Fps

[PewPewBangBang]

The regular Phenoms aren't 'low' performers, but they are very far from high. What makes the Phenom II's much, much faster is the higher numbers of Cache (Like FreakingHell said) and they're clocked alot higher due to the 45nm shrink compared to 65nm Phenom I's. If you had a Phenom II x4 clocked at 2.2ghz it would be fine.

But with games as of now, the best results are from Dual Cores. Mainly the Phenom II x2 and the E8400 (being the most popular) both being clocked at 3ghz.


http://anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=21&p2=85

Best example of what a little bit more Cache can offer ^

All in all with a 9800gt, GTS250, etc. you won't notice much bottlenecking, but with that CPU it could slow a GTX275 down to almost the speed of a GTS250.

Not if u have a quad-core clocked at 3ghz.......a quad core 3ghz will beat a duo core 3ghz anyday and if the game doesn't support all 4 cores then it will still perform the same if anything.

Duo cores are almost not a contender now compared to quad-cores......the only way a duo-core is gonna outperform a quad core is if the thing is clocked over 4.5ghz or something and the game only supports 2 cores. Almost all the Intel i5/i7 cpu's clock 4.0ghz now 24/7 stable with a good enough CPU cooler.

Quad-cores help a lot more in bottlenecking so higher end GPU's will be better off with a quad-core resulting in higher FPS, especially with dual-card solutions now.......there was a review of an i7 965 @ 3.6ghz bottlenecking a Crossfire 5850 or crossfire 5870 in a few games like call of duty and such.

 

[NoBag]

sorry, i dont have the Core2duo i have the core 2 quad... lolzzz 2.8

 

[Cut Chem!st]

For some reason when people answer these kind of questions they usually just say what kind of fps they can get up to, not their true average or there lowest dips.. it's much different when you see those and your numbers probably fine.

 

[NoBag]

i have never been past 150 FPS in INS

 

[3vlNomad]

299fps in CS:S with everything maxed 1028x768

averaged 275fps on video stress test

Intel i7 920 2.7ghz
ATI Radeon HD 4890 (1x)
6gb Corsair Dominators (3x2gb in tri-channel)
WinXP Pro

 

[Putty]

299fps in CS:S with everything maxed 1028x768

averaged 275fps on video stress test

Intel i7 920 2.7ghz
ATI Radeon HD 4890 (1x)
6gb Corsair Dominators (3x2gb in tri-channel)
WinXP Pro

Why not go with a higher res?

 

[Blue Stealth]

Averaging about 200 fps on my steam games (dual gtx m280 SLI off)

-Blue

 

[NoBag]

does sli off help the FPS?

 

[PewPewBangBang]

does sli off help the FPS?

depends.........usually no but there are some games out there that get worse when you SLI/Crossfire......i highly doubt 2xGTX 280m will make it worse, only better so idk why he turned it off, my guess is powersavings. Blue stealth got a sick Alienware M17x so im guessing he just turned the 2nd GTX 280m off to save power and battery cuz its not needed to get good frames in source.

Usually, crossfire/sli gets worse when you go Quad (4)

 

[Blue Stealth]

depends.........usually no but there are some games out there that get worse when you SLI/Crossfire......i highly doubt 2xGTX 280m will make it worse, only better so idk why he turned it off, my guess is powersavings. Blue stealth got a sick Alienware M17x so im guessing he just turned the 2nd GTX 280m off to save power and battery cuz its not needed to get good frames in source.

Usually, crossfire/sli gets worse when you go Quad (4)

i have it turned off because im running dual monitors.

-Blue

 

[PewPewBangBang]

i have it turned off because im running dual monitors.

-Blue

?? wouldn't you want to turn it on then so you get better performance or does dual-monitors not work with SLI??

 

[Sharpe]

I have Vsync on for my games, so I get 60FPS cause of my monitor. These are the FPS results without Vsync. All games are Maxed out.

