Redwolf Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Getting fed up with the misinformation in the other threads here, so here's it in short. Different processor architectures have different performance per MHz. Basically you have to tell apart these three lines: </font>Intel Netburst (Pentium-4, P4M, P4-based Celerons)</font>AMD64s (Athlon 64, Athlon FX)</font>Newer P3-derived Intels (Pentium-M, Core Duo, Core2)</font> Intel Netburst/P4 performed well only for very specific applications, mostly video encoding and some selected graphics tasks. Gaming was bad, as was power consumption, Compared to a AMD64, a P4 needs much higher clockspeed for the same performance. A 2.2 GHz AMD64 plays about as well as 2.8 GHz Netburst/P4. Having realized their error with the lame and power-hungry Netburst CPUs, Intel developed the Pentium-III line into the Pentium-M, Core Duo and Core2 chips. These compare as well or even better than AMD64 at the same clocks. Here's an approximate table of performance per clock for gaming, with AMD64s placed at 100: </font>100% AMD64s, Athlon 64/FX, Opteron - 100%</font>90% 32 bit Athlon XP/MP (might be less, didn't really follow)</font>70% old Pentium-4s with less than 800 MHz FSB</font>80% Pentium-4s with Northwood core and 800 MHz FSB</font>78% Pentium-4s with Prescott core</font>105% Pentium-M</font>110-115% Core Duo</font>120-130% Core 2 Duo/Quad</font> The cache size played a negligible role in gaming performance, don't be fooled by the AMD64s with 512 or 1024 KB cache. It only brings a couple percent at best. [ March 23, 2007, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Redwolf ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elementalism Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I'd check your facts on the old Athlon XP's. In most 3d gaming the A64s were beating them by more than 10%. Core duo's and Pentium M's were close but didnt usually beat the A64. Core 2 Duo's smoke them though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kettenhund Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 How about overclocked pentium-m? I have a P-M 780 2,26 Ghz on a sockel 478 Asus P4C800 deluxe bord with that 479er adapter running at 3,0 Ghz. I dont know exactly, but i think no AMD 64 can bet my pentium-m. I dont see AMD´s in benchmark tabels... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColumbusOHGamer Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Not to poop on anyone's parade, but unless you have good graphics card, all the CPU cycles in the world will not help you. Results running Oblivion with different cards: 6200GS - 3-5FPS on lowest settings, had .5-1sec. delay 7800GS - 30+FPS on 75% setting. No delay. 8800GTS - Unlimited FPS at Highest settings (incl. 8x AA) Kettenhund, sounds like you have AGP video on MB which will limit your card. Again, sorry if this turns out to be a highjacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share Posted March 23, 2007 Originally posted by Kettenhund: How about overclocked pentium-m? I have a P-M 780 2,26 Ghz on a sockel 478 Asus P4C800 deluxe bord with that 479er adapter running at 3,0 Ghz. I dont know exactly, but i think no AMD 64 can bet my pentium-m. I dont see AMD´s in benchmark tabels... The architectures that have been put out in the last years usually scale very well with clockspeed. That means 20% more CPU clockspeed usually means close to 20% more speed, and that the computers are not limited by e.g. memory or FSB. Whether you should be overclocking without major learning of testing procedures first is a different matter... Of course the graphics card is the limiting factor in most gaming, that goes without saying. I was merely clearing up point that were unclear in the minimum system specs discussed in other threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonp Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 All, My CPU is an Intel Core 2 Duo 6700 and my video card is a GeForce 7950 GX2 (with 1 Gig of memory). I am assuming this is more then enough to run this game, right? Thx jonpfl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Originally posted by jonp: All, My CPU is an Intel Core 2 Duo 6700 and my video card is a GeForce 7950 GX2 (with 1 Gig of memory). I am assuming this is more then enough to run this game, right? Thx jonpfl Yes, that system should do just fine! Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kettenhund Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Originally posted by ColumbusOHGamer: Kettenhund, sounds like you have AGP video on MB which will limit your card. [/QB]my video card is a Radeon X1950 Pro with 512MB Ram. My System RAM are Cellshock 4x1GB on dual channel running at 250MHz (DDR500). I can run "Oblivion" with all setting between 75-85 frames per seconds... There is no limits on my system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyman56 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Must of cost you alot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pannekoek Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 columbusOHgamer when you run vista with an 8800gtx do you have an probs or did you only test it under xp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts