Serephim Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 Last post Hey, my dad just stright impulse-bought a new computer, and since im quite ignorant on the specifics of Vista and multi processors, i would just like some clarification. The processor we got is a dual processor, 1.6GHz. Does that make my computer technically have 3.2GHz of horsepower? Im told that the program has to be dual processor compatible to even use that speed, so im not sure if i should be worried this will affect anything. (Mostly gaming.) Btw, it didnt come with a graphics card, so we're thinking about just picking up the GeForce 8600/8800. And im really hoping this shit will be able to run mai UT and PSU at a damn decent speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimensionWarped Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 dual processors or dual core processor? Frankly, dual processors aren't very common for home computers, so I'm thinking that you are talking about dual core... Anyway, theoretically, if you have a dual core processor, you do have twice the overall operations per cycle. In practice however, you will never get quite so much performance increase out of it or even really close to as much for anything aside from the most um... mathematical (for lack of better words) functions like compression/decompression or rendering. A well programmed game for dual core will get considerable advantage out of it, but never the full performance of having a second core... the division of labor just isn't that perfect. I recommend the 8800 GT (512 megs). Its cheap comparably and it kicks nine kinds of ass. As for my experiences with Vista... oi. It's a mixed bag. Expect crashes in high volume and you should probably start looking into getting your drivers up to date asap. On the topic of the games you mentioned... PSU to the best of my knowledge makes no use whatsoever of a dual core processor (and by extension, dual processors). If you are referring to UT2k4, I don't believe it does either. I know UT3 does though. 1.6ghz is a rather low clockrate, but if its dual core, that doesn't really mean as much as it would if say... it were a Pentium 4 or *shivers* a Celeron of the same clockspeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shadix Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 Core 2 Duo > Dual Core. Also, remember in this day in age processor speed =\= processor power. Processors can clock in a lot slower and be capable of alot more (as is the case with most AMD chips). DW: Don't you run 64-bit vista though? I've had next to no crashes OS crashes, but then again this laptop was designed "VISTA READY". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimensionWarped Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 My OS crashes about every week or so. Sometimes its an actual OS crash, sometimes its the result of something else. On the other hand, I have done numerous bios tweaks and have even made frequent use of unsigned 3rd party drivers. Still, these stability problems are hardly new. I've been having BSODs since I got this computer. It might be motherboard related though. Who knows. All that I do know is that my experiences with XP were a lot cleaner. Just to put things into perspective though... Hardware wise though, its definitely made for Vista. The mobo uses the nForce 680 chipset. The graphics card is an 8800GT, which is probably the best not-horrendously-overpriced DX10 graphics card available right now. The ram as near as I can tell from my numerous memory tests is up to spec and doesn't have any failures. Performance has been on the up and up though ever since NVidia last updated their driver collection for 64 bit Vista and when I set my bios to stop using power saving features, I fixed a number of problems which would cause a video-related crash. Also, Shadix, Core 2 duo = Dual Core. Core 2 Duo is a type of dual core processor afterall. But my Core 2 Quad trumps every Dual Core when I can actually use it Which is to say... almost never -___- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shadix Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 DW: I'm talking about Intel's chip brandings. There is actually a "Dual Core" processor which is not a "Core Duo\Core 2 Duo", and the processor sucks in comparison. It's actually their latest entry in the "pentium" branding line, however this chip is more geared for lowerend computers, and I'm almost certain that is what Sereph is inquiring about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serephim Posted February 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 Naw DW, you read correctly, Dual processors or Dual Core. (the specs say Dual-core, and when i put in the graphics card i only saw one heatsink/fan, so im guessing it is a dual-core processor.) Okay, we got the computer, and wow im happy right now. Specs: Vista home-premium-something i dunno Intel Pentium Dual-core 1.8GHz (im still not sure if this means its 1.8GHz or 3.6GHz, but i dont seem to get much problems so far.) 500 gig harddrive 3 gigs of ram NiVida Geforce 8600 GTS (Oh my god. Im in love. We most likely would have gotten the 8800 if Best Buy had one in stock. The 8600 was $249.99, but that day it was half off (for reasons i dont know), so we got it for around $120.) And other random crap, lightscribe dual-layer DVD burner, blah blah... I installed F.E.A.R. and Black & White 2 on this thing after installing the 8600 GTS, and oh my GOD this graphics card can fucking work. I can run both FEAR and B&W2 on max specs and resolution with absouletely zero framerate problems. My old PC with the Geforce 6100 frequently had crash problems with the game, even on lowest specs and resolution. At this point im quite positive i can run almost any game out there with this graphics card, the only thing that would possibly hinder this computer's graphical performance would be the processor that im still quite ignorant of. (however i believe this card has a GPU in it, if that helps anything.) Later on this month we may purchase Gears of War, as im very curious how it would perform. However i think on the box the recommended graphics card was a GeForce 7200 or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimensionWarped Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 EDIT: Nevermind, at that price I can't say that. Anyway, what you are reading is a 1.6ghz clockrate. That means that both cores each run at 1.6ghz... so 3.2 ghz, but again, only for certain purposes! But don't pay too much attention to the clock rate. It isn't a good indication of your overall workload. I know for instance that a 1.6ghz AMD X2 processor wouldn't be bad. