http://www.symbiote.voidaudio.net/es...t-on-my-PC.jpg

I wish I could give everbody a PC like this. :D

[ 03-26-2006, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: TheCrimsomBlade ]

here's mine:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...liviontest.jpg

i'm playing at some of the highest settings, with no problems, tho. [img]smile.gif[/img]

V***V

I wish you could too. Too bad you don't know Bill Gates or Donald Trump real well. ;)

So wait CB, you in fact have 256 vidram rather than 5 or 1 gig. And 2 gig of regular ram rather than 4 gig? Okay at least this sounds normal now. Why do we have to wait for a program to tell us your real system specs huh? ;)

Even when you went from 4 gig to 1 gig onboard I knew something wasn't right hehe.

And although you have a nice system, anyone would think you had an FX-60, Raptor 150GB and a Crossfire X1900XTX setup runnning on a 2405FPW the way you keep droning on about it :D

Your video card stinks of mediocrity :D

LOL, I was just poking fun at CB. I am happy he is happy to be honest! And his rig beats my newest system with my little 6600 gt.

I had planned for a few months now to upgrade so I'm mostly messing around on Oblivion atm but not immersing myself in it yet.

The game is beautiful, absolutely stunning. Probably the best looking fantasy game I have ever seen, and I want to experience it with everything on full and "get lost" in it if you know what I mean. I can play it but I have to lose and compromise on some settings and it just would feel like a waste if I completed it like that...I want the eye visuals - every last one of them.

I neither have the time nor the desired system to do this properly atm so will continue to mess around with different classes and chars, attack guards in cities, and generally burn and pillage what I can until I can sit down and really experience Oblivion as it is meant to be experienced.

Hehe, I know how you feel TCB, tis good to pas with flying colours! :D

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/4667/test0oe.jpg

I see many people have dual-core processors. What is the exact speed of your cpu with a dual-core. I have to admit I am out of the loop as far as this lastest cpu trend goes. I mean do you add the two? For example I saw a dell advertised as dual-core and it was 3.ghz and 2ghz, is that in essence 5ghz?

Stupid program locks up on my BoxxTech Dual core Dual Opteron Workstation(Quad processor, 4gig ram, Terrabyte SATA data array and 15krpm U320 OS array) It's the only system I have that would max out the Oblivion check.

Game runs sweet though, better than my Athlon64-3000/6800gt system (although that's my home theater system... and has a 120" screen... so that's the system I'm playing on) [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-27-2006, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

Just on my last question, looking at one customizable system on the dell site, for example. The first option is to get an

Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 640 w/HT Technology (3.2GHz,800FSB)

and the second is

Pentium® D Processor 820 with Dual Core Technology (2.80GHz, 800FSB)

Which would be better for gaming? Is dual core a bunch of crap like HT is/was or does it actually make a difference?

The HT is single core Processor with Hyper-Threading(HT)that gives you A Virtual Duel core, But Runs way Hotter and takes twice as long to process than an Actual Duel core.
Pent 4HT is great for Microsoft office
applacations and Busness and will run games better
than a Plain Pent 4. The Pent 4(D) 3.0Ghz has
actually 2 pent 4 3GHz Microprocessors and will
act as if your running a freight train compaired
to a yard switcher. Twice the Processor twice the
processing in the same time It also reqires the
right matched Chipset Motherboard.

So The Pent D prcessorers are twice as fast as the Pent HT and the pent D processorers double check everything like the Pent HT but with no lag nor lock up problems the HT and other single core procressors ten to have when trying to run the
newer high tech Games comming out like Oblivion it also will support 64 Bit processing and still support 32 bit processing without the need to change settings from one type program to another.

AMD is changing over to the intel Pent D processors because of this and other facts.

I Have 2- 19inch flat screem LCD displays and
just to try it I ran Oblivion on one screen and
guild wars on the other. first time I ever needed
to turn down the settings but for 15 min I had
both games running with no lag. :D

So without argument dual is the way to go no matter what, right?

And that example I posted, in effect it would be about double its speed (6ghz) then?

I have a system with HT and I have found it makes very little difference whther its off or on. But is dual core noticeable in comparison?

[ 03-27-2006, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: SpiritWarrior ]

There is a negligible difference between the 2. The biggest reason is though while the hardware can use the dual core or even 64 bit chips software can't do anything with the extra capabilities. Untill Vista comes out there is no real difference between the 2. Even then they are very similar as one can do twice the calculations while the other has twice the pipeline..

Yup - benchmarks (the latest 3DMark for example) and heavy number crunching utilities (like SETI) will make use of dual core processors and in theory will run twice as fast as a single core (3D Mark only really in the CPU physics tests.

Games are a different story however and require multithreading support in order to take advantage of the second core (only a handful really do at the moment - the Quake IV and Doom 3 engine, Oblivion).

Even without multithreaded support you can still feel the benefits of having 2 physical cores - switching between applications, alt-tabbing out of games etc - there will always be some processing power in reserve to handle these other tasks.

