CoD4 ran surprisingly well on my aging system. I've got an S939 Athlon 64 3800+ X2 (512MB cache per core) overclocked from 2GHz to 2.6GHz. At the time I had a HD2900 1GB card in it and I would often see frame rates of 90fps or so. The FPS didn't tank as often as the graphs here suggest. Other modern games can run quite well, too.

I've now got a HD4870 512MB card in it and it does improve fps substantially at high resolutions - 2048x1536 is awesome! HL2 EP2 is substantially improved, for example.

Qubit

I have a single core S939 A64 3500+, overclocked to 2.51GHz which is slightly faster than the 3800+. I recently replaced my 6600GT for a 2nd hand 8600GTS OC for only £30 and I got 3 times the frame rate in pretty much everything (hence can turn up the detail where I have more than enough fps).

I can play Crysis, COD4 and Grid no problem, sure it's not with the highest of settings but certainly not the lowest either.

The biggest bottleneck now is my hard drive, load times are quite slow.

It's not financial sense to upgrade my CPU to a dual core S939 version as the 4800+ (2.4GHz so similar core speed) sells 2nd hand for around £120 !!!

£120 pounds second hand what!!! i paid less for my new Athlon 6400+ X2 (2x3.2ghz)black edition athlon 4 mths ago. Who would pay that for the 4800+ second hand when u can get it cheaper on ebuyer for new (no i don't work for them) In fact u cant buy that old processor but for £53.36 you get the "AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ 2.9GHz Socket AM2 512KBx2 L2 Cache OEM Processor"

@ Can\'t Take Fools Lightly

jonnyhuk2 has a socket 939 mboard, whereas the processors you are talking about are AM2 socket, the reason for the high price of the 4800 proc is availability for that cocket type.

I would be surprised to see many higher spec 939 processors around for less

alternative bet for s939 dual-core is usually to look for an opty 185 or similar - had less grief finding them as opposed to the equivalent x2 model. This only assumes your mb supports them(not alwaays listed as such mind).

"Next, we chose the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200 + dual-core, which has a 2.2 GHz Manchester architecture with 512 MB L2 cache per core. " HA HA HA. I would like one this '512 MB' L2 cache CPU.

What are these guys on,put together a amd64 3200,with a gig of ram,hd3850 and can have it playing cod4 quite happy at 1920x1050 no problems,these sites make out you need to spend money when you DONT,most upgrades we do involve a bit more ram and gfx card,these old systems still cut it.Just for fun,customer bought 2 pc`s ,a game rig for himself,a little gamer for his son,short story is he was amazed that the `budget` pc looked and played near on the same as his top gamer system,except when fps counter was on,1 reads 90fps,the other 160fps,real world use=no difference

There isn't much difference between S939 and AM2, just the cost of dual-core processors for the former socket solution being over-priced. Even the old DDR memory can give DDR a run for its money especially when clocked. I have used such a system for gaming and it is fine, very fast and very affordable but only because I got the dual-core CPU at the right price. Everything including games, as Domestic says, is possible..and people are routinely suprised at just how much these older systems can do.

I meant DDR vs. DDR2, sorry.

I know exactly what you mean..eBay is a treasure chest for anyone who has say, a x2 3800+. You know what it reminds me off? The days of the AMD K6-III+ and the AMD 'Thunderbird' Athlon's. The price factor is the only thing stopping me upgrading these older systems, not so much performance cos a x2 3800+, 2GB of DDR-4xx memory and a 9600 or even 9800GT still kicks butt.

Yeah, can't emphasise enough the limitations the hard drive can place on the system. I also had a S939 'Venice' 3200+ that would do 2.50GHz on all stock settings, without even getting hot. I saw the same chip the other day for 8 pounds..if you know what you are doing you can save a lot of money. One friend insisted on an Intel Q6600 base unit with a Geforce 9600GT, to play Crysis. He assumed you need to spend £650 to do it..with these older parts you certainly don't need to spend that much as your experience shows..

