Pentium4 1.8GHz - Low end?

[Dave Baumann]

There is a reason for posting this here!

Alongside benchmarks taken from the normal testbed (currently a 2.53GHZ P4 based system) I'm considering running benchmarks on a slightly lower end system for the Radeon 9000 PRO review. Now, presently I have an aging PIII 733 system running but I feel thats now too low end - the next system available is a P4 1.8GHz (256 cache, PC800 RDRAM). Do you guys think this is still too high end these days?

 

[RussSchultz]

I bought my Athlon xp 1700+ just 5 months ago. I can't already be low end!

(Remember, even though its cheap, it doesn't give an automatic reason for people to upgrade their machines)

 

[multigl2]

I hope 1.8GHz P4 isnt low end... im barely pushing a 1.2GHz T-Bird

 

[Crusher]

I think the term you want to use is mainstream, not low end. If you want to test low end, get an e-Machine.

 

[Clashman]

Personally, I would like to see benches from all three of those systems, if you can find the time. I think there is far too little analysis done these days on CPU scaling, and what is done usually just compares today's top of the line CPU with the top of the line CPU from 3 months ago. Many computer users, (yours truly included), still use sub-GHZ machines, yet I would be surprised to find more than a handful of reviews to come out within the past year that utilized such CPU ranges. A more varied and comprehensive range of test hardware will make a better review, IMO.

 

[demalion]

I'm glad to see someone else made the request for massive amounts of your time first (since I did it the last time I remember ). I do think all 3 would be good results if possible. I also agree with the point about calling the P4 1.8 mainstream and not low-end. If it was just 2, I think for the 9000 target, I'd go with the PIII. Perhaps with some of the more demanding benchmarks on the P4 1.8 for comparisons going forward with the next generation of cards?

 

[Gollum]

Wow, if a 1,8GHz P4 is low-end then just about everybody I know must have missed it!

Nope, not a low end system at all in my book, not by a long shot. Reality is, even though the GHz barrier was broken long ago, not even that is a low-end standard yet as far as I can tell. I know about a dozen people who still have 400-1000MHz systems (compared to less than a handfull of people with 1-2GHz+ systems) and don't even think about upgrading anytime soon, so a 733 P3 whould actually be very representative IMHO. And yes, they are gamers and occasionally do buy new videocards so they can be considered target audience, hehe...

 

[gkar1]

I know it has been mentioned before. This link gives a breakdown of pc system specs from players of one of the most popular fps games(Half-life and mods)

http://valve.speakeasy.net/

Only about 3.3% (about 19000) of all those who filled out the survey currently own a cpu in the range of 1.7Ghz - 1.9Ghz. Definetely not low end.

 

[WOOFLE]

I know quite a lot of gamers from a fairly diverse demographic. The way In terms of CPUs I'd break it down is something like this:
<600MHz Worth a try and a laugh
600-1100MHz Low end
1100-1800(MHz or "quantispeed") Middle end
1800+ High end

I think for a realistic region for where to aim at for a "_low_ end system" in the terms of users like student-gamers (who are a significant portion of the budget card buyers) is about 733-800MHz (P3, Duron, Athlon). I'm talking for the people that actualy play these games and not "hardware reviewer low-end" which is at about 1800

I can extrapolate if you want.

 

[malcolm]

I think a 1.8ghz p4 is a mainstream cpu, but a new mainstream cpu wich a lot of people would get if they bought a new computer now.
733mhz is probably about the average that people have.
And i think very few people buy the fastest ones but they are the best to compare the graphics boards with.

Actualy what is the reason for testing graphics boards on slower computers?
Is it possible for a graphics board that is fastest on settings where the limit is the board to be slower where the cpu is the botleneck?
Seems weird to me...
Only reason left then for testing on slower cpu's is to know what framerate you will get in certain games.

 

[Nagorak]

The P4 1.8 GHz is a pretty pathetic CPU. My Athlon is almost running at 1.8 GHz, and we all know that MHz to MHz the Athlon is way faster. Although considering my Athlon is supposed to be an "1800+" before being overclocked to 2200+, I guess I'd say that a 1.8 GHz P4 isn't "low end" yet. More like mainstream, as mentioned above.

 

[LittlePenny]

An easy way to solve this is goto Dell's website. It tells you which of its computers are affordable, mainstream or performance.

