AMD good enough for HL2's graphics?

[nsxownzme]

AMD Athlon 2500 Barton costs about $100... I think it's 1.83Ghz. Would that be good enough to run HL2 on it's highest graphical settings with a 9800 Pro?
And you gotta think.. it's recommended a 2Ghz processor for high detail.. The 3000/3200 don't break the 2Ghz mark by much.
Can I get some other opinions? I'm looking to upgrade and the 2500 barton is fast and cheap... I just need to know if it's fast enough?

Thanks!

 

[[Matt]]

no AMD r teh sux

 

[Prince of China]

Intel is better

 

[Diablo2k]

Dont look so much at Ghz.. clockspeeds are what matter now. And yes im sure you will be able to play it at full glory with your nice graphics card.

 

[nsxownzme]

How can I figure out clock speeds?

 

[GordN FreeLoadR]

Yes, your Barton 2500 will do just fine.

Here's a DirectX performance chart to take a look at:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-23.html


G.F.

 

[nsxownzme]

Thanks GordN FreeLoadR!

 

[Mr. Redundant]

he was asking if it would run it... yes it would, and good price for the speed.






*sigh* but
AMD suck

 

[Steven Q Urkle]

radeon 9800pro is a rip off.
you can get a 9800 and easly get it up to a pro and save 100 bucks

also no one knows if it will run well on that because the game is not out.

 

[TrueWeltall]

AMD is the el cheapo break alot of cpu's

 

[crabcakes66]

Originally posted by Diablo2k
Dont look so much at Ghz.. clockspeeds are what matter now. And yes im sure you will be able to play it at full glory with your nice graphics card.

Im lost ......... clockspeeds are measured in Mhz/Ghz.........

this thread is full of idiots that have no idea what they are talking about..***n..***n far away.......


the 2500+ barton is fine btw.....

 

[$niper]

An AMD cpu will be fine. Just because Intel's high-end processors (which cost a lot) are faster, it doesn't mean AMD cpus are slow.

 

[Prince of China]

Clockspeeds are MHz/GHz-right!?!?

 

[$niper]

Originally posted by Tredoslop
Clockspeeds are MHz/GHz-right!?!?

Yes, clock speeds for processors are measured in Mhz and Ghz respectively.

AMD uses a numbering system to denote performance (Not completely accurate), but their clock speeds are still measured in Mhz/Ghz.

 

[Flynn]

i've never had any probs w/ AMD, my Benchmark 03 score is around 5000

9800 (not pro)
2100 XP
512 DDR Yes, im a rich bastard compared to most folks, prolly not so much to u guys, but yes u can bash me

 

[nw909]

What, because you have 512 DDR Ram?

 

[$niper]

Probably because he has a Radeon 9800.

 

[TrueWeltall]

Originally posted by Flynn
i've never had any probs w/ AMD, my Benchmark 03 score is around 5000

9800 (not pro)
2100 XP
512 DDR Yes, im a rich bastard compared to most folks, prolly not so much to u guys, but yes u can bash me

Erm yeah i have a p4 2.4ghz 512mb 3200 DDR radeon 9800 non pro in the next room so i win

 

[nw909]

Cool, same setup as me TrueWeltall

 

[Doobz]

bah, don't listen to the Intel fanboys, AMDs are good processors, and the processor to get if you're into overclocking

on a direct clock speed performance comparison of AMDs and Intels, AMDs win, (ex., 1.8 GHz p4 vs. an athlon xp 2500 1.8 GHz, the athlon would win, even comparing on terms with a 2.5 GHz p4)

the only reason intel is faster is because it's current high end product (p4 3.2 GHz, hyperthreading, FSB 800) is faster than the highest end product at the moment, but the intel product is 700 dollars

the most powerful athlon xp at the moment is the 3200+, rated at 2.2 GHz, and it runs just about on even terms with a 3.06 GHz p4, and it's a good 425 dollars cheaper as well

 

[Spyre]

AMD is fine. I build/fix/upgrade computers for a living. AMD has never let me down. The idea that they produce an inferior product is just the kind of reaction you will get from someone who's more interested in brand names than the actual performance/price issue. Clearly the people complaining about AMD weren't around during the Cyrix years.

