CPU Scaling and New Video Cards

[Frodoh]

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 ... ???

 

[Phil]

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...

 

[Mark Morrison]

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 !

 

[PEACEMAKER]

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.

 

[Jumpkick]

firingsquad.com has cpu scaling benchmarks

 

[Sept1967]

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.

 

[Frodoh]

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?

 

[Cuzman]

" 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.

 

[teqguy]

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.

 

[Phil]

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.

 

[Frodoh]

Oh waiting is the most important component ad far as I am concerned. I
probably won't build a new rig until Doom 3 is out for a while. There's
nothing dumber than having built a new machine at any point over the last
few months.

The wait is on!

 

[NightSky 421]

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 ... ???

I have seen some reviews in the past which put different video cards
with processors of different speeds, but such reviews are the exception
rather than the norm. It seems to me that most reviewers hand-pick the
very fastest processor (like as if everyone owns one) and then does
video card benchmarks with it. I agree it's good to know how a video
card will perform with high-end processors, but I think such reviews way
more useful if you benchmark using processors that people are more
likely to have in their computer at any given time. I think it's
reasonable to bench with processors ranging from 1.3GHz and up in this
day and age, not always 3.2GHz or 3.4GHz. Sometimes I swear it's
marketing at work...

 

[DaveW]

The slow CPU will limit your video speed.

 

[Mr. Grinch]

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

That's what I'm going to do. But the waiting is killing me! Argh!

 

[Joe62]

So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide enough
power to the new card?

Of course not! You need a new vid card, processor, and therefore new
motherboard ... basically you need a new computer except for
peripherals like your mouse/kb and monitor.

Remember the hype a few years back about how you wouldn't need to do
this in the GeForce age? Nothing but marketing lies.

Joe

 

[Joe62]

Xbox 2 anyone?

Almost everyone ... extreme hardware requirements are killing the PC
game industry.

Joe

 

[Inglo]

That's what I'm going to do. But the waiting is killing me! Argh!

I've already got what I need to play Doom3, an XBox.

 

[Skippy]

On 4/18/2004 5:35 PM Mr. Grinch brightened our day with:


I've already got what I need to play Doom3, an XBox.

Oh yeah baby! Nothing like Doom3 at 640x480 resolution.

(I know the XBox can do higher resolution than that... but even the scaled
down Doom3 that the XBox may get will bring it to it's knees...)

 

[PEACEMAKER]

then all the industry has to do is not write games that require extreme
hardware? obviously people wanting extreme games is what is pushing the game
industry. people who can afford 600$ video cards are more likely the ones to
buy the games

 

[Minotaur]

Almost everyone ... extreme hardware requirements are killing the PC
game industry.

Joe

Link?

The Gaming Industry, are the ones who create those new 'hardware
requirements' by putting those new features 'in there new games'.
They knows the statistics on hardware and what people are buying or are
currently using from past sales. If they wish to create a game that only
performs great on 1% of the hardware. They have no one to blame but
themselves, if they are shrinking there market.

The last PC to be pushed to it's hardware limits (besides the PSX that
is a console) was the Commodore 64! Unfortunately, well written software
that pushes the hardware to the limit. Has been replaced by,
faster hardware to push along buggy, bloated software at an satisfactory
speed.