Very hight Frame Rate in the review but not mine

[boonmar]

I've been seeing all these frame rate in reviews for current games such as FEAR, COD 2, BF2, and the frame rate is very high even in higher resolution on the x1900xtx. I have the same spec as those test setup, except for the CPU. Most of those guys are running the AMD FX. Mine is just the AMD 64 4000. The game runs great at 1024x768 but when I max out the seting, I do noticed a little lag. I don't even run it at higher than. I did bump out the RAM to 2 gig and FEAR now running smooth but with alot of setting set to medium. Could my CPU be slowing down the system?

[V10Ace]

Stock cpu, no overclock? It's probably a bottleneck.

[boonmar]

Stock cpu, no overclock? It's probably a bottleneck.

I used the feature in the bios to overclocked my CPU by 3, 5, 8, or 10 percent. 8 percent is the highest without crashing. Which bring my fsb to 216.

[El<(')>Maxi]

A dual core would help out ;)

[S_Wilson]

A dual core would help out ;)

Not just a dual core but an overclocked dual core. :)

Takes a lot to feed the X1900's.

[boonmar]

Not just a dual core but an overclocked dual core. :)

Takes a lot to feed the X1900's.


Are the AMD fx cpu better than the dual cord AMD 64 for gameing? For latest benchmark that I see, the test setup usually used the FX, not the AMD x2.

[S_Wilson]

Are the AMD fx cpu better than the dual cord AMD 64 for gameing? For latest benchmark that I see, the test setup usually used the FX, not the AMD x2.

The FX can be better, especially at stock settings since it will have higher clocks and maybe more cache but they are expensive. Reviewers get all the cool toys, just not fair. :D

[>HyperlogiK<]

Even an X1900XTX might not like running high levels of anti aliasing at the native resolution of your monitor.

Try overclocking the processor, you should be able to get a lot more than 8% if you run the memory asynchronously, are you using the stock AMD cooler or something better? BTW you don't need a dual core in any way, most of those games don't even support multi threading so it wouldn't give any real advantage.

[Michael Warren]

Even an X1900XTX might not like running high levels of anti aliasing at the native resolution of your monitor.

Try overclocking the processor, you should be able to get a lot more than 8% if you run the memory asynchronously, are you using the stock AMD cooler or something better? BTW you don't need a dual core in any way, most of those games don't even support multi threading so it wouldn't give any real advantage.
Agreed, getting a dual core will make your fps average lower in most games at the moment. Do you have the latest drivers installed? You might get some lag if your HDD has to load up a new area in a game so your HDD might actually be the bottleneck. That lag that you normally get when your HDD has to load up a new area doesnt bother me too much though.

[S_Wilson]

Just because games are single threaded does not mean you will get lower FPS with a dual core. I can't say if my FPS are up or down with a dual core but I can say that minimum FPS have been higher, meaning less stuttering. Things are changing and video drivers, among other things, are beginning to take advantage of the dual core architecture. Nvidia is leading in that arena since they have been working with optimizations longer but ATI is also working towards this.


@boonmar As others have suggested that you keep what you have and overclock it more, I agree. There are new processors on the horizon which may or may not be a major jump in performance so it would be wise to wait and see.

[Michael Warren]

I will post the benchmark that shows the dual core that is clocked at the same speed as the single core getting about 20fps less than the single core. I have yet to see games start to utilize dual core processors, there have been a few exceptions. Maybe in a year or two games will start to utilize multiple core processors.

[Rattle]

you need an amd at about 2.8 not to bottleneck a stock xtx, depending on what app, single cores seem to give more frames in games but dual cores give better 3dmarks.

Oc your 4000 to 2,7 and you'll be surprised

[S_Wilson]

I will post the benchmark that shows the dual core that is clocked at the same speed as the single core getting about 20fps less than the single core. I have yet to see games start to utilize dual core processors, there have been a few exceptions. Maybe in a year or two games will start to utilize multiple core processors.

Here (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2668&p=8), here (http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=197&type=expert&pid=10) and here (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-fx60_11.html) are just a few places showing parity or close between the FX60 and FX57 in gaming benchmarks. The FX60 is dual core at 2.6 and the FX57 is single core at 2.8.

[Dan0512]

Dual core won't give you more FPS if you aren't running any other heavy apps in the background.

Remember that the framerates in reviews are usually listed as the average, so even if it shows 70fps in the review, there might be scenes where it drops to 50., and so on.

I don't think your processor is limiting the performance when you have the AA and AF cranked up, but some extra mhz would help out for sure.

dan

[Michael Warren]

Heres a quote from Misfit138 "Just got rid of my dual core in favor of gaming framerates....If you are a gamer, then Opty 146 is what I say! CS:S framerates went from 144 to 177 with single core 3Ghz vs dual core @ 2.8Ghz". He posted that about an hour ago. http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?p=4408430#post4408430
Here are some benchmarks that prove my point.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=239&model2=328&chart=71
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=239&model2=328&chart=50
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=239&model2=328&chart=68
They are both clocked at 2.6 so its fair. With a dual core your chances of getting a high overclock is alot lower than your chances of getting a high overclock with a single cpu.

[S_Wilson]

Heres a quote from Misfit138 "Just got rid of my dual core in favor of gaming framerates....If you are a gamer, then Opty 146 is what I say! CS:S framerates went from 144 to 177 with single core 3Ghz vs dual core @ 2.8Ghz". He posted that about an hour ago. http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?p=4408430#post4408430


Seems to be a quite a difference, wonder if he had the dual core setup properly? There are a couple of extra steps you have to take with a dual core that are not necessary with a single core. Overall I think there has to be more to that than what is in that post.





Here are some benchmarks that prove my point.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=239&model2=328&chart=71
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=239&model2=328&chart=50
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=239&model2=328&chart=68
They are both clocked at 2.6 so its fair.

Sorry, but anything on Toms misinformation site isn't worth reading. Any other examples from reputable sources? The 3 sources I posted in my previous post gives the single core a 200Mhz advantage and the dual core still showed parity, FX57(2.8) VS FX60(2.6).





With a dual core your chances of getting a high overclock is alot lower than your chances of getting a high overclock with a single cpu.

This is very true since you are essentially overclocking 2 processors instead of one.

[boonmar]

I'm using stock cooling that came with CPU.
My memory timing is 2.5,3,3,6.
I did seem some improvement in shuttering in FEAR when upgrade to 2 gig. Asus motherboard has this AI Overclock that I can set to 3, 5, 8, 10, but as I said before, 8% seem to be the higest. In FEAR, I would lock up when I overclock to 10%.
I'm running Cat. 6.3. and I'm using the AI overclock and was getting 689 for core and 799 for memory.
My monitor refresh rate is 120.
I always defrag my harddrive before installing anything. I dont' have another other application running in the backgroup just the normal Windows xp stuff.

So if I get a better cooling, I should be able to overclock my CPU more? I though about going with Crossfire mb and another x1800xt crossfire edition, but I don't play game above 1024x768 so if seem like a waste of money. I thought by having 1900xtx, I should be able to crank everything. Just like to know what is holding my system back. I like the game to be smooth. Thanks for all you suggestion.

[Michael Warren]

Seems to be a quite a difference, wonder if he had the dual core setup properly? There are a couple of extra steps you have to take with a dual core that are not necessary with a single core. Overall I think there has to be more to that than what is in that post.






Sorry, but anything on Toms misinformation site isn't worth reading. Any other examples from reputable sources? The 3 sources I posted in my previous post gives the single core a 200Mhz advantage and the dual core still showed parity, FX57(2.8) VS FX60(2.6).






This is very true since you are essentially overclocking 2 processors instead of one.
Ha, im done proving my point. Your the kind of person that never accepts the truth even if its right in front of your face. Hopefully boonmar will make the right choice.

[S_Wilson]

I'm using stock cooling that came with CPU.
My memory timing is 2.5,3,3,6.
I did seem some improvement in shuttering in FEAR when upgrade to 2 gig. Asus motherboard has this AI Overclock that I can set to 3, 5, 8, 10, but as I said before, 8% seem to be the higest. In FEAR, I would lock up when I overclock to 10%.
I'm running Cat. 6.3. and I'm using the AI overclock and was getting 689 for core and 799 for memory.
My monitor refresh rate is 120.
I always defrag my harddrive before installing anything. I dont' have another other application running in the backgroup just the normal Windows xp stuff.

So if I get a better cooling, I should be able to overclock my CPU more? I though about going with Crossfire mb and another x1800xt crossfire edition, but I don't play game above 1024x768 so if seem like a waste of money. I thought by having 1900xtx, I should be able to crank everything. Just like to know what is holding my system back. I like the game to be smooth. Thanks for all you suggestion.


You may be able to overclock more with stock cooling but better cooling will help get even more. What you need to do is get away from the AI stuff so you can adjust voltages and such. I think it might be that you set your overclocking option to Manual.

After that it is just a process of testing things seperately to find the max potential of the processor, ram and soforth. Why you lock up at 10% could be a result of memory not working at that frequency or needing more voltage or the processor needing more voltage or something. The CPU section has a ton of good information and the motherboard section also as you may find people who are more familiar with your board.

Good luck

[Michael Warren]

A X1900 is way overkill for 1024*768...........
I would sell the X1900 and I would go with an X1800 or an X850XT for $190 and I would overclock that to X1800 speeds. With the left over money I would buy a raptor and you should be able to say goodbye to that stuttering that you are getting. A refresh rate of 120 is very high, I have mines at 75. Try setting it lower and see if the stuttering is still there.