I bought a $5000 rig for Half-Life 2 just a month ago. I bought AMD. These days you not only have to look at what processor you're buying but also how well it's integrated with your motherboard, MB controllers, bus speeds, RAM type and such. If you're still unsure about AMD I suggest you check out the many reviews and benchmarks out there for AMD vs Intel.

BTW, when Quake 3 was on a road tour everyone was playing on AMD machines.

 

[$niper]

Hey, let's turn this into a "What are my specs?!" thread!

AMD AthlonXP 2600+
512mb DDR
GeForce 4 ti4600

 

[another-user]

well if where gonna turn it into a specs thread...

p3 667mghz
tnt2 ultra
512mb pci133

i can pull just under 30fps in half life on this beast......i hate this worthless piece of crap comp...

 

[willyd]

I think i may get flamed for following sniper but oh well

Geforce 4800se
Pentium4 3.06 533fsb
1gb DDR-PC2100

 

[nw909]

Originally posted by another-user
well if where gonna turn it into a specs thread...

p3 667mghz
tnt2 ultra
512mb pci133

i can pull just under 30fps in half life on this beast......i hate this worthless piece of crap comp...

Haha, please say your planning an update?

 

[TrueWeltall]

The computer that i do most of my gaming on is a p3 800mhz geforce 2 mx200 384 megs of ram, Mainly because its in my bedroom and the other room is always too cold or too hot. Ive got a dell 8100 minus a working cpu and mobo that im going to use the parts for towards anotehr computer. Maybe amd if i dont get enough money for intel.

 

[another-user]

ya, im planning a huge upgrade. my new systems gonna have a

amd 3200+
radeon 9800 pro 256mb
1gig pc3200

and im upgrading from a 4.1 90watt system to a 5.1 500watt system...god i cant wait till i get those logitech z-680s hooked up to my new system, and be able to play hl2 on my 21inch moniter

 

[chris_3]

hopefully i can make it by at high everything with 1,7ghz and a GeForceFX5600 :\ :sniper:

 

[JimmyTheGent]

about 7 inches.

 

[A2597]

AMD XP 2600+
Radeon 9800np
512 megs DDR pc 2100

IMHO, AMD still kicks Intel, they may be lower megahertz, but intel also uses different standards to measure their mgz, making them appear faster then they are. I WILL say that the top of the line intel beats top of the line AMD (Until the 64 bit proccs are out). But who spends 700$ for a proccessor?!?

 

[willyd]

I thought that the reason wasnt cuz they measure their clocks differently but cuz intels processors go though many more steps that ends up making it slower

 

[TrueWeltall]

Whos to say amds 64bit cpu's will be better then intels?

 

[Xtasy0]

Originally posted by willyd
I thought that the reason wasnt cuz they measure their clocks differently but cuz intels processors go though many more steps that ends up making it slower

Mhz / Ghz dont always represent the actual performance, but yes, intel and amd's mhz are measured the same, it's just that amd's cpu's perform more operations per cycle than intel cpu's do.

 

[Xtasy0]

Originally posted by TrueWeltall
Whos to say amds 64bit cpu's will be better then intels?

are you talking about amd's 64bit vs. intel 64bit? or amd's 64bit vs. intels 32bit ?

either way, so far intel's only 64bit cpu's are for servers and such, itanium's and xeons....

amd is taking a different approach which will allow 32bit code to be executed on the 64bit cpu as well, unlike intel's which are pure 64bit, i dont really know off hand if intel has plans for consumer level 64bit or not.

 

[PappaSmurf]

99% of the people in the first page of this thread are stupid ****ing nubbies :dork:

 

[Prince of China]

And who would that 1% be?

 

[TrueWeltall]

Funny how i still only see one page so that would include you

 

[Prince of China]

Was the directed at me?

 

[PappaSmurf]

Originally posted by Tredoslop
And who would that 1% be?

$niper

93% is probably more accurate
:cheese:

Ok, not all stupid nubbies but a large proportion

 

[Prince of China]

You think you know who's cool don't you huh? Your mom is a noob!