Each core has the cappability of running at 2.8GHz.
If you have an application that's using multi-threading, and it's the only application running, it can run up to 11,2GHz in an ideal environment, meaning no other thing is using up any resources(which never happens, because of the OS and other applications, plus you need to take into account the CPU juice needed to actually do multi-threading, etc.)
The bottleneck in such a system is usualy the memory, AFAIK, Intel C2D, Q2D are lacking in memory access, because they're using all banks for all cores, while I7 and already Opteron before had a way to assing each core it's own bank of memory, thus speeding up memory access. But those are milliseconds, which you'll never benefit from in running games. Unless you're running the "heaviest" game and all that(duke nukem forever, for example)
I doubt that it was meant as I joke, but sorry xfirestorm, you are nowhere nearer the truth than Whiskey. CPU frequency is by no means a measure of CPU performance. You can use frequency to compare pefrormance of CPU's with exactly the same architecture, so P3 at 600MHz would be slower than P3 at 700MHz by 16%, assuming they are both based on the same core version (Coppermine for example)
Core2 CPU's have far more advanced architecture than P4, so even a purely single thread application (single thread apps can effectively use one core only) would run faster on 2.4GHz Core2 than on 3.2GHz P4.
Quote me, where I said CPU is the only measure of CPU performance.
Further more, you pointed out the obvious, but still didn't even go near the first "question" of this "cpu tech talk".
No one never said about anything about comparing CPUs.
And an single-thread application running on multi-core CPU isn't running faster just because of "teh aw may gawt" new technology in C2D, but because the application can be run at one core, while other things can be ran in another, thus taking the load of the core that is actually used to compute for that application.
You are still wrong, even if the application supports multi-threading it still isn't using 11Ghz. It is using 2.8Ghz, but the work is divided into 4 (or 2) cores.
Let's say as a example, that a core is a hand and you have to do a job. With 1 hand you do the job slowly, but if you've got 4 hands you do the job much faster but your hands still work at a normal speed.
Ok...
Let's take LFS in to example, and let's prettend it's supporting multi-threading.
It's using 1 thread for graphics interface, 1 thread for game calculations, like tyre deformation, suspenssion simulation etc. And 1 thread for each network connection(you're running an non-dedi server)
You have 6 cores, each juicing at 3GHz.
Let's also pretend the game is heavy on calculations and network usses intense amount of resources.
The GFX interface is using one core at 2.5GHz, the calculations are using up the second core at 2.5GHz, and you also have 3 connections up to you, each using 1 core at 2.5GHz.
Is the whole game using up more then 3GHz or not?
Why then invent multi-threading, multi-core CPUs, multi-CPU systems etc. if you don't benefit from it? If it was still running at the speed of only one core, then no one would care about multi-threading, and no one would bug around with it, I can tell you, it's a hell of a hard "thing" to debug(and to design as well), and trust me, you will have to debug it.
I believe my example was a perfect explaination of multi-core processors. We benefit from multi core processors because the job/calculations are divided by the number of cores and each core does a part of the job. a quad core procesor would process a job 4 times faster than a single core processor.
Because pics say more than a thousand of words. This is how we benefit from multi core processors.
4 core processor with hyper-threading (intel i7): a example of a multi core processor, the intel i7. It has 4 cores and each core is HT'ed making a total of 8 threads. The whole job is divided into 8. It would take 1 min 25 seconds to render the scene: http://www.legitreviews.com/im ... views/661/cinebench10.jpg
LMAO. remember them pandas??? they would only do 20mph in 4x4
my grandad had one, it had a callender where the speedo should be.
anyways i dont get it? this pc jargon! thanks for trying to help , but
im just not clued up enough
besides it seems like its a never ending cycle? one person recomends one thing, another person says bullshit do it like this.....blah blahh cant you peeps just agree?? quad core... is it 4x cpu? say each at 2.8ghz is it 4x 2.8ghz = 11.2ghz cpu speed or whatever?
11.2ghz does seem like some powerfull shit tho
anyways i really dunno what im talking about so ill stop
11.2GHZ would be the performance rating.
this doesn't mean that the chip runs at this speed. the old phrase "two heads are better than one" comes to mind. or four heads in this case.
for your budget. the parts i linked you to would be more than enough for your needs. i even saved you £100.
you could use the £100 to go from duel core to quad core but in terms of LFS. there wouldn't be any difference except the weight of your wallet.
kimd41, nice pics...
But you're still wrong. A multi-core CPU, no matter what OS, no matter what app(as long as it's single threaded) will still run in only one core. Why? How the hell will the OS know when to run some operation, so it wont run before an operation that needs to be run in the first place? So it will run at one core speed only
If you have an application supporting multi-threading, the programmer who's written the application programmed those limitations into the program it self, so that operation D doesn't run before operation C, thus failing, because it needed some data from C. But it can run different operations that aren't depending on data from other operations, thus speeding up the proccess. If you want to convert it to time. You have operations:
-A independent
-B dependent from A
-C independent
-D dependent from C
each operation finishes in 2 seconds, on a single core you get:
A first - 2s
B second - 2s
C third - 2s
D fourth - 2s
4*2s = 8s
On a multi core you get:
A and C first - 2s
B and D second - 2s
2*2s = 4s
Is it running faster? Sure as hell it is. Is it because a fairy godmother came from the sky and did magic? No, because you can use the speed of one core and the other AT THE SAME DAMN TIME, thus multiplying the overall speed of the processing unit(if you're using multi-threads)
As far as cars are controls, and I'll pump it up a little bit. If you push in 2 V8 engines into a trunk, they wont produce more power, and wont "create" a W16. But you also don't just put two cores onto a board and say work you worthless piece of s*****.
