Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will my single core CPU handle Crysis okay if I OC more??

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 10, 2006 12:23:15 PM

I have an Athlon 3700+ @ 2.5GHz and cause I will be getting an 8800GTX early next year I wont be able to upgrade my CPU (which I would upgrade to dual core). I really want to play Crysis on max detail when it comes out and I know that it benefits greatly from dual cores but would a single core really be that obsolete (mine more specifically) coupled with a high end graphics card? I will be getting a proper CPU cooler soon and am aiming for an OC to around 2.7GHz. Maybe 2.8. How would that handle it? Do I have to worry?

IF it is absolutely necessary for me to get a dual core 939 then would a x2 4600+ be okay? Remember only if its very necessary.

Thanks.
December 10, 2006 12:29:15 PM

Well, it'll run, as it meets the minimum requirements. You'll most likely have to reduce the game details and physics, so it's not exactly ideal.

I think an 8800GTX would be overkill in your situation, your CPU will probably bottleneck it in multithreaded games.

Probably a better idea to get a 8800GTS and an X2 3800+ and overclock it to 2.8GHz or thereabouts.
December 10, 2006 12:44:54 PM

Quote:
Well, it'll run, as it meets the minimum requirements. You'll most likely have to reduce the game details and physics, so it's not exactly ideal.

I think an 8800GTX would be overkill in your situation, your CPU will probably bottleneck it in multithreaded games.

Probably a better idea to get a 8800GTS and an X2 3800+ and overclock it to 2.8GHz or thereabouts.

I see... Thats not good news, looks like I'll have to upgrade my CPU then and I will have to forget about an 8800... I don't think I would like to go for the 3800 cause I new into OCing and I would find it difficult to get up to 2.8 on that. The only dual core CPU available to me in my area (the slums of Dublin lol) is a x2 4600+. Its 2.4GHz so it will give me less of an OC challenge. Only downside is the cache. What do you think of the 4600?
December 10, 2006 12:52:38 PM

Quote:
The only dual core CPU available to me in my area (the slums of Dublin lol) is a x2 4600+. Its 2.4GHz so it will give me less of an OC challenge. Only downside is the cache. What do you think of the 4600?


There are a lot of mailorder suppliers in the UK, and I'm pretty sure that there should be some in Dublin, especially if you go down to the Naas Road area which seems to be wall to wall computer buildings. I take it that you wanna keep your MB therefore you wanna stick to your current socket. If there is any chance you can change over to C2D you'd find that you'd be able to get a lot more grunt for your money. You might even save enough to buy a new MB!
December 10, 2006 12:58:11 PM

Quote:
The only dual core CPU available to me in my area (the slums of Dublin lol) is a x2 4600+. Its 2.4GHz so it will give me less of an OC challenge. Only downside is the cache. What do you think of the 4600?


There are a lot of mailorder suppliers in the UK, and I'm pretty sure that there should be some in Dublin, especially if you go down to the Naas Road area which seems to be wall to wall computer buildings. I take it that you wanna keep your MB therefore you wanna stick to your current socket. If there is any chance you can change over to C2D you'd find that you'd be able to get a lot more grunt for your money. You might even save enough to buy a new MB!
Yeah I have been thinking of holding out till mid next year and ugrading to C2D but that would mean that I would be sticking with my current system until then.
December 10, 2006 2:05:25 PM

So guys what do you think of the Athlon x2 4600+? I could ask if they have a 4400 in stock cause im just going by the shops website at the moment. The other option is eBay...
December 10, 2006 2:06:25 PM

i would say go for the x2 when ever you can afford it.

then later next year go for a whole new build.

i have played bf2, fear,oblivion, cod2, and fsx.
with a 3500,3700,x24400,x24600,x24800.

cant see any difference between them. so far the gpu cards make the big difference.

now crysis will be a different story though.

btw i dont plat bf2 as i went from 2 gigs down to 1 gig
(slpit up my 4 512 sticks to make two computers)

now that sucks as my computer is much slower now :cry: 
December 10, 2006 2:22:42 PM

Quote:
X2 3800+ and overclock it to 2.8GHz or thereabouts.

