Best Gaming Computer - Page 3 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Monitors, Printers and Peripherals
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-15-2003, 09:30 AM   #21 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
dethangel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 934
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by darthparth
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
__________________

dethangel is offline  
Old 07-15-2003, 10:13 PM   #22 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 153
Default

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
__________________

darthparth is offline  
Old 07-15-2003, 10:20 PM   #23 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,015
Default

i read in a magazine article that the barton 3000+ actually outperforms the P4 3.0 ghz in some instances...
devlish96 is offline  
Old 07-15-2003, 10:22 PM   #24 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 153
Default

True devlish96, i heard that too, even when the FSB was upped to 800mhz
darthparth is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 09:34 AM   #25 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
dethangel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 934
Default 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
dethangel is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 11:41 PM   #26 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 153
Default

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
darthparth is offline  
Old 07-17-2003, 12:52 AM   #27 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 223
Default

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/sho...&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
__________________
There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.
President, Digital Equipment, 1977
chalk is offline  
Old 07-17-2003, 09:28 PM   #28 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 153
Default

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 is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 05:25 AM   #29 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by darthparth
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
nicely said darth!! i'm wid ya!
__________________

devlish96 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.