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serephim Posted February 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 Well regardless this is a great oppertunity for me to not only to have really awesome online gaming experiences but to also finally do some of the things ive always wanted to learn to do but lacked the computer to. (modeling, 3D programing, ect ect.) All i need now is a Graphics Pad and im set. Thanks for the clarification, guys. Rep i guess. Oh by the way, each processor is running 1.8, not 1.6. I still hear that two processors are potentally alot better, since you can replace them with 2 Dual-core processors and basically have 4 running inside your computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimensionWarped Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 Um... don't count on having dual dual-core processors in consumer-grade computers anytime soon :M You might want to AIM me so that you don't end up getting the wrong 3D modeling software. A lot of it won't work with Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serephim Posted February 17, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Oh hey after about a week of this, i thought id give a nice little quick review on Windows Vista. Dont get it. It fucking sucks. Its about as stable as Windows ME on Virus crack.. The only cool thing about it is its neat interface, but HELL if you'll ever get to use it, thanks to the fact that microsoft tries to involve itself in EVERY fucking thing you click. I would be far better off with XP. This thing crashes like every day at LEAST three times. Im sure most of the problems are coming from the different accounts n shit, but it doesnt matter. At least my games are running perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 I have the exact opposite problem. I can run any .exe EXCEPT for games. Running emulators, MMF games, and store bought games will ALWAYS crash the computer after 30 minutes or so of playing. It's driving me nuts. I've been looking for some kind of patch or something to fix it forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asuma Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Dual boot XP. Or wait for the SP1 Vista patch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimensionWarped Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Or download the SP1 release candidate right now... Anyway, I was having massive stability issues until just recently. In fact, multiple crashes in a single day was pretty common place until a very recent surge of driver updates for everything and some bios tweaks on my part. Since then, I've had no crashes whatsoever in the past 7 days, which have included heavy gaming under every category from Simcity 4 to Hellgate London and just about everything in between. Windows Vista takes work to get working. It sucks until you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthFettDude607 Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 ima b srsly 4 a sex here. Vista is complete ass. Even though it is entirely possible to get it working stable and efficient, it is plagued by lackluster performance compared to XP. In the case of games, for instance, most DX9 games can be tweaked to use the graphical features that are allegedly DX10 "exclusive", and still retain 5-10% more performance. Vista has potential, and the release of their first service pack will likely solve a ton of issues, but it simply isn't worth the trouble or money. Do yourself a favor and downgrade back to XP, or at the very least go 32bit on Vista (64bit takes advantage of some hardware, but a lot of games and apps tend to act screwy on 64bit OS's). You'll be glad you did, as the advantages in using Vista over XP (insofar as my experience using it has lead me to believe) are little to none. k dats all lolz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1LT Worm Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 I was trying to set up my landlady's new laptop up last night, and during the hour I slowly learned why everyone hates Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epon Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 I have had my laptop for over 6 months now with the pre-installed Vista Home Premium and have had ZERO problems with it. As a computer scientist who is constantly taking classes that involve different compilers, IDEs, and whathaveyou, there never once has been an issue of lack of satisfaction. Short of the fact that programming in x86 ASM in Mode 13 requires full screen mode, I simply installed DOSBox and my problems were solved. I don't play video games on my computer, and if I do, I play Worms against my roommate. No problems there. My laptop was built for Vista and it fucks girls like it should: rough and long with lots of lube. My point is simple, if you have a machine that you paid 500 bucks for and its barely meeting the requirements for Vista, shut the fuck up. I understand that there's issues with some of the network stuff, but I haven't experienced it and neither have a lot of people that I know. The things been out for a year, so if you "upgraded" to Vista for a couple hundred bucks, then you're an asshole for doing that. If you got a laptop that says "Windows XP, Vista Capable" and you installed it, you're also an asshole. This is