Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Can pentium 4 3.20 play the latest games.

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Pentium
  • Games
  • Call of Duty
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 21, 2011 4:13:05 PM

i wanted to know can pentium 4 3.20 play the latest games like call of duty,crysis 2,battlefield 3,etc,given i have good graphic card and ram....thanx...

More about : pentium play latest games

a b U Graphics card
May 21, 2011 4:17:47 PM

No it can not. You will need a faster CPU to be able to play or enjoy any current games regardless of the graphic power you have inside your PC.

May 21, 2011 6:08:41 PM

so can u tell me which is the minimum cpu required to play the latest games,will dual core be enough?...
Related resources
May 21, 2011 6:09:33 PM

ionut19 said:
No it can not. You will need a faster CPU to be able to play or enjoy any current games regardless of the graphic power you have inside your PC.




so can u tell me which is the minimum cpu required to play the latest games,will dual core be enough?...
a b U Graphics card
May 21, 2011 6:17:24 PM

How much money do you have available to spend?

Please post your system specks. Including brand and model of each component. Also at what resolution do you want to play games?

And yes, the current minimum for gaming starts from a dual core processor up. Please answer what i posted above for further help.
May 21, 2011 6:58:46 PM

ionut19 said:
How much money do you have available to spend?

Please post your system specks. Including brand and model of each component. Also at what resolution do you want to play games?

And yes, the current minimum for gaming starts from a dual core processor up. Please answer what i posted above for further help.



i really appreciate your help,and am amazed at how fast this site replies to queries,i mean the members...
so now i have pentium 4,1gb ddr1 ram....and as u suggested,i think am gonna buy a new cpu,and the budget for the cpu is around 300-400$,this is just the cpu,excluding monitor and graphic card and everything else...and i think am gonna be playing the games at
1280x720,as i have experienced,i am satisfied with lower resolutions....so how do u think dual core with 2gb ram and probably radeon hd 5670 or nvidia 9800gt....give me your suggestions...thanx a lot...i appreciate your help...and sorry for writing a long essay....
a b U Graphics card
May 21, 2011 7:26:17 PM

You want to spend 3-400$ on the CPU? :) )

CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... core i5 2500k SB
Motherboard: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... 8Gb 2x4Gb

As for a video card: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... gtx570

I you have that much money to spend on a CPU i thought of helping you to buy a new PC. :) 

Also since you want to buy a new monitor buy one that has 1920x1080 resolution.

If i misunderstood something please correct me.
a c 365 U Graphics card
May 21, 2011 7:44:51 PM

You don't really need to spend $300 - $400 for a CPU.

You can buy an Intel i5 2500k quad core CPU, which is basically the best CPU for the money; $225. It is also highly overclockable. I've read posts where some people can get up to 4.5GHz with a good heatsink.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The Intel i5 2300 quad core CPU for $185 is a good choice if you want to spend less money (it's the slowest quad core). Below that are the dual core i3 CPUs and the price difference is only about $35 for the top i3 dual core CPU.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The ASUS P8H67-M LE (REV 3.0) seems to be a pretty decent motherboard and doesn't break the bank for $105
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

4GB of RAM is sufficient for just $40
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The total is less than $400 excluding the monitor and video card.


The Asus VH242H 1920x1080 monitor is pretty cheap for $170 after rebate.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

A HD 6850 1GB video card is good enough for a 1920x1080 resolution monitor and is about $150.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
a c 173 U Graphics card
May 21, 2011 7:45:16 PM

A p4 isn't good for much these days except for surfing the web doing office work, and watching videos but not much more maybe a few old games that don't push a p4 all that much that are still worth playing.

Intel builds are rather costly these days if you even want a mid range build but if you want value then amd is always there.
a c 365 U Graphics card
May 21, 2011 8:00:43 PM

Depending on your total budget you can tweak the system suggestion I made above.

If you have a copy of Win XP, you can continue to use it if you want to keep costs down for the moment and save up money for Windows 7 64-bit. 4GB of RAM is more than enough for Win XP since you will be limited to about 3.25GB for a 32-bit operating system. Not sure what the RAM limit for Windows 7 64-bit is, but 8GB is going to be more than enough.

