Which Intel processor is best suited for the X800XT?

M

Michael Younger

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
77
Obviously it's pointless to pay for a powerful video card if your CPU can't keep up. Alternatively, if your CPU is outperforming your video card, then you've spent extra money on a powerful CPU for no reason (at least at present).

Has anybody ever benchmarked different configurations as to determine which CPU is the most 'in synch' with the X800XT?

If somebody held a gun to my head and forced to me to guess - I'd say that a 3.4 GHZ CPU would probably be the one.

I'm looking for some reliable data here, though - not just a guess.
 
i have a LGA 3.4, and i saw a noticable differance (not too great, but sitll noticable) from it and the LGA 3.0 i was previously running... however, i dont think we have reached a cpu that would "PEAK" the X800XT just yet, as my 6800GT PCIE's performance seemed to still go up with leaps and bounds as i oc'ed it incramentaly from stock 3.4 to 4.0ghz...
so if u can afford it, and money isnt an object... get the 3.6 or 3.8... otherwise... the 3.4 is gona be ur best bet.... its still a top end cpu, but not quite as expensive as its 2 older brothers...
 
Is there a reason why it needs to be intel?
A64 performs much better in games, but the P4 does alot better in some applications, and has hyperthreading.
Since I'm all about games, I'd go A64, it's not like it falls on it's face in applications, but if you want to like encode a movie and play games, I see why you'd want intel.
Beware of the higher clocked prescots- those are some hot SOBs!
 
Moloch said:
Is there a reason why it needs to be intel?
A64 performs much better in games, but the P4 does alot better in some applications, and has hyperthreading.
Since I'm all about games, I'd go A64, it's not like it falls on it's face in applications, but if you want to like encode a movie and play games, I see why you'd want intel.
Beware of the higher clocked prescots- those are some hot SOBs!
Click to expand...

gawd.....look at the AMD fan-boy come out.
 
Redefined said:
gawd.....look at the AMD fan-boy come out.
Click to expand...
Why? Because he said that AMD64 is better for gaming? And then said Intel was better for other things?

That doesn't make him a fan-boy, he accurately described the strengths of each processor. If I knew someone was looking for a gaming processor, in this generation, I'd point them at an AMD 64.
 
Redefined said:
gawd.....look at the AMD fan-boy come out.
Click to expand...

I do not see how speaking the truth is being a fan-boy. Look any any gaming benchmark and you will clearly see that amd has the edge in games.. fan-boy or not, this is undeniable.

Anyway, the 3.4 would be a very nice match with an x800xt (especially when overclocked and if you are a heavy multi-tasker). :)
 
The best processor is the absolute fastest one you can buy on your budget.
 
If you want to get the most out of your card you need to get an amd chip.Call me a fan boy but the orb speaks for itself.
 
skratch said:
If you want to get the most out of your card you need to get an amd chip.Call me a fan boy but the orb speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
true that! FX-55 or 4000+ is the way to go right now.
 
If you are gaming (Which I suppose you are since your getting an X850) I would also suggest the AMD. If you look at that link the other guy posted.

The P4 3.8 ghz is pretty damn expensive ($879 cheapest ive foud in canada) while the 3200+ (whcih shows in improvement in canada) is $242 (Cheapest ive found, Canadian)

So, eve if price was an issue, the AMD is faster.

Ifyour talking about basic computing (Vid editing, Programming etc...) then the P4 is faster.
 
Redefined said:
gawd.....look at the AMD fan-boy come out.
Click to expand...

Look at the troll come out. :rolleyes:

Sorry if some of us can read benchmarks and you can't. The price of Lasik surgery has dropped quite a bit lately. :D
 
ThisMonsterLives said:
anyone who paid for an extreme edition is bound to be hurt by his comments :p
Click to expand...

lmao, QFT

Yeah, saying the facts makes you a fan-boy....diddn't know that Intel was omfg teh pwnage wallhax uberness in ALL APPS...err wait, maybe THAT'S where the fan-boy resides...


AMD owns Intel at gaming, point blank. Deal with it. Maybe the tides will switch at some point, but right now that's where it stands. Sorry, but your Extreme Edition gets owned by even the light weights of AMD.

