"Fred" <bluser@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5kgq1bF3hi5rU1@mid.individual.net...
> Dragon wrote:
>> "Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote in
>> message news:dNSdnU7yydX42XzbnZ2dnUVZ8s2mnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> "Dragon" <davewhitnospam@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:jkbEi.48884$xp6.16751@fe3.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
>>>> Ok guys I am looking at a new pc amd 5000+ dual core but the speed
>>>> says 2.6ghz, I thought at 5000+ this would be a lot faster as some new
>>>> games need 2.8ghz minimum does the dual processor double the speed.
>>>> sorry to ask a silly question
>>>
>>>
>>> What games state that they need a 2.8GHz processor? Seems unlikely
>>> as GHz means little these days, when you are talking about the speed
>>> of a processor. They might have been referring to Pentium 4, which
>>> at 2.8GHz is a lot slower than an Athlon64 or Core 2 Duo at the same
>>> speed. ss.
>>>
>> looking at bioshock
>
> Bioshock is one of the few games written to take advantage of dual core
> processors.
> It runs very smoothly on my 2.4GHz core2duo overclocked to 3.2GHz and
> Radeon X1950XT graphics card.
Of course, one core runs the program and the other core runs the rootkit.
Heck, even the DEMO has a rootkit!
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 00:18:07 GMT, "Dragon"
<davewhitnospam@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Mine is 2.8 GHz and has an 8600gs geforce i think
>
In that case your video card is more of a bottleneck than
the CPU. 8600gs will probably play many titles at
acceptible framerate today, but in some cases you may need
to turn down eyecandy some (depending on monitor
resolution).
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 17:27:18 -0700,
"jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk" <jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>I don't know what the AMD Athlon 64 X2's performance rating rates it
>against/equivalent to. Sounds a bit like against it's still against
>P4, continuing where AMD Athlon XP left off. Anybody?
There really isn't any appropriate equivalency for AMD's
more recent models of X2. Against their own X2 models, the
improvement isn't quite linear, and against Athlon XP it
definitely isn't linear number-naming scheme, even ignoring
that it's a X2 meaning they are using an estimation of
performance increase from dual cores without consideration
of the specific app, whether that app benefits much if any
from dual core. AMD couldn't possibly know this though, so
basically what AMD did was establish the initial numbering
plan and then after they had determined the max that core
could do, just incrementally ramped up the speed and the
number.
It might be that their original numbering scheme was meant
to contrast performance of the P4, and in this is could be
the most appropriate comparison merely because the numbers
seem in the same ballpark, but it would be more approriate
to just compare based on price instead of number at least
under about the $180 mark.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:j9h6e3ldm4vkhfhpl5rfr481fsispjv2ei@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 00:18:07 GMT, "Dragon"
> <davewhitnospam@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Mine is 2.8 GHz and has an 8600gs geforce i think
>>
>
> In that case your video card is more of a bottleneck than
> the CPU. 8600gs will probably play many titles at
> acceptible framerate today, but in some cases you may need
> to turn down eyecandy some (depending on monitor
> resolution).
could you explain better I am new to all this technology
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 18:10:03 GMT, "Dragon"
<davewhitnospam@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:j9h6e3ldm4vkhfhpl5rfr481fsispjv2ei@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 00:18:07 GMT, "Dragon"
>> <davewhitnospam@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mine is 2.8 GHz and has an 8600gs geforce i think
>>>
>>
>> In that case your video card is more of a bottleneck than
>> the CPU. 8600gs will probably play many titles at
>> acceptible framerate today, but in some cases you may need
>> to turn down eyecandy some (depending on monitor
>> resolution).
>
>could you explain better I am new to all this technology
What's left to explain? The factor limiting games from
playing faster than they will, is the video card moreso than
the CPU. That doesn't necessarily mean this combo of video
and CPU you have wouldn't be fast enough, you'll have to try
it and see.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:5ch8e3lcokjot37bjle3fahvossvem2b0g@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 18:10:03 GMT, "Dragon"
> <davewhitnospam@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>>news:j9h6e3ldm4vkhfhpl5rfr481fsispjv2ei@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 00:18:07 GMT, "Dragon"
>>> <davewhitnospam@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mine is 2.8 GHz and has an 8600gs geforce i think
>>>>
>>>
>>> In that case your video card is more of a bottleneck than
>>> the CPU. 8600gs will probably play many titles at
>>> acceptible framerate today, but in some cases you may need
>>> to turn down eyecandy some (depending on monitor
>>> resolution).
>>
>>could you explain better I am new to all this technology
>
>
> What's left to explain? The factor limiting games from
> playing faster than they will, is the video card moreso than
> the CPU. That doesn't necessarily mean this combo of video
> and CPU you have wouldn't be fast enough, you'll have to try
> it and see.
i see so maybe in the near future it might be worth getting a better video
card, my current system till my new 5000+ systen turns up is only ati 9600
radeon, 2 gig amd and it handles a few games ok
Re: CPU Speed Query 
Linear Mode
