• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

AMD 4000+ to e6300 worth it?

T

titanium

n00b
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
39
I'm thinking about upgrading my system because I'm sick of watching my FPS drop below 60 in CS source. I currently have a AMD 4000+ (non dual core), 2gigs RAM, 7800gt. I'm wondering if it would be worth the upgrade.
 
money to play with toy? Then why not? If your tight I would stick with what you have and overclock the CPU.
 
that rig should play CSS pretty darn well...

strange.

if you're an OC'er, then it might be worth it, but honestly, if you're going to upgrade, I'd jump up another step or two.
 
I'd like to try OC'ing my current cpu but I've never done it before and my ram is just the Corsair Valueselect ram :/
 
It will roughly double your horsepower... From 7.2 to 14.88 GFLOPs :eek:
How that will translate into better FPS we can only guess , mine is that you'll be better with the E6300 overall.
 
If you have a SLI mobo, i'd buy another 7800GT and then SLI, you'd save more money that way! Even if you don't, i'd buy a A8N-SLI in the FST forums for around 70-90$ and also another 7800GT that are going for around 140$ in the FST forums and SLI, you'd still be out just over what a E6400 goes for.

If you have the money to toss, then upgrade to the E6300, mobo, ram and enjoy.
 
would another 7800gt really help for CSS? I think its more of a CPU heavy game. That and I play at low graphics mode. All the physics crap is what causes my FPS to drop.
 
your CPU isn't being strained nearly as much as the GPU, and given you have a 4000, which isn't a bad chip at all, especially for something like CSS, i don't think your CPU is the bottleneck.

I'm not sure what your bottleneck is. the 7800GT is still a pretty nice card, especially for a relatively lower level burden like CSS.

not that 60FPS is that bad (your eyes can only see 30fps, unless you have robot laser eyes)

zv
 
I just upgraded from an AMD3500+ (s939) to a e6300. Both setups had 2gigs of ram, though note the change from DDr to DDR2. I am running an ATi X1600 pro. The OS also changed from XP MCE to Vista 64-bit (RC1). So take these changes in mind,

I have seen two changes in performance. When doing one thing at a time, I have definitely seen a bit of a slow-down, due to the lower core clock. However, being a CS:S fan myself, I have to say I have seen some definite improvements in framerate both in CS:S and HL2/ep 1. I also gained about 10-15%in my 3Dmark06 scores.

Hope this helps.

zero_vertical said:
your eyes can only see 30fps, unless you have robot laser eyes)

zv
Click to expand...

32 actually :)
 
Would not overclocking the video card give him the most bang for no or few bucks ?

oops not what he really asked but thought I would mention it.

Even with value ram you probally can overclock it some, every bit helps.

Both those options are free other than a little time invested.
 
I can feel and notice a massive difference between 60 and anything less. I'm a bit of a "hardcore" gamer and its the same way for Q3 for me as it is in CS. I wont play q3 without 120hz monitor and 120fps and I dont like if my frames drop below 60 in souce. I dont have vsync on but I set my fps cap to 61 since it locks to 60 then.
 
Since you already have 2GB of memory, I'd suggest getting an Opteron 165 or 170 and overclocking it. Much less investment than going with a whole new platform. I recently upgraded from an opty 144@2.7 with 1GB PC4000, to what's in my sig (mb, ram, and cpu is all that changed). The difference is quite noticable, but I would have decided differently had I already been running 2GB of PC4000 instead.
 
titanium said:
I can feel and notice a massive difference between 60 and anything less. I'm a bit of a "hardcore" gamer and its the same way for Q3 for me as it is in CS. I wont play q3 without 120hz monitor and 120fps and I dont like if my frames drop below 60 in souce. I dont have vsync on but I set my fps cap to 61 since it locks to 60 then.
Click to expand...


it's in your head. you simply can't seem more frames than 32/sec.


again, unless you have robotic laser eyes. do you?


I'm a hardcore gamer too, and despite what you think, after 45/sec, it's all bragging rights. if you weren't watching the fps counter, you'd never be able to tell the difference between 60 and 120.

zv
 
zero_vertical said:
it's in your head. you simply can't seem more frames than 32/sec.


again, unless you have robotic laser eyes. do you?


I'm a hardcore gamer too, and despite what you think, after 45/sec, it's all bragging rights. if you weren't watching the fps counter, you'd never be able to tell the difference between 60 and 120.

zv
Click to expand...

Actually once mine starts dropping below 50ish I notice a shimmering effect. Anything above 60 though looks no different to me.

But, FPS and Refresh rate a two different things. I can notice a flicker (on a CRT) at anything less than 72Hz, but if the resolution is 1280x1024 or higer I have to have it at 100Hz to not notice the flickering.
 
zero_vertical said:
your CPU isn't being strained nearly as much as the GPU, and given you have a 4000, which isn't a bad chip at all, especially for something like CSS, i don't think your CPU is the bottleneck.

I'm not sure what your bottleneck is. the 7800GT is still a pretty nice card, especially for a relatively lower level burden like CSS.

not that 60FPS is that bad (your eyes can only see 30fps, unless you have robot laser eyes)

zv
Click to expand...



I 100% agree with this.

Your CPU will not be the bottleneck, if anything a GPU upgrade would be far better to do first.


As for FPS, people are getting a tad ridiculous with there frame rate perception claims.

I believe I can see a difference between 30 and 60 FPS BUT that it is probably more to do with 30FPS dropping under occasionally where 60FPS will stay above the 32FPS ish perception.

These people claiming they can see a diff between 60 and 120FPS are tripping, and need to change what they are smoking.
 
liveload said:
Human eyes only detecting up to 30FPS is untrue.

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
Click to expand...

i read with interest until the author started referring to light in waves, which is fundamentally wrong (has been since 1905). that article was written in 2001. in 2001, my pentium 800mhz was fricking amazing, and 3DFx was still making graphics cards.

plus, the author makes no mention to the lack of flicker (which is what most people confuse with seeing gaps b/w frames / loq frame rates) in LCD panels due to continuous charge. at that point, CRTs (as he mentioned) were the higher end option for PC Monitors. things have changed since then (and i'm not talking about the age old debate of CRTs versus panels for quality, pq etc)

whatever, whether you can see 32, or 45, there is no way you "are only comfortable playing games" at 120fps. it's in your head.

zv
 
zero_vertical said:
it's in your head. you simply can't seem more frames than 32/sec.


again, unless you have robotic laser eyes. do you?


I'm a hardcore gamer too, and despite what you think, after 45/sec, it's all bragging rights. if you weren't watching the fps counter, you'd never be able to tell the difference between 60 and 120.

zv
Click to expand...

i was thinking about having robot laser eyes installed... it was a risky operation but it was worth it...

seriously... I've been playing these games for so long that maybe, just maybe, it might be possible for some people to see more per second than others (we could call it ADD perhaps, where the brain gets overloaded)

but anywho, I like 70 FPS... just becuase its 10 over 60, and thats where I like my FPS to be for vsync...

but if you dare to say that "no one" can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60...

WOW... you are SORELY mistaken... I can do the pepsi challenge any day of the week and tell you difference between 50 and 60 FPS... seriously.

sorry to bring that off topic, but I guess that why when you come across people like me in online games you get smacked down! :D :D

much love
 
titanium said:
I'd like to try OC'ing my current cpu but I've never done it before and my ram is just the Corsair Valueselect ram :/
Click to expand...

I have the AMD 3000+ single core and the same Valueselect ram and I got it from 1.8 to 2.6 ghz :)
 
Actually, you can tell the difference after 32 fps. For example, movies are shown at 34, as someone back in the day did a study and people liked it better.
Also, a study showed, about 2 yrs ago (i'll post it if i can find it), that your eye 'syncs' with what you are watching, and the image will look better if it is at even intervals or .25 multiples of 32 fps, your eyes' rate.
So, at 32 and 64 fps your eye is synced and will look the best. Also, at 40, 48, and 56 fps, you will get an interval sync that will look better than values in between. It's not as big of a difference as, say, between 20 and 28 or 25 and 32 fps, but it still makes a difference. Think of it as your eyes seeing, or catching, fewer frame transitions.
 
movies are shown at 24. lol

holy misinformation, batman!

look, i know you can tell the diff b/w 30 and 60, but after that, you're all officially, clinically, certifiably insane. "needing" 120fps is flat out silliness. stop watching the fps meter and start playing the damned games.

zv
 
zero_vertical said:
movies are shown at 24. lol



look, i know you can tell the diff b/w 30 and 60, but after that, you're all officially, clinically, certifiably insane.

zv
Click to expand...


The one thing I do know for sure is that Murphy just loves blanket statements.:D
 
You can definitely see more than 30fps...

People can see close to 60-70fps... At least in games anyway.

But the game fluctuating in frame rates is what makes it more noticeable for people...
 
I built the computer for my friend two weeks ago.

Upgrade from Amd 3200+ (32bits), Ati 9800Pro and 1gig DDR to E6300, 8800GTS, 2GIG DDR2..

I put all MAX setting for CS:S then stress video. It said 198 FPS. My friend is very HAPPY and run very SMOOTH on 32" lcd.

His old hardware run like 20-50 fps for CS:S.
 
zero_vertical said:
movies are shown at 24. lol

holy misinformation, batman!

look, i know you can tell the diff b/w 30 and 60, but after that, you're all officially, clinically, certifiably insane. "needing" 120fps is flat out silliness. stop watching the fps meter and start playing the damned games.

zv
Click to expand...

he wants 120 FPS in quake3 becuase before a certain patch, it allowed you to move faster... and maybe still does - i dunno.. havn't played in about 3 years
 
Definately worth it to switch to e6300 espically since you are running a single core.
 
Try running cs:s in a lower resolution 800x600. If you are still getting low frames its your ram and cpu. The 4000+ chip is pretty slow unless you overclock. s939 really likes a higher HT or fsb :)

I'd say the best thing for you to do is to sell what you have and upgrade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top