My newest build :D

[Greeny]

125 FPS not enough for you?

And I haven’t done much gaming in the last couple of years but COD4 isn’t exactly a “modern game” it’s got to be coming on 5 years old by now.

[Speljohan]

[quote=“Greeny, post:21, topic:433046”]125 FPS not enough for you?

And I haven’t done much gaming in the last couple of years but COD4 isn’t exactly a “modern game” it’s got to be coming on 5 years old by now.[/quote]That, and at lower resolutions cpu does make a difference. Take a look at any respectable review website though, the pattern is quite clear.

[eczema3]

[quote=“Greeny, post:21, topic:433046”]125 FPS not enough for you?

And I haven’t done much gaming in the last couple of years but COD4 isn’t exactly a “modern game” it’s got to be coming on 5 years old by now.[/quote]
When you get good enough to be playing in tournaments on promod, where the difference in the distance you can strafe with 125 and 250fps is insane.

[Speljohan]

[quote=“eczema3, post:23, topic:433046”][quote author=Greeny link=topic=535766.msg3918059#msg3918059 date=1329416699]
125 FPS not enough for you?

And I haven’t done much gaming in the last couple of years but COD4 isn’t exactly a “modern game” it’s got to be coming on 5 years old by now.
[/quote]
When you get good enough to be playing in tournaments on promod, where the difference in the distance you can strafe with 125 and 250fps is insane.[/quote]Shame you cannot actually see the difference between 120 and 250 fps unless you have some magic monitor that doesnt exist on the market today.

[eczema3]

[quote=“Speljohan, post:24, topic:433046”][quote author=eczema3 link=topic=535766.msg3918144#msg3918144 date=1329424026]

125 FPS not enough for you?

And I haven’t done much gaming in the last couple of years but COD4 isn’t exactly a “modern game” it’s got to be coming on 5 years old by now.

When you get good enough to be playing in tournaments on promod, where the difference in the distance you can strafe with 125 and 250fps is insane.
[/quote]Shame you cannot actually see the difference between 120 and 250 fps unless you have some magic monitor that doesnt exist on the market today.[/quote]
Because how the game looks affects how far you can strafe? Lolz. No the idea of having 250 FPS is because it’s one of the “magic” number that helps with strafing in CoD4, 125/250/333fps, although com_maxfps in promod is only 250, so 333 is only for codjumper.

[Greeny]

So if I’m understanding correctly, people are trying to fine tune for a casual FPSers game?.. Ha.

I’m guessing “promod” is like a total rebalance. The thing is, you can’t polish a turd.

[eczema3]

CoD4 was the best in the series, wcyd.

[Greeny]

I’d agree CoD4 is the best of the Modern Warfare franchise but really, that’s not hard to accomplish because from what I’ve seen the recent instalments are god awful. CoD4 was a fun game to play with friends and nothing more.

I think CoD2 was the best Call of Duty though. Totally subjective, but it doesn’t get away from the fact it’s moved into being a casual console players game (and that demise began, arguably, at CoD4 :p).

Anyway to not rattle too far off topic here, I dont think spending extra money on a better CPU would have made any difference to OP. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t care about strafing bugs in CoD! This is especially true considering there is no mention of a GPU in his post.

[T41]

[quote=“eczema3, post:20, topic:433046”][quote author=Speljohan link=topic=535766.msg3917897#msg3917897 date=1329399420]

You’re going to bottleneck with your cpu.
[/quote]Not if he’s going to game. CPU means jack shit in modern games, you could run a cheap dual core amd vs a 2600k, and the fps difference would be like 1 or 2 at worst in 99% of modern games.

That’s actually very wrong. I had a GTX460 with some shitty AMD dual core thing, wouldn’t even get a steady 125fps on call of duty 4, upgraded my cpu and now I get 250 constant.[/quote]
please post the model of your processor before and after.