Applications which are not dual core optimised tend to only tie up 50% load form each core, meaning that there is an awful lot of headroom for doing other things, even with one CPU hungry app crunching away.

ah, I will pass the recommended exept for CPU speed (whick is 2.44) when i get my new graph card and 512 extra ram

SpiritWarrior, if that's the route you're going, you could hover on this site for awhile.


http://www1.us.dell.com/content/prod...=22&l=en&s=dfh

Just view the inventory for the Dimensions - they're required to rebuild those when people return them, so they're really not any different from new ones and they're MUCH cheaper. Mine's going on 5 years. Oh wait...they may not be able to ship to Ireland...not sure really. Maybe there's a European version?

Yeah we have Dell in Ireland (just no electricity [img]tongue.gif[/img] ).

Thanks for the info. guys, I'll look into it for my future systems for sure.

Not really true, dual cores are indeed faster, but not "twice as fast" they are still limited by the shared lvl 1 cache and motherboard bandwidth.

Where on earth did you hear that crap?
AMD although did not invent Dual core, certainly had the fist dual core chip on the market and continue to ahve the fastest processors (dual core included) on the market I do not see why they would change, the AMD dual core architechture is far more advanced than the Intel setup and that's why they perform better, just wait untill they start using DDR2....


Hehe, I wish it would be 6Ghz [img]tongue.gif[/img] Yes Dual core is the way of the future, but dont expect the processor to run much faster than the single core equivilant, it doesn't work that way, the main advantage of two cores is that the CPU does not have to stall whilst running many different threads, essentially dual core just makes it easier for you to have a "main" program running and have minimised effects on it by other programs such as the OS or anything else you are running.
(Don't be misguided by my test saying effective 4.8GHz...though that would be damn nice :D )


Also not entirely true, dual core technology is not entirely controlled by the software/Operating system and can be used by DOS if neccesary (or if possible [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) though the OS can controll what threads are running on each core.
But yes, 64-bit technology is not fully utilised yet, with minimal ammounts of decent software actually designed to use 64-tech/windows.

Sorry if I sound a bit ranty and I didn't want to offend anyone, but I didn't want old Spirit here getting the wrong idea, though feel free to prove me wrong ;)

EDIT:Don't expect it to run much faster ;)

[ 03-28-2006, 05:36 AM: Message edited by: Hivetyrant ]

Yeah I knew it wasn't 6ghz (I wish too) just trying to get the theoretical stuff straight.

What I don't get is this. Dual cores now do what HT was supposed to do but (from my experiences) didn't do it very well. Has the industry now conceded that HT is inferior and gone with dual cores as the better choice from now on? I mean, there was hype about HT at the time but it died down quickly as most didn't seem to see any real difference (the change may be there just not immediately obvious).

My question is have people noticed DC processors performing way better or (forgive me) are we just repeating what we have read or been told? In other words, is this another new hyped up technology like HT was or is it actually doing things for your own personal systems?

I read on the AMD site and the Intel site: They both say they you get 80% better
performance out of Duel Core processors and make's the processors run much cooler.
With Duel core Technology you get true parellel processing with 32 bit performance
fo music,video & games pluss its ready for the future 64-bit software. It also
gives you the ability for multi-tasking and increased performance on digital
media.

What it all boils down to is: Duel Core is alot faster than any single core
processor in every and all computer functions and with the added ability to
avoid computer microprocessor lock up many single core computers experence
today.

for me I have never used any computer that runs this well or fast this includes
my single core pent4 3.6ghz computer I use daily at work. This Duel core of mine
can run circles arround it.

Multiple processors in any flavor (dual core or true MPC) only provide benefits if the software and OS are designed to take advantage of them. Dual Core systems will provide some advantage to non-mpc software because Windows is able to use multiple processors... but in applications like games if the software is a single-thread design you will not see much of a performance difference.

Even when everything is designed for multiple processors you will not see double the performance because of limited access to resources. Typically one processor has control of IO... so things like disk and video access HAVE to go through that one processor. In addition, Intel processors all share memory... so memory performance becomes an issue (hence the larger caches).

AMD's mpc architecture when fully implemented has the potential to scale significantly better than the Intel architecture. On my Boxx system each Procesing chip has its own memory stack, so only the on-chip processors need to share memory. Even so, the architecture requires planning to work well... you need to make sure that as much as possible, data needed by processor 1/2 is available in the local memory block instead of in the memory of processor 3/4. There are OS level tools (affinity) that help with this, but software designed to do this will always work better.

The upshot is that just because you've got 4 processors will not mean your software is 4x as fast... unless it's also designed to scale well.

Last question. If I had a 2.80 ghz core processor and I was looking at Oblivions' requirements would I just look and be like "well really I have way more power than a regular 2.8 ghz so I'm more than fine" or just like you say, if the game specifically utilizes DC technology (which people say no games do at the moment).

Hey, which site are you guys using to do these tests?

Nevermind, I found it. Why is it saying that my CPU speed is only 780 Mhz when it's actually 2 Ghz?? :mad:

Anyway, apparently I can't run Civ IV, Galactic Civ 2, or any of the other games that I've been playing. [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]