Introduction
It is always fun to see how the latest and greatest hardware performs, but not all gamers have cutting-edge machines or the means to upgrade every time a faster graphics card hits the streets. Many gamers want to know how to best squeeze more life out of their rigs—or whether it’s even possible.
Very affordable PCI Express gaming cards are all over the place now, but are any worth putting into an aging machine? Will that upgrade alone allow you to play the latest popular games at high details? How much CPU do you need? Does a single-core CPU still have what it takes? Will any dual-core chip suffice, regardless of its clock speeds?
We try to answer every single one of these questions as we take an aging—yet hopefully capable—gaming box, put in a couple of affordable graphics cards, and test its performance in some modern games with an older single-core CPU and with two dual-core processors.
Our main focus today is on AMD Athlon 64 systems, built on a Socket 754, Socket 939 or Socket AM2 motherboard, but anyone with a system that is now a couple of years old and starting to show its age stands to benefit from our little blast from the past. Lets see if it’s time to retire that once-mighty gaming system altogether or if a graphics upgrade can extend its useful life a while longer.
oau! that's a lot of cache :D
I've got a backup gaming rig at home that barely cuts it. An x2 1.9ghz (oc'ed to 2.4) with an 8800gtx and 3gb memory. That rig struggles at 1280x1024 in some situations, and it can only be attributed to the cpu really.
Who would have thought DDR would have such durability? There's something to be said for CAS2!
Two years back I bought my 8800gtx, and realized it wouldn't come to its full potential in my opteron 170 (@ 2.7). A friend with another gtx paired with an e6400 chip (@ 3ghz) scored a full 30% higher in 3dmark than I, and it showed in games. Even in wow where you'd expect a casio calculator would deliver enough graphics power.
In short - ye ddr still work if you've got enthusiast parts, but that can't negate the effect a faster cpu would give. At least at decent resolutions (22" wide)
I'm building a new computer next week.
It would have been interesting to see how a 3000+ Clawhammer (C0 stepping) would do in Crysis. Single-channel memory, poor overclocking capabilities... FAIL!
Thia ia true about the DDR. I recall an article on toms right after the release of the AM2 socket which tested identical dual core processors against their 939 counterparts; the tests showed little to no performance gains.
Great article, their has been some discussion about this in the forums as well.
I currently own a 939 4200+ x2 that's paired with a 7800GT; and this article shows what I thought to be accurate about the AMD64 chips. Their not as fast as some of the C2D's but they still kick ass.
Good job pointing out the single core factor in newer games too. As soon as the crysis demo was released I upgraded my San Diego core to a dual core and noticed the difference in crysis immediately.
This article gives me further confidence in my decision to hold on upgrading my system. I want to hold out for Windows7 D3D11 and more money to build an ape sh** machine :D
Nice article!!