G400 & 550MHz or 900MHz, big diff?

[GirgleMirt]

hay all, I presently have a celeron running at 550MHz (5.5x100), I was thinking, if I replace that 550 with a 900 (9x100) will I see a big improvement in fps games?

My G400 is oc'd to MAX lvl, so lets treat it as if it was a MAX =)

thanks!

[DosFreak]

Nope.

[GirgleMirt]

hmmm.....

ya shure??? got a link or something?
have you seen it yourself?

please elaborate thanks! =)

[DuRaNgO]

of course you would =/
every thing in your comp will go faster
the MAX will go about 800-850 before getting fillrate limited
jim

------------------
P3-700e @ 1052! Check it here!
Abit BE6-2
TwinMos 128mb pc-133
G400 32mb DH
Maxtor 15.3gb 7,200rpm
SB Live!
Winblows 98se & DX7
and 384k DSL!

[Alec]

Durango´s right. I own a 468Mhz Celeron and my G400 16Mb (overclocked to 147 Mhz) sits around waiting for the processor. You need a powerful computer to take the G400 to the limit.

------------------
Don´t you just love naked girls?

[kumse]

Iv' got a Athlon Thunderbird 750mhz it' runs very smooth with my G400max, but i have clocked the processor @ 900mhz and after that, the games rans even smoother !!
I can feal the difrence from 750 to 900mhz.

*kUmSE*

------------------
Athlon T-bird 750mhz
128 megs ram PC133
Asus A7V
G400MAX (not o/c)
Eizo F55s
PLexwriter + Ultraplex cd-drive!
SCSI hd's...

[Nuno]

Let´s say that you´ll see a big improvement until 1024x768. After that, or even before with fill-rate intensive games, you´ll see no diference.

A practical example is: If you play Quake3 at 640x480 normal, you´ll see a BIG boost in performance. If you like it at 1024x768x32, everything at max settings, you´ll not gain even 1 fps more.

[superfly]

The biggest difference of all will be seen mostly at 640*480 and 800*600,especially at 16 bit color.

If you want to see a big improvement at any resolution higher than that,you're going to need a faster video card,fill rate wise.

A game running at 1024*768 at 60 fps requires 4 times the fill rate(on average)than the very same game running at 640*480,again at 60 fps,this is assuming 16 bit color.

I'm also assuming that said game has an average depth complexity of 3,most of the games available today usually don't go much above that(for now anyways).

If you use the fastest video cards on the market today,you'll see that the fps performance starts leveling off once they hit 1024*768 32 and are exactly the same(in q3)at 1280*1024 32 bit,regardless if you're using those cards with a 600 mhz cpu or a 1000 one.

What do you think will happen when you're using a card that has about 1/3 the fill rate of the ones i mentioned above???.

What i said applies if you're into games that are,for the most part,fill rate intensive,so it varies(to some extent)on the games you like to play.

[Maggi]

I recently upgraded from a Celeron333A @ 500MHz to a Celeron II 566MHz @ 952MHz and my overall performance went up by quite a margin.



Sorry, but I don't have any benchmarks with me, but maybe I can find some tonight when I'm at home so that I can post 'em tomorrow.

Cheers,
Maggi

PS: Welcome aboard !!!

[GirgleMirt]

yeah, now I only play CS, but that might change if I get Deus Ex or Soldier Of Fortune or anyother good games

think I'll go for it, thanks all!! =D