakiri]

I'm not agreeing with the statements 'CPU matter's.

Graphics cards do most of the work in games. I'm running a ATI 9700 pro (running in AGP 4x) with only a AMD 1.33Ghz TB and 512mb ram. All my new games, including BF1942 and UT2003, run 1280x1024, full detail at about average 50-60FPS. Even with 4x AA.

Now a new CPU would improve that a little more yes. But you think alot more? I don't think so. Sure I'm going to get a new Athlon 64 but If you want to upgrade for HL2 and only got enough cash for a new CPU or good video card get the video card.

The new CPU will mainly help load the game faster. lol.

 

[Amsterdam]

Yes. I agree. Im on an Athlon 2000+ and although I do run a 9800. I think its always unfair of these reviewers to give us benchmarks running on top end cpus that most gamers don't have.

 

[papa jake]

Originally posted by City Hunter
I have a P4 2.0 and 512MB. But only a geforce4mx. Is it worth to buy a new card for this system? Because I think about buying a Radeon 9800Pro. Which card would you suggest?

9500 pro. :thumbs:
That's exactly what I have, and it works great. If you can't find a 9500 pro, go for the 9600 pro. IMO, it's the best bang for the buck.:thumbs:

BTW, I also would like to see some lower-end benchmarks. Valve has been saying the game will run smoothly on lower-end machines, and now we can get some proof.

 

[Kamakiri]

I might buy a cheap CPU to see me through for a little while actually...

 

[TheRook]

Originally posted by PvtRyan
Well, your cpu is the bottleneck on that 9800 pro vid card, it holds back it's performance a bit. Unless you're planning to replace your cpu any time soon, you'll probably get around the same results with a 9600 pro as with an 9800 pro (a bit lower, but still plenty fps)
We've all seen the 9600 perform excellent in the benchmarks, and it's expected to perform just as well in other full dx9 games.
Or maybe the 9700 pro is a good intermediate between the two (9600 pro and 9800 pro).

from this im glad to see you talking out of your ass...

with a 2000xp and a 9800pro he will not be better off with a 9600pro...

that is a stupid comment... the main reason for the CPU inHL2 is the physics.... thats basically it (a few other little things though) all the visual beauty is GPU (graphics card) dependent thats why you can run it on a geforce2... why because it will only use directx 7 features...
itll run on a geforce 4 and it iwll only use direct x 8 features...

run it on a 9800 or a 5900 and it will use directx9 features...

depending on what graphics card you have depends on how nice your game will look visually... nowadays your CPU doesnt have that big an influence on gaming... i mean play UT2003 on a 2000xp with 9800pro you would get rediculous fps... play UT2003 on a 3000xp with a 9800pro you will still get rediculous fps but it would be maybe 5-10fps higher...

now ive ranted i feel better...

so stop posting rediculous crap!

TheRook

 

[Kamakiri]

Yeah what TheRook said aswell.

Consumers just get scared seeing Benchmarks with everything top of the line. The normal average gamer always upgrades his Grahpics card first then CPU whenever it gets too old.

Gabe always stresses how great HL2 is going to look on a DX9 card. Always about the GFX cards. Since when have you heard gabe give a shit about CPU? lol.

 

[Guest]

^^^^^^^^
The Rook is 100% right.

If you wanna see all the visuals you need a High end Graphics card and Not a High end CPU !

 

[Mountain Man]

My system is roughly double the rock-bottom minimum:

1.33GHz Athlon T-Bird
GeForce 4 Ti4200
512MB RAM

I expect I'll have to settle for medium to medium-high detail settings to keep the game playable, but I'm cool with that. I'm more interested in playability than eye-candy, anyway.

 

[Mountain Man]

Originally posted by Amsterdam
Yes. I agree. Im on an Athlon 2000+ and although I do run a 9800. I think its always unfair of these reviewers to give us benchmarks running on top end cpus that most gamers don't have.

When benchmarking graphics cards, they do that on purpose (run it on super fast CPU's) because they don't want the CPU putting an artificial limitation on the graphics card. And really, that's what these benchmarks are for. They're intended to test graphics cards, not game performance.

 

[shadow stalker]

i would love a benchmark that has some lower end cards on.... for instance radeon 8500le 64mb... not that i have that card...

 

[sayam]

im set lookie at my siggie

 

[Amsterdam]

Originally posted by sayam
im set lookie at my siggie

Well well, look at you, arn't you special. You deserve 2 candies for being sooo special.

 

[OCybrManO]

Bah... 2 36GB drives... I was thinking about getting 4 120GB 7200RPM SATA drives and adding that to my existing 80GB + 6GB (salvaged from an older computer) 7200RPM IDE drives.
That's a total of... 566GB or 0.55TB.

Oh, hell... I've got the cash to get 4 250GB 7200RPM SATA drives instead of the 120GB ones... making a grand total of 1086GB or 1.06TB.

I think I'll just get one 120GB... I don't need any more than 200GB right now anyway.

EDIT: I also found a 500GB 7200RPM USB2.0 hard drive for $700 that I could slap on in addition to the 1.06TB setup to get up to a whopping 1.5TB if I really wanted to have a lot of storage.