Benefit of a CPU Upgrade?

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2006-02-18 01:47am

I currently have a three year old Pentium 2.4B (533Mhz bus, no hyperthreading), which I overclock to 3.0 or 3.2 Ghz when playing games.

I upgraded most of the hardware last year, and was thinking about upgrading the processor this year. However, after looking at some benchmarks, I don't know if it's really worth it. Overclocked, my CPU should be roughly equivolent to the "Pentium 4 3.06 Ghz Northwood", which got 130 FPS. The best new processor I could afford (AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego) is only about 50% faster than it. I look at some other benchmarks, and they tell a similar story--the 4000+ San Diego is only about 30-70% faster than what I currently have.

From what I've read, a 64-bit chip doesn't provide any benefit over a 32-bit one (even if you have a 64-bit OS). And Hyperthreading/Dual core (should I choose to get that instead of the San Diego) doesn't provide much benefit for gaming.

I feel kinda cheezy running a 3 year old system, but I don't feel like plopping down $800-1000 (considering that I would also need to replace my memory and video card) for only a 50% boost in speed.

Would you guys say that that is pretty accurate (that the San Diego is only about 30-70% faster than what I have now) or do you think that there are some other benefits that I'm not seeing?

Thanks!

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-02-18 03:25am

CelesKnight wrote:I currently have a three year old Pentium 2.4B (533Mhz bus, no hyperthreading), which I overclock to 3.0 or 3.2 Ghz when playing games.

I upgraded most of the hardware last year, and was thinking about upgrading the processor this year. However, after looking at some benchmarks, I don't know if it's really worth it. Overclocked, my CPU should be roughly equivolent to the "Pentium 4 3.06 Ghz Northwood", which got 130 FPS. The best new processor I could afford (AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego) is only about 50% faster than it. I look at some other benchmarks, and they tell a similar story--the 4000+ San Diego is only about 30-70% faster than what I currently have.

From what I've read, a 64-bit chip doesn't provide any benefit over a 32-bit one (even if you have a 64-bit OS). And Hyperthreading/Dual core (should I choose to get that instead of the San Diego) doesn't provide much benefit for gaming.

I feel kinda cheezy running a 3 year old system, but I don't feel like plopping down $800-1000 (considering that I would also need to replace my memory and video card) for only a 50% boost in speed.

Would you guys say that that is pretty accurate (that the San Diego is only about 30-70% faster than what I have now) or do you think that there are some other benefits that I'm not seeing?

Thanks!

Only 50% faster and your not sure about taking an AMD?

If you upgrade now, your CPU,Mobo,GPU, your doing far more then just 50%, the CPU alone is a vast improvement, if you buy something sane like a 3800+ or a 4200+, instead of the 4000, you also get dual cores. New GPUs will also boost your preformance everywhere.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-02-18 10:03am

If you have a processor that's only a couple of years old, you won't get the boost you would have a few years ago. Processors simply have found their limits with silicon technology right now, so while the 90 nM problem is attacked, we're left with better bus speeds and larger caches instead. If you can afford the new processor, go for it. Today for now, however, GPUs and RAM are going to win more performance now hardware-wise. The limiting factor is always software, though. With the features and bloat Windows Vista is set to bring to the table, you're going to need power.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-02-18 01:31pm

Vista isn't coming out until near the end of the year.

How many people are planning on immediately upgrading?

atg · Post by **atg** » 2006-02-20 01:46am

What's the minimum specs for vista again?

I've got a 3800+, 2GB RAM and 6600GT(7800 on the way) that should handle it, if not yep an upgrade will happen.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2006-02-20 04:22am

atg wrote:What's the minimum specs for vista again?

I've got a 3800+, 2GB RAM and 6600GT(7800 on the way) that should handle it, if not yep an upgrade will happen.

Heresay wrote:
-512MB memory or more
-A dedicated graphics card with DirectX 9.0 support
-A modern, Intel Pentium- or AMD Athlon-based PC

Easily, I can't imagine an OS, even Vista, requireing more muscle than BF2.

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2006-02-20 05:59am

InnocentBystander wrote:
atg wrote:What's the minimum specs for vista again?

I've got a 3800+, 2GB RAM and 6600GT(7800 on the way) that should handle it, if not yep an upgrade will happen.

Heresay wrote:
-512MB memory or more
-A dedicated graphics card with DirectX 9.0 support
-A modern, Intel Pentium- or AMD Athlon-based PC
Easily, I can't imagine an OS, even Vista, requireing more muscle than BF2.

You underestimate the power of Microsoft young one....

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2006-02-20 12:36pm

Chris OFarrell wrote:You underestimate the power of Microsoft young one....

