Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How well does the Pentium D 915 fare in modern games with say a Radeon 4670? I might be getting a hand-me-down PC with a Pentium D 915 and I was just curious as to how it runs with video games. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Well, I'm going to get a Hans-G 24.6 inch monitor off of Newegg for $200 which runs at 1920x1080, but I'll go down to as low as 1280x720 if I have to to get good performance. I'm currently running a Pentium D 820 with the 4670 and it runs CoD 4 buttery smooth never dropping below 30 fps. Here's a video I made of CoD 4 on my current pc with a Pentium D 820 @ 1280x1024 w/ 4xAA. I tried NFS: Shift on here and that didn't fare so well (above 30fps when few cars were in sight, but once there were many cars on screen, it dropped to about 20fps). I figured it was just the processor. I might get MW2 despite the lack of dedicated servers (How dare Infinity Ward do that!). And maybe L4D2 when it comes out. If games runs decent with a Pentium D 820, I would think it would work way better with a 915, but what do you guys think?What game do you have in mind? What screen size are you using?
Chris
Probably won't be doing any because I'm getting some hand-me-down parts from a dell, so the mobo bios doesn't have any OC options.whats your stance on overclocking?
It can support Core 2s. In fact the original processor that the dell came with was a core 2 e6300. (I think. I know it was Core 2 just not sure of the model. The mobo chipset is P965 express, so it would have to be 65nm.) Any ideas for a cheap Core 2 processor?Pentium D are effectively 2xPentium 4's glued together (well not quiet but close enough).
Def find out if your board can support core 2, cause you can get a very cheap core2 that will cut the mustard a lot better than that PentiumD.
Pentium D is not good enough for high end gaming especially when running stock speeds im affraid.
Like I said though, I'm currently running a Pentium D 820 w/ a ATI 4670 and I can run CoD 4 @ 1280x1024 w/ 4xAA and it never drops below 30fps. It depends on the game, but I think the Pentium D 915 would fare better on games than the 820, besides this is only temporary as to I'd rather invest a little more money on a newer and better processor that I could use in the future than get a cheap used one. So my conclusion, as far as I think, the Pentium D 915 should give a performance boost over my 820, correct? Like I said earlier, I'd be willing to go down as low as 1280x720 if it meant getting better performance in video games. Could anyone else clarify this for me?Yeah but the 945 is a lot better than the 915. My brother had an 805 and his friend had an E4300 at the time and despite the 805 having a 2.66ghz core speed and the E4300 only having 1.86 the E4300 was far faster. Their setups were identical except for the CPU's.
Well the thing about this "build" I'm making is that it's based off of hand me down parts. Besides, the parts I'm buying to add to it (dvd burner, wifi card, monitor, headset, hard drive), I can always take out and put them into a new computer (which I'm going to do with the 4670 in my current pc). If everything I bought was only going to stay in that computer build, then I'd consider getting the E6300, however I can see myself getting a completely new PC within a year, so again, this is only temporary. Even so, I've seen some videos on Youtube of the Pentium D 915 and the 9600gt and the games ran decent.itll give you as much more performance as it costs. if you spend twice as much money on components, you can get twice the performance. just decide how much you can spend, and get the best you can for that amount of money. personally, unless youre overclocking it (which would make it essentially a 945 or better) then i dont see why youd want to invest ANYTHING in pentium D architecture. if it can handle an E6300, then why not get one? theyre cheap, and much better than any D. why not just go for the highest your mobo can handle, and then you wont have to even think about upgrading it again until youre ready for a whole new build.
that may be the case for most games but that cpu is severally holding that 4850 back and does not run every single modern game smoothly. there are games like Red Faction Guerrilla, Far Cry 2, GTA 4, Ghostbusters, and others that will have very low framerate and in many cases be basically unplayable because of that cpu. overall the majority of games will be perfectly playable but that poor 4850 is having over 50% of its performance thrown right down the drain with that Pentium D.My wife has a D 945 with a 4850 and runs every single game without issues or low framerate .