the real world where shit doesn't always perfectly work. Yeah, it should, I know, especially if you pay a lot for it. Wanna know how to fix it? DON'T BE A FUCKING ASSHOLE AND PURCHASE IT. So, again, let's recap: Epon doesn't have issues with Vista. His laptop has crashed less than 5 times in the past 6 months. Everyone else sucks penis. ::shrugs:: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epon Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 PS if you don't like User Access Control (UAC), turn it off. I forgot that everyone needs their fucking hand held when it comes to shit that bothers them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamerdude Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 I agree with Epon. According to my reliability logs, I have had 10 Windows failure crashes since I installed Vista: two of which were due to faulty memory and two of which were my own screwing around with things. So, in total, Vista legitimately crashed six times since January 31st 2007. That's just less than a crash every two months. I do all kinds of stuff: video/audio encoding, games, internet surfing, emulators, movie watching, programming, etc. If a computer can do it, I've probably done it since I've gotten Vista. For me, Vista is leaps and bounds over XP. Granted, I have a very powerful system, however, like Epon said, if you have a computer barely meeting Vista's minimum requirements...well, then that's why. I would say a computer with around 2gb of memory, a decent video card, and a mid-range dual-core processor should run Vista as smooth as butter. Turn off UAC and let the fun begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimensionWarped Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Epon doesn't have issues with Vista. His laptop has crashed less than 5 times in the past 6 months.Everyone else sucks penis. ::shrugs:: I have a computer with Vista preinstalled, and I had plenty of issues starting out. Might be because I'm using 64-bit Vista. Anyway, I've fixed them since then for the most part. That said, I can certainly understand why most people are put off by it. Oh, and my hardware is better than yours. Suck it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodee Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Yeah, I used a beta of Vista awhile back and it was pretty miserable, but I just built a new rig in December and grabbed Vista with it, and it works absolutely fine, no problems pertaining to the OS itself, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serephim Posted February 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 I have had my laptop for over 6 months now with the pre-installed Vista Home Premium and have had ZERO problems with it. As a computer scientist who is constantly taking classes that involve different compilers, IDEs, and whathaveyou, there never once has been an issue of lack of satisfaction.Short of the fact that programming in x86 ASM in Mode 13 requires full screen mode, I simply installed DOSBox and my problems were solved. I don't play video games on my computer, and if I do, I play Worms against my roommate. No problems there. My laptop was built for Vista and it fucks girls like it should: rough and long with lots of lube. My point is simple, if you have a machine that you paid 500 bucks for and its barely meeting the requirements for Vista, shut the fuck up. I understand that there's issues with some of the network stuff, but I haven't experienced it and neither have a lot of people that I know. The things been out for a year, so if you "upgraded" to Vista for a couple hundred bucks, then you're an asshole for doing that. If you got a laptop that says "Windows XP, Vista Capable" and you installed it, you're also an asshole. This is the real world where shit doesn't always perfectly work. Yeah, it should, I know, especially if you pay a lot for it. Wanna know how to fix it? DON'T BE A FUCKING ASSHOLE AND PURCHASE IT. So, again, let's recap: Epon doesn't have issues with Vista. His laptop has crashed less than 5 times in the past 6 months. Everyone else sucks penis. ::shrugs:: right it fucking sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckythemutant Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Vista is fine and dandy if it works, but I think the focal point here is that if you have XP, you shouldn't waste your time or money bothering with Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shadix Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Unless of course you have a lovely computer like mine that works so well with Vista your XP would blush. (and I mean really blush... This thing is like 10x more indestructable than XP ever was for me, and Vista knows how to actually handle itself instead of whining and flooding pretty much everything and shit in the unlikely event something crashes. The fact that it will actually END THE PROCESS now and isolate the problem is very nice, so lockups caused by programs overloading never happen anymore.) TBH though, this is really just a glorified repeat of what happened when XP came out (Remember all those idiots that were clinging onto the horrendous Win98SE like madmen because XP had pretty much the same issues with hardware and compatibility?). Give it a couple years and it'll be the new standard once technology sort of catches up with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowgoten Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 TBH though, this is really just a glorified repeat of what happened when XP came out (Remember all those idiots that were clinging onto the horrendous Win98SE like madmen because XP had pretty much the same issues with hardware and compatibility?). You mean the gloriously stable Windows 2k? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthFettDude607 Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 You mean the gloriously stable Windows 2k? jon is liek teh messiah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts