4850 and Athlon X2

[x2 3600 rules sazakky]

Does anyone have a similar setup to mine with an Athlon X2 2.7ghz.
What kind of frames do you get with the 4850.

 

[Insomniator]

...what game?

5000+ @ 3.0, 4850, 2gb .

COD4 maxed at 1900x1200 (2x AA) doesnt go below 30.

Crysis, couldn't get a playable frame rate with settings high enough for the game to look better than farcry. Was the demo though.

Windows Vista btw

 

[x2 3600 rules sazakky]

are you serious. what res and aa with crysis

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
Crysis, couldn't get a playable frame rate with settings high enough for the game to look better than farcry. Was the demo though.

I thought Crysis looked pretty incredible on medium/high settings on my 8800GTS 320mb at 1920x1200. My FPS were generally in the 25-30 range.

Toward the end of the game (the last 3 levels or so) I had to set everything on 'low' and reduce the resolution to 1280x720, and even then I must have been CPU limited...my FPS often bogged down into the 10-20 range. Basically from the snow level onward, I found that the game became increasingly demanding.

My processor is an Opteron 165 overclocked to 2.7ghz.

It depends on the game and the situation, but I would say that a large percentage of times I am not CPU limited.

 

[SickBeast]

Just as an aside, OP, you really need to change your alias. You obviously seriously question whether or not your 3600+ "rules". :beer:

Perhaps "x2 3600 obsolete sazakky"?

 

[octopus41092]

What games and what settings, I have an X2 6000+ and my HD4850 is OC'ed to 700/1050. But don't say Crysis, because I don't have it

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Insomniator
Crysis, couldn't get a playable frame rate with settings high enough for the game to look better than farcry. Was the demo though.

I thought Crysis looked pretty incredible on medium/high settings on my 8800GTS 320mb at 1920x1200. My FPS were generally in the 25-30 range.

Toward the end of the game (the last 3 levels or so) I had to set everything on 'low' and reduce the resolution to 1280x720, and even then I must have been CPU limited...my FPS often bogged down into the 10-20 range. Basically from the snow level onward, I found that the game became increasingly demanding.

My processor is an Opteron 165 overclocked to 2.7ghz.

It depends on the game and the situation, but I would say that a large percentage of times I am not CPU limited.

I played and finished crysis on mega slow pc and i enjoyed every bit off it : )

X1650pro
E6600
2GB

1680x1050 all low and 2 setting on medium.

Anyways , the game mega awesome on a higher end machine but i finished the game at lan i was i never felt like i need the mega awesome graphic to go see what the game had to offer. Turning up the graphic to high made the game look super awesome. Story sucked on High and low ...

Crysis Warhead gameplay e3 video on the net made me want scream. They were showing some gameplay where you had to protect the jeep :! so looked like crappy Call of duty 1 style protection mission

 

[3HackBug77]

So I have question, I got a 4600+ x2 overclocked to about 2.7GHz, with a Nvidia 7900GT, I was eyeing the 4850, but not sure really if that would be a good upgrade or if i should get a better cpu first.

I kinda want to stick with AMD processor, because I don't want to upgrade my mobo. I run at 1680x1050 resolution normally, sometimes 1440x900 if the game's really demanding.

 

[x2 3600 rules sazakky]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Just as an aside, OP, you really need to change your alias. You obviously seriously question whether or not your 3600+ "rules". :beer:

Perhaps "x2 3600 obsolete sazakky"?

bro, i made my user name like 2 years ago and i regret the name

 

[x2 3600 rules sazakky]

Originally posted by: 3HackBug77
So I have question, I got a 4600+ x2 overclocked to about 2.7GHz, with a Nvidia 7900GT, I was eyeing the 4850, but not sure really if that would be a good upgrade or if i should get a better cpu first.

I kinda want to stick with AMD processor, because I don't want to upgrade my mobo. I run at 1680x1050 resolution normally, sometimes 1440x900 if the game's really demanding.

First your graphics and then platform.
4850 is a excellent upgrade and the platform upgrade to INtel will be about equivalent to a big boost in fps to all your games.
athlon x2 really sucks for gaming according to reviews.

 

[cubeless]

sucks is relative... for net $35 i upgraded one pc to a x2 6000 @ 3.2ghz and it is just fine with an 8800... i'll stick one of my new 4850's in it and play a bit...

i built a couple x2 3600 @ 2.8ghz systems with 8800gts320's in them and at 1440 they still are plenty good game boxes... at the time the x2 3600 was a great value platform with the tforce board...

the 6000 does have the bigger cache, but i can't say what its effect is...

 

[geokilla]

I'm interested in getting a 4850 for my rig in sig since it'll be my sister that's going to get a new computer. However, my 17 inch monitor is seriously going to limit my gaming experience...

If I play games such as Crysis, F.E.A.R., CoD4, etc. maxed with anti-aliasing (MSAA?) on my rig with the 4850, would I still be CPU bound?

@OP, I think your 3870 is good enough for your rig.....What resolution do you game at? If it's something like 1920X1200, you might see a nice performance upgrade, but I'm pretty sure you'll be CPU bound, just like I would be if I got a 4850 for my rig.

Anyone wanna confirm that thought?

 

[NickR]

I dont know about the 4850 or X2, but i can run FEAR maxed and never lags even a little, with a 2600XT and P4 630. Soon will have a +5000 with 3850 or 4850. yet to decide. The Athlon64s are good processors, not as good as the C2D, but still very good.