Now, for the poster....which Intel? Whichever you can afford..I'd say at least 3.4GHz, but if you can afford more, go for it.
 
Glad to see most of the posters in this thread are intel fan0ys.
As stated by numerious posters above, it is a fact that amd owns in gaming.
It is also a fact that intel owns in most applications.
 
R1ckCa1n said:
true that! FX-55 or 4000+ is the way to go right now.
Click to expand...

The FX-55 and 4000+ is the fools choice IMO because it makes no sense to buy ither of them when the 90nm chips will overclock and perform at pretty much the same level for a third or fourth of the price all while running cooler and consuming less power.

You buy the FX-55 thinking you'll have the fastest chip out and in a few months something else is faster and your forced to upgrade again if you want to try and stay ahead of the competition.

And for gaming the CPU isn't going to affect real world gaming performace very much. Dont waste your time looking at 3DMark scores because in real life the GPU is doing most all the work and there is hardly a few fps difference between a high-end A64 and a high-end Pentium 4.

Reviewers do CPU reviews by benchmarking games at like 800x600 instead of real resolutions people actually play at so everyone comes to believe the Athlon 64's are tearing up the competition when actually at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 you wouldn't be able to tell a difference between the two machines unless you were playing a CPU intensive game.

BTW, there is a reason why the word fanb*y was blocked from the forum and it wasn't so we could all see how many different ways someone can spell it.

It has no place in an halfway intellectual discusion about computer hardware. Trying to degrade someone else's opinion by saying they are bias'd isn't helping you to prove anything.

So how about we recommend what Intel processor he should get instead of trying to suggest who is the biggest zealot of them all.
 
Michael Younger said:
Obviously it's pointless to pay for a powerful video card if your CPU can't keep up. Alternatively, if your CPU is outperforming your video card, then you've spent extra money on a powerful CPU for no reason (at least at present).

Has anybody ever benchmarked different configurations as to determine which CPU is the most 'in synch' with the X800XT?

If somebody held a gun to my head and forced to me to guess - I'd say that a 3.4 GHZ CPU would probably be the one.

I'm looking for some reliable data here, though - not just a guess.
Click to expand...

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80824

that one should be nice, if you have more money go for the 3.4GHz 640. Don't get a 5xx chip.
 
Let me rephrase my original question. I'll be very specific about this.

Let's say that I want to buy an X800XT. Let's also suppose that I'm on a budget and really only want to buy a 3GHZ Pentium processor.

Should I...

A) Do that. The results will be just fine.

B) Dig deep down into my pockets and buy at least a 3.4 GHZ system, because I'll notice the results, and the X800XT will be a lot happier.

C) Stay with the 3GHZ system (because a new baby is on its way, and I shouldn't be wasting money), but buy a cheaper video card, because the X800XT would be underutilized.
 
Yeah get a 3.2ghz or greater for that card. Having a fast card that gets bogged down by waiting for a slower cpu really sux.
 
Mister E said:
Yeah get a 3.2ghz or greater for that card. Having a fast card that gets bogged down by waiting for a slower cpu really sux.
Click to expand...


Yeah, this is my case, it sucks.. My 9800 Pro is chocked :( Wish I had some spare money otherwise I would take a X800 XT to make Mr. P4 happy ;)

Para
 
Michael Younger said:
C) Stay with the 3GHZ system (because a new baby is on its way, and I shouldn't be wasting money), but buy a cheaper video card, because the X800XT would be underutilized.
Click to expand...

Here at HardOCP we do this cool thing called "overclocking" so you could always try just overclocking it to 3.4Ghz or higher lol. :D
 
Let me tell you once more.That p4 chip is a major bottleneck for the x800 go ahead and spend your hard erned money on that chip.

A 150 dollar amd chip will shit on an 1200 dollar intel ee chip in GAMES wich is what your doing.

This is the truth so do whatever you want.
 
I am pretty happy with my 3.0 running at a 255 FSB for 3820 mhz on air...rock solid.......

For a year old chip it holds its own...
 
skratch said:
Let me tell you once more.That p4 chip is a major bottleneck for the x800 go ahead and spend your hard erned money on that chip.

A 150 dollar amd chip will shit on an 1200 dollar intel ee chip in GAMES wich is what your doing.