That isn't much of an upgrade unless a dual core is needed.

Crysis has 'Dual Core Processor' as part of the recommended hardware, so dual core will probably be necessary to run the game in all its glory...

Quote:
Minimum Requirements

CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600/X800GTO (SM 2.0)
RAM: 768Mb/1Gb on Windows Vista
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 256k+
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX9.0c with Windows XP

Recommended Requirements

CPU: Dual-core CPU (Athlon X2/Pentium D)
Graphics: Nvidia 7800GTX/ATI X1800XT (SM 3.0) or DX10 equivalent
RAM: 1.5Gb
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 512k+ (128k+ upstream)
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX10 with Windows Vista
December 10, 2006 2:46:09 PM

Quote:

Crysis has 'Dual Core Processor' as part of the recommended hardware, so dual core will probably be necessary to run the game in all its glory...


Well, we all know what Minimum configuration suggestions mean. Windows Vista on 1.4GHz with 512MB RAM. Yeah, it'll boot. And you might even be able to launch Notepad. :lol: 
December 10, 2006 9:09:25 PM

Okay guys here's my decision. I will be upgrading to Core 2 Duo (maybe E6700) next year around May/June. So basically I will be keeping my current setup until then. I'll do some more OC'ing on my 3700 to keep me busy :lol:  Any recommendations for a setup? I have from now until May to decide but it would be helpful to hear what you think to get me on the right track, as I know nothin about C2D setups (CPU, MB, RAM etc.)... Im probly gonna keep my current case and my Raptor HD and the rest of course will have to go?
December 10, 2006 9:28:30 PM

Go buy an opty 170 at newegg for around $180, step it up to 2.8 ghz and you'll be in C2D territory
December 10, 2006 9:41:42 PM

Quote:
Go buy an opty 170 at newegg for around $180, step it up to 2.8 ghz and you'll be in C2D territory


Stock C2D territory perhaps - near E6600 levels. ;) 

No Opty will keep up with an overclocked C2D @ 3GHz+.
December 10, 2006 9:49:49 PM

Quote:

Crysis has 'Dual Core Processor' as part of the recommended hardware, so dual core will probably be necessary to run the game in all its glory...


Well, we all know what Minimum configuration suggestions mean. Windows Vista on 1.4GHz with 512MB RAM. Yeah, it'll boot. And you might even be able to launch Notepad. :lol: 

Hah, reminds me of when I was running Windows 95 on a 486 DX/2-66 with 8MB of RAM.

Not recommended! :lol: 
December 10, 2006 10:18:28 PM

I've always heard that when using DX10, the GPU isn't going to need to talk to the CPU that much any more. I doubt you'll see much performance improvements when upgrading CPUs from now on. SLI and Crossfire should make much more of a difference when DX10 hits.
December 10, 2006 10:41:31 PM

Quote:
Go buy an opty 170 at newegg for around $180, step it up to 2.8 ghz and you'll be in C2D territory


Stock C2D territory perhaps - near E6600 levels. ;) 

No Opty will keep up with an overclocked C2D @ 3GHz+.


yeah thanks for the "derrr", thats fine if he wanted to replace his whole system
December 10, 2006 10:50:32 PM

Quote:
Go buy an opty 170 at newegg for around $180, step it up to 2.8 ghz and you'll be in C2D territory


Stock C2D territory perhaps - near E6600 levels. ;) 

No Opty will keep up with an overclocked C2D @ 3GHz+.


yeah thanks for the "derrr", thats fine if he wanted to replace his whole system

No problem, you can have another serving of 'derrr' anytime. :lol: 
December 10, 2006 11:03:04 PM

Quote:
I've always heard that when using DX10, the GPU isn't going to need to talk to the CPU that much any more. I doubt you'll see much performance improvements when upgrading CPUs from now on. SLI and Crossfire should make much more of a difference when DX10 hits.