Supposedly, a few of the really cool features of Vista will require some ridiculously good specs, but keep in mind that Vista needs to be able to run on laptops, too, so desktop owners should have a significant advantage.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2006-02-20 01:58pm

It will be interesting to see what happens to the low-end lines of computers once Windows Vista comes out. IIRC, in the past most vendors put the newest OS on their computers pretty soon after it was released. However, with requirements like that, I can't imagine a sub-$1000 computer is going to be able to run it anytime soon. I suppose they'll just keep putting XP on them; however, this could be a good chance for Linux to make more inroads.

Getting back to the topic of my first post, my desktop is pretty up to date RAM and Video card wise. In the past, I've usually upgraded my CPU when newer ones are 2-3 times faster than my current system. So, a 50% boost in speed isn't that impressive.

I might go with a new laptop instead. Perhaps a Dell Inspiron E1705 with 2.0 GHz Core Duo, 2 Gigs 667MHz Ram, and a 7800 GT Video card. It should be significatly better than my current laptop (which is also 3 years old... 1.4Ghz Centrio with 512MB RAM and an ATI 9200 video card). Any thoughts on that?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-02-20 02:27pm

However, with requirements like that, I can't imagine a sub-$1000 computer is going to be able to run it anytime soon. I suppose they'll just keep putting XP on them; however, this could be a good chance for Linux to make more inroads.

What requirements? These?!

-512MB memory or more
-A dedicated graphics card with DirectX 9.0 support
-A modern, Intel Pentium- or AMD Athlon-based PC

Dude, it's trivially easy to put together a decent computer for under $1000.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2006-02-20 02:27pm

CelesKnight wrote:It will be interesting to see what happens to the low-end lines of computers once Windows Vista comes out. IIRC, in the past most vendors put the newest OS on their computers pretty soon after it was released. However, with requirements like that, I can't imagine a sub-$1000 computer is going to be able to run it anytime soon. I suppose they'll just keep putting XP on them; however, this could be a good chance for Linux to make more inroads.

This machine costs $600 today. Budget computing will still exist, its requirements will simply be higher than they once were. That's really no surprise. And, in reality, the minimum specs are probably even lower than the ones Microsoft is pushing. Their specs are trying to give a good user performance, but people buying inexpensive machines are generally willing to put up with slower performances.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-02-20 02:29pm

CelesKnight wrote:I might go with a new laptop instead. Perhaps a Dell Inspiron E1705 with 2.0 GHz Core Duo, 2 Gigs 667MHz Ram, and a 7800 GT Video card. It should be significatly better than my current laptop (which is also 3 years old... 1.4Ghz Centrio with 512MB RAM and an ATI 9200 video card). Any thoughts on that?

If you have the space for a desktop rig, a gaming laptop is pretty retarded.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2006-02-20 02:36pm

Uraniun235 wrote:
CelesKnight wrote:I might go with a new laptop instead. Perhaps a Dell Inspiron E1705 with 2.0 GHz Core Duo, 2 Gigs 667MHz Ram, and a 7800 GT Video card. It should be significatly better than my current laptop (which is also 3 years old... 1.4Ghz Centrio with 512MB RAM and an ATI 9200 video card). Any thoughts on that?
If you have the space for a desktop rig, a gaming laptop is pretty retarded.

See, I don't understand this. The gaming laptops are MUCH more capable than they used to be. They sacrifice off of top-end performance, and they don't have the kind of upgradability inherent to desktops, but they're extremely capable products. The 7800 card in a laptop is essentially the same one that most gamers have for their desktops, and the Core Duo is a serious processor.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-02-20 02:50pm

First, gaming laptops are almost (if not) universally big monstrous hulks of laptops, and they suck down power and have shitty battery life. They're more portable than a desktop rig, granted, but they're not nearly so convenient to lug around than a more lightweight laptop. They're really more on the scale of a desktop replacement for someone who has a terminal shortage of desk space.

Second, you're paying a significant price premium for the fact that it's a laptop, when that same money could get you an even shinier desktop; a desktop which, when it starts to age a bit, you can upgrade on a gradual basis. Your options for upgrading a laptop are significantly more restricted.

If it's your only system, and you either really want to have every bit of free space in your house that you can, or you religiously go to LAN parties every weekend, or you simply can't bear the thought of not being able to play games while you're out of the house, then a gaming laptop makes sense.

Otherwise, it's a hell of a lot more efficient to get a desktop rig.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2006-02-20 02:53pm

Uraniun235 wrote:What requirements? These?!