This is the truth so do whatever you want.
Click to expand...
yeah but if he already has P4 mobo (not LGA) then it would seemt he better and cheaper choice to gow ith a 3.2GHz P4 or something. however, if he hasn't bought a mobo yet or needs a new one then just get a 3000+/3200+ winchester core and overclock it to fx55 speds :D
 
skratch said:
Let me tell you once more.That p4 chip is a major bottleneck for the x800 go ahead and spend your hard erned money on that chip.

A 150 dollar amd chip will shit on an 1200 dollar intel ee chip in GAMES wich is what your doing.

This is the truth so do whatever you want.
Click to expand...

A high-end P4 chip is NOT a major bottleneck for an X800. Unless you play at 800x600 then the CPU isn't going to hardly relate to performance real world games much at all. Only truly CPU intensive games will see the benefit of a faster CPU.

Compare the 3.0Ghz P4 to the Athlon 64 3500+ at resolutions people actually play at.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjMy
 
burningrave101 said:
A high-end P4 chip is NOT a major bottleneck for an X800. Unless you play at 800x600 then the CPU isn't going to hardly relate to performance real world games much at all. Only truly CPU intensive games will see the benefit of a faster CPU.

Compare the 3.0Ghz P4 to the Athlon 64 3500+ at resolutions people actually play at.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjMy
Click to expand...
Not everyone plays at 1600x1200.
Futhermore, you spend less money to make sure you're not bottlednecked.
A 3000+ still gives more fps than a 3.4C.
There are times when games will be cpu limited, even at highest settings+ 4X aa and 8AF, and that's when it you will se the benefit of A64s.
Simulation games are a good example of this.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/half_life_2_cpu_shootout/page4.asp
That's with a 6800 ultra, with a X800/X850, the peformance difference will be more.
If you play every game at 1600x1200 with 4X aa and 8AF/16AF, you can even have a AXP 3200 or above and still play the game, but the minimum frame rate could be alot less for CPU limited places(which the fireingsquad article doesn't have)
You're pretty safe if you have atleast a 3200+ AXP, or a 3000+ A64.
We really need to find a cpu scaling artiacle with a X800XT, since it's faster, and the drivers could have more, or less cpu overhead.
 
Moloch said:
Not everyone plays at 1600x1200.
Futhermore, you spend less money to make sure you're not bottlednecked.
A 3000+ still gives more fps than a 3.4C.
There are times when games will be cpu limited, even at highest settings+ 4X aa and 8AF, and that's when it you will se the benefit of A64s.
Simulation games are a good example of this.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/half_life_2_cpu_shootout/page4.asp
That's with a 6800 ultra, with a X800/X850, the peformance difference will be more.
If you play every game at 1600x1200 with 4X aa and 8AF/16AF, you can even have a AXP 3200 or above and still play the game, but the minimum frame rate could be alot less for CPU limited places(which the fireingsquad article doesn't have)
You're pretty safe if you have atleast a 3200+ AXP, or a 3000+ A64.
We really need to find a cpu scaling artiacle with a X800XT, since it's faster, and the drivers could have more, or less cpu overhead.
Click to expand...

No not everyone plays at 1600x1200 and there isn't a game out there that you wont get more then playable frame rates on ither CPU at 1280x1024 or lower with an X800XT. Alot of people have LCD's and most digital displays only have a refresh rate of around 60Hz. That means your never going to see over 60 fps no matter if your getting over 100 fps.

The 3.0c beats the Athlon XP 3200+ in gaming. Hell a 3.0c beats an Athlon XP running at 2.4Ghz in most games.

Half-Life 2 is very CPU intensive whereas most other games are not. Thats the reason why you see more of a difference according to CPU performance between the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64.

If you have a 3.0c or 3000+ or higher its not very often that your going to be CPU limited in today's games. Your video card purchase will primarily determine your gaming performance level.

And there is hardly any difference at all between a 6800U and the X800XT. Only the X800XT PE is marginally faster then the 6800U in D3D while in OpenGL the 6800U beats them both easily. The HardOCP CPU scaling guide also included an X800XT PE.
 
