Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best rig for ONLY Unreal Tournament.

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Performance
  • Processors
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 1, 2001 1:37:10 AM

OK. this is what i want.
Compare all current processors AT THE SAME CLOCK SPEED for Unreal tournament performance ONLY.
so that would be a:
1. Cellery 800 (100 fsb i think)
2. Cellery 800 (66 fsb underclock)
2. Duron 800 (100 fsb)
3. Athlon 800 (100 fsb)
4. Athlon C underclocked to 800mhz (133 fsb)
5. p3 800 (100 fsb)
6. p3 800 EB
7. P4 @ 800 (just for fun)

so does anyone know how all those processors stand up side by side?
remember im not worried about ANY other factors here, only performance.

P.S. if you want to flame, go elsewhere little boy.


I would show you some apathy, but i just cant be bothered.

More about : rig unreal tournament

June 1, 2001 2:18:11 AM

considering my knowledge of Unreal...
I'd say both Athlon's are going to be damn near identical(as in less than 2 fps difference)and the Duron will be maybe in second.
Unreal eats processors, its not that memory intensive. the last place Celeron can't hack it anymore, not enough on die cache, a close third, the PIII can't hack it as well as the Athlon. P4 @ 800? rotflmao... hahaahaha
honestly, no flame, probably not as fast as the Celeron...
so.
1. Tie, Athlon
2. Duron
3. Tie PIII
4. Tie Celeron
5. P4


----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.
June 1, 2001 4:38:11 AM

Comparisons at the same clock speed are not meaningful. Different CPUs have different IPC (instructions per clock) and clock speed (clocks per second). What's meaningful would be a comparison of CPUs having close average instructions per second (IPC x clock speed) on the basis of performance and price.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2001 5:29:41 AM

Unreal Tournament is more processor oriented in gaming than so much video card.
June 1, 2001 5:56:38 AM

duh
Raystonn said nothing to deny that.
he is pretty much harping on what Intel says about the P4.
and realisticly, IPS counts over IPC, unless AMD catches up with Intel on the ghz war.

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.
June 1, 2001 5:59:10 AM

I'll kind of agree with you there, but IPC and IPS, what about IP$?
the Duron will win that one hands down...
but, that's not his question, his is no less meaningful than yours would be.

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.
June 1, 2001 12:56:57 PM

If IPS is so important, why isn't the P4 marketed that way? Why is the emphasis on clock speed so important? Where are the specs on how many instructions per second the P4 executes? Or the Athlon, for that matter? These chips are all sorted and sold by CLOCK SPEED.

Sorry, but the average consumer (not those of us who frequent these forums) will buy based on clock speed, not knowing any better. Intel knows this, thus the early release of the P4 with its high clock speed, but disappointing performance.

Interesting how Cyrix was put down for their 'P' system of clock speed. Cyrix ran at a slower clock speed, but kept pace (integer wise) with the corresponding Intel chips. However, Intel countered that the Cyrix P200 was in reality only a 150Mhz chip. The point is, Intel (and everyone else) harped clock speed, not performance.

Now that Intel requires higher clock speeds to match the performance of slower clocked cpus, there are suddenly new standards, such as IPS? In an about face, Intel is pushing IPS for measurment, not clock speed?

All of a sudden, the standard of measuring speed has changed, and only when Intel cannot match AMD in instructions executed per clock....

<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
June 1, 2001 3:45:40 PM

It can all change when northwood comes out. 512kb L2 cache should fix some fpu problems.

Nice Intel and AMD users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
June 1, 2001 4:59:31 PM

Then, I guess the accepted measurment of speed will again revert back to clock speed.

<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
June 1, 2001 6:31:29 PM

why do people keep claiming the larger L2 will help with FPU?
the Duron has less L2 than the PIII, yet it does better in FPU intensive apps.
the Celeron does as well as the PIII on MOST FPU apps...
the only time the L2 really comes into play for FPU is if the processor is starved for info, which rarely happens. Most of the time the rest of the system is waiting on the FPU to get finished.

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.
June 1, 2001 7:39:36 PM

Well more L2 in memory eating apps help. Remember Duron has a much newer Core and more FSB.

P3 core= P6 (1995)
Duron core = athlon (1998)

alittle time difference. It's neat that intel keep that core alive so long.

Nice Intel and AMD users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
June 2, 2001 3:50:41 AM

yea, I'll agree, the Duron is based on a new core, fsb has nearly no effect on FPU performance tho.
even the Athlon systems have to wait on the FPU.


----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.
!