 

[Reverend]

Forget about a CPU that is "too high end" or "too low end" or "is representative for its intended market" wrt the vid card.

A technical review of a video card (regardless of its intended market taking into account its budget) in a 3D-technology-focussed website should concentrate on exploring the subject vid card's 3D capabilities. Optimally, that means in a single-piece (article) review of the vid card, you explore the capabilities of the vid card, which includes how it scales with CPU power. If time is a constraint, spread this into two (or more) articles/reviews.

Many folks have 1GHz CPUs that will not upgrade their CPU but would still buy the latest-and-greatest video cards - many such individuals visit this website/its-forums. These folks are interested in what 3D features such a video card offers, not how it performs in its "intended market". "Intended market" is very difficult to categorize, despite what IHvV tell you. It depends on what excites certain folks and what their interest is in (3D innovations or overall system performance).

IOW, I'd prefer an investigation of the subject vid cards 3D capabilities. This would mean using the fastest CPU you have. If you want to do a "CPU scaling" review, by all means, do so and it will lend more credit to your review.

Just MHO.

 

[mat]

No way is a P4 1.8 a low end system.
of course... everyone wants a 2.5x P4, but the 1.8 is mid range and not low end.
i think WOOFLE's breakdown is just right...

 

[WOOFLE]

There's quite a bit of difference between what's affordable now and what's actually out there. Not everyone upgrades at the same time or rate. There are plenty of people out there with what I would class low-end CPUs that do cyclic upgrades. ie: Buying a component approximately every 6 months or so replacing the main system components in turn. mobo+RAM, CPU, VID, storage. This way they never end up with a completely new computer, but are usually able to maintain a reasonable level of performance across the board, and do quite well in one or two. They usually go for a product that gives good bang for buck. ATM components like GF4-ti4200/R8500, AXP1700+/P41800, 60-80GB drives.

For these people and there are a lot of them knowing how well for example a graphics card will perform on there current CPU until they upgrade in 6 months time is very important. It may not show the "purest" of video card analysis, but that's not what it's for. It's supplementary information that can both help these people AND help better understand the scaling ability of the graphics card.

Car analogy: If you want to test out a tough 4WD ute you won't just test it on the race track. As nice as that might be and the fact that a few people might even race them, most people will just admire their times while knowing it really doesn't signify what the general population will be doing with a ute. They will be driving it on rough bush tracks (on low-end systems) and possibly also with heavy loads (graphics intensive settings + apps).

 

[Randell]

when I first started reading this I was going to post roughly what WOOFLE did, but he beat me to it.

I dont know anybody with a cpu > 2000mhz/rating

Most gamers will have 1gig+ now.

I know several people with PIII500's and TNT2's/V3's who play MOH:AA, DAoC etc and know they need to upgrade but keep putting it off.

I like to see CPU scaling in a vid card review, it is important in my view to see how it would perform on a similar system to your own v what you have already. But I also agree with Rev, it is secondary, maybe a follow up to the main article exploring the cards 3d capabilities.

 

[Pete]

Aw, Dave, your poll made my P3-866 SDR system cry.

I'd consider a P4-1.6A mid-level, and ~1.2GHz Celerons and Athlons entry level. RDRAM is most certainly not anywhere near entry level. SDR/DDR entry level, DDR/RDR top level.

Given the prices Athlon XP's are selling for now ($135 for XP 2000+ Retail), I think the new-system entry level will shift significantly upwards in a month.

 

[BenSkywalker]

When thinking in terms of high end/low end, I tend to look at it based on the finances(self or wallet restraint) of the person buying the part.

If I was in the market for a $400 R9700 then I would likely consider a 1.8GHZ P4 low end, mid tier at best.

If I'm in the market for a $200 R9000 then a 1.8GHZ would likely be high end. I think that most of the people looking to pick up a, relatively speaking of course, budget card would be more interested in seeing the 733MHZ numbers along with the 2.53GHZ to give them a better idea of how it will perform in their current rig along with how well it will hold up when they decide to upgrade the rest of their machine.

 

[Kristof]

I am still using a P3-750 at home

K-

 

[WOOFLE]

Glad to see that others have made the same observations as me over in .au
I also agree that as a vdieo card review and not a specific scaling analysis that if you do test on a slower system that unless you have the time and inclination to some huge compendium that the slower system should recieve a signifiantly lesser amount of attention to the faster one.