I dunno, Id still suggest an AMD, not only are the chaper ones better at gaming. They are great OCers (or so Ive heard)
 
Hate_Bot said:
I dunno, Id still suggest an AMD, not only are the chaper ones better at gaming. They are great OCers (or so Ive heard)
Click to expand...

The Pentium 4's overclock very well also and are faster then the Athlon 64's in other areas besides gaming. Intel motherboards are also usually more feature loaded and have fewer issues. I've had my fill of Athlon 64 motherboard issues.
 
burningrave101 said:
A high-end P4 chip is NOT a major bottleneck for an X800. Unless you play at 800x600 then the CPU isn't going to hardly relate to performance real world games much at all. Only truly CPU intensive games will see the benefit of a faster CPU.

Compare the 3.0Ghz P4 to the Athlon 64 3500+ at resolutions people actually play at.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjMy
Click to expand...

Im not going to get into a huge debate with you but you are so wrong.GAMES LOVE LOW LATENCY PERIOD.

You are comparing stock vs stock.The amd 64s scale 2x better than the p4s in gaming when you start to overclock.It takes a ln2 p4 to keep up with a air cooled 64 on the orb.

put it this way

150 dollar amd 64 chip overclock it on air and break 30k hmmm ya wheres that intel chip hiding at.Lets not forget that your getting a 64bit chip and xp64 is coming soon.
 
burningrave101 said:
Here at HardOCP we do this cool thing called "overclocking" so you could always try just overclocking it to 3.4Ghz or higher lol. :D
Click to expand...

not only that, but the 3.0@3.4 would be a good deal faster than a 3.4@3.4
 
skratch said:
Im not going to get into a huge debate with you but you are so wrong.GAMES LOVE LOW LATENCY PERIOD.

You are comparing stock vs stock.The amd 64s scale 2x better than the p4s in gaming when you start to overclock.It takes a ln2 p4 to keep up with a air cooled 64 on the orb.

put it this way

150 dollar amd 64 chip overclock it on air and break 30k hmmm ya wheres that intel chip hiding at.Lets not forget that your getting a 64bit chip and xp64 is coming soon.
Click to expand...

well, it really depends. I've owned an FX-55 and still own a FX-53 and they both only score higher at 2.8/2.9/3.0Ghz because I have a late-revision IC7 for my Intel system that won't allow over 260FSB where-as this 1.8 @ 4.2 was quite the little chip and lost by only a handful of points. Or are you talking about scaling better from mhz adjustments? That's given considering the length of the pipelines.
 
skratch said:
Let me tell you once more.That p4 chip is a major bottleneck for the x800 go ahead and spend your hard erned money on that chip.

A 150 dollar amd chip will shit on an 1200 dollar intel ee chip in GAMES wich is what your doing.

This is the truth so do whatever you want.
Click to expand...

Not quite the truth.
The only A64's that will best a mid-range P4C cost more than a P4C would be.
 
burningrave101 said:
The FX-55 and 4000+ is the fools choice IMO because it makes no sense to buy ither of them when the 90nm chips will overclock and perform at pretty much the same level for a third or fourth of the price all while running cooler and consuming less power.

You buy the FX-55 thinking you'll have the fastest chip out and in a few months something else is faster and your forced to upgrade again if you want to try and stay ahead of the competition.
Click to expand...

Not quite, all of the 1MB high-end A64's overclock quite a bit further than the 90nm chips do, I have witnessed this first hand. Experience is quite a bit more favorable than speculation.
 
ScHpAnKy said:
Not quite the truth.
The only A64's that will best a mid-range P4C cost more than a P4C would be.
Click to expand...

OK

an amd64 3000+ cost 150

run it at 280x9 2520 mhz on air and find me one intel chip that will come close to wut this things does in games.
 
ScHpAnKy said:
Not quite, all of the 1MB high-end A64's overclock quite a bit further than the 90nm chips do, I have witnessed this first hand. Experience is quite a bit more favorable than speculation.
Click to expand...

all 90nm are doing 2500 mhz on air.What you wintnessed was a first bach on a crappy board.

The nf4 ultra's are clocking 20mhz higher with the same chips than the nf3 did.

gocchin got his dfi nf4 ultra at 273x12 @1.5 2-2-2-5 with some bh5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top