for all of you wondering about the 64 bit CPU's

[o_nuk3m]

Yes they are faster, but they have a higher latency. it, in this day and age is pointless to get a 64 bit processor/ OS for one reason: software. the technology isnt great enough for the majority of software companies to publish 64 bity programs. so stick with 32 bit, its cheaper, and with the right compnents, you can outrun a 64 bit look ay my pc specs and tell me my pc isnt fast enough... i run HL2 at 1024 res on full max graphics encluding 6x anti alias. and 16x antiotropic filtering. technology isnt advanced enough that i will ever have to upgrade again for another like two three years... lol lets see where we are at then.

yea this ia kinda a double topic but w/e

[o_groovyf]

I'll stick with my 64bit Athlon thanks :E

It's fast as hell for audio file work

[o_curly]

Yea, roger that groovy; I think my 64 is fast enough.

[o_ghroth]

yeh when it comes to compiling maps and media rendering
or crunching big numbers
ill take 64 bit anyday, even if it isnt the "standard"

[mirvin_monkey]

Well I like my 32bit Athlon so there!!!

[o_nuggs]

dunno if its a placebo or what but my Athlon 64 2800+ encodes at blazing speeds

[o_nuk3m]

still, 32 bit is cheaper and for the conventional user thats all you need

[Defrag]

Yes they are faster, but they have a higher latency. it, in this day and age is pointless to get a 64 bit processor/ OS for one reason: software. the technology isnt great enough for the majority of software companies to publish 64 bity programs. so stick with 32 bit, its cheaper,

The 64 bit conundrum is irrelevant at this point in terms of performance. However, the actual design of the 64-bit CPU range from AMD is significantly faster than previous processors; if this were not the case, AthlonXP chips would be comparable to the same PR-rated 64 bit processors. They're not even close in terms of performance. The best bang per buck currently resides with AMD's 64 bit processors. Claiming otherwise is ignorant.

with the right compnents, you can outrun a 64 bit look ay my pc specs and tell me my pc isnt fast enough... i run HL2 at 1024 res on full max graphics encluding 6x anti alias. and 16x antiotropic filtering. technology isnt advanced enough that i will ever have to upgrade again for another like two three years... lol lets see where we are at then.

If you think you can satisfactorily run next-gen games in three years with your current PC, I'm afraid you're wrong. In three years, the Unreal 3 engine will be out. The current high level of technology (i.e. AMD Athlon 3500 64, 1 gig of ram, 6800 Ultra) will probably be just enough to run the game at the lowest levels of quality according to the developers. There is absolutely NO way you can outperform 64 bit chips right now, unless you buy a 3100 Sempron and OC it to ridiculous levels. That's an exception rather than the rule, though. The rest of the semprons are garbage compared to the 3100. Even then, the 64 bit chips have the added advantage of 64 bit support when the time comes. Your PC is a p4 2.8 Ghz @ 533 bus; the bus speed itself is a large problem. My athlon 32 bit 3200XP is comparable to your CPU, probably faster in games. I'm fairly certain that in three years, this CPU will be fit for word processing, winamp, some other standard non-intensive applications and not much else . I'm also certain that my CPU is nowhere need as good as even the lowest 64 bit processor available, but it certainly is comparable in cost to buy new.

still, 32 bit is cheaper and for the conventional user thats all you need

That's a cop-out if I've ever heard one! What exactly is a conventional user? You could argue a conventional user just requires their pc to run their games at 20 fps. A 1.4 gig CPU & a FX5200 will do that. Does anyone actually want to play a game at 20fps? Some conventional users just need to use email and a word processor. A pIII 500 will do that.

This is a games forum, people will always be looking at getting the best performance components or the best bang per buck hardware. If you were building a PC now, you'd be totally mad not to get an athy 64 & PCI express. The cost really is not terribly much more than that of a decent 32 bit system.

For example: The best AMD sempron (32 bit, slow CPU.. slower than the athlon XP infact) costs £80 and it's socket 754 (not current technology).

The Athlon 64 3000 Socket 939 90nm costs £110. For £30 difference you're getting an enormous performance boost. Just as the sempron clocks well, so does the 3000. A 3000 can hit 2.5 ghz on air without much hassle so any overclocking argument essentially goes out of the window (plus you need much faster RAM to OC the sempron properly).

The only component that will cost a fair bit more will be the motherboard. For a little more money, you get the latest platform, PCI express support, 64 bit support and a significantly faster PC. I really don't think there's much of an argument when it comes to whether to purchase 64 bit chips vs 32 bit chips. The fact is the processors are faster in pretty much every department. The only area in which Intel's 32 bit processors hold a lead is in synthetic benchmarks and a few encoding/content creation applications. In short, there's not really much left where the 64 bit processors don't reign supreme.

I currently own an AMD 3200 XP and it's getting long in the tooth already. 64 bit processors are already much, much faster

[o_storm]

You are obviously not spending enough time mapping defrag.

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by Defrag

You could argue a conventional user just requires their pc to run their games at 20 fps.

Heh, I watched someone I know play WoW on their laptop at 5 fps, and he actually enjoyed it!

Scary indeed.

[o_telroa]

I've got an Athlon 64 I love it

[o_lithium]

ill change my processor when i feel like it. for now i need to change my piece of crap vid card. STupid GeForce 5200 FX

[Defrag]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

Heh, I watched someone I know play WoW on their laptop at 5 fps, and he actually enjoyed it!

Scary indeed.

Yeah but we all played TFC at ~10-30 fps for a year or two; nobody bothered because we were newbies at PC gaming. If I drop to 60 fps nowadays I get a little cranky. How times change

[o_player]

I have my FPS capped at 45. I don't know why...

[o_voipme]

Originally Posted by Player

I have my FPS capped at 45. I don't know why...

Mine's capped at 60, but I'm way too lazy to Google for it. Besides, I left my gaming computer about 800 miles north of me.

[o_vanquish]

If it's capped at 60 you've probably got vsync on or your fps_max is set to 60. Turn off vsync in your video card's advanced options, set developer to 1 in the console, and set your fps_max to 999 and you'll see just how fast your comp can handle this 6 year old game. Note though that with vsync off you'll get some tearing on the screen where it tries to display half of one fram on top and half of another on bottom, not really noticable but some people prefer the liquid smooth gaming they get with vsync. You can turn your refresh rate up on your monitor and you'll get higher fps even with vsync on (vsync makes your max fps equal your refresh rate, so the game only pumps out the exact number of frames that your monitor can display). There are some benefits to having over 100 fps. You stay in the air longer and thus jump farther while bhopping, making you able to clear gaps with greater ease than you can with 60 fps. Also in the old WON version of TFC your rate of fire was dependant on your FPS, so as a HW with over 100 fps you would shoot much faster and do damage faster than a person with fewer fps. However now with stream it seems to be setup in a differing way. I'm not sure the exact numbers but you actually shoot faster with say 20 fps than 50, but you shoot faster with 60 fps than 20 etc. It's all quite confusing really.

I get between 140 and 300 FPS depending on the map and the situation (players, spam, etc.).