Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amd Athlon II x4 3.0Ghz

Last response: in Components
Share
October 5, 2010 6:12:44 PM

Hi Red Nek here.

I just Updated My Pc to A Amd Athlon II x4@3.0ghz, Evga Gtx 460 768 MB,

4gb ddr3@1333. What kind of frames should I be getting in games like bad company 2 or crysis?

In Crysis Maxed out in DX9 I get anywhere from 15-60.

I have windows 7 Ultimate.

More about : amd athlon 0ghz

October 6, 2010 8:55:12 PM

I can't say precisely what frames you should be getting, but you might want to consider overclocking your quad core to 3.4-3.6. This may unleash any held back performance. However on demanding FPSs you can't really expect to have you 0 frame drop below 60 with the gtx460, it is a powerful card however the most demanding of games in dx11 demand a little more power for 1080p performance imo. What resolution do you play at in bad company and what settings?

personally i run bfbc2 on a dual core amd cpu clocked at 3.6ghz and a 5770. For the most part it stays in the high 40s-50 or 60+ but when there are massive explosions going on there are times that it dips to the 30's momentarily for it is more than what i consider to be playable. My settings for bcbf2 are 1650X1080 mostly high settings, no or low AA and low AF with vsync enabled.
October 7, 2010 2:28:00 PM

jjb8675309 said:
I can't say precisely what frames you should be getting, but you might want to consider overclocking your quad core to 3.4-3.6. This may unleash any held back performance. However on demanding FPSs you can't really expect to have you 0 frame drop below 60 with the gtx460, it is a powerful card however the most demanding of games in dx11 demand a little more power for 1080p performance imo. What resolution do you play at in bad company and what settings?

personally i run bfbc2 on a dual core amd cpu clocked at 3.6ghz and a 5770. For the most part it stays in the high 40s-50 or 60+ but when there are massive explosions going on there are times that it dips to the 30's momentarily for it is more than what i consider to be playable. My settings for bcbf2 are 1650X1080 mostly high settings, no or low AA and low AF with vsync enabled.


My resolution Is 1280x1024

1x AA
1x AF
vsync Off
Hqbao Off
Related resources
October 7, 2010 2:28:54 PM

jjb8675309 said:
I can't say precisely what frames you should be getting, but you might want to consider overclocking your quad core to 3.4-3.6. This may unleash any held back performance. However on demanding FPSs you can't really expect to have you 0 frame drop below 60 with the gtx460, it is a powerful card however the most demanding of games in dx11 demand a little more power for 1080p performance imo. What resolution do you play at in bad company and what settings?

personally i run bfbc2 on a dual core amd cpu clocked at 3.6ghz and a 5770. For the most part it stays in the high 40s-50 or 60+ but when there are massive explosions going on there are times that it dips to the 30's momentarily for it is more than what i consider to be playable. My settings for bcbf2 are 1650X1080 mostly high settings, no or low AA and low AF with vsync enabled.



Would overclocking my Cpu to 3.4 ghz really make that much of a difference?

its only .4ghz.
October 7, 2010 5:03:05 PM

Red Nek said:
Would overclocking my Cpu to 3.4 ghz really make that much of a difference?

its only .4ghz.


it would. I have an athlon x3 in one of my PCs. in gaming a similar clocked athlon II x3 and x4 give identical FPS in most games.

I OC it to 3.5 and saw decent gains in FPS. I actually have a GTX 460 also but its in a PC with a Phenom II x4.
October 7, 2010 5:49:12 PM

Red Nek said:
Would overclocking my Cpu to 3.4 ghz really make that much of a difference?

its only .4ghz.



yes it would getting to that 3.4-3.6 mark makes a big difference since most games perform better on a core clock higher than 3.4. I would personally get the best quad core you can afford and a gtx 470 or better. The gtx 460 is a good card but you cannot expect to max out bfbc2 and crysis. You can come close with a good quad core and a gtx 470 or better. Personally I am shooting for a second 5770 or a 5870 once the 6000 series comes out and drives price down. The gtx 460 is basically like a 4890 or a fast gtx260 maybe a bit faster or slower in some cases
October 8, 2010 3:27:15 PM

jjb8675309 said:
yes it would getting to that 3.4-3.6 mark makes a big difference since most games perform better on a core clock higher than 3.4. I would personally get the best quad core you can afford and a gtx 470 or better. The gtx 460 is a good card but you cannot expect to max out bfbc2 and crysis. You can come close with a good quad core and a gtx 470 or better. Personally I am shooting for a second 5770 or a 5870 once the 6000 series comes out and drives price down. The gtx 460 is basically like a 4890 or a fast gtx260 maybe a bit faster or slower in some cases


I Have Fixed My Problem My Ram wasn't reading as dual channeled!
Bud You don't know anything about the 460 do you?
It can play ANY!!!! Game on the market Im running bad company 2 Maxed out 4x AA And 4x AF 100FPS constant.
October 8, 2010 7:36:56 PM

Red Nek said:
I Have Fixed My Problem My Ram wasn't reading as dual channeled!
Bud You don't know anything about the 460 do you?
It can play ANY!!!! Game on the market Im running bad company 2 Maxed out 4x AA And 4x AF 100FPS constant.


