Processors for Rome

[Kagetora]

Hello every body. I was wondering about which processors to use on ROME (I'm getting a custom PC at the end of the month) and I was wondering I if should get either an AMD Athalon or Pentium 4 3.0 ghz. Bear in mind that I will also be going for the ATI Raedon X800 card, 160 G hard disk, but I'm not sure what kind of Mother board to get, and 512 MB DDR RAM, so I need to know which processor will run all that stuff smoothly and not burn out too fast. Thanks for any advice.

[Tera]

I think 2.8+ will do enough for high settings. Perhaps even less.

[Colovion]

Go for whatever you can afford. Personally I'd go AMD, but it's a highly debatable subject. I have heard that Intel processors are better for applications and not as much for games but of course that was from someone who has an AMD chip in their computer so I'd take that with a grain of salt. Really though, when dealing with computer speeds of the sort you are talking about there it won't really matter that much unless you plan on overclocking your computer a lot and need to have everything as compatible as possible. Most people don't need to overclock their computer and end up getting a whole new system instead of choosing to try to squeeze out a little longer life with the overclocking. Good luck!

[Sjakihata]

I would stay below 2.5 to get the best bang for the buck, either amd or pentium, both are fine. basically it depends on what motherboard you like

[Colovion]

Yeah, find a motherboard that suits your needs and build from there.

[Tamur]

Hardcore ASUS/AMD convert here.

Athlon XP 2600 with an A7N8X-E, live it and love it! This MB is indestructible, runs beautifully with any graphics card you put in it, and runs very fast (400mhz FSB). And re: the processor, even though the clock speed is only 2.2 Ghz, I swear it runs games 20% faster than Intel chips. At $120 it's a great deal.

[Kagetora]

The only thing the they offer at the lowest are processors at 2.8 Ghz, and I want a high one that will last many years without upgrade. also, my spending buget is very lenient (parents).
here are some other questions.

What mother boards run Pentiums well?
and
What mother boards run Amd's well? and what should I look for when it comes to chipsets?

[Nelson]

I want a high one that will last many years without upgrade.

Son, you want The Holy Grail.

Alas, that CPU may never appear.

[USMCNJ]

look into the PCI express motherboards. and see if they are for you first. (in my opinion these motherboards will become more common in the future)

as far as CPU i would go (and did last week) with pentium 4 3.0 Ghz ht technology 800 bus.

i would tell you how it runs, but my hard drive has not come in (and will not come in for another week).

[Red Harvest]

Well of course PCI Express will become more common in the future. It is designed to replace AGP and Intel is the sponsor. So saying it is likely to become more common in the future is like saying you will be older on your next birthday. As for right now, I don't trust any early implementation of a new standard. Better to await the 2nd wave (revisions where they fix the problems.) Rather than say it is not unusual to suspect there will be bugs with early systems, I say it is almost certain there will be problems for ealry adopters. That's just the way new tech works. You never want to be in the first wave during an invasion beachhead operation. (My WWII US Marine relatives who stormed the Japanese islands would agree on that. One was glad he was in the 3rd wave, the first two waves were wiped out, he was "only" badly wounded and sent back to the States.)

PCI Express offers few benefits in the near future, because AGP bandwidth is not utilized that heavily anyway (it is notoriously slow--so software vendors don't utilize it any more than they must.) Think of it as converting an *under-utilized* divided four lane road into an eight lane freeway. Sure, it has more capacity, but how often will it be used?

If you find something that is tested with the graphics card you want, and it works flawlessly in all reviews with that combo, then go for it.

[Kagetora]

"Red Harvest" I don't suppose you know of any sites that have reports on these tests by any chance?

Anyway, I'll post the specs and opyions to see what you all think later.

[Dead Moroz]

I'm upgrading my computer too (because of RTW ). The game run perfect on my old 1,7GH CPU with new GeForce 5700 256Mb and 1GB DDR.

But I have problem with motherboard. When I install all on my new GigaByte GA-8IG1000 RTW works incorrectly (for example, there is no grass; and I think some other features of full game will be lost). This MB have chipset Intel 865G with onboard VGA. And I suspect that this onboard VGA cause problems with the game. Because everything works correctly when I install all other stuff on other MB. So I gonna change this board to another one without onboard VGA. Kagetora, I recommend you to get MB without onboard video.

About Intel and AMD. I know that Pentium works better with graphic applications (Photoshop, etc.). Therefore I think it should be better for games.

[USMCNJ]

Red Harvest thanks for your reply.
I was kicking my self after i baught all new parts for a new pc and i found out that the PCI express was moving in.