Well, I'm going to get a Hans-G 24.6 inch monitor off of Newegg for $200 which runs at 1920x1080, but I'll go down to as low as 1280x720 if I have to to get good performance. I'm currently running a Pentium D 820 with the 4670 and it runs CoD 4 buttery smooth never dropping below 30 fps. Here's a video I made of CoD 4 on my current pc with a Pentium D 820 @ 1280x1024 w/ 4xAA. I tried NFS: Shift on here and that didn't fare so well (above 30fps when few cars were in sight, but once there were many cars on screen, it dropped to about 20fps). I figured it was just the processor. I might get MW2 despite the lack of dedicated servers (How dare Infinity Ward do that!). And maybe L4D2 when it comes out. If games runs decent with a Pentium D 820, I would think it would work way better with a 915, but what do you guys think?
that may be the case for most games but that cpu is severally holding that 4850 back and does not run every single modern game smoothly. there are games like Red Faction Guerrilla, Far Cry 2, GTA 4, Ghostbusters, and others that will have very low framerate and in many cases be basically unplayable because of that cpu. overall the majority of games will be perfectly playable but that poor 4850 is having over 50% of its performance thrown right down the drain with that Pentium D.
I dont think you realize how slow that cpu is compared to modern offerings. even if I lowered my E8500 to 1.4 it would match or beat that 3.4 Pentium D. if you doubt me just look at reviews for when the Core 2 Duos came out because even the 1.8 E4300 could beat a 3.4 Pentium D. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2903&p=6
as for an example of a modern game that will struggle a bit, you can see even a faster Pentium D 955 EE can only muster 25 fps in Far Cry 2 with a gtx280. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=49
well it doesnt really matter which settings you use since they mostly are for graphics and you are basically completely cpu limited while running a 9600gt with a single core 2.8 P4. I also guarantee that your average and especially minimum framerates are VERY poor and not what people would consider playable. btw Crysis is also normally very gpu dependent once you have a decent dual core cpu so your example is not very good. plenty of modern games will not be very playable with a Pentium D and there is certainly no point in using a fast card with one.It's faster no doubt about it but if all you have is a pentium d it will still work. Hell I'm running a p4 2.8 and a 9600gt 1gb in a second box and it will run crysis at 12x10 with most the settings at performance but I can actually still turn up a few and have playable performance.
well it doesnt really matter which settings you use since they mostly are for graphics and you are basically completely cpu limited while running a 9600gt with a single core 2.8 P4. I also guarantee that your average and especially minimum framerates are VERY poor and not what people would consider playable. btw Crysis is also normally very gpu dependent once you have a decent dual core cpu so your example is not very good. plenty of modern games will not be very playable with a Pentium D and there is certainly no point in using a fast card with one.
well your thinking would be wrong. I already gave examples of some modern games that would not be very playable at all with a Pentium D. again the POINT is that a Pentium D is too slow to fool with sticking a decent video card with. putting a card like a 4850 with a Pentium D is stupid unless you like throwing over 50% of performance right down the drain.I think any game out can be played on a faster pentium d with no issue. These are slow by todays standards but still usable, by all means he should upgrade if he's got the money but I'm just saying it will work.
I'm thinking about making a youtube video with my $120 pc showing that it can play crysis fine.
edit: btw this is crysis warhead, I don't have the original.
well your thinking would be wrong. I already gave examples of some modern games that would not be very playable at all with a Pentium D. again the POINT is that a Pentium D is too slow to fool with sticking a decent video card with. putting a card like a 4850 with a Pentium D is stupid unless you like throwing over 50% of performance right down the drain.
wow you just dont get it because that cpu is way too slow to keep up with a modern high end card. for example a 3.4 Pentium D with a 4850 will not even get 50% of the performance that card is capable of even at realistic gpu limited settings in modern games. so yes that is performance down the drain. even at 1920x1080 if I put my cpu at 1.6(which will still beat a 3.4 Pentium D) several games become very sluggish and some even unplayable. realistically I would get the same performance with a much slower gpu because my card is being bottlenecked so badly that the performance of the video card cant even be tapped. a Pentium D is still okay for a low end rig but using one with a fast video card is very stupid.You realize these old chips were good for 4ghz + on air? Yeah that isn't much by todays standards but it wont land you a slideshow.
Also, you don't throw GPU performance down the drain, its still there.
Think of this
A mediocre chip with a good video card: Able to run higher image quality in every game...
vs
An awesome chip with a mediocre video card: Wins at 3dmark0X...
the good video card wins every time. Even though its max is being held back by the cpu, it can crank the image quality settings much higher. By the time you crank the game to the highest playable settings you wont even be able to tell the difference.
wow you just dont get it because that cpu is way too slow to keep up with a modern high end card. for example a 3.4 Pentium D with a 4850 will not even get 50% of the performance that card is capable of even at realistic gpu limited settings in modern games. so yes that is performance down the drain. even at 1920x1080 if I put my cpu at 1.6(which will still beat a 3.4 Pentium D) several games become very sluggish and some even unplayable. realistically I would get the same performance with a much slower gpu because my card is being bottlenecked so badly that the performance of the video card cant even be tapped. a Pentium D is still okay for a low end rig but using one with a fast video card is very stupid.
