I'm a gamer and I haven't upgraded my CPU in 6 years

[Falcon]

i'm not overly different from the original specs in this thread aswell.

E6850 stock as a rock
ATI 5830 1gig
4gig DDR2

no SSD though

but i'm still surprised how well it keeps up.

[nerdyfred07]

Originally Posted by craz3d

i dont see the big deal with low fps, you can't really see much benefit in anything above 25fps anyway, all television is recorded at 25fps.

I'm sure it is to do with the games these days supporting more FPS. i think 75fps is the max the human eye can see or something like that.

Back in the CS days I always played on lowest settings to ensure the highest FPS on the older computer.

[Phido]

Computing power hasn't been doubling every two years like it used to.

8088, 80286, 80386, 80486, Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium IV, Core, Core2, Sandy, Sandy-E, Ivy. Some where around Pentium Iv/Core2 we stopped seeing a regular doubling. We started to hit thermal and electrical limits. People won't use a desktop that uses more than 2400w of power. Or realistically more than say 500w.

Video graphics we are seeing the same thing, previously every new generation was completely new silicon, the doubled or more than doubled the performance of the previous generation. Now most of them are re badged and offer same or similar performance at new price points and lower power levels. 7850 is generally as fast as a 6950, but uses heaps less power, is heaps less expensive.

Games themselves aren't increasing in complexity like they used to. Look at say commander keen, wolf3d, doom, doom2, quake, quake 2, quake3. All from the same company with in years of each other. Each a massive improvement, visually from the generation before.

You don't need to chuck out everything that existed before. in the 286 to 386 transition, the world changed. We went from dos to windows. From text and EGA to VGA and SVGA. Memory went from kb, to many Mb. 8/16bit to 32bit.

Now the changes are much more slight. You get a few percentage increase. Look at Sandy to Ivy.. Very slight.

[Teamleader]

Also still using a Q6600 not sure if I can move on it's been a hell of a ride and still solid as a rock, would love to move to 8gb+ ram but ddr2 is way to expensive.

[power]

Originally Posted by Phido

Now the changes are much more slight. You get a few percentage increase. Look at Sandy to Ivy.. Very slight.

Sandy to Ivy isn't big because it's a tock not a tick.

[BurningFeetMan]

Originally Posted by Madengineer

Define latest? And if anything, the 5850 is a pretty crap card.

Define crap! My ATI 5850 has been flawless for all my gaming, there is nothing wrong with an ATI 5850.

[power]

Originally Posted by BurningFeetMan

Define crap! My ATI 5850 has been flawless for all my gaming, there is nothing wrong with an ATI 5850.

at low settings and res I would bet.

[Linkin]

Originally Posted by nerdyfred07

I'm sure it is to do with the games these days supporting more FPS. i think 75fps is the max the human eye can see or something like that.

Back in the CS days I always played on lowest settings to ensure the highest FPS on the older computer.

75fps? on a 75hz screen, maybe.

Anything above the refresh rate is irrelevant for what you can see, what matters more is how the game feels and how the engine copes, and what it does, at high fps.

Higher refresh rate with fps already over 60/120 for (60hz/120hz) is just easier on your eyes and provides a better visual experience, less eye strain, less tearing, etc.

[Geno]

Originally Posted by Craz3d

i used to compete in the gamearena ladder for bf2142 with my previous computer, an amd 2500+ xp @ 1.8ghz and a 128mb ATi 9600SE.

averaged 15-20fps on the lowest settings. still managed to compete in the deltabrotherhood beta team. this was years ago though.

i dont see the big deal with low fps, you can't really see much benefit in anything above 25fps anyway, all television is recorded at 25fps

You probably were able to compete in that tournament because its pretty hard to shoot someone with massive hardware lag; I see them from time to time almost teleporting around. (its not always latency related)

[oldbugger]

I still run a q9550 (C2 quad 2.83ghz 12Mb L2 cache but stock speed) and only recently upgraded the graphics card from a 5850 to a OC 7850 2gig (mainly for the increased frame buffer).

The CPU still goes toe-to-toe with most of AMD's highest ranked and for gaming it is more than adequate. GW2 and D3 are a doddle at the moment with a steady 80-100 fps on D3 and 40-55 fps on GW2 beta (and that is yet to be optimized properly) (1600x900 screen res).

I don't need the e-peen high frame rates as long as it gives me smooth gameplay.

By the way my son still uses an E8400 which I got the first week they were released and it has been heavily "abused" with OC etc. It is still OK on most stuff he runs with x-fire 4870s.

[minibayit]

I played BF3 on my Pentium 4 rig.

This is an old Pentium 4 with a 533Mhz bus haha.

The video card used is an HD3850 AGP one...

Also played Mafia II and some other games

In contrast, a 5850 is a really new card, so all this talk about it being 'old' is funny

[Garido]

Originally Posted by power

I'm amazed how many people in this thread are just settling for low/medium settings.

If you can afford it you buy better so you can enjoy high res, high detail and above all high FPS gaming.
Otherwise you are just making do with old tech, I'm a gamer and I live for the best gaming experience I can afford!

Oh and I'm sorry if I'm bringing down the Kumbaya around the old hardware vibe of the thread but the truth of the matter is yes, an old E or Q series Core processor is quite adequate but it's old and not as quick as the i7 series. Not only that but half the video cards people are talking about here are shit compared to the latest gen, video cards go out of date much quicker and anything that isn't a DX9 console port will run nowhere near as well.

For TF2 eye candy is not that great, too many hats. Way too many hats. So for me CS:S and TF2, I'm fine with using lowered settings to get the most FPS.

Originally Posted by nerdyfred07

I'm sure it is to do with the games these days supporting more FPS. i think 75fps is the max the human eye can see or something like that.

Back in the CS days I always played on lowest settings to ensure the highest FPS on the older computer.

^ bingo, I use a config too. but it's fairly conservative so I still get most effects.

[sherbert86]

Originally Posted by craz3d

i used to compete in the gamearena ladder for bf2142 with my previous computer, an amd 2500+ xp @ 1.8ghz and a 128mb ATi 9600SE.

averaged 15-20fps on the lowest settings. still managed to compete in the deltabrotherhood beta team. this was years ago though.

i dont see the big deal with low fps, you can't really see much benefit in anything above 25fps anyway, all television is recorded at 25fps.

That's because TV and movies has proper motion blur. 25fps on any game is choppy as hell.

Hate to sound like a yuppie, but you guys really have no idea what you're missing out on by running old shitty hardware.

[BurningFeetMan]

Originally Posted by power

at low settings and res I would bet.

I'm not a betting man, I like to read, compare the pass mark number and the retail price against last years technology.

Recent games I've played over the last 6 months;

• Battlefield 3
• Team Fortress 2
• Tropico 3
• Dirt
• Demigod

All set to very high/ultra settings, running at 1920 x 1080 @ 120hrtz resolution. Looking at;

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

I can see that the ATI 5850 is still a fairly reasonable solution to gaming, with the latest cards yet to double the benchmark figures, yet asking for double (or more) the price.

[Tinian]

Originally Posted by Garido

For TF2 eye candy is not that great, too many hats. Way too many hats. So for me CS:S and TF2, I'm fine with using lowered settings to get the most FPS.

Frames for multiplayer first person shooters is what counts. Eye candy is for single player immersiveness.