CPU Scaling and New Video Cards

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

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 ... ???

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote in message
news:tNygc.52322$_g4.6149348@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> 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...

 

[PeaceMaker]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

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" <joey@joey.com> wrote in message
news:tNygc.52322$_g4.6149348@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> 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 ... ???
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

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" <do.not.email@yo.mamas.hairy.ass.com> wrote in message
news:WGzgc.990$9kJ.612@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> hasn't it always been like this? p2-400 or 1ghz etc etc. If you want to
play
> the latest and greatest you'll have to upgrade eventually.
> "Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote in message
> news:tNygc.52322$_g4.6149348@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> > 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]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote in message
news:tNygc.52322$_g4.6149348@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> 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...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

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" <pjharding24_removethis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c5ufid$5ui30$1@ID-230790.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote in message
> news:tNygc.52322$_g4.6149348@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> > 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...
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:20:25 GMT, "Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> 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 !

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote in message
news:tNygc.52322$_g4.6149348@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...

" 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.

 

[Phil]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Sept1967" <sept1967@highstream.(Erase)net> wrote in message
news:1085ig6dpmsdiad@corp.supernews.com...
> 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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

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!


"Phil" <pjharding24_removethis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c5ujns$60gng$1@ID-230790.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Sept1967" <sept1967@highstream.(Erase)net> wrote in message
> news:1085ig6dpmsdiad@corp.supernews.com...
> > 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.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

firingsquad.com has cpu scaling benchmarks


>
>
>

 

[teqguy]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

The slow CPU will limit your video speed.

--
DaveW



"Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote in message
news:tNygc.52322$_g4.6149348@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> 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 ... ???
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Sept1967" <sept1967@highstream.(Erase)net> wrote in message
news:1085ig6dpmsdiad@corp.supernews.com...
> 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.
>
>

If you go to higher resolution or image quality, you will need a faster
graphics card, not CPU. At higher resolutions games are graphics card
limited, not CPU limited. This means unless you game at 800x600 or
1024x768, you might benefit from a faster video card even if you have a
slower CPU.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"teqguy" <teqguy@techie.com> wrote in message news:<
> You guys have to take these games with a grain of salt.
> 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.

That was a good story but did you ever try it yourself? It wasn't just
a Radeon, it had to be a Radeon 9800 Pro with 256MB memory.
Personally, tried the patch on a Radeon 9800 Pro with 128MB and it
didn't work. So much for that anecdote. Besides, that was yesterday's
news. Have you tried the Dusk 5900 demo? Funny how there isn't any
claim that it can be run on a Radeon or that it can be patched down to
a Geforce 4. Don't believe everything you read except those things you
already have a preconceived notion about seems to be a common theme on
the Internet.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Phil" <pjharding24_removethis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
news:c5ufid$5ui30$1@ID-230790.news.uni-berlin.de:


> 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!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky> wrote in message
news:Xns94CFBD1453FDCgrinchhatespamyucksh@24.71.223.159...
>
> That's what I'm going to do. But the waiting is killing me! Argh!
>


With a name like yours?...c'mon.

(Just kidding of course)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote:

>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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote:

>Xbox 2 anyone?

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

Joe

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

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

>"Phil" <pjharding24_removethis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
>news:c5ufid$5ui30$1@ID-230790.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
>
>
>
>>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!
>
>
>

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

--
"Cocaine's a hell of a drug" - Rick James

Steve [Inglo]

 

[skippy]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Inglo" <ingloogoo@zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.xcc> wrote in message
news:lzFgc.24076$uM5.6345@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> 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]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

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

"Joe62" <NOSPAMjmcginn@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:mu86805uql67l5gbr4jve15ed24vh8m0v3@4ax.com...
> "Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote:
>
> >Xbox 2 anyone?
>
> Almost everyone ... extreme hardware requirements are killing the PC
> game industry.
>
> Joe

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"PEACEMAKER" <do.not.email@yo.mamas.hairy.ass.com> wrote in message
news6Ggc.117481$2oI1.8683@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> then all the industry has to do is not write games that require extreme
> hardware? obviously people wanting extreme games is what is pushing the
game
> industry. people who can afford 600$ video cards are more likely the ones
to
> buy the games

I disagree. A few demanding FPS's don't make up the whole of the PC
gaming industry. Strategy games are more demanding than they were 3 years
ago, but they are a still a far cry (pardon the pun) from some action games.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Joe62" <NOSPAMjmcginn@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news68680h1beq25bq1ineb35dr64ret017i6@4ax.com...
> Remember the hype a few years back about how you wouldn't need to do
> this in the GeForce age? Nothing but marketing lies.

Not necessarily true. If you want to up the resolution or image quality,
a newer card on the same processor could still be do-able. The 6800 is only
CPU limited at LOWER resolutions and without antialiasing. The antialiasing
quality of the 6800 will be alot better than any of NVidia's previous cards.

I have a GeForce FX 5900 (non-pro) but I'm going to be saving up to buy an
FX 6800 (non-pro) if the benchmarks play out around the time of release.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 19 Apr 2004 00:00:20 -0700, blog_smirk@yahoo.com (Blig Merk) wrote:

>That was a good story but did you ever try it yourself? It wasn't just
>a Radeon, it had to be a Radeon 9800 Pro with 256MB memory.
>Personally, tried the patch on a Radeon 9800 Pro with 128MB and it
>didn't work. So much for that anecdote. Besides, that was yesterday's
>news. Have you tried the Dusk 5900 demo? Funny how there isn't any
>claim that it can be run on a Radeon or that it can be patched down to
>a Geforce 4. Don't believe everything you read except those things you
>already have a preconceived notion about seems to be a common theme on
>the Internet.

You had another issue. I ran it with no problems on my 128 meg 9800
after reading about it here. Kind of silly really, but it works fine.