Fallout 3= still very playable but framerates drop from around 50 fps at 3.16 down to low 30s when lowering the cpu to 1.6.
1920x1080 ultra settings and 4x AA
E8500 @ 1.6=32fps
http://img39.imageshack.us/img...ut3200910280051323.png
E8500 at stock 3.16=50fps
http://img23.imageshack.us/img...ut3200910280207151.png
Batman AA = averages go from around 40fps at 3.16 to just upper 20s when lowering the cpu to 1.6 and becomes pretty laggy during action. the minimums drop from around 30-31fps with stock E8500 to 18-19 with the cpu at 1.6.
1920x1080 all very high settings high physx no AA
E8500 @ 1.6=27fps
http://img42.imageshack.us/img...ingpcbmgame2009102.png
E8500 at stock 3.16=39fps
http://img203.imageshack.us/im...ingpcbmgame2009102.png
Crysis Warhead = the averages seemed to be only 4-5 fps lower but it was certainly more laggy as min framerate dropped from 23-24 fps with stock 3.16 down to 16-17 with cpu at 1.6.
1920x1080 custom DX9 config almost equal to all enthusiast no AA
E8500 @ 1.6=22fps
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4...is2009102804581867.png
E8500 at stock 3.16=29fps
http://img27.imageshack.us/img...is2009102805103118.png
Far Cry 2= there is a massive framerate drop from lowering the cpu to 1.6 but its still playable although laggy at times with some dips into the teens.
1920x1080 all ultra settings no AA
E8500 @ 1.6=23fps
http://img248.imageshack.us/im...y22009102801132941.png
E8500 at stock 3.16=41fps
http://img194.imageshack.us/im...y22009102802273389.png
Red Faction Guerrilla= went from playable to basically not playable at all with close to only half the framerate at times when lowering the cpu to 1.6. certainly a very cpu dependent game here and quite miserable with the E8500 at 1.6.
1920x1080 all highest settings including ambient occlusion no AA
E8500 @ 1.6=13fps
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5...fg2009102517402044.png
E8500 at stock 3.16=24fps
http://img23.imageshack.us/img...fg2009102802331780.png
Ghostbusters= goes from playable to not very playable as the framerate is nearly cut in half at times outside with dips even into the single digits with the cpu at 1.6. overall the game does average much more than these screenshots indicate but it is very cpu dependent.
1920x1080 all highest in game settings no AA
E8500 @ 1.6=11fps
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5...w32200910252030393.png
E8500 at stock 3.16=21fps
http://img203.imageshack.us/im...w32200910280215226.png
so even at a gpu limited 1920x1080 with the highest playable settings possible for my 192sp gtx260, an E8500 would provide a VERY LARGE advantage over a cpu like a 4200 X2. so just imagine the GIGANTIC difference you would see at a lower res with an even faster card on a poky cpu like a 4200 X2. if that doesnt wake you up to the reality of how important a decent cpu is with a fast graphics card then I guess this debate will go on forever.
wow you quoted me before I could edit. I was copy and pasting this from another forum I am on and thats why a 4200 X2 was being mentioned. you could just edit it all out and put in "snip" since there is no need to quote all of that anyway.nobody is arguing that you will be cpu limited, but take into the fact I just bought a 4850 for $65 used here on the hardforums. Now I couple that with a very cheap pentium d setup (not saying I am but I could). I could very well have a decent gaming pc for under $160.
Something that will play anything out today, sure the video card isn't getting the power it deserves from the cpu, but it is still playable at a playable framerate. That's the point. I might have to turn a few things down, I might not be able to run at a super high resolution, but a friend can use it to play some games with me.
