Possible Experience with games in old processors.

[Warcore 8400gs]

I have three processors, being, all amd excluding an pentium that i dont remember the model exactly, an athlon 240, phenom 9150e, and an amd c60.
the c60 its terrible at windows 7, i just use him for file server. with his 8W (i think). its just an dream.

for the athlon and phenom, honestly both are not that far away from each other. but athlon did manage to run youtube videos at 1080p. thing that the phenom could not do without overclocking it. (my first and last overclock was to run an 1080p video.)

before i broke the pins of the athlon because, for me 50 degrees was an cpuinferno. but, i managed to run at least beamngdrive pretty decently, would run better if the 8400gs didnt exist. so, what would be running both of them in a modern computer, is usable?

for the phenom at least for me is an nice yes, for some exceptions. the athlon i run windows 10 on him for a short time, but that short time was pretty
good. i was just unable to run heavier games because of the memory slot burnt, and an extremely faulty markvision memory stick and clearly, the 8400gs.

my only expectations are, for league of legends would be around 40-60 fps. or even 80. but i would not be impressed if it gets to 100fps. (with an decent gpu, of course). i did manage to get the league of legends on the amd c60 before the update that loses support for windows 7 occuried, and honestly, is not extremely bad. its unplayable, becausse of the lags that do. but the iGpu did actually better than the 8400gs running this game.

Average Fps (league of legends): 25-35 Athlon, Phenom.
Average Fps: 32 (8400gs, c60)
Average Fps: 41 (IGPU, c60).
i really dont know why it got higher fps without changing the cpu.

 

[adilazimdegilx]

My initial thought about why you get higher numbers with a c60 apu was that HD6290 gpu in that chip being simply faster than 8400gs. And I actually have an AMD C60 netbook. It was sitting in the drawer for a long time but I got it out and it still works. For the sake of comparison and of course nostalgia I installed 3DMark06 and ran it. It got 594 SM2 score and whopping 747 SM3 score. Comparing it to this random 8400GS numbers I found, at least in SM3 stuff HD6290 beats it. I bet 8400GS was also getting carried by CPU in that test as well. Because C60 as a CPU just sucks, it only scored 720 points in CPU tests. I remember running DMC4 on this little netbook. And it was actually playable albeit not a great experience.
So yes, HD6290 in that C60 APU is probably faster than 8400GS. At least it is more modern so it supports stuff from 2010~ better.

 

[Vya Domus]

8400GS is ancient and was dog slow even when it was released, the HD6290 is for sure way better.

 

[Warcore 8400gs]

8400gs, keep me away from it. how many time i lost because of this shboard, im literally using her as an hdmi adapator, now i dont even need that i got an VGA cable,. so now its a bit useless. i think the only game that i got chance to run "decently" on her was gta san andreas, that probably runs on the chipset gpu. the only component that never disappointed me was the cpu's and a bit on the kingston ram stick. the hd6290 could do cool in the athlon. or the phenom. cuz, at least is faster. sadly, that is not true especially that where i live, eletronics in general are very pricy.
another thing is that i rarely remember the name of the IGPU of him. for some reason.

 

[sLowEnd]

my only expectations are, for league of legends would be around 40-60 fps. or even 80. but i would not be impressed if it gets to 100fps. (with an decent gpu, of course). i did manage to get the league of legends on the amd c60 before the update that loses support for windows 7 occuried, and honestly, is not extremely bad. its unplayable, becausse of the lags that do. but the iGpu did actually better than the 8400gs running this game.

Average Fps (league of legends): 25-35 Athlon, Phenom.
Average Fps: 32 (8400gs, c60)
Average Fps: 41 (IGPU, c60).
i really dont know why it got higher fps without changing the cpu.

Because the 8400 GS is just that slow. It's pretty much only suitable for really light 3D (like, UT1999 or CS1.6), 2D tasks and media playback of its era. (Wouldn't recommend it for media playback today, because it lacks support for modern codecs)

 

[Warcore 8400gs]

maybe GS secretly means Soft Gaming. or, Good Software. would be a lie tho. but at least. at multi rendering it gains over some gpu. probably the hd something or an uhd 630.

 

[sLowEnd]

maybe GS secretly means Soft Gaming. or, Good Software. would be a lie tho. but at least. at multi rendering it gains over some gpu. probably the hd something or an uhd 630.

To be fair to the 8400GS, there's more than 10 years between it and the UHD 630

 

[Warcore 8400gs]

To be fair to the 8400GS, there's more than 10 years between it and the UHD 630

ik.

To be fair to the 8400GS, there's more than 10 years between it and the UHD 630

uhd 620 is far superior. i compare everthing with everthing. ev en knowing about the time.

