Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is 2.2 Ghz processor enough for latest games?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 3, 2011 11:47:19 AM

Hi,

I am using the below configuration. I am planning to upgrade my PC to only watch HD Movies and Latest Games in full HD and ultra graphics.

1. Please let me know whether my Motherboard and Processor is good enough to watch HD Movies and Latest Games.
1.a. I am expecting to play movies and games in 1920x1080 resolution
2. Also please let me know the difference I may experience (as a user) with ATI 6670 / ATI 6770 / ATI 6790 / GTX 550 (1 GB Graphics)
(Basically, I would like to go for a budget graphics which will play games well)

Current configuration:
Motherboard: Gigabyte 780G (onboard ati radeon HD3200)
Processor: AMD Athlon X2 4200+ (2.2 GHz)
RAM: 2GB + 1GB (667 Mhz)
Monitor: Samsung 17” sync master

Planning to upgrade to below components:
Samsung: 23” LED 1920x1080 support
Graphics: AMD HD 6790 or NVidia GTX 550 (1 GB)

Thanks in Advance.
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 12:45:05 PM

welcome to tomshardware,

first of all i am sure your current cpu cannot handle any latest games on medium and you are talking about ultra setting.as you mention those card's but your cpu can bottleneck them but i think that hd 6670 will be fine or even 6770 but if you can do this you cannot able to play any latest game on ultra only in low.2gb is nothing for games and you are running (667mhz) how cheap! nowaday games require 4gb ram with ddr3 1333mhz or 1600mhz will be more better.
in the last, latest games also require quad-core cpu's.
m
0
l
a c 109 U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 1:35:32 PM

pro-gamer said:
welcome to tomshardware,

first of all i am sure your current cpu cannot handle any latest games on medium and you are talking about ultra setting.as you mention those card's but your cpu can bottleneck them but i think that hd 6670 will be fine or even 6770 but if you can do this you cannot able to play any latest game on ultra only in low.2gb is nothing for games and you are running (667mhz) how cheap! nowaday games require 4gb ram with ddr3 1333mhz or 1600mhz will be more better.
in the last, latest games also require quad-core cpu's.

^+1
m
0
l
Related resources
November 3, 2011 4:10:57 PM

Thanks for your reply,

I built this machine 3 years back. Just now thought of upgrading. But couldn't invest more to get a full computer built now.

What is the performance I can expect from the below config?

Motherboard: Gigabyte 780G (onboard ati radeon HD3200)
Processor: AMD Athlon X2 4200+ (2.2 GHz)
Graphics: AMD HD 6790 or NVidia GTX 550 (1 GB)
m
0
l
November 3, 2011 4:36:03 PM

if you can find one a gtx 4601gb can be great value, also if your gaming id reccomend picking up a phenom x4 it should work in your mobo
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 4:41:22 PM

senthurpandian said:
Thanks for your reply,

I built this machine 3 years back. Just now thought of upgrading. But couldn't invest more to get a full computer built now.

What is the performance I can expect from the below config?

Motherboard: Gigabyte 780G (onboard ati radeon HD3200)
Processor: AMD Athlon X2 4200+ (2.2 GHz)
Graphics: AMD HD 6790 or NVidia GTX 550 (1 GB)


Its going to really struggle running any modern game even on medium settings. Its not just that it is only 2.2ghz, it is an outdated processor design as well. A new Phenom for example at the same ghz of 2.2 would be anywhere from 15-30% faster clock for clock. It is generally accepted that with even a modern recent CPU, 3ghz is pretty much what you need to be looking at.
Any of the video cards you are looking at would barely perform at the levels you are talking about even with a quad core Phenom running at 3ghz. I would suggest first getting a motherboard/CPU combo and upgrading that old tired platform. A fast GPU isn't going to help you much on the platform you have, while it will be better than onboard, its still not going to be much of a gamer on that platform.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 4:43:14 PM

MSI GTX 460 fermi 149.99 before MIR, 129.99 after MIR. Beats the gtx 550.

http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=55409&vpn=N460GTX%20HA...

Like stated ultra settings are not going to happen with this card, or the 550, or with your cpu.

You need a cpu upgraded and gpu upgrade

Edit- The 460 is still a great card, it will increasingly becoming difficult to find.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 4:45:05 PM

Oh, and you know something, I have a AM2+ socket 920 Phenom Quad core, (its 2.8ghz but will run quite easily at 3.0ghz) and a 965 Black edition Quad AM3 socket processor if you may be interested in buying. Would sell either one of them very reasonable, make me an offer. The 965 is mounted on a GA-MA790X-UD4P with 4 gig of 1066 memory if you are interested in a complete bundle, and like I said, I would let them go cheap, make me an offer.
m
0
l
November 3, 2011 4:45:10 PM

If you looking for max .. i mean really max setting.. must need upgrade
but just play game with don't care realistic i think it ok cpu and very nice gpu upgrade you looking for.
m
0
l
November 3, 2011 4:48:26 PM

I have the AMD Athlon X2 5600+ (2.8 GHz)
and a Ati 5770
At this point I need to upgrade to play many of the new games properly, because my CPU cannot keep up.
For instance, in Deus Ex my GPU would be able to get around 40 FPS at max graphics but my CPU is unlikely to get more then 5-10 FPS. (all according to tomshardwares performance analysis and best guess)
With an AMD 6790 this would get even worse, as the GPU actually strain the CPU a little, thus better GPU = even less FPS.
What you really need is not just a GPU with more Ghz, you want a newer arcitecture that runs games faster. Sandy Bridge is a great example, the I3 2100 is fairly cheap. You could also go for an AMD such a the 955 but that promises very little for future upgrades.

Your current CPU would seriously limit the GPU's you are talking about.
m
0
l
November 3, 2011 4:56:56 PM

I have a nearing 4 year old q9550 quad core running at 3.75ghz. My radeon 4870 1gb is at par with the 6790 you're looking at, and my RAM is DDR at 1150 mhz. If we're talking about anything aside from battlefield 3, then we're in business. SC2 will play on the hardware you have plus the 6770 or 6790 with reduced settings. What's hurting you most will be the CPU.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 5:09:09 PM

the gtx460 can be bottleneck by your cpu so the better would be hd4850.
m
0
l
November 3, 2011 5:14:31 PM

get the 460, and upgrade the cpu when you can, no point deliberatly buying poor hardware
m
0
l
November 3, 2011 7:03:44 PM

Thanks guys, all your advises will help me for sure. I am now planning to upgrade the whole set. I will get back to you on this regard with my new specs.

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 7:08:01 PM

that's what i told you above...
m
0
l
November 3, 2011 7:16:34 PM

i think you can keep the mobo, it should support the phenom procs, keep the ram to, just a cpu and gpu
m
0
l
November 3, 2011 7:25:47 PM

Oh, in that case, can you please let me know the performance of the below config?

Motherboard: Gigabyte 780G (onboard ati radeon HD3200)
Processor: Phenom II Quad X4 - 965 BE
Graphics: NVidia GTX 460 (1 GB)
RAM: 3GB (667 Mhz)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 7:33:23 PM

fine!
m
0
l
November 3, 2011 7:41:46 PM

Oh, cool. With this will I be able to play Battle Field 3 in 1600x900 resolution with nice graphics settings?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 7:45:37 PM

of course you can.
m
0
l
November 3, 2011 7:46:58 PM

Oh, are you sure, the game wont lag?

Will I be able to have ultra settings with 720p resolution?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 7:49:12 PM

not on ultra with single gtx460 bt you will be fine at high setting..
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 7:52:27 PM

but i think on ultra you should be getting 24~30 fps with single gtx460
m
0
l
November 4, 2011 4:52:11 PM

never drop the resolution play at your monitors native, high res low setting looks better than low res high settings
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2011 5:01:57 PM

we1shcake said:
never drop the resolution play at your monitors native, high res low setting looks better than low res high settings

completely wrong!
high setting is the only thing that makes the view of the game beautiful.
m
0
l
November 4, 2011 7:58:21 PM

ive tried it on the bf3 beta cos i had a 5670, 1080p at low looked good, 720p at ultra looked blurry and yes i turned motion blur off
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 5, 2011 5:23:24 AM

hah! your card should be blurry.
m
0
l
November 5, 2011 11:31:17 AM

pro-gamer said:
hah! your card should be blurry.

having a low-end graphics card does not make things blurry, it gives you a low framerate, dont comment and try to help if you dont understand the subject
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 5, 2011 1:55:14 PM

i understand it more than you try to understand yourself.
If he can afford to buy a gtx460 then what's going wrong even 965 BE is pretty faster for bf3 then why are you telling that low setting is better than high setting huh! And remember amd card has buggy drivers that's why your game is running blurry everyone tried to run bf3 at maxed out but some people aren't they decide high setting to enjoy game more.(understand)
m
0
l
a c 104 U Graphics card
November 5, 2011 2:02:16 PM

What about the psu, how much watts is it ?
m
0
l
November 5, 2011 2:06:57 PM

it was running blurry because it was at 720p, the game looked better and sharper with more detail when i played at 1080p with low settings, compared to 720p with high settings. i upgraded to a gtx 470 halfway through the beta and just to see what framerates i could reach compared to the 5670 i set it to 720p again at ultra settings, it still looked blurry. i never tested at low at 1080p but seeing as it was playable before i dont think there would be a visible difference between 40fps and 60fps.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 5, 2011 2:16:48 PM

than why are you telling all that to us.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 5, 2011 2:19:00 PM

what is your specs?
m
0
l
November 5, 2011 2:22:13 PM

im just making the point that your better off running at native res and lower settings than low res with higher settings
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 5, 2011 2:26:16 PM

you make me confuse man leave it, it's not your problem.
m
0
l
November 5, 2011 2:33:34 PM

just get the 460 and enjoy it op, its a good choice and will power your games well
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 5, 2011 2:37:23 PM

got it.:) 
m
0
l
a c 104 U Graphics card
November 5, 2011 2:44:10 PM

we1shcake said:
just get the 460 and enjoy it op, its a good choice and will power your games well


If his psu is up to it.
m
0
l
November 5, 2011 2:53:04 PM

id say a 550 w non branded or 450w branded. although thats being safe on what youll need
m
0
l
November 15, 2011 10:02:32 AM

Hi Everyone, I have finally purchased a new RIG - instead of upgrade plan. Please find the configuration in my signature below.
m
0
l
November 15, 2011 10:10:37 AM

senthurpandian said:
Hi Everyone, I have finally purchased a new RIG - instead of upgrade plan. Please find the configuration in my signature below.