Really? That'd be great because I was worrying that my CPU would bottleneck a DX10 GPU...
December 11, 2006 2:24:44 AM

Quote:
I've always heard that when using DX10, the GPU isn't going to need to talk to the CPU that much any more. I doubt you'll see much performance improvements when upgrading CPUs from now on. SLI and Crossfire should make much more of a difference when DX10 hits.


Really? That'd be great because I was worrying that my CPU would bottleneck a DX10 GPU...

Please take a look at this Toms Hardware DX10 Video Card testing. It is showing that to get them most out of the card you will still need the fastest Processor.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/29/geforce_8800_needs_the_fastest_cpu/

Excerpt from Article:
Author's Opinion

The long and short of this experiment is that you need a high speed platform to get the most out of the new DX10 hardware. If you were planning on getting a $600 graphics card to replace your 1-year-old graphics card, it would behoove you to rebuild your box. Of course, this means that the whole graphics upgrade will cost you a lot more than just the graphics card.

If you don't do the job properly, the net effect will be like hooking up a pair of garbage speakers to a Bose or Klipsch sound system. The effect would be the same... less than optimal performance, and an experience that is far from ideal given the money you spent.
December 11, 2006 2:34:11 AM

Quote:
I've always heard that when using DX10, the GPU isn't going to need to talk to the CPU that much any more. I doubt you'll see much performance improvements when upgrading CPUs from now on. SLI and Crossfire should make much more of a difference when DX10 hits.


Don't know where you heard that from, but it's far from correct. To further pausert20's point, here is another CPU scaling article.

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gtx_gts_am...

The 8800GTX especially requires a fast CPU, the 8800GTS less so as you would expect from a slower GPU.
December 11, 2006 7:49:13 AM

Quote:


Hah, reminds me of when I was running Windows 95 on a 486 DX/2-66 with 8MB of RAM.

Not recommended! :lol: 


From:

Another Thread

You might find this exchange of four posts interesting.

_______________

I actually ran Win XP on a Pentium 1 w/ 256 megs and WinNT 4.0 on a 468 with 64megs. It seems slow PCs do much better with enough RAM. Just don't plan to run anything more demanding than Office apps or cardgame. Then I was surfing the web with a 386 sx 16, 640k, Win 3.1, Netscape 1.0, and a 2400b modem (my 14.4k broke Sad ). Too slow to surfing, but ran IRC fine.

Once I was running Vista Ultimate on a TRS-80. It ran fine.

I once ran Windows 3,066 super duper ultimate premium professional edition on my Gameboy, and it to ran fine.

Yeah, well I ran SAP for all of Bank of America on my wristwatch!

____________

:lol: 
December 11, 2006 8:20:59 AM

Don't forget to factor in a copy of Vista if you go for an 8800GTX otherwise you won't be able to use all the DX10 features.
December 11, 2006 8:53:19 AM

Quote:
I will be upgrading to Core 2 Duo (maybe E6700) next year around May/June.

Upgrading to a C2D that time next year will be a waste of money, it's will be like upgrading to a pentiumD, quad core by then will be a smarter move. I have an Opteron 180 (s939), not OC'd and it does everything i want and more, it is similar to the 4800+, i', positive that it will run Crysis just fine coupled with my x1900cf master.
December 11, 2006 9:15:44 AM

Some here are advising you as if you were building a brand new balanced system, which parts would give the best performance. Nobody needs to tell you that faster parts (CPU) are best, but you are upgrading a piece at a time so you do NOT want to buy a video card that ends up being the bottleneck too much when you upgrade the CPU, motherboard, etc- next time.

There is no need to speculate about CPU yet, if you want the 8800%%%, get it, and upgrade the rest when you find your FPS is too low on more than just one game, since nobody plays one game forever. Until then, the more use you get out of your present CPU, the better a value it was.
December 11, 2006 2:29:23 PM

Quote:
I will be upgrading to Core 2 Duo (maybe E6700) next year around May/June.