Not everyone is made of money, and this is a viable option for some people.
wow you quoted me before I could edit. I was copy and pasting this from another forum I am on and thats why a 4200 X2 was being mentioned. you could just edit it all out and put in "snip" since there is no need to quote all of that anyway.
the point of that post was for Jakalwarrior who was claiming there would be no noticeable difference at gpu limited scenarios and that is total bs. also its NOT playable in EVERY game so you really need to stop claiming that.
no. I already showed that it likely can "play" Crysis fine. it will be pretty sluggish at times compared to having a better cpu but it will play it. Crysis is very gpu limited and the 3.4 Pentium D is enough to keep the framerates at a reasonable level for large portion of the game. GTA 4, Red Faction Guerrilla, and Ghostbusters I know will not be be playable for the most part and you will be in the single digits for minimum framerates in those games. I would think RE5 would certainly struggle a bit at times too.well i got the next 3 days off so I'm going to make that youtube video just for you, would you agree that if it plays crysis it will play anything?
Notice the part where I said "Overclocked above 4ghz"?, in other words with the core and fsb cranked atleast 20% above the ones you tested and I didn't say it would be awesome I said it wouldn't be a slide show. Especially in games capable of using two cores. Yeah some games are CPU whores with heavy physiscs, intricate world calculations etc... going on. In that case he just outright can NOT play the game, reguardless of the GPU, but in games he can play at all, the better GPU will always allow higher settings.
I think you are underestimating the P4s. A pentium D at ~4.2 or so would be equal to a core 2 at ~2.0ghz. Imagine if that test were done over with the chip at 2.0 instead of 1.6. Sure you aren't going to be getting 60fps in modern games, but they will be playable and the 4850 will let you do so at higher resolutions with higher in game settings and with AA where as the cards you would reccomend for a P4 to not be "wasted" wouldn't.
Go try Crysis with a P4 and a 9600GT then with a 5870, let me know which one lets you crank the video settings higher...
sorry but a Pentium D at 4.0 is about equal my E8500 at 1.6. you likely couldnt overclock that Pentium D to match an E8500 lowered to 2.0. do the math yourself...even at 1.8 the older E4xxx Core 2 Duos, which are about 15-20% slower clock for clock than the E8xxx series still smokes a 3.4 Pentium D. basically my E8500 at 1.4 would be as fast or faster than the old 1.8 E4300. it already took pretty close to 4.0 from a Pentium D just to beat the E4300.
now in your Crysis comment if you are talking about a regular single core P4 cpu then you will have the same shitty experience no matter what card you go with above a 9600gt. even Crysis is completely cpu limited with any midrange card while using a single core P4. that link I just posted shows a single 4000 A64, which is faster than ANY single core P4, only getting 22fps average on medium settings at 1024x768 with an 8800gtx.
thats your example? how about some real tests like I did. sure the vast majority of games will play fine but a few newer titles will NOT. face the FACTS that even at 1920 a Pentium D is piss ass slow and will hold back any modern high end card by a significant amount. you can see even in cpu benchmarks at realistic settings that some current low end cpus barely get by in some games. well those cpus barely getting by are usually a bit faster than a Pentium D.Ok, so you are telling me that texture detail, AA, HDR, etc... are CPU reliant? and you have to turn them off if you have a crappy CPU?
800x600 max in game no AA vs 1920x1080 8xAA. CPU at 1.3ghz (equal to a 3.2ghz presler). Did the faster video card do me no good?
Both have moving FPS of 29-34 dancing around. Very little change with change of settings. That is what I am talking about. Sure my average FPS is limited to 30 by the cpu. But would I rather it be limited to 30 at crappy video settings also? or a good video settings?
http://i48.tinypic.com/1qir78.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/6nxabl.jpg
yeah we can stop the debate because it really doesnt matter at this point. facts are though that a Pentium D will severely hurt the performance of a decent video card and thats all I was saying.Because I don't own a 915? I don't know how the 4mb L2 65nm chips scaled or did in gaming. Not even sure how high they overclocked on average. Even if I did I wouldn't waste the hours to prove a point to a person to them decide whether or not to get something... when they have already done it.
yeah we can stop the debate because it really doesnt matter at this point. facts are though that a Pentium D will severely hurt the performance of a decent video card and thats all I was saying.
It can. The hand me down parts I'm getting are from a Dell Dimension 9200 which came with a E6300, but my cousin salvaged that from the computer and got a new mobo and case and OCed it to over 3.0ghz. So in essence, yes, I could get a Core 2 Duo E6300, not only that, but any Core 2 that's 65nm and up to 1066mhz fsb (it's a P965 chipset).If his motherboard is an Asus I bet it can't handle the E6300.
He'd only be asking about Pentium D if he were stuck with it like I was years ago. I never want to look at a Pentium D processor ever again, nor any Asus moterhboard.