A single core has to do everything. A multicore can share out the load.
Remember that while running a game the PC is doing more than just running
the game. It is running the OS as well, quite possibly MSN, teamspeak and
other apps in the background.
I'm reading VISTA is the main benefactor of a multi-core. In a single
core config, it's a do-able, while not doing much else. As for XP,
that's generalities -- at least here it is. I rename or delete
anything other of MS's that isn't critical or an unnecessary
component.
I noticed a massive improvement in Armed Assault for example when swapping
my dual core for a quad core even though Armed Assault is NOT specially
written for multi core. With the dual core I had to set the view distance to
only 3Km.. with the quadcore I can run happily with a view distance of
6-8km... with the same graphics card!
Yes - to "showcase" system performance, there's a balance of best
tuning the GPU/CPU as a combo for a least bottleneck. There's also
got to be a reason, though, for the 4-core improvements -- measurably
so, whether with the same graphics board, its as much inherent to an
improved CPU design the OS is in no sense obstructing.
Who wants SLI or CrossFire anyway? They are a total waste of money. They
cost more than twice as much and offer only a little more performance! You
don't need SLI or Crossfire for a reasonable gaming PC.
I'm not the one to be asking, as I wouldn't in my wildest dreams
consider specialty video boards a viable course. What's ticking me
off, though, about MBs is they're increasingly the high-point of MB
directions. Want a better MB, then that means, you're looking
exclusively at a bunch of video advertising.
1. What has the Vista backlash got to do with it? XP is just as multicore as
Vista.
No, not what I'm hearing. Vista is more situated to take advantage of
the multi-core.
No, all I was saying -- within a context of the OP's exectations, is
an AGP upgrade coming off a 2.6Ghz CPU should be reasonably sufficient
improvement for quite a core cadre of extant games. Obviously, the
latest and greatest octal-core game programming advancements will take
a hit. Although I'm also running both my system's with Radeon>Omega
AGP flatpannel television 9XXX drivers, there's no hit for non-gaming
video streaming, which mostly suffices for "video" I do these days
(excepions being MKV format files, although that could be a video
player driver engine issue). My parts list, enroute, is a basic
config, further, to utilize its PCIEx16 and a multicore, I'd wagered
(against yours) I could, in addition, "splurge" a little, within $80,
comfortably for a hypothetic instead advanced: *were I* to substitute
and buy a multi-core (or even faster single core if any are left on
the market?), as well utilize and buy a videoboard, to put into
Gigabyte's PCI-E slot, instead of its onboard NVIDIA chipset -- for a
viable gaming system. All this is new, multi-cores and PCI-E, at this
point to me. I'm a couple of generations behind hardware
developments, although I wouldn't exactly expect "great balls of
thunder" out of it, either -- given experience, just a cheap-shot way
into games. His choice of running with Farmer in the DELL, however,
throws all bets off. I've never touched a system I didn't, myself,
build.
Even budget mobos today come with onboard sound and LAN connections, thus
removing the need for two addon cards. If you look around you will find
mobos for reasonable prices with 4-5 PCI slots.
4-5 PCI slots. Ha! 3, possibly, four is pushing to untenable. You
can look. I've had it and already have consigned myself to just
getting along with fewer.
I have been building my own PCs since the era of the 386 and I don't agree
that motherboards are in general any more expensive, in real terms, than
they were 5, 10 or 15 years ago. Yes you can spend stupid amounts of money
on a top end mobo, but also you can get a very good mobo for reasonable
money.
Tell me about it. My first build was V20 I swapped, above 640K of
memory, in and out of EMS 3.2 through an AST Rampage. Ever heard of a
technical writer named Michael Bolton? There may be a few here who
have.
Yes.. I suggested components of that general outlay. For one simple reason!
That is where I believe the best bang for buck point is in the current range
on offer. The system I suggested is FAR more capable than that you are
suggesting.
I did purposefully suggest "a weight of individual importance" to
qualify gaming;- obviously, inasmuch that by far and capable, then
wouldn't be within same leeway I'd care, monetarily or otherwise, to
expend into a import gaming signifies.
I believe you are making false economies by buying cheap components that are
already obsolescent. If your system isn't up to the job (and I content it
isn't) then your $116 is simply wasted!
Wouldn't it be grand if it were -- Armed Assault 2 and Operation
Flashpoint 2, mind, aren't likely the only games in town, for some
otherwise perfectly playable games which not be so endowed. I'd need
a broader assessment of games in general to substantiate a multi-core
premise, as you're advancing, of preference. The logical behind my
argument still stands: what's going to be so convincingly different to
a singular game screen, between a single core which is faster than
multiple cores.
Resonable, 2Gb is OK, but RAM is cheap at the moment so why not get 4Gb?
I'm cheap-assed.
Hmmm... Multi-colour case fans... I rest my case!
Look again - they're the only fans permitted me that don't bump the
tariff off free shipping. I'm a firm believer in cooling as the least
detrimental factor to a PC's longevity.
Just not up to the job. I have a Athlon 64 2.4GHz machine here which I use
for work. It will just about run SWAT 4 but Armed Assault and Supreme
Commander are unplayable.
See #1, although a dual-core was sorely tempting. Really, though,
duallies are getting cheaper by the dozen every day, and its a later
option.
A GeForce 6100 is totally underpowered to play most of the major games
nowadays. It is FOUR generations behind the current cards. The mobo may be
OK, but the onboard graphics fall woefully short of that a "Gaming" PC
requires.
See #1 & #3.
If it doesn't meet the specification of being a "gaming machine", i.e. able
to play games, then that is just $131.95 wasted!
I remain yours truly, an unconvinced Flasherly.