But if you take it on carefully and create tecnology that is capable of using the power from both of the engines, you get a W16 and far more power. Similar in CPU world, if you take care and create technology that is capable of using the power from both of the cores, you get a dual-core CPU and far more power.
I suppose a beowulf consisting of 10 machines, each with (single-core) 1000MHz CPUs still all work together only as 1000MHz...based on your thinking, that would be it.
I'm done here talking about computers... *facepalm*
when did we start talking about servers and clusters? but sure, i'll bite.
until software is written to take agvantage of the 10 machines then yes.
which is very similar to LFS. since LFS only uses one core. having 4 cores @ 2.8GHZ or 11.5GHZ (combined) is irrelevent. even if LFS was installed on the computer on the star ship enterprise, it would still only use one core.
the guy wanted a system to play LFS. he didn't ask for HAL.
sure as hell it's not. the workload is split between the cores. but the cores are still running at the same speed. it's just that there's more of them.
First of all, I am NOT wrong because all I said is true.
Second, I don't need the obvious to be stated. Of course a non multi-core optimized system will use one core.
The underlined text of your post is the same thing I explained in my previous post.
Then again, the bold part is half wrong. Multi core does NOT multiply the total speed of the processor. Yes, it does make the processing faster (in time) because each core does it's job but it NOT make it run like 11.2Ghz
I quit discussing because there's no point in repeating the same thing over and over.
@hankevans83: Get the parts dadge suggested, they're good.
1 ok so this is stupid question but is this anti-aliasing feature in lfs??
or gfx feature? must be gfx cos i aint seen it in lfs
2 do you generaly see increase in fps if you run lfs in window mode?
im just trying to squeze a few more fps out of my current piece of junk pc so i can properly configure my new dfgt
ok, this bit is going to be fun.
65D is able to run LFS smoothly with those specs due to the resolution he is running. 1024x768. he's probs using a 17" monitor. but we don't know if he's using 16bit textures rather than 32bit. we also don't know what quallity settings he is using.
you have a 32" monitor/tv which will be using a bigger resolution. i don't think his system could run LFS smoothly using your monitor/tvs resolution due to more pixels being drawn on the screen.
but yeah, stick LFS on a <20" monitor and you'd be surprised at how little you actually need to run LFS.
ok so ive always (well not allways) have a problem with lfs in full screen mode i was hitting some buttons one in the (screen) tab one day trying to squeeze them few fps when i hit a button my lcd couldnt support i guess my screen went black and now i have to run window mode!!!
i could fix this by runing window mode changing to a setting that my tv does support and switching back to fullscreen till it works right? but heres the thing lfs dosent support 50hz looking at my tv it is 50hz?
i am currently using 1280x960 (32) bit 60hz??
oh my windows resolution is the same to cant seem to get it any higher?
i think i have a driver problem maybe?
so blahh blahh ill look for a driver and stuff, but what might be correct settings for my lcd, will runnig (16 bit) get me an increase in fps? i know it will look shieeet but i aint that botherd for now!!! oh and i just measured it for sure and its 30" not 32" its an old one ........toshiba too lol
16bit will help but nothing massive. shift+f10,f11 or f12 will change your resolution too. you can also assign those keys to only change to a resolution your monitor supports.
shift+F4 will change from full screen to windowed mode.
reduce your draw distance to about 100m. also crank up dynamic LOD reduction.
WOW!!! simply switching to 16 bit is twice as good
still shit like but i saw a dizzy 33 fps with 25 fps on average if i moddify the custon cam to show no wheels body
sorted out my fullscreen problem too!!
it will have to do for a couple of days!!
well i bought this pc off a friend for £50 and then 70 on the 8600gt i put in it and it runs lfs perfectly. so maybe a 300-400 quid pc could do u very fine. this also runs COD MW2 absolutely...well i wouldnt say absolutely fine but its far from unplayable. not everyone has deep pockets so just do a little bit of research and you will find something that will come up trumps.
If I understood your first question correctly, I have tried both anti-aliasing, Live For Speed's own anti-aliasing and from ATi's Catalyst Control Center. In both cases I get same frames.
I spawned with FOX to WE1 with window mode, 57-61fps. I pressed Shift + F4, it changed to full screen, 56-63fps. So difference is very little.
I'm using 15,4'' monitor. I don't use 16bit, they're just too ugly. Now I checked again my resolution what I was using, it's 1280x768. And I tried 16bit of that resolution, fps increased from 60 to 78. And my full settings you can check in attached image.
btw, my computer is very poor and slow and I'm really frustrated cause of it.
, but
when i hit a button my lcd couldnt support i guess 
my screen went black and now i have to run window mode!!!
lol