PSU PC System Requirements on Sega JP site !

[uhawww]

On 2005-11-28 04:49, lostinseganet wrote:

On 2005-11-27 21:16, Nites wrote:
When AMD processors are rated 1600+
It means that it can run at the same speed of a standard processor that has 1.6ghz.

AMD technology is based on that through the smaller use of pipelines in their cpus... they can achieve a greater clock speed that way where as Intel is the opposite. Both valid ways to make faster processors.

In other words.. you CPU is fine.

That is not what I have been reading from most other sites. Like this one.
http://www.amdpower.com/sections.php...ticle&artid=53

Yup.
AMD clock speeds are not directly related to its model number.
My machine has an AMD Athlon64 3200+, and OC'd I'm only pushing 2.4 GHz.
If I remember correctly, the comparative speed really comes from an increased pipeline bandwidth to the CPU (AMD's method of speed and performance increase), as opposed to throwing raw Hertz value at computation.

[DamonKatu]

What types of Graphic cards are recomended? I have a GeFourse 4 moddle in my computer but Im sure their are better GC than that plus some school made this one. But it runs very well.

[Shade-]

*snip other quotes*

Yup.
AMD clock speeds are not directly related to its model number.
My machine has an AMD Athlon64 3200+, and OC'd I'm only pushing 2.4 GHz.
If I remember correctly, the comparative speed really comes from an increased pipeline bandwidth to the CPU (AMD's method of speed and performance increase), as opposed to throwing raw Hertz value at computation.

But run that CPU against a P4 3.2 and your CPU will destroy it (ok, maybe not destroy...) in most catagories. As far as I understand, the modle number isn't supposed to be used as a hard value of the speed, but using it as a comparitive measure is pretty good. Basicly, the AMD 64s will prefrom almost twice as fast as the clock speed when compared to an Intel chip.

Really, I think the industry is realizing that the Intel cards aren't really THAT good. (not in any way saying they are bad) They get these huge numbers, but they are not efficent at using them at all. Whereas the other guys like AMD and other smaller companies are developing processors that outpreform the Intel cards with a fraction of the clock speed. (my friend worked with a processor that was clocked at about 1GH, and it was far superior to a P4 3.2ish GH in the tests they ran.)

[lostinseganet]

But run that CPU against a P4 3.2 and your CPU will destroy it (ok, maybe not destroy...) in most catagories. As far as I understand, the modle number isn't supposed to be used as a hard value of the speed, but using it as a comparitive measure is pretty good. Basicly, the AMD 64s will prefrom almost twice as fast as the clock speed when compared to an Intel chip.

Really, I think the industry is realizing that the Intel cards aren't really THAT good. (not in any way saying they are bad) They get these huge numbers, but they are not efficent at using them at all. Whereas the other guys like AMD and other smaller companies are developing processors that outpreform the Intel cards with a fraction of the clock speed. (my friend worked with a processor that was clocked at about 1GH, and it was far superior to a P4 3.2ish GH in the tests they ran.)

Do you know where I can read some articles that support what you said?

[uhawww]

On 2005-11-28 09:39, lostinseganet wrote:

Do you know where I can read some articles that support what you said?

Good 'ole HardOCP..



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: uhawww on 2005-11-28 10:20 ]</font>

[DamonKatu]

(waits quitely and see whats the fuss is all about. HE still unsure what to say)

[Para]

just trust me on that part of about your CPU.
Its fine.

Even if it says it can run at a speed of 2.0ghz its an overexaggeration. The reason why they say 1600+ is because it can run at the same speed as a 1.6ghz and possibly higher (the + indicates this part) but just to be safe, think of it as 1.6ghz.

[GaijinPUnch]

People can fix up benchmark tests wherever they want. There is no magical CPU out there that goes 8x faster than it's competition. If you bought your computer new in the last three years, the CPU is most likely fine. Just spend $200 on a nice medium-end graphics card and you'll be golden.

[uhawww]

On 2005-11-28 22:44, GaijinPUnch wrote:
People can fix up benchmark tests wherever they want. There is no magical CPU out there that goes 8x faster than it's competition. If you bought your computer new in the last three years, the CPU is most likely fine. Just spend $200 on a nice medium-end graphics card and you'll be golden.

In the end, this is the simple truth.
Nearly any P4/Athlon will work, focus on GFX.

[Mystil]

That's a good sign though. It means no more switching discs during install. Many games are going that way because it is cheaper to produce 1 DVD for the work of 5 CDs. That and you can get a simple DVD-ROM drive for, well, free often times.

FFXI is 5 got darn discs -.-. Kudos for DVD. Phew..glad I got a DVD drive.

On 2005-11-28 07:34, DamonKatu wrote:
What types of Graphic cards are recomended? I have a GeFourse 4 moddle in my computer but Im sure their are better GC than that plus some school made this one. But it runs very well.

GF4 is fine. 64MB is usually minimum requirement to run most online games. What matters most in my opinion is RAM. Your OS is going to eat a good bit, so add a high powered game with that and only 250RAM and you may only have 50-70RAM remaining. S L O W.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Silhouette on 2005-11-29 08:01 ]</font>