If you continue to use Win XP, just realize that it does not support DX10 or DX11 graphic effects even if you have a DX10 / DX11 video card like the HD 6850 I recommended. All it means is you will not get that extra minor eye candy at the cost of performance.

Just be aware that BF3 does not support DX9 so when that game comes out and you want to play, you will need to upgrade to Win 7.
a b U Graphics card
May 21, 2011 10:00:28 PM

p4 is an office/basic use CPU at best
a c 177 U Graphics card
May 22, 2011 2:24:19 AM

a core i3 2100 is a good choice at the moment, faster than and AMD quad core for games. bundle that with an ati 6850 and at least 4gb ram (preferably 8gb) and you will have a system capable of playing anything you can throw at it without costing a fortune.
May 22, 2011 7:21:28 AM

luv2break said:
i wanted to know can pentium 4 3.20 play the latest games like call of duty,crysis 2,battlefield 3,etc,given i have good graphic card and ram....thanx...


I used a Pentium 4 to play Modern Warefare 2, and it ran fine. It was a Pentium 4 3.0 GHz and a ATI 512 MB 4670 HD. It averaged 60 FPS on Med-High Settings when nothing was going on, and 30-50 FPS during action.

I really doubt a Pentium 4 can run a game like Crysis 2.
May 22, 2011 7:45:36 AM

Shpati said:
I really doubt a Pentium 4 can run a game like Crysis 2.

I used to have a similar PC and it couldn't even run the youtube videos of Crysis 2.....

You need a new PC. I'd be willing to bet that motherboard is still stuck on AGP which is outdated and no longer used by video card manufacturers. Plus if it is a P4 it is either socket 478 or 775 which are both outdated and you're not going to be able to find a modern CPU to replace it.

Do yourself a favor and start thinking about a complete new build, you can save the case and CD/DVD drives, even the hard drive if you want, but you'll need a new mobo, new ram, new CPU, new video card, and a copy of Windows 7 because it would be a sin to build a new PC and stick with XP!
May 22, 2011 8:02:22 AM

aaron88_7 said:
I used to have a similar PC and it couldn't even run the youtube videos of Crysis 2.....

You need a new PC. I'd be willing to bet that motherboard is still stuck on AGP which is outdated and no longer used by video card manufacturers. Plus if it is a P4 it is either socket 478 or 775 which are both outdated and you're not going to be able to find a modern CPU to replace it.

Do yourself a favor and start thinking about a complete new build, you can save the case and CD/DVD drives, even the hard drive if you want, but you'll need a new mobo, new ram, new CPU, new video card, and a copy of Windows 7 because it would be a sin to build a new PC and stick with XP!


Well I have a quad core Intel i7 laptop now that over clocks to 2.8 GHz. Does not matter since I do not play Crysis :ange:  . But that Dell E510 desktop I have. I have this thing inside of me where I have to update it every once in a while for the hell of it. The motherboard I have is a PCI xpress. I have 4 GB of RAM, ATI 4670 512 MB, 400 Watt PSU. Just upgraded its CPU to a Pentium D 3.4 GHz. I tried StarCraft 2 on it, and I was running at 20-60 FPS depending on the battle, with Medium settings. Not bad. Those upgrades probably cost me less 200 bucks over 2 years (if I remember correctly, this is including rebate, 40 for all the RAM, 70 for the video card, 40 for the PSU, and 40 for the CPU).
a b U Graphics card
May 22, 2011 6:44:54 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
a core i3 2100 is a good choice at the moment, faster than and AMD quad core for games. bundle that with an ati 6850 and at least 4gb ram (preferably 8gb) and you will have a system capable of playing anything you can throw at it without costing a fortune.


how do you figure that? In games that utilize quads the OP will be seriously held back, my 955 @ 3.9ghz will blow this chip out of the water in gaming any day of the week, I'm not following your logic. YEs the 2100 is a very strong dual core for the money, and yes most games still only use 2 cores but it still makes more sense to me to get a cheap AMD quad and oc it if the OP is in that price bracket. Personally at this point in time, I would never spend 100 plus on a dual core, it just dosent make any sense heading into the future imo. Not to mention that SB motherboards seem to be a bit on the expensive side. Dont get me wrong I think that SB is a great platform and I would love to own a 2500k but for the budget oriented gamer I dont see the 2100 making too much sense, I know that clock-for clock the SB chips are faster.... my 2 cents
a b U Graphics card
May 22, 2011 6:49:41 PM

besides that a 955 at around 3.6 ish is supposedly about the same speed as a stock 2400, now ocing these chips tells quite a different story although for gaming at that point, for most games you will see diminishing returns with a chip that is beyond this level of performance.
a c 173 U Graphics card
May 22, 2011 7:07:54 PM

jjb8675309 said:
how do you figure that? In games that utilize quads the OP will be seriously held back, my 955 @ 3.9ghz will blow this chip out of the water in gaming any day of the week, I'm not following your logic. YEs the 2100 is a very strong dual core for the money, and yes most games still only use 2 cores but it still makes more sense to me to get a cheap AMD quad and oc it if the OP is in that price bracket. Personally at this point in time, I would never spend 100 plus on a dual core, it just dosent make any sense heading into the future imo. Not to mention that SB motherboards seem to be a bit on the expensive side. Dont get me wrong I think that SB is a great platform and I would love to own a 2500k but for the budget oriented gamer I dont see the 2100 making too much sense, I know that clock-for clock the SB chips are faster.... my 2 cents


I strongly agree with you there. For the price of a SB cpu I can buy a decent amd quad plus the board and still save. I don't care what I got is 20% or more slower than what Intel has when budget counts. The savings alone allows me to get a better choice of cards and drives vs what the same budget would get me with Intel.

+1
a b U Graphics card
May 22, 2011 7:10:53 PM

yeah agreed. The SB mobos are not exactly cheap either, it just does not make sense to buy a 114 dollar dual core at this point
a c 173 U Graphics card
May 22, 2011 7:16:04 PM

jjb8675309 said:
yeah agreed. The SB mobos are not exactly cheap either, it just does not make sense to buy a 114 dollar dual core at this point


The only excuse to buy one is for very dependent applications that only scale with only one or two cores such as PS2 emulation. Quad or better for every thing else.
May 22, 2011 7:55:30 PM

thanx a lot everyone for the help....and i forgot to mention,i dont live in the U.S,and the prices here in the middle east are sky high..and just today my budget changed....so i was wondering to buy either dual core or core2duo,along with radeon 5670,ram could be 2-4 GB...so is that a good combo for the latest games,at 1280x1024 resolution....
a c 173 U Graphics card
May 22, 2011 9:30:39 PM

luv2break said:
thanx a lot everyone for the help....and i forgot to mention,i dont live in the U.S,and the prices here in the middle east are sky high..and just today my budget changed....so i was wondering to buy either dual core or core2duo,along with radeon 5670,ram could be 2-4 GB...so is that a good combo for the latest games,at 1280x1024 resolution....


Yes as a 9800gt is on par with that card and used to game with such a machine. At that ress most games are still enjoyable given the performance that card offers. As for the cpu overclock as much as you can but what board do you go or getting? As most of the good 775 era boards are getting to be rare even in the us.
a c 177 U Graphics card
May 23, 2011 3:46:38 AM

nforce4max said:
I strongly agree with you there. For the price of a SB cpu I can buy a decent amd quad plus the board and still save. I don't care what I got is 20% or more slower than what Intel has when budget counts. The savings alone allows me to get a better choice of cards and drives vs what the same budget would get me with Intel.

+1

Ok, maybe in your country, but in australia you can get similar specced 1555 or AM3 boards for the same price if your looking at a mid range board with crossfire support, yes low end boards may be another story, but who wants a low end board? Im actually debating this at the moment for my next upgrade. Yes a 3.9ghz phenom II will beat an i3 2100 some of the time, but you would have to buy an aftermarket cooler and a good motherboard capable of overclocking well and a psu to handle all the extra power its sucking. the i3 is generally faster and matches or slightly beats the similarly priced phenom II 955 (not OC'd) in games, and the 955 is slightly more expensive in Australia, although only a few dollars. Not to mention AM3 is a dead end socket while if you got the i3 you will have better performance across a wide range of games and be able to upgrade to an i5 or i7 later. Trust me, i have thought hard about this. you all need to read some benchmarks to see what a capable cpu the i3 2100 is in games http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-rev...
May 23, 2011 10:52:56 AM

nforce4max said:
Yes as a 9800gt is on par with that card and used to game with such a machine. At that ress most games are still enjoyable given the performance that card offers. As for the cpu overclock as much as you can but what board do you go or getting? As most of the good 775 era boards are getting to be rare even in the us.




so what has the motherboard quality to do with the game performance,or do u mean that 775 mobos are the ones that support core2duo and dual cores?....coz i dont give much importance to motherboard...
a b U Graphics card
May 23, 2011 11:49:15 AM

Quote:

I strongly agree with you there. For the price of a SB cpu I can buy a decent amd quad plus the board and still save. I don't care what I got is 20% or more slower than what Intel has when budget counts.


1: You just undermined the whole "Don't bother with Core i3" argument
2: Going the SB route gives the option to cheapy upgrade to IB down the road, something that going the AMD X4 does not give.
3: You can find h67/p67 boards for around $100 now, and I suspect with Z68 out, you'll start seeing sub $100 boards in short order, or about the same price as AM3 boards.
a c 173 U Graphics card
May 23, 2011 12:40:37 PM

gamerk316 said:
Quote:

I strongly agree with you there. For the price of a SB cpu I can buy a decent amd quad plus the board and still save. I don't care what I got is 20% or more slower than what Intel has when budget counts.


1: You just undermined the whole "Don't bother with Core i3" argument
2: Going the SB route gives the option to cheapy upgrade to IB down the road, something that going the AMD X4 does not give.
3: You can find h67/p67 boards for around $100 now, and I suspect with Z68 out, you'll start seeing sub $100 boards in short order, or about the same price as AM3 boards.


Actually AM3+ boards will support upcoming Bulldozer cpus while still supporting current on the market cpus from am3.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/First-AMD-900-Series-AM3...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20110520130335...

http://www.overclockers.com/amd-confirms-support-bulldo...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

At least we amd users are not given the shaft like those who when 1156 only to find out they can't use 1155 SB and IB cpus and Not all of us are middle and upper middle class or higher. Remember that we all have our own opinions and interests.
a b U Graphics card
May 23, 2011 1:48:02 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
Ok, maybe in your country, but in australia you can get similar specced 1555 or AM3 boards for the same price if your looking at a mid range board with crossfire support, yes low end boards may be another story, but who wants a low end board? Im actually debating this at the moment for my next upgrade. Yes a 3.9ghz phenom II will beat an i3 2100 some of the time, but you would have to buy an aftermarket cooler and a good motherboard capable of overclocking well and a psu to handle all the extra power its sucking. the i3 is generally faster and matches or slightly beats the similarly priced phenom II 955 (not OC'd) in games, and the 955 is slightly more expensive in Australia, although only a few dollars. Not to mention AM3 is a dead end socket while if you got the i3 you will have better performance across a wide range of games and be able to upgrade to an i5 or i7 later. Trust me, i have thought hard about this. you all need to read some benchmarks to see what a capable cpu the i3 2100 is in games http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-rev...



yeah well in games that utilize quads the 2100 is crippled so what is your point the 955 is imo a superior gaming chip, not to mention a better general use chip being that it has four physical cores, and can be had for 120 in the us, were not talking australias unrealistic and inflated prices, cmon.

In the review you listed there are 90% games that only use two cores so it is a bad bag of examples, and again a 970 is not a 955 @ 3.9ghz exactly so my opinion still stands that the 955 or any similar chip is better than the 2100 for gaming, price wise, performance wise, it just makes more sense, look at some non biased benchmarks or try the chip and you will see the same.

Im not saying that the 2100 or sb are bad chips/mobos, I just think that for the OPs main use, (gaming) that the 955 is better for the money.

Show me a comparison of a p2 chip at around 4.0ghz vs the 2100 and then tell me what performs better? Not that the 2100 cannot be oc'ed but in the end as previously stated in games that utilize a healthy quad, the 2100 will be left behind by a good margin
a c 177 U Graphics card
May 23, 2011 9:55:05 PM

"yeah well in games that utilize quads the 2100 is crippled" its not actually it still performs better than the 955 and even the 975 at 3.6 ghz. you would need a 3.9ghz pII to pass it and it wouldnt be by much. Also getting a pII chip to 4ghz isnt easy, especially for someone who hasnt OC'd before. So for someone who is not willing to overclock, or may want to upgrade to a faster i5/i7 processor later, the i3 2100 is the better choice and is more than enough for every day tasks. PII is end of the line for AM3, no upgrades. If AMD shows me a bulldozer CPU and its good for gaming ill change my mind and recommend an am3+ board.
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2011 1:19:22 PM

I respectfully disagree, an expensive dual core is not a good investment no matter how you slice it
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 27, 2011 1:28:20 PM

the best solution is to buy a ps3 cause u ll have 8 cores and the ps3 doesnt need upgrades
With 300$ u can play a hole life but to play a hole life on the pc ull need 10000$+ for upgrades
May 27, 2011 2:14:00 PM

You really want to spend much on a cpu,buying a new PC is really better option,if someone ask me what is the minimum cpu for decent gaming i will say dual core@3.0 ghz and games like GTA IV quad core,am I right?
a b U Graphics card
June 1, 2011 4:46:49 PM

^ yeah that sounds about right to me maybe even more
a b U Graphics card
June 1, 2011 4:48:06 PM

abar92 said:
You really want to spend much on a cpu,buying a new PC is really better option,if someone ask me what is the minimum cpu for decent gaming i will say dual core@3.0 ghz and games like GTA IV quad core,am I right?



you get what you pay for, a ps3s graphics are dated to say the least whearas a 1000 dollar gaming rig will look amazing, plus controller suck d
May 14, 2012 5:30:21 AM

My daughter uses a pentium 4 3.0/ 3 gig 566 memory/ gts 250(oc'd a tad) with 1gig ddr 3 ram/.(and yes her board has a pci-e slot.did have to get 6pin power adapter for videocard.OS-windows xp sp3 32 bit..(dont use win 7 or vista if ur going to play games on an older PC)

"Please read"
she plays everything on it from fallout NV and fallout 3 modded to the max,crysis warhead,sims 3,startrek online,and her fav TF2 online.They run fine on her current setup at 1280 by 800 on medium settings for all her games.Of course she is 13 and very happy with her games running on medium settings.

Please dont throw specs at me I have been building computers for 25 years and theres nothing u can tell me that I dont already know "for the most part" hehe.

The answer to the first post is yes u can play new games with a P4 3.0 and above if u have the right setup.Dont expect high framerates or any max setting but u can play at medium/medium low in 1024 by 768 or 1280 by 800.I would never tell u not to get u a better pc as I have my own build that cost me 4 grand to build and would I use a P4 "Hell no".But I do want u to know the truth.

Not sure why those here say u cant run theses games on a P4.I see my daughter do it everyday on her rig I built 6 years ago and upgrade every now and then.(yes I know stop hogging all the pc parts and build ur daughter a new PC) Its in the works sweetheart...

Better add she also plays skyrim and crysis 2.Didnt want to hear those are older games I listed above..

Just know my *** okay so please dont rage....
a c 291 U Graphics card
May 14, 2012 5:39:02 AM

@darkone.

Nice necro. Thread is one year old.

Anyway, the OP wanted to play battlefield 3, check its requirements. No way pentium 4 would play it even on minimum settings.
May 14, 2012 5:56:53 AM

Sunius

yeah it is an old thread.Just see so many people saying things that are not true.I will check specs on bf3.She runs crysis 2 but the specs say she cant.she does so in medium low settings with no aa and such but the framerates are not as bad as u think.Just some tweaks to xp like I made her a gameing profile on xp that runs nothing but what she needs to play games and thats it.No virus scanner, firewall,backgrounds and so on.If u know what ur doing u can get a lot out of an old rig.Can u post screens on theses threads ??.Anyways peace...
a c 291 U Graphics card
May 14, 2012 6:16:42 AM

You can. However, battlefield 3 does not run on XP. Minimum requirement - directx 10.
February 16, 2013 11:16:48 AM

dual core can play any pc game on this earth be it 20.....it ol depends on ur graphics card..recommended...invidia
!