Best Gaming Computer

Status
Not open for further replies.
darthparth said:
dethangel, hyperthreading does not add performance to games as the processor you stated best for games

it does if the game supports hyperthreading, which most next-gen games will, and its not only the HT technology that makes the P4 faster, its the new FSB which is a blazing 800 mhz
 
actually, according to many game developers, Valve, and ID included, making games use the hyperthreading pipeline is more of an incovenience and will not be in engines including the source and doom 3 ones. And even though the FSB is blazing fast, the Barton 3000+ is still almost on par with the P4 3.0ghz. But if its not a cost issue, P4 all the way, if ur poor like me ;) AMD
 
i read in a magazine article that the barton 3000+ actually outperforms the P4 3.0 ghz in some instances...
 
thats not possible

as the lowest clock speed of the new fsb is 3.2 ghz, and the fsb is twice as fast as an amd, their fastest model is still only a 400 mhz fsb, most are only 333mhz
 
The FSB difference in MHZ doesnt mean the performance is the same. Even with the "blazing" 800mhz FSB, An Intel 3.2ghz processor performed roughly 4% better than the AMD Barton 3000+ (test did not include the Barton 3200+). And for games 4% means the difference between 120fps and 115fps which is very insignificant. FSB upping and hyperthreading do nothing for games thus makin the P4 3.2ghz slightly better at this stage....but ridiculously expensive, whereas AMD Barton is top of the line, and very affordable :D
 
They both are good processors with from companies that have technilogical advantages that have benefits! lol

Many people, usually non technical ones, that I've helped build machines usually have a bottlenecks that actually negated/limited the actual advantage of heavily marketed components or technoquantumlevelnewwidgetthingy. I'm in now way am saying that anyone is here fits this description - in fact ya'll are extremely well informed.

I have an msi 6380e w/ 1800+ xp, 128m 4200ti graphics card(only 4x agp *OMG!), cl 2.5 384m RAM( a modest system) that I have no problem with and have tweaked to the point where I have no complaints in games like CS (which admight is 'old'), BF1942 etc. where I have felt the need to upgrade at all. (I get 99 FPS in CS - the same FPS as a computer twice as fast as mine - see my optimization post http://www.tech-heaven.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3965). Anybody else here feel this way? I understand the need to get the best when you are buying a system - but at somepoint it just gets ridiculous...except if you are doing n-body caldulcations, like galaxy formation or protein variation BUT now you have distributed processing!

No offense meant in any way, just that "its all good."

chalk
 
Yes both are, it just amuses me that a processor can cost $200 more and perform the same as a cheaper one (ie in ur case chalk)
 
darthparth said:
The FSB difference in MHZ doesnt mean the performance is the same. Even with the "blazing" 800mhz FSB, An Intel 3.2ghz processor performed roughly 4% better than the AMD Barton 3000+ (test did not include the Barton 3200+). And for games 4% means the difference between 120fps and 115fps which is very insignificant. FSB upping and hyperthreading do nothing for games thus makin the P4 3.2ghz slightly better at this stage....but ridiculously expensive, whereas AMD Barton is top of the line, and very affordable :D

nicely said darth!! i'm wid ya!:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom