Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

P3 450 really do the job?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 24, 2003 7:52:14 AM

I was talking to a computer tech dude and was told that a P3 450 combined with a excellent top of the line video card could play most of the lastest games. I find this impossible. I don't own a P3 450 I'm just curious to see what others opinions are. So what are your opinions?

More about : 450 job

June 24, 2003 8:40:26 AM

It is true that video plays a much larger part in games now, however I think a PIII450 is a little extreme. Given the expected associated hardware issues (memory capacity, operating system and such) then it would struggle at high resolution. I'd say a 1.8A PIV or XP1700 would be the lowest that would utilise and drive a top video card well.

-* <font color=red> !! S O L D !! </font color=red> *-
To the gentleman in the pink Tutu
June 24, 2003 8:48:59 AM

If the game is graphic intensive, then VGA card helps. Otherwise, if it's cpu intensive where it needs lots of calculations, then 450MHz is really not enough. GTA VC needs at least 1GHz to see it smooth even though you got a R9700...
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
June 24, 2003 2:03:36 PM

As a current Celeron 500 owner (though looking to upgrade soon to a P4c 2.6) I can definately say that I can't even buy many modern games because thier absolute minimum hardware requirements can't be met by my lousy 500MHz.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
June 25, 2003 3:37:44 PM

assuming all work was done by graphics card i suppose he may be right.. how many p3 mobos have 8x agp tho?
June 25, 2003 3:56:45 PM

You don´t NEED AGP8x, even with modern games. A P3-450 is extreme, but a 1GHz Thunderbird og equivalent should do the job fine, if used with a top-of-the-line graphics-card. Most people won´t pay the price for such graphics, so a mid-range P4 or XP with mid-range (GF4) graphics is often a better choice, for future opgrades and price.
a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
June 26, 2003 3:02:39 AM

Actually what he said was TRUE! Last year, I was playing ALL the LATEST games on a PIII 1000EB and a Radeon DDR!

Some games might have some rediculous "minimum system requirement" where they won't run after doing a system check, but that would be caused by anal programers, not performance problems.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
June 26, 2003 12:27:38 PM

Sure, you can play any game on a p3 450... at about 6 fps. Maybe. My old pc went to my mother it has a p3 450 with 256mb ram and a geforce3ti500, it plays quake3 arena okie. ut2k3 isnt playable though.

With all efx turned off. Problem is as you get better cards eventually the processor becomes a major bottle neck and newer graphics cards rely alot on what processor is being used.

Shadus
June 26, 2003 2:35:53 PM

I just recently upgraded from a P3 450 256MB GF3 64MB. I found that only in the last couple months were games being released that I could not play. Depending on the resolution settings, RAM, etc, even games like UT2003 run OK.
July 7, 2003 8:30:37 AM

you can play quake 3 with that specs, the bottleneck is with the cpu and it's slow front side bus.
July 7, 2003 8:55:18 AM

I own a P3-450 and that is definitely NOT true.

EDIT: Your use of the word most changes things. Most sure. All no. Many many games use the CPU to run things like the AI so with a P3-450 your really bottlenecked with any FPS.

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=38..." target="_new"><font color=red>dhlucke's system</font color=red></A>

<font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> <font color=red>BLESS</font color=red> <font color=blue>AMERICA</font color=blue><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by dhlucke on 07/07/03 01:57 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 7, 2003 12:53:57 PM

I could play UT2003, GTA III, most od the latest, as long as I didn't have the resolution cranked up, most were playable. Only the last couple months were games being released that were impossible to play (Vietcong, Unreal 2, Line Of Sight:Vietnam)

If I was as sexy as I was smart.....I'd still be ugly..DAMN
:mad: 
July 7, 2003 2:57:35 PM

Wow I thought I have an old chip. Athlon 500 Mhz. Most of the new demos I've played work but upgrading will make a big differance. P4 2.4c
July 7, 2003 3:34:27 PM

Keep in mind that "playable" is a relative term.

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=38..." target="_new"><font color=red>dhlucke's system</font color=red></A>

<font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> <font color=red>BLESS</font color=red> <font color=blue>AMERICA</font color=blue>
July 7, 2003 4:14:51 PM

Yeah... I've seen people saying that 15FPS is ok. I used to play DOOM at something like 15-20FPS on a 386 SX16.... I remember the joy of first seeing it run on a 486..so smooth! really showed off the excellent graphics (320x240!) top notch stuff..

---
$hit Happens. I just wish it would happen to someone else for a change.
!