Upgrading to a C2D that time next year will be a waste of money, it's will be like upgrading to a pentiumD, quad core by then will be a smarter move. I have an Opteron 180 (s939), not OC'd and it does everything i want and more, it is similar to the 4800+, i', positive that it will run Crysis just fine coupled with my x1900cf master.
Yeah I was thinking I may be better off upgrading to the latest thing out. Havn't heard much about quad cores though. Will they be well priced do you think? Can you give a bit of info on them. How they are supposed to perform in games etc. I'd like to start making a decision so I can aim for something.
December 11, 2006 8:06:12 PM

A lot of this depends on your budget, You could probably go with a 8800gts and a core 2 duo E6600 much earlier. The E6600 will easily overclock to 3.2 Ghz and beyond. By the time a game comes out that can actually slow you down you can just pop in a quad core. This would set you up sooner rather than later and put you in a position to just sell your older hardware in 08 and just pop in a quad core and 2nd generation DX card using 65nm tech on the same system. You could even sell your 7800GTX in your current system to pay for all the ram.
December 11, 2006 11:37:05 PM

Quote:
I've always heard that when using DX10, the GPU isn't going to need to talk to the CPU that much any more. I doubt you'll see much performance improvements when upgrading CPUs from now on. SLI and Crossfire should make much more of a difference when DX10 hits.


Don't know where you heard that from, but it's far from correct. To further pausert20's point, here is another CPU scaling article.

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gtx_gts_am...

The 8800GTX especially requires a fast CPU, the 8800GTS less so as you would expect from a slower GPU.

Did either of you take into account that there are no DX10 games out yet? Probably not. What's that mean? It means any testing done with DX10 capable cards would be using DX9 and you wouldn't see any DX10 performance improvements. So of course you will still see some performance increase with faster CPUs, until you run DX10 games on DX10 hardware then I predict it to be very minimal (which is what I meant before).
December 11, 2006 11:59:28 PM

Quote:
I've always heard that when using DX10, the GPU isn't going to need to talk to the CPU that much any more. I doubt you'll see much performance improvements when upgrading CPUs from now on. SLI and Crossfire should make much more of a difference when DX10 hits.


Don't know where you heard that from, but it's far from correct. To further pausert20's point, here is another CPU scaling article.

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gtx_gts_am...

The 8800GTX especially requires a fast CPU, the 8800GTS less so as you would expect from a slower GPU.

Did either of you take into account that there are no DX10 games out yet? Probably not. What's that mean? It means any testing done with DX10 capable cards would be using DX9 and you wouldn't see any DX10 performance improvements. So of course you will still see some performance increase with faster CPUs, until you run DX10 games on DX10 hardware then I predict it to be very minimal (which is what I meant before).

Fair point. You didn't take into account though that more games are becoming multithreaded and Crysis happens to have 'dual core CPU' as part of the recommended requirements.
December 12, 2006 12:16:26 AM

What I think you should do is keep your current system and when Crysis launches get it and try it out on your current system. You might be surprised. Play it for a while and if you don't like the way it looks then do your upgrade.

Once you get used to playing every game maxed out anything less will not be acceptable to you and then you will need to keep upgrading to keep up with the next game that comes out.

I say wait a while longer. You never know the game might actually suck really bad.
December 12, 2006 12:55:24 AM

For Crysis: Dual/Quad Core, 64 bit, DX 10, Vista, 2+ gigs RAM - IS needed for good performance.
Also, true DX10 games won't be out until late 2007 anyway.
July 31, 2007 2:09:34 PM

There is no hardware out now that can run crysis at max settings. But a quad core system with 4gigs of ram and 2 8800 ultras running vista 64-bit will run it pretty nicely. ;) 
August 2, 2007 7:54:04 AM

well, since u r in tight budget, why don't wait a bit longer until the dx10 games come out then just decide.. who knows how well can todays' 8800 gtx or 2900xt handle the dx10 games? or worse than what we all though? (just assuming, no offence, since there aren't any real dx10 game come out now)
August 2, 2007 8:28:27 AM

If you do want to upgrade overclockers.co.uk are doing some great deals on 939 x2's at the mo. It will be just as easy to overclock a 3800x2 as it will be to overclock a 4600x2 to 2.8ghz so I wouldnt include that in your decision.
!