Ok, I'm getting a new processor, the intel Q6600, which I think is the best processor out there.(of course thats only in non-rich people's eyes) I looked at a review from tiger.tv which is a site that a I totally trust, they reviewed this processor and they had a clip of playing crysis, everything high and it got around 40fps, but they didn't point out if they were using a graphics card. If they weren't then this is a powerful processor. So the bottom line is: How many GHz does it take to run a game like crysis without a graphics card, or do I have to buy a better graphics card along with the processor? (I do have radeon x1650 pro graphics card though)
Well along with a graphics card, you should update the power supply as almost all branded pcs come with cheap PSUs. What are your current pc specs? If you have duel core, you should be fine. Also, is your mobo a socket 775, and do you have a AGP slot or PCI-e slot?
Yeah, I guess I forgot to include that,(My computer is pretty new actually, I got it last december) here's my specs: Radeon x1650 pro(PCI-e) intel e4400(core 2 duo)(one of my reasons is also just to have a faster processor) 2gb of ram (pretty sure ddr2 dual-layered disk drive 160gb harddrive My graphics card doesn't have a huge fan so I don't need to plug anything from my power supply into it. I checked my current processor uses socket 775 so I'm good to use the q6600. Also when I watched the review he gave the normal core 2 duo and one with 2.2ghz(mine is 2.0) would process this one thing(i forget what it was) in 45 seconds, while this one will do it in 5 seconds.
Actully, now that I know you have a C2D, upgrading to a quad wouldn't show that much of a difference, as most applications/games dont use quad cores anyways, only duel cores. For example, when I play Crysis, I can see that only the 3rd and 4th core are being used. Upgrading the CPU is up to you, if you dont then you will have a lot more money to spend on a card. Also, Crysis is way more GPU dependent than CPU. If you upgrade to a Ati3870, 3850, nvidia 8800GT or the 8800GTS (G92) you will see way more of an improvement than if you went with a Q6600 and a x1650, which isn't that great of a card to tell you the truth.
Hell I don't even think you'd see an improvement at all if you went from a same speed C2D to a C2Q. The Q6600 is a bit faster but it might make only like 3-4 FPS of difference. No you definitely need a new graphics card, as the CPU doesn't process data related to graphics, the GPU does.
I'm guessing about 6000Ghz (not a typo) to render Crysis with your CPU. CPUs cannot render video, at all. Look at the 3dmark CPu test for proof of that! You will definitely need a decent graphics card for Crysis (I recommend HD3850 or above), along with plenty of RAM (1536MB at least) and a decent PSU to run all the stuff (such as a Corsair VX 450W), and when I say decent, I meant it. No cheap stuff.
Yeah, but it's really the only card i could get at the time, right now I'm shooting for the nvidia 8800 gts. (GTX is a little too pricey for me) I thought it was the graphics card.
The GTS is worthless in my opinion. Save yourself some money and get the HS 3870(what I would choose) or the 8800GT.
? If anything I'd say the opposite. The 8800GT is worthless, get the HD3870 or the 8800GTS. The GTS for absolute performance, the 3870 for a combination of performance, image quality and futureproofing. You do realise the G92 version of the GTS is as fast as the GTX right?
Here is a quote from Toms Hardware I suppose if you had an extra 50 dollars you could go for it, but it seems that the GTS isn't all that much better. Remember the GT sometimes outperforms the GTX as well.
It's another case of subtle differences. The 8800GT (to me) isn't fast enough to make it worth having above the HD3870. The 8800GTS, while maybe only 10-12% faster, may just be enough to swing the balance.
