Is Athlon XP 3200 enough?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

I read that a pc with an Athlon XP 3200 could run Far Cry at 137
frames/second. Isn't a playable frame rate about 20/second? So even
with a so-called cheap/value/low-end system you still get several times
more performance than you need to play all the latest games, right? So
is there really any big need to spend more than that? Have any game
companies announced any plans that they're going to make a game that
requires ten times the processing power or more? Do you think if I get
just an Athlon XP 3200 that I'll be able to play all the latest games
for at least a few years?

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

I run Far Cry just fine on my Athlon 2800XP with 9800pro and 1 gig of ram.

JK

<wizzzer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110668622.185808.239910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I read that a pc with an Athlon XP 3200 could run Far Cry at 137
> frames/second. Isn't a playable frame rate about 20/second? So even
> with a so-called cheap/value/low-end system you still get several times
> more performance than you need to play all the latest games, right? So
> is there really any big need to spend more than that? Have any game
> companies announced any plans that they're going to make a game that
> requires ten times the processing power or more? Do you think if I get
> just an Athlon XP 3200 that I'll be able to play all the latest games
> for at least a few years?
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 12 Mar 2005 15:03:42 -0800, wizzzer@hotmail.com wrote:

>I read that a pc with an Athlon XP 3200 could run Far Cry at 137
>frames/second.

Even if it's true, the Althlon XP isn't doing the work - the video card is
doing the real processing. Even so, the Athlon XP is only 32 bit and will
eventually be phased out in favour of 64-bit processors.

If you want to play graphic intensive 3D games, you need a 3D accellerator.
An onboard chipset doesn't count - it must be from ATI, NVidia, or another
manufacturer that produces high-end cards. (Whatever you do, avoid the
Geforce 4 MX cards.)

>Isn't a playable frame rate about 20/second?

No - with 20 FPS, you really have the framerate bouncing around up and
down. To be playable, it needs to be either a constant 20 FPS, or a 30-40
average FPS.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

<wizzzer@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1110668622.185808.239910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I read that a pc with an Athlon XP 3200 could run Far Cry at 137
> frames/second. Isn't a playable frame rate about 20/second? So even
> with a so-called cheap/value/low-end system you still get several times
> more performance than you need to play all the latest games, right? So
> is there really any big need to spend more than that? Have any game
> companies announced any plans that they're going to make a game that
> requires ten times the processing power or more? Do you think if I get
> just an Athlon XP 3200 that I'll be able to play all the latest games
> for at least a few years?

Far Cry should run fine, provided you've got an up to date video card.
Should be good for 1-2 years.

But 137 fps? I don't think so, at least not with halfway decent quality
settings.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

<wizzzer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110668622.185808.239910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I read that a pc with an Athlon XP 3200 could run Far Cry at 137
> frames/second. Isn't a playable frame rate about 20/second? So even
> with a so-called cheap/value/low-end system you still get several times
> more performance than you need to play all the latest games, right? So
> is there really any big need to spend more than that? Have any game
> companies announced any plans that they're going to make a game that
> requires ten times the processing power or more? Do you think if I get
> just an Athlon XP 3200 that I'll be able to play all the latest games
> for at least a few years?
>

Is 20 fps playable?

Quick answer is: maybe.

Longer answer: Let's say you benchmark your computer with FarCry and it
reports a 20fps ave. What that could mean is that during the 2 min time
demo that it ran, that there were times when the game slowed down to 10fps,
sometimes it hit 20fps, and it also hit a high of 30fps. After adding up
the different scores and dividing by the time, you get an ave of 20fps.
That sounds good.

But then you go into the game and hit that section of the game where 10 guys
jump out of the bushes and starting running around, 2 helos coming zooming
in, a flock of birds go flying off into the yonder, bullets flying, things
blowing up, .... and all of this causes your system to come to a crawl at
5fps for the next 2 mins.

Later after all the helos are gone, the enemy is dead, and it's just you,
then your fps goes back to a playable 30fps. But now there's no one around
to blast.

From my own experience, if I can get a game to benchmark around 50fps, then
I'm usually ok for gameplay and any slow downs that I might encounter.
Like 10 tangos, 2 helos, and a flock of seagulls.

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 12 Mar 2005 15:03:42 -0800, wizzzer@hotmail.com wrote:

>I read that a pc with an Athlon XP 3200 could run Far Cry at 137
>frames/second. Isn't a playable frame rate about 20/second?

A playable framerate is open to personal taste. I (and a lot of
others) like playing at 60 or more, but 30 is the lower limit of my
comfort zone. I can see up to about 70 fps so that would be ideal for
me. However when you quote 137 fps, that is an average figure. While
taking those figures the framerate might vary between 10 (which is
ugly) and 200, so the more important figure when discussing a playable
number is the minimum rate during play.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

wizzzer@hotmail.com wrote:
> I read that a pc with an Athlon XP 3200 could run Far Cry at 137
> frames/second. Isn't a playable frame rate about 20/second? So even
> with a so-called cheap/value/low-end system you still get several
times
> more performance than you need to play all the latest games, right?
So
> is there really any big need to spend more than that? Have any game
> companies announced any plans that they're going to make a game that
> requires ten times the processing power or more? Do you think if I
get
> just an Athlon XP 3200 that I'll be able to play all the latest games
> for at least a few years?

According to the specs on page 3 of the book, you should be able to run
at High settings with a 300mhz processor and a Radeon 9800 Pro/ GeForce
FX 5950.

It actually says a 64bit Athlon, but being as the game is a 32 bit game
I don't think that makes a jot of difference. Also AMD and Far Cry
teamed up for promo purposes so the mention of the 64bit processor is
probably just advertising.

In short, as everyone else has said, you should be fine, but make sure
your graphics card is up to it. 9800s are cheap at the moment.

 

[jake]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

<wizzzer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110668622.185808.239910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I read that a pc with an Athlon XP 3200 could run Far Cry at 137
> frames/second. Isn't a playable frame rate about 20/second? So even
> with a so-called cheap/value/low-end system you still get several times
> more performance than you need to play all the latest games, right? So
> is there really any big need to spend more than that? Have any game
> companies announced any plans that they're going to make a game that
> requires ten times the processing power or more? Do you think if I get
> just an Athlon XP 3200 that I'll be able to play all the latest games
> for at least a few years?

That processor should be fine, although for the money at this point I would
go with an AMD Athlon 64 2800+ or 3000+. However, as others have noted, the
most important component is the video card. Get at least an ATI Radeon
9800Pro. I would get one with 256mb RAM and 256-bit memory interface. One
of my rigs uses an Athlon 2500+ oc'ed to 3200+ speeds, with a 9800 Pro 128mb
RAM, 1gb pc3500 RAM, and it does just fine.

jake