TF2: 140.

CSS: 200FPS.

COD4: Around 100FPS

CODMW2: Around 80-90 FPS

L4D: 120FPS

L4D2: 100FPS

Specs: AMD Phenon 9650 Quad Core, XFX 9800GT, 4 Gigs of ram, Windows 7 Professional 32Bit.

My Monitor: 21.5" Monitor. Max res is 1680x1050. That's also the Res I use on my games.

 

[FreakingHell]

I have Vsync on for my games, so I get 60FPS cause of my monitor. These are the FPS results without Vsync. All games are Maxed out.

TF2: 140.

CSS: 200FPS.

COD4: Around 100FPS

CODMW2: Around 80-90 FPS

L4D: 120FPS

L4D2: 100FPS

Specs: AMD Phenon 9650 Quad Core, XFX 9800GT, 4 Gigs of ram, Windows 7 Professional 32Bit.

My Monitor: 21.5" Monitor. Max res is 1680x1050. That's also the Res I use on my games.

Those must be your max frames. I have almost the exact same specs(except my processor is better, Q6600 @ 3.0) and my avg frames are nowhere near there on any of the games listed that I have. I also play at 1680x1050 and everything maxed out.

 

[PewPewBangBang]

Those must be your max frames. I have almost the exact same specs(except my processor is better, Q6600 @ 3.0) and my avg frames are nowhere near there on any of the games listed that I have. I also play at 1680x1050 and everything maxed out.

agreed..........i highly doubt a 9800gt gets average FPS like those on maxed settings. My 4850 which is overclocked to almost 4870 speeds doesn't even reach average FPS that high.......those FPS are around my MAX FPS with like 2 games being lower than the ones he stated.

 

[Snuf]

I only play CS:S at the moment. I get an avg. of 130fps. It gets upto 180-190 in certain areas. These are my current specs:

CPU: Intel Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz
GPU: EVGA 8800GT
RAM: G.Skill DDR2-800 @ 4GB
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate

 

[Blue Stealth]

?? wouldn't you want to turn it on then so you get better performance or does dual-monitors not work with SLI??

i cant run dual monitors and SLI. the drivers wont support it.

-Blue

 

[shadows5631]

Those must be your max frames. I have almost the exact same specs(except my processor is better, Q6600 @ 3.0) and my avg frames are nowhere near there on any of the games listed that I have. I also play at 1680x1050 and everything maxed out.

Those were about my average frames too when I had my 8800gt (same thing) and it was overclocked to 700 core 1600 shader and 975 memory. People really under estimate those 8800, 9800gt cards.

Actually in COD4 it rarely dipped below 100.

 

[PewPewBangBang]

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/gigabyte_9800gt/9.htm

These are benchmarks with everything maxed out....if ur playing 1680x1050 or above, you're not getting 100 FPS avg, the 4850 manages 90 avg at 1680x1050 everything maxed.

Unless you managed to get Overclocks like them, you're not getting those types of FPS on a stock. They overclocked 187mhz on core, 175mhz on memory, 363mhz on shaders and managed to get avg FPS of a stock 4850.

 

[FreakingHell]

Those were about my average frames too when I had my 8800gt (same thing) and it was overclocked to 700 core 1600 shader and 975 memory. People really under estimate those 8800, 9800gt cards.

Actually in COD4 it rarely dipped below 100.

My 8800GT is overclocked to 650 core(shaders linked) and 950 memory, and is nowhere near that.

 

[shadows5631]

I play at 1440x900 so I wouldn't imagine it would be too different. I don't really go off benchmarks unless I'm the one doing them (every system is different).


I'm almost persuaded to put my 8800 back in and make a video. The only games it struggles in are GTA4 (25-50fps, high) and Crysis (18-40fps very high)


Also, I said it's about that, not that it is exactly the same. The only reason I upgraded was to have a card that would last 2-3 years, and now I feel like I upgraded too soon.