Opps, I missread an earlier post and thought that the requirements were "3800+, 2GB RAM and 6600GT"

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-02-20 02:59pm

Oh, hah! Yeah, that'd be pretty insane.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2006-02-20 03:20pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote:
CelesKnight wrote:I might go with a new laptop instead. Perhaps a Dell Inspiron E1705 with 2.0 GHz Core Duo, 2 Gigs 667MHz Ram, and a 7800 GT Video card. It should be significatly better than my current laptop (which is also 3 years old... 1.4Ghz Centrio with 512MB RAM and an ATI 9200 video card). Any thoughts on that?
If you have the space for a desktop rig, a gaming laptop is pretty retarded.
See, I don't understand this. The gaming laptops are MUCH more capable than they used to be. They sacrifice off of top-end performance, and they don't have the kind of upgradability inherent to desktops, but they're extremely capable products. The 7800 card in a laptop is essentially the same one that most gamers have for their desktops, and the Core Duo is a serious processor.

Mind you that is the 7800 GO, rather than GTX, which I believe is a sizable step down. Laptops with the mobile 7800gtx are indeed impressive machines, more expensive than their desktop counterparts by a fair margin (50%+), but they're definatly viable.
Desktops are still better, but if moving around is important, and you've got some spare cash, laptops are definatly viable gaming devices. The age of the 12 pound super laptop being the only gaming rig has ended. Though Sager/Clevo does have a 12pound laptop with Athlon 64 processors... which is pretty unholy, I'm sure.

Miles Teg · Post by **Miles Teg** » 2006-02-20 03:41pm

CelesKnight wrote:I currently have a three year old Pentium 2.4B (533Mhz bus, no hyperthreading), which I overclock to 3.0 or 3.2 Ghz when playing games.

I upgraded most of the hardware last year, and was thinking about upgrading the processor this year. However, after looking at some benchmarks, I don't know if it's really worth it. Overclocked, my CPU should be roughly equivolent to the "Pentium 4 3.06 Ghz Northwood", which got 130 FPS. The best new processor I could afford (AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego) is only about 50% faster than it. I look at some other benchmarks, and they tell a similar story--the 4000+ San Diego is only about 30-70% faster than what I currently have.

From what I've read, a 64-bit chip doesn't provide any benefit over a 32-bit one (even if you have a 64-bit OS). And Hyperthreading/Dual core (should I choose to get that instead of the San Diego) doesn't provide much benefit for gaming.

The only benefit you get with 64bit processors right now is the theoretical ability to have more than 4GB of memory. Of course, motherboards that will support more than 4GB are rare (I've yet to see one myself). Dual core processors are a complex matter to discuss. One on the one hand, a top of the line dual core processor (right now) will not perform as well as a top of the line single core processor because the dual cores run as a slower clock. However, that's changing already as some games are coming out with dual core support (in which case the dual cores simple thrash the single cores, hands down) and right now nVidia drivers can take advantage of the dual cores (my 7800GT/X24200+'s score on 3dMark05 went from 7300 to almost 8000 with just a driver upgrade).

I feel kinda cheezy running a 3 year old system, but I don't feel like plopping down $800-1000 (considering that I would also need to replace my memory and video card) for only a 50% boost in speed.

Why Cheezy? If it's meeting your needs (which is sounds like it is), then it'd only be "cheezy" to waste money on an upgrade (unless you are loaded ). This is especially true since you'd be upgrading into an otherwise maxed out system.

Would you guys say that that is pretty accurate (that the San Diego is only about 30-70% faster than what I have now) or do you think that there are some other benefits that I'm not seeing?[/quote]

Basically, it boils down to this: Unless you *need* to upgrade (or are loaded), don't upgrade. I define *need* as "I can't play/do what I want or I can but the experience is lacking so much that I am missing out". I'd have to know more about your machine, but I am guessing if you upgraded your hardware a year ago, you still can't buy a top of the line P4 (socket 775) and you don't have PCI Express. If this is the case, you are throwing money away buying new processor or video card for that system.

Your best bet is to wait for the new AMD Socket AM2 boards or an Intel board for the Core Duo/Pentium M. That is where the future lies for both platforms. You money would be better spent there than on almost obsolete hardware now. Those platforms are right around the corner (think months), and when they come out everything that exists today (Socket 939 for AMD, Socket whatever for Intel) will be phased out.

Miles Teg

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2006-02-20 05:03pm

I was of the understanding that getting good drivers for laptop video cards.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Benefit of a CPU Upgrade?

Benefit of a CPU Upgrade?

Re: Benefit of a CPU Upgrade?

Re: Benefit of a CPU Upgrade?

Gaming laptops