[Speljohan]

[quote=“Greeny, post:28, topic:433046”]I’d agree CoD4 is the best of the Modern Warfare franchise but really, that’s not hard to accomplish because from what I’ve seen the recent instalments are god awful. CoD4 was a fun game to play with friends and nothing more.

I think CoD2 was the best Call of Duty though. Totally subjective, but it doesn’t get away from the fact it’s moved into being a casual console players game (and that demise began, arguably, at CoD4 :p).

Anyway to not rattle too far off topic here, I dont think spending extra money on a better CPU would have made any difference to OP. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t care about strafing bugs in CoD! This is especially true considering there is no mention of a GPU in his post.[/quote]I am in full agreement with Greeny regarding CoD2 being the best in the series. It was the pinnacle before all the macho fantasy arcade shit started.

[eczema3]

[quote=“t4, post:29, topic:433046”][quote author=eczema3 link=topic=535766.msg3918047#msg3918047 date=1329415291]

You’re going to bottleneck with your cpu.
[/quote]Not if he’s going to game. CPU means jack shit in modern games, you could run a cheap dual core amd vs a 2600k, and the fps difference would be like 1 or 2 at worst in 99% of modern games.

That’s actually very wrong. I had a GTX460 with some shitty AMD dual core thing, wouldn’t even get a steady 125fps on call of duty 4, upgraded my cpu and now I get 250 constant.

please post the model of your processor before and after.[/quote]
I don’t remember what it was I had at first, but something like this: http://www.ebuyer.com/235423-amd-athlon-ii-x2-260-3-2-ghz-socket-am3-2mb-cache-retail-adx260ocgmbox
To this: http://www.google.co.uk/products/catalog?hl=en&cp=20&gs_id=8&xhr=t&q=amd+athlon+ii+x4+640&safe=off&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1920&bih=955&ion=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=14060751168628792063&sa=X&ei=-YU-T_HbJNGn8gOx0dy2CA&sqi=2&ved=0CDUQ8wIwAA

[T41]

before:
Specification
Core Speed - 3200 MHz
Voltages - 0.825-1.40V
Max Temps © - 74
Wattage - 65 W
Virtualization - Yes
L1 Cache Size (KB) - 128
L1 Cache Count - 2
L2 Cache Size (KB) - 1024
L2 Cache Count - 2
CMOS 45nm SOI
Socket AM3

after:
Processor AMD Athlon II X4 (640) 3.0GHz 4 x 128KB (L1 Cache) 4 x 512KB (L2 Cache)
Socket Socket AM3
Architecture 32/64-bit
Technology 45nm
Number of Cores 4

So difference in the after is double the L1 cache, lower clock speed, and 4 cores instead of 2. What’s the FSB speed?

[eczema3]

I don’t fuckin’ know, why do you even care so much?

[T41]

I don’t fuckin’ know, why do you even care so much?

i don’t exactly ‘care’, it’s just you said that modern processors make a big difference in gaming environments - i (along with others) believe this is false.

[sin21]

[quote=“t4, post:34, topic:433046”][quote author=eczema3 link=topic=535766.msg3918831#msg3918831 date=1329500006]
I don’t fuckin’ know, why do you even care so much?
[/quote]
i don’t exactly ‘care’, it’s just you said that modern processors make a big difference in gaming environments - i (along with others) believe this is false.[/quote]
I have an old rate AMD processor and my speeds are amazing. You saying that new processor’s are better is wrong.

[tL]

You saying that new processor’s are better is wrong.

You saying that makes you a fucking idiot.

[sin21]

[quote=“tL, post:36, topic:433046”][quote author=sin2^ link=topic=535766.msg3925796#msg3925796 date=1330205261]
You saying that new processor’s are better is wrong.
[/quote]

You saying that makes you a fucking idiot.[/quote]
How so?

[tL]

Because newer processors are better. Fact.

[sin21]

Because newer processors are better. Fact.

Well, I have two desktops, one with a older processor and one with a i7, and It shows that both computers are mostly the same speeds, etc; though the i7 computer is a little faster

[Frell]

same speed compared to fucking what?