CPU and Gaming Help 17 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#1 11 years ago

Hey all,

I've decided to get a new computer to replace my 3 year old laptop and because of budget reasons (I want to spend under $500) I'm looking at Dell Outlet computers.

I have a few questions: which would be better for gaming and what is the difference between a dual core with about 2.0 to 2.2 GHz versus a single-core with 2.6-3.0 GHz? I'm thinking I'll probably be getting a decent dual-core processor (such as the Athlon 64 X2 4400+ running at 2.2-2.3GHz). However, would it be better to get a 1.86GHz Intel Core 2 Duo over the Athlon 64 X2 4400+? Which would be better in the long run for gaming, paired with a 256MB Radeon X1300 Pro and 1GB to 2GB (probably 2GB) of RAM? I've been reading lately about the Intel Core 2 Duos rocking the socks off all other competing Dual Core processors, whether it's AMD or even other Intel Dual Cores.

Finally, how would the following Dell Outlet system work with most modern games games these days and in the near future:

OS: Vista Home Premium Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4200+ or 4400+ (2.2 GHz) Memory: 2GB at 533MHz Hard Drive: 160GB Video Card: 256MB ATI Radeon X1300 Pro

Thanks in advance to all who help, therefore assisting me in getting back into FPSs and providing you all with essentially free kills for the first few weeks that it takes me to readjust to gaming (i.e. wandering around the maps hopelessly lost).

Thanks!

-C. Kerr




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago

Generally speaking, Core 2 Duo processors are better than anything else on the market. But I fear it's largely irrelevant; with an X1300, your system is going to be useless in the long term, as far as gaming goes...




foodmaniac2003

Gelato pwns all

50 XP

11th March 2006

0 Uploads

2,875 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago

My X1300 works fine with BF2 mods, which are alot more demanding than the vanilla game :\

It is the 512mb version though...




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#4 11 years ago

Yeah.. either of those CPUs would be fine, even the ram.. but the vid card will bottleneck your system plain and simple. Depending on the cost difference of the core 2 duo vs the 4200/4400+ it may pay to hold off until you get more cash to get a better vid card. Also with Vista and gaming -I dont even know if an x1300 is dx10 compatible, which will be a big point. If you really can't go a better video card at the moment, and if you also have a copy of windows xp available my recommendation would be dual booting xp and vista... if you decide you want to do that, just post back and I will let ya know how to do it. Would work the same if you were looking at a system with a late model nvidia or ati card but had a old cpu and 512mb ram etc etc.. Bunty




Kwould

OK, but wash it first

50 XP

24th November 2003

0 Uploads

1,537 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago

The X1300 Pro is not DX10 compatible. It is also way overpriced for it's performance level (at least at newegg prices). If you are looking to spend in the sub 100USD range, I'd go with something like the GeForce 8500GT. You can get one from Newegg for around $80. You even get an 8600GT for less than an X1300 Pro (once again, according to newegg).




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago
Kwould;3760713It is also way overpriced for it's performance level (at least at newegg prices). If you are looking to spend in the sub 100USD range, I'd go with something like the GeForce 8500GT. You can get one from Newegg for around $80. You even get an 8600GT for less than an X1300 Pro (once again, according to newegg).

*cough* laptop *cough* :Puzzled:




marvinmatthew

Tech is where you'll find me..

50 XP

13th April 2005

0 Uploads

3,627 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago

If I may further elaborate on Archaon's implied point....

The computer being described here is a laptop, and therefore, will not have the ability to have it's graphics card upgraded.

The Core 2 Duo will give markedly better battery life. I'd go with it.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#8 11 years ago

First off, let me specify: I'm replacing the laptop with a desktop - NOT another laptop, probably ever again. I didn't like it at all, and factors such as the fan built into the bottom of the laptop didn't help my opinion of it much.

I think the main question I have is: what processor - between the choices of an Athlon 64 X2 4200+, Athlon 64 37/3800+, Intel Pent4 at 3.0-3.2GHz, or an Intel Core 2 Duo 1.86 GHz - would be best for my gaming needs (to summarize, I want to be able to play FPSs like America's Army or Call of Duty 2 on medium to high settings with decent, although not necessarily huge, FPS rates). The processor would be paired with the 1-2GB of RAM and the X1300 (which I know will bottleneck the potential system, and I will have it at least for a little bit, until I can afford to replace the X1300 with something better). I also need the processor/general system to be able to last a few years in terms of functionality and speed. What I have right now is 1.3GHz Celeron M with integrated graphics and 256 MB of memory...awesome, I know. It plays Call of Duty 1 on the lowest video settings - barely.

Thanks for all the responses so far, I'm looking to have my final choice ready by tomorrow or Saturday thanks to all of your collective help!




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#9 11 years ago

I would go with the intel... if you had a decent vid card then perhaps the amd x2.. but you dont so core 2 duo would best fit imo... Bunty




*The.Doctor

Trust me, I'm a Doctor

102,440 XP

25th November 2003

0 Uploads

9,964 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago

Go with a Core 2 Duo system with 2GB ram. That way when you replace that X1300, the rest of your system will be up to speed.




  • 1
  • 2