[Brighdaasa]

I recently read a review of amd 64 bit processors and comparisons to Intel P4 and P4EE (I believe it was on Anandtech, but can't find it atm). The AMD Athlon64 3000+ offers a lot of bang for your buck, and Asus K8N Neo Platinum is supposed to be a kick-ass mobo. Since you're planning to keep the processor for a while you may even see the first 64-bit applications before you discard the cpu.

[The_Emperor]

I have an AMD 64 3.4GH CPU in my system. It works a treat!

[USMCNJ]

I have an AMD 64 3.4GH CPU in my system. It works a treat!

how much did that cost?

[Brighdaasa]

how much did that cost?

In Belgium, a AMD64 3400+ costs €295, a 3000+ about €170

[Basileus]

I´d go for ASUS with an AMD processor.

[ah_dut]

In Belgium, a AMD64 3400+ costs €295, a 3000+ about €170

I'd go for the 3000+ personally, and BTW i don't think the p4ee is that good, it's an old xeon core. i t may be slightly better for gamres, (more cache) but it's too expensive (at least in the uk) to justify the price hike

[JeromeGrasdyke]

I'd go with an Athlon64; I've been using one in my work machine for the last nine months and the integrated memory controller seems to give it a fair boost over Athlon XP and P4 for playing Rome. And it's probably the best balance of price, performance and future-proofing as well. Decent ram is worth having also - Corsair's low-latency modules are very good, and steer clear of slow memory setups such as PC800 RDRAM if you can. You might be able to (correctly) infer from that Rome really exercises the old memory bandwidth limits

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

"Red Harvest" I don't suppose you know of any sites that have reports on these tests by any chance?

Try these sites, they test thouroughly in every situation:

Tom's Hardware Guide

Anandtech

Firing Squad

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

I'd go with an Athlon64; I've been using one in my work machine for the last nine months and the integrated memory controller seems to give it a fair boost over Athlon XP and P4 for playing Rome. And it's probably the best balance of price, performance and future-proofing as well.

I agree. IMHO, today, the AMD 64 is superior to any Intel processor.

BTW, in a Celeron 466, RTW runs!!! Although 3-4 fps isn't very playable...

[JeromeGrasdyke]

In fact, the game will run all the way down to P2's ... there are no real capabilties it needs other than raw power. Graphics cards are a different matter though. We may still try and get it reliably useable on all 32 mb cards (at the moment it's about 90%) as a patch, but unfortunately that's one that got away.

[A.Saturnus]

While we´re at it, can someone tell me what´s the best Athlon still running on a Gigabyte 7VTXE?

[The_Emperor]

how much did that cost?

Actually I bought a motherboard bundle from a website, it had the mainboard processor and 512mb ram all for around £400.

it was a pretty good deal for upgrading my system.

[Tamur]

Jerome, must say that I'm amazed that a game with this many polys can run on my old Radeon 7000, with an amazing framerate of 30 fps! Happily I've got another machine running a 9800 Pro so I can see all the amazing particle effects etc, but congrats to the team on the graceful degradation.

[Jango Fett]

demo runs like a dream, only stutters when i put it on triple speed, CA has done a good job

[Red Harvest]

I'd go with an Athlon64; I've been using one in my work machine for the last nine months and the integrated memory controller seems to give it a fair boost over Athlon XP and P4 for playing Rome. And it's probably the best balance of price, performance and future-proofing as well. Decent ram is worth having also - Corsair's low-latency modules are very good, and steer clear of slow memory setups such as PC800 RDRAM if you can. You might be able to (correctly) infer from that Rome really exercises the old memory bandwidth limits

That is very useful to those of us trying to guide folks when they upgrade. I'm still using an old KT266A system with a 9800 Pro...so I suspected memory bandwidth was a key limiter for me, although my XP2400 imposes some as well.

Despite the flare bug that rarely shows its head for me, I've been pleased with the apparent demo stability on this system, despite the fact that it is running 98SE.

[Colovion]

While we´re at it, can someone tell me what´s the best Athlon still running on a Gigabyte 7VTXE?

BaHaha, I have that mobo - so crappy for ocing, but very stable otherwise.

It supports AMD Athlon XP 1500+ - 2000+ @ 266Mhz FSB.

[A.Saturnus]

BaHaha, I have that mobo - so crappy for ocing, but very stable otherwise.

It supports AMD Athlon XP 1500+ - 2000+ @ 266Mhz FSB.

Good, thank you