I hope this crosspost is ok.

Ok here's my problem with where PC gaming is going. I built an AMD 1.53 GHZ
machine w/ 512 megs of ram and a Geforce 3 Ti200 in 2002. Obviously this
system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of games.

Ok fine ...

So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide enough
power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ system
with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
potential?

For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen of
video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1, 1.4,
1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ???

"Frodoh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:tNygc.52322$_(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> I hope this crosspost is ok.
>
> Ok here's my problem with where PC gaming is going. I built an AMD 1.53
GHZ
> machine w/ 512 megs of ram and a Geforce 3 Ti200 in 2002. Obviously this
> system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of games.
>
> Ok fine ...
>
> So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide enough
> power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ system
> with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
> potential?
>
> For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
> addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen of
> video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1, 1.4,
> 1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ???
>

You know you could always wait until Doom 3 to see what it *really*
needs...just an idea...

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:20:25 GMT, "Frodoh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide enough
>power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ system
>with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
>potential?

Pretty much.

I have the same card as you, with an Athlon 2000 XP, and am looking at
upgrading CPU, gfx card, mobe and case, all at the same time.

There;s no real point in me just getting a new card, as my CPU
wouldn't be able to shove the data across fast enough (although I
would probably see a small improvement).

It's a PITA, but there you have it.

--

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !

hasn't it always been like this? p2-400 or 1ghz etc etc. If you want to play
the latest and greatest you'll have to upgrade eventually.
"Frodoh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:tNygc.52322$_(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> I hope this crosspost is ok.
>
> Ok here's my problem with where PC gaming is going. I built an AMD 1.53
GHZ
> machine w/ 512 megs of ram and a Geforce 3 Ti200 in 2002. Obviously this
> system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of games.
>
> Ok fine ...
>
> So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide enough
> power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ system
> with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
> potential?
>
> For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
> addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen of
> video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1, 1.4,
> 1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ???
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

firingsquad.com has cpu scaling benchmarks


>
>
>

New cards almost always NEED a fast CPU to "push" them. Take a look at Toms'
Hardware. They have several charts (benchmarks) with the same video card,
using a slower CPU, and faster CPU. The same video card can gain as much as
25% (or more) performance just by having a faster CPU pumping out the data.


"Phil" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:c5ufid$5ui30$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Frodoh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:tNygc.52322$_(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > I hope this crosspost is ok.
> >
> > Ok here's my problem with where PC gaming is going. I built an AMD 1.53
> GHZ
> > machine w/ 512 megs of ram and a Geforce 3 Ti200 in 2002. Obviously
this
> > system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of games.
> >
> > Ok fine ...
> >
> > So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide
enough
> > power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ
system
> > with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
> > potential?
> >
> > For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
> > addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen
of
> > video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1,
1.4,
> > 1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ???
> >
>
> You know you could always wait until Doom 3 to see what it *really*
> needs...just an idea...
>
>

Yes this has always been the case. But prior upgrades were at least making
Windows and other applications faster.

Now many of us will be junking our already fast systems to no other benefit
than blowing away Carmack's new zombies at decent framerates. LOL

Xbox 2 anyone?




"PEACEMAKER" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:WGzgc.990$(E-Mail Removed)...
> hasn't it always been like this? p2-400 or 1ghz etc etc. If you want to
play
> the latest and greatest you'll have to upgrade eventually.
> "Frodoh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:tNygc.52322$_(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > I hope this crosspost is ok.
> >
> > Ok here's my problem with where PC gaming is going. I built an AMD 1.53
> GHZ
> > machine w/ 512 megs of ram and a Geforce 3 Ti200 in 2002. Obviously
this
> > system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of games.
> >
> > Ok fine ...
> >
> > So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide
enough
> > power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ
system
> > with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
> > potential?
> >
> > For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
> > addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen
of
> > video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1,
1.4,
> > 1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ???
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

"Frodoh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:tNygc.52322$_(E-Mail Removed)...

" For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen of
video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1, 1.4,
1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ??? "


Many are familiar with the following article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html . If they were to
also span a number of CPUs, then it would be so much more work for them.
Would you also suggest they span a number of memory combinations and
motherboards? A review of 30 graphics card, 30 CPUs, 30 memory combinations
and 30 motherboards would turn into 30x30x30x30=810,000 system combinations.
Then times that by each test and you're looking at millions, which is
decades of work for one review. In order to properly test graphics cards in
a short space of time they have to limit the query of other hardware factors
being a bottleneck, which is why they use fast systems.

As for the Far Cry / Doom3 / HL2 issue, you have three choices: 1) Leave
your system as it is, 2) Upgrade your system, 3) Buy / build a new system.

Given that you have a 266FSB Athlon XP 1800+ (according to your stated
1.53Ghz), then your motherboard should take a 2400+ (or a 266FSB 2600+).
Upgrading to 2x 512MB PC2100 would also help, and then you can decide what
you want to do about a graphics card. Given that Nvidia have made *the
biggest generation-to-generation performance leap that we have ever seen
with a new GPU*, then it won't be long after the 6800 release that the
current high-end cards drop dramatically in price. If game developers want
to sell games, then they can't just make them playable on the highest-spec
systems.

Jumpkick wrote:

> firingsquad.com has cpu scaling benchmarks
>
>
> >
> >
> >





You guys have to take these games with a grain of salt.



Sure, they're the latest and greatest craze now (or will be), but what
about after them?


If you have the money to upgrade, upgrade to a system thats at least 2
years in advance, so that by the time the developers catch up your
system has found its niche.




A lot of software can be tweaked to accomodate what needs to be
accomodated.

Look at Windows XP.
Sure, it says it requires a 350mhz processor with 256mb of ram.... but
once you turn off all the bullshit, what do you have? Voila!




And the Dawn demo that supposedly required a Geforce FX to run?
Weeks later, college kids had it running on a Radeon... and running
BETTER at that. A patch was later released for the Geforce 4 and lower
series to emulate an FX... didn't do a bad job either.



Software will always be behind hardware in development. Intel has the
capability of developing 20 different processors by the time a new
version of Windows comes out.


If they worked together... we'd have a lot better performance.

"Sept1967" <sept1967@highstream.(Erase)net> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> New cards almost always NEED a fast CPU to "push" them. Take a look at
Toms'
> Hardware. They have several charts (benchmarks) with the same video card,
> using a slower CPU, and faster CPU. The same video card can gain as much
as
> 25% (or more) performance just by having a faster CPU pumping out the
data.
>

I was just saying that if he wants to play Doom 3 to the best possible rate,
its worth waiting to see what it actually needs, there's nothing really been
confirmed yet.