WOW sounds like your offended by the mediocre performance of a gtx 460; the card is good but not great and there are def games that are deemed unplayable at 1080p (1920x1080) However I am trying to help you and not insult you. It is a good card just know that its NOT gonna run everything maxed at 1080p

lol okay pal just offering some friendly advice, I was referring to running the game at 1920X1080 or greater which I know there is no way you are getting 100 fps at that resolution. you might be able to get near 100fps on 720p but even that sounds like a stretch. Even a gtx 470 gets in the 50's and 60's at 1080p. Its a somewhat demanding game, you should be able to pull 50's and 60's at 1080p but no where near 100. So what resolution are you playing at to get 100 fps?

have you read the latest bottlenecking article on toms?

part 1: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/game-performance-bo...

at 1080p bad company 2 gets an average of 38.5 fps which i would consider to be barley playable with a gtx 460 and a quad core clocked at 4ghz. lol this just goes to show that for some games a mid range video card and a fast quad core will not be enough, and really need to be played with a high end card and a quad core. It is often also determined that the quad core makes no difference in performance. No doubt in the future it will be utilize much more but for present games it seems like your better off investing more money in a better graphics card. That being said, the components become really expensive, and not everyone can afford to run out and purchase a 300-400 dollar video card.

this should explain a lot. For most about 30% or more of the games using a gtx 460 as a baseline was not enough and it was just that, a baseline.

Its a good card man just not the best.
October 13, 2010 3:23:40 PM

jjb8675309 said:
WOW sounds like your offended by the mediocre performance of a gtx 460; the card is good but not great and there are def games that are deemed unplayable at 1080p (1920x1080) However I am trying to help you and not insult you. It is a good card just know that its NOT gonna run everything maxed at 1080p

lol okay pal just offering some friendly advice, I was referring to running the game at 1920X1080 or greater which I know there is no way you are getting 100 fps at that resolution. you might be able to get near 100fps on 720p but even that sounds like a stretch. Even a gtx 470 gets in the 50's and 60's at 1080p. Its a somewhat demanding game, you should be able to pull 50's and 60's at 1080p but no where near 100. So what resolution are you playing at to get 100 fps?

have you read the latest bottlenecking article on toms?

part 1: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/game-performance-bo...

at 1080p bad company 2 gets an average of 38.5 fps which i would consider to be barley playable with a gtx 460 and a quad core clocked at 4ghz. lol this just goes to show that for some games a mid range video card and a fast quad core will not be enough, and really need to be played with a high end card and a quad core. It is often also determined that the quad core makes no difference in performance. No doubt in the future it will be utilize much more but for present games it seems like your better off investing more money in a better graphics card. That being said, the components become really expensive, and not everyone can afford to run out and purchase a 300-400 dollar video card.

this should explain a lot. For most about 30% or more of the games using a gtx 460 as a baseline was not enough and it was just that, a baseline.

Its a good card man just not the best.



first off i am not offended you just didn't know what you were talking about the resolution of your monitor does not affect your quality if you have a seventeen inch monitor the resolution is only going to be 1280x1024 the monitor just simply Will not have a higher resolution then that. I play on a seventeen inch monitor so thats my max res.
October 13, 2010 3:35:56 PM

Red Nek said:
first off i am not offended you just didn't know what you were talking about the resolution of your monitor does not affect your quality if you have a seventeen inch monitor the resolution is only going to be 1280x1024 the monitor just simply Will not have a higher resolution then that. I play on a seventeen inch monitor so thats my max res.



lol, well bud you never specified what resolution you were using, so I'm not sure how that equates to me not knowing what I'm talking about but anyhow... the resolution of your monitor absolutely effects the overall quality of graphics, but yes in your case, at 1280x1024 the gtx 460 is obviously overkill, and it makes a lot of sense that you can get near 100 fps at that res. Sounds like your video card is more than enough to power your 17" why not upgrade the monitor so you can actually utilize the power of your gtx 460. a 1650X1080 or 1920X1080 monitor can be had these days for less than 200. I understand that not everyone is made of money but to harness the true power of your gtx 460 I would reccommend a monitor upgrade, if not 1280X1024 is still a popular gaming resolution. Pushing the gtx 460 at 1080p (1920X1080) will def bring you around 60fps or lower in the most demanding games and yes 75% of games should be smooth as silk with high settings at that res. and most likely will exceed 60 fps if you do not use vsync.

looking back to your original question, the crysis results look spot on. The game is ridiculously taxing and if you want to run it above 30fps min look for gtx 460 sli. Even a 480 is somewhat "brought to its knees" by crysis.
Hopefully Crysis 2 will be a bit less demanding and re-worked for optimal frame rates. My guess is that it will be because it can run on an xbox360 and ps3.
!