Lol I wonder in which region of the North Pole they cool it. Last I heard a chunk of the heatsink fell off, and was heading towards Norway

I bought an Opteron 170 (Skt 939) years ago (stock 2.0ghz) running at 2.65Ghz stable, same amount of cache as the FX60 and same speed with more bandwidth. Coupled with synchoronous Ballistix RAM (3-3-3-8-1T @ 265Mhz DDR) it flies with Vista Ultimate.

I have the same old 7800GT running in my machine and everything short of Crysis runs pretty sweet! I'm waiting for the Core i7 before upgrading but this article has made me think I could just plumb for a 4870 and be done with it!

Yep..if it isn't broke, why fix it so to speak. Nice overclock on that Opteron - and some nice memory speed. Only thing I would say is that the 4870 might necessitate the purchase of a bigger PSU and additional case cooling. I use the old Abit NF-95 (S939), and despite being a budget board with integrated Geforce 6100, it is still capable of taking dual-core CPU's, and DDR-533 memory. When I saw just how close the battle was between S93/AM2 I decided to hold off upgrading, instead opting for bigger, faster hard drive. There is practically nothing I cannot do on the older systems - sure, Core2 is faster on a core level, but it's like comparing a Porsche and Ferrari. Just because one is faster than the other doesn't mean the slower one isn't up to the task. I get more problems with software (ie Windows itself), and ISP issues than I do using such gear.

Whats all this nonsense about playing games at hi res. I play fps games to wipe out the opposition not admire the scenery.

Even an old socket 747 with a midrange modern card can run all the popular competitive games on a small monitor and such a purchase puts off a complete system replacment for another year at least in which time some vital component may very well fail.

Squeaky, I don't wish to play games at that res, either. I think a lot of people are using these resolutions due to using large LCD monitors demanding higher native resolutions in order to look their best. I use an old CRT monitor with aperture grill technology and at 1024 x 768 it looks awesome. It also scales video and pictures much better than the LCD monitor's I've seen.

If 'retro' folks want a 'flat' monitor they can always cut a hole in the wall lol

I built a new Q6600 rig abotu 6 months ago and was left with what was left of my old one which was about 3 years old. Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe, 2gb PC6400 and a 7900GTO 512mb... I couldn't really be bothered doing anything with it until a couple of months ago so I made it into a gaming/media centre PC for my lounge, i got an X2 5600+ OEM for £50, £45 case, and a scythe mini ninja and it's pretty damn quick, I get 100FPS+ in cod4 at 1280x1024, plan is to get another 2gb ram and put a blu ray drive in! It's nice to know i've got a capable back up if i ever blow this one up!! whoop whoop

I got myself last year a A64 3800+ clocked at 2.4GHz. I started making some OC and reached 2.8GHz, stable and cool. Doesn't seem that much but with my ASUS 8800GS selfOC 700/1000 I get everything over 40fps, Crysis included (Models/Text Med; All other graphics High). 1440x900 on all games. COD4 is a breeze for my rig.
I'm amazed!!!

My RIG: A64 3800+ (5EUR Air Cooler) / 1GB Corsair ValueRam 2.5-3-3-8@236 / ASUS 8800GS@700/1000

My computer is:
AMD64 3000+
1Gb DDR400
80GB
MB Pci-e 8X
haha beat this.
Then recently, ive installed a 8800gtx in it, so i tested CODairborne runs fine. But i get this studen lag on more complex graphic environment may be not enough ram memory.

Athalon X2 3800+
2GB Kingston DDR400
XFX 7600GT xXx

CoH, CoD4, both 1024x768 with decent settings (can't remember off the top of my head), but no issues with framerate. Crysis at 1024x768 and low settings, little bit of slow-down in some spots. Far Cry 2, 800x600 with medium settings and some slow-down.

Yes, I need to upgrade =p, but things are still running at a playable level