 

[Bill_Bright]

for me 50 degrees was an cpuinferno

what would be running both of them in a modern computer, is usable?

To be honest, I am not sure I understand what you are asking. Could be a language problem, could be a yet-to-be-satisfied caffeine deficiency this morning, or a little of both.

First, 50°C is "NOT" a CPU inferno. It is not even hot. Some might say very "warm", others would not even go that far.

What do you mean by a "modern" computer? To me, a modern computer runs DDR5 and supports W11. For AMD, that would also mean the AM5 socket. Even if you consider DDR4 and the AM4 socket as "modern", those CPUs don't qualify.

As far as "usable" - if you mounted these in a compatible motherboard platform, with a decent amount of compatible RAM and capable graphics solution, whether "usable" or not would depend entirely on your own personal opinion and expectations.

I suspect, most "gamers" expecting to play the latest "modern" games would be disappointed. For those simply wanting a computer for searching the internet, for NAS storage, updating social media, creating Word documents, or processing their emails, these would be "usable" - though not sure the performance would be totally acceptable to them.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
90c is the new norm on newer chips so enjoy 50-60c while you can hehe

 

[Warcore 8400gs]

To be honest, I am not sure I understand what you are asking. Could be a language problem, could be a yet-to-be-satisfied caffeine deficiency this morning, or a little of both.

First, 50°C is "NOT" a CPU inferno. It is not even hot. Some might say very "warm", others would not even go that far.

What do you mean by a "modern" computer? To me, a modern computer runs DDR5 and supports W11. For AMD, that would also mean the AM5 socket. Even if you consider DDR4 and the AM4 socket as "modern", those CPUs don't qualify.

As far as "usable" - if you mounted these in a compatible motherboard platform, with a decent amount of compatible RAM and capable graphics solution, whether "usable" or not would depend entirely on your own personal opinion and expectations.

I suspect, most "gamers" expecting to play the latest "modern" games would be disappointed. For those simply wanting a computer for searching the internet, for NAS storage, updating social media, creating Word documents, or processing their emails, these would be "usable" - though not sure the performance would be totally acceptable to them.

i know 50 degrees is not hot, i was stupid, very in the "era" that i used to play on those computers.
i used to play on the phenom at 110 degrees so, 50 degrees for me is cold.
modern = can run windows 10, run youtube videos at 1080p, play light games on windows 10, web browse with just few limitations.
usable = you can use the computer normally. without making any changes into the system because of limitations. overclock, any thing better than a stock cooler if the stock cooler cant sustain the processor aqt 100% at all time, the system can be fast (both of those the system were fast.)
i hate notebooks...

what i mean is, fps in "modern" games. such those i mentioned before, or other light games as mindustry, cosmoteer (this game is light, just needs one core of the cpú.)
your are correct at the translation error, my english i learned without any faculty, school, so its very bad, but i know an minimum to have the chance for chatting in english. or at least partially.

 

[QuietBob]

I have three processors, being, an athlon 240, phenom 9150e, and an amd c60. ... so, what would be running them in a modern computer, is usable?

Of the three CPUs you mention, the Athlon II X2 240 would be the most adequate for everyday use due to its superior single threaded performance:



I'm currently tinkering with a very similar Athlon II X2 215. It is 100 MHz slower than your 240, with half of its L2 cache. These Regor processors are very overclockable:

A stock 215 can do Youtube @ 1080p60 when utilizing the AVC codec. When oc'd, it can also do 1080p60 with the current VP9 codec, provided that your GPU can accelerate the stream in hardware.

Your 8400 GS only has AVC/H.264 hardware decode, but you can force Youtube to play AVC streams with a browser plug-in.

 

[Warcore 8400gs]

Of the three CPUs you mention, the Athlon II X2 240 would be the most adequate for everyday use due to its superior single threaded performance:

View attachment 332912View attachment 332913View attachment 332914

I'm currently tinkering with a very similar Athlon II X2 215. It is 100 MHz slower than your 240, with half of its L2 cache. These Regor processors are very overclockable:

View attachment 332915View attachment 332933
View attachment 332916View attachment 332934

A stock 215 can do Youtube @ 1080p60 when utilizing the AVC codec. When oc'd, it can also do 1080p60 with the current VP9 codec, provided that your GPU can accelerate the stream in hardware.

Your 8400 GS only has AVC/H.264 hardware decode, but you can force Youtube to play AVC streams with a browser plug-in.

perfect. strangely enough, but all those processors are similar, except for the amd c60. the phenom we can see why its not that better than the 240 because of the E. i never thinkered about codecs, and why they should really push up the cpu to the limits. interessing.
good noting about that, thanks!