My Gaming RIG:
----------------
Intel i7 2600k | Asus Sabertooth P67 | Asus GTX 570 | 8G Corsair Vengeance 1600mhz DDR3 | 2TB WD HDD @ 6 Gbps | Corsair TX 750W PSU | CM HAF 912 chassis | Samsung 23" LED @ 1080p
m
0
l
November 16, 2011 3:04:43 PM

senthurpandian said:
My Gaming RIG:
----------------
Intel i7 2600k | Asus Sabertooth P67 | Asus GTX 570 | 8G Corsair Vengeance 1600mhz DDR3 | 2TB WD HDD @ 6 Gbps | Corsair TX 750W PSU | CM HAF 912 chassis | Samsung 23" LED @ 1080p

that is a nice rig, shouldnt have any trouble running anything now for a couple years :) 
m
0
l
November 17, 2011 3:36:01 AM

we1shcake said:
that is a nice rig, shouldnt have any trouble running anything now for a couple years :) 


Should be....

Again, thanks to tomshardware and all - one who helped me a lot to build my RIG ...
m
0
l
November 17, 2011 3:52:12 AM

Your new rig looks good! Not only will that allow you to play about anything on its highest settings, but it will also give you some wiggle room when upgrading in the future.

Enjoy!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 17, 2011 4:13:32 AM

good rig, most people typically buy the i5 2500k instead of the i7 for gaming. 750 watts probably wont be enough for sli 570s but that probably was not your intent.

Good build
m
0
l
November 27, 2011 5:12:31 AM

Yeah, am not planning for a SLI. B'cos, I would be willing to upgrade in the late 2012 or 2013, at that time I believe that GTX 600 or GTX 700 series will rule. GTX570 SLI would be a crazy upgrade at that time :) 

Correct me if I am wrong.

And, could you please tell me why 2500k is better than 2600k for gaming?

Thanks!

My Gaming RIG:
----------------
Intel i7 2600k | Asus Sabertooth P67 | Asus GTX 570 | 8G Corsair Vengeance 1600mhz DDR3 | 2TB WD HDD @ 6 Gbps | Corsair TX 750W PSU | CM HAF 912 chassis | Samsung 23" LED @ 1080p
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2011 5:31:26 AM

yes, you're right 2500k is better cause there is no huge difference between them the only difference are
1.100mhz better 2600k but won't help in games
2.2mb of cache increase so games will slightly a bit better than 2500k
3.hyperthreading technology which does not help in gamming
4.expensive than 2500k
therefore people choose 2500k with excellent overclocking same speed of 2600k and are cheaper they both have similar performance but 2500k is cheaper with excellent performance.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2011 5:39:26 AM

Quote:
And, could you please tell me why 2500k is better than 2600k for gaming?


Check these benches out, scroll down near the bottom, the performance is near identical

the i5 isn't per se better compared to the i7 however the logic is that the i5 performs similar to the i7 in gaming aspects, and that the additional 100.00 spent on the i7 is not justifiable if your sole intent is to game.

I'm sure someone could give a more in depth answer, but that is they gist of the: i5 vs i7 cpu choice.
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 5:48:47 AM

Ya, I now understood the difference of 2500k and 2600k. But some of the games now are utilizing the hyperthreaded CPU. Some games like Battle Field 3 or the older GTA 4..

What I planned is to build a confidence level to not to upgrade mobo/cpu for the next 5 yrs down the line. But upgrading GPU alone, whenever it bottlenecks.

Believe i7 was the best choice? Do you accept?


Cheers!
Senthur

My Gaming RIG:
----------------
Intel i7 2600k | Asus Sabertooth P67 | Asus GTX 570 | 8G Corsair Vengeance 1600mhz DDR3 | 2TB WD HDD @ 6 Gbps | Corsair TX 750W PSU | CM HAF 912 chassis | Samsung 23" LED @ 1080p
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2011 6:56:52 AM

I do not accept . Yet it really doesn't matter, what matters is that you are content with what you have. Your rig will perform roughly equally with or without the i5 or the i7.

If you look at BF3 benches from toms hardware, the i7 performs roughly the same compared to other CPUs. Don't really know if gta 4 benefits from hyper threading (if it is like any other game than it doesn't)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graph...

five years who knows, tech moves so damn fast...socket 1155 and its AMD counterpart may be dead by then.

Either way i7 or i5, your rig is a solid rig that will hopefully be adequate decent duration of time.
m
0
l
!