[boonmar]

Thanks again for all your suggestion. I'm looking into getting Zalman CNPS9500 for the CPU. I also kind of like the way it blow the heat out in one direction toward the back of the case where I have the fan pulling the air out. I would like to see maybe I can get more from this CPU before spending more, I mean I just build me a new system 3 months ago as a Christmas gift to myself. Not that this heatsink is cheap either. $60 buck is better than a new CPU or Crossfire. I need to know more about adjusting the votage and stuff and will look at the CPU forum. Again, I really appreciate all your guys help. Wish me luck.

[boonmar]

A X1900 is way overkill for 1024*768...........
I would sell the X1900 and I would go with an X1800 or an X850XT for $190 and I would overclock that to X1800 speeds. With the left over money I would buy a raptor and you should be able to say goodbye to that stuttering that you are getting. A refresh rate of 120 is very high, I have mines at 75. Try setting it lower and see if the stuttering is still there.


You're not going to believe it but I did upgrade from x1800xt to x1900xtx, I like to enable AA and AF, but with my x1800xt, I have to turn those off if I want to have smooth gameplay. You mentioned a raptor, what is that?

[S_Wilson]

Ha, im done proving my point. Your the kind of person that never accepts the truth even if its right in front of your face. Hopefully boonmar will make the right choice.

Nice. :rolleyes:

Did you bother to click the links from Anandtech, PC Perspectives or Xbit provided in post #13?

[Michael Warren]

Did you bother to check out the other 20 sites that has benchmarks proving that a single core is better than a dual core for gaming and someone even sold their dual core because they didnt think that it was worth it.

[Michael Warren]

You're not going to believe it but I did upgrade from x1800xt to x1900xtx, I like to enable AA and AF, but with my x1800xt, I have to turn those off if I want to have smooth gameplay. You mentioned a raptor, what is that?
Damn thats crazy because I can play any game maxed out with my card and get smooth gameplay. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822144160

[>HyperlogiK<]

come on the 4000+ is a meaty chip, maybe he should overclock it, but he hardly needs to replace the thing.

[Cam1]

Heres a quote from Misfit138 "Just got rid of my dual core in favor of gaming framerates....If you are a gamer, then Opty 146 is what I say! CS:S framerates went from 144 to 177 with single core 3Ghz vs dual core @ 2.8Ghz". He posted that about an hour ago. http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?p=4408430#post4408430
Here are some benchmarks that prove my point.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=239&model2=328&chart=71
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=239&model2=328&chart=50
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=239&model2=328&chart=68
They are both clocked at 2.6 so its fair. With a dual core your chances of getting a high overclock is alot lower than your chances of getting a high overclock with a single cpu.


Hmm did you know the human eye can only handel 60 FPS????

Oh yes and secondly SiSandra says my dual core is high than a 4800+ nad so does 3dmark 06... And if your a grandpa and will be playing your old games all day with your FX graphics card, then yes get single... however if you think you will be playing games for > year then a dual would b a good choice.

Not saying singles are bad... Im saying they are good for the year 2005... :)

[Michael Warren]

Actually the human eye can handle well over 300fps and sisandra tests for bandwidth, of course a dual core has more bandwidth than a single core but a single core will beat out a dual core in any game right now.

[satandole666]

I'd max out the OC on your 4000+ (ram divider if necessary, but don't go too low). Don't use the auto option, jump in with both feet and fry your first CPU. Then get one of the new dual core FXs :P

Even with the stock cooler you should get some decent results.

[>HyperlogiK<]

Hmm did you know the human eye can only handel 60 FPS????


Not quite true, AFAIK (basing this on my rather basic knowledge of vision) it varies depending on what kind of display you are looking at. If a display draws the whole scene at once, like a projector then the average human eye is fine looking at anything above about 25 FPS, because of the persistance of vision we see each frame blured into the next and so it doesn't seem jerkey. Supposedly with CRT displays doing a line by line refresh it is more complicated, though my vision textbook doesn't explain exactly why.

I think the human eye can SEE flicker up to about 60 FPS, but subtly NOTICE differences between much higher frame rates, this isn't because of a limitation of the eye, but a limitation of the visual cortex in processing the information.
I read that average people have been able to remember images that have been displayed to them for intervals of about 1/200th of a second, and although they were unable to recall what the image looked like, people have identified images viewed for less than 1/230th of a second.

[Cobalt]

I prefer to play on a CRT because for some reason I don't notice the framerate difference as much. 25fps looks horrible on my LCD but perfectly accepable on my CRT. Then again I have a 85Hz refresh rate on the CRT.