 

[unr3al]

I assume that it would be a good upgrade if I bought an HD4850? I'm using an X1250 IGP . . . lol

One thing though; a cousin of mine has a stock X2 5000 combined with an overclocked 7600GT and he finished Crysis 1152x864 all medium settings? How could a 2.7GHz Opteron then be limiting the game if you consider that it has 100MHz more on the clock and double the cache?

Unless you absolutely must have all rates above 30fps I can't see how the CPU can be so extremely a limitation. Setting up the detail settings should have more of an impact on the graphics card than the CPU? I stand to be corrected. And no matter what Core2 does, the AMD64 architecture isn't really that slow. In my books, slow is Pentium D clock-for-clock vs the Core2.

However, isn't judging performance on only one game a bit narrow-minded? There is also the advantage that if you upgrade your CPU you already have the graphics. Or you could upgrade your monitor to support the higher resolution and therefore eliminate the CPU limitation. Or just up your AA or AF levels and watch the framerates drop to whatever limit the CPU is setting. Personally I find that a 15fps minimum framerate is completely acceptable. As long as the average is above 30, I'm happy. Sadly in most games I'm currently playing (Resident Evil 4, Grand Theft Auto San Andreas) the framerate drops below 30fps too often and the average becomes closer to 20...

 

[x2 3600 rules sazakky]

Originally posted by: geokilla
I'm interested in getting a 4850 for my rig in sig since it'll be my sister that's going to get a new computer. However, my 17 inch monitor is seriously going to limit my gaming experience...

If I play games such as Crysis, F.E.A.R., CoD4, etc. maxed with anti-aliasing (MSAA?) on my rig with the 4850, would I still be CPU bound?

@OP, I think your 3870 is good enough for your rig.....What resolution do you game at? If it's something like 1920X1200, you might see a nice performance upgrade, but I'm pretty sure you'll be CPU bound, just like I would be if I got a 4850 for my rig.

Anyone wanna confirm that thought?

actually, i already sold my 3870 on ebay so back to my old x1900tx for a while (luckily i have a 360). right now, don't know if i should get 4850 or gtx 260 or 4870.

 

[User5]

Originally posted by: unr3al
I assume that it would be a good upgrade if I bought an HD4850? I'm using an X1250 IGP . . . lol

One thing though; a cousin of mine has a stock X2 5000 combined with an overclocked 7600GT and he finished Crysis 1152x864 all medium settings? How could a 2.7GHz Opteron then be limiting the game if you consider that it has 100MHz more on the clock and double the cache?

Unless you absolutely must have all rates above 30fps I can't see how the CPU can be so extremely a limitation. Setting up the detail settings should have more of an impact on the graphics card than the CPU? I stand to be corrected. And no matter what Core2 does, the AMD64 architecture isn't really that slow. In my books, slow is Pentium D clock-for-clock vs the Core2.

However, isn't judging performance on only one game a bit narrow-minded? There is also the advantage that if you upgrade your CPU you already have the graphics. Or you could upgrade your monitor to support the higher resolution and therefore eliminate the CPU limitation. Or just up your AA or AF levels and watch the framerates drop to whatever limit the CPU is setting. Personally I find that a 15fps minimum framerate is completely acceptable. As long as the average is above 30, I'm happy. Sadly in most games I'm currently playing (Resident Evil 4, Grand Theft Auto San Andreas) the framerate drops below 30fps too often and the average becomes closer to 20...

if you are okay with only 30fps, then a 4850 may even be too much! Even with 1680x1050 and 4X AA theres only three games I have that will dip this low, and thats Crysis, Oblivion, and Assasins Creed.

Sorry I cant comment on the CPU fps thing.. thats all a bit beyond my knowledge But I dont see what upgrading the monitor would have to do with the cpu limitation. Getting a bigger monitor means higher resolutions, which i would assume would mean more stress all around.

Also, its all about what the FPS is SOLID at. If I am playing a game with SOLID 30 FPS its okay.. but what you don't want, is rapid fluctuation from lets say 20fps to 50+fps, especially in a fps. But still, once you start gaming at a silky smooth 60fps, theres nothing like it

 

[x2 3600 rules sazakky]

yeah. true

 

[unr3al]

I have seen 60fps in games (GTAVC, Half-Life 2) and I agree that its amazing, but if you don't have the hardware to cope with it, you have to make do with second best lol

The biggest problem with my IGP (apart from 10fps in Crysis...) is the particle effect. The moment there are particles onscreen, my framerate drops through the floor. I have notably seen this in GTAVC, specifically when they drop the tear gas grenades through the bank's roof in "The Job". Apart from that I get above 40fps average at 1024x768 maxed.

Resident Evil 4 with the v1.1 patch, on the other hand has volumetric fog, which = particles. So there my framerate outdoors (which is where pretty much most of the game takes place) is around 18fps average at 800x600. Before the patch I had that average at 1024x768. But then again it looks so damn nice with the patch (the way Resident Evil was meant to look...) that I don't want to uninstall it! And I must give this to Capcom, my framerate is remarkably constant.

And to return to the HD4850, if I bought one, it would be with one eye on the future. I wouldn't be upgrading my graphics card for at least 3-4 years after that...

My CPU could be upgraded in the meantime though.