How much CPU is needed?

I'm looking to upgrade my old PII. For sims like GPL and N4 or N2003, how much difference would I see between a 2.6 GHz and a 3.0 GHz? Enough to justify the extra $200 for the 3.0?

The hyperthreading can help, but not as much as making sure you have a good vid card as well. AT LEAST a GF4 Ti4200 or higher. HT technology on Win2K Pro or XP Pro can show some real world improvements "PowerPost 2000" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'm looking to upgrade my old PII. > For sims like GPL and N4 or N2003, how much difference would I see > between a 2.6 GHz and a 3.0 GHz? Enough to justify the extra $200 for > the 3.0?

"Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:u9Rab.146061$[email hidden]... > The hyperthreading can help, but not as much as making sure you have agood > vid card as well. AT LEAST a GF4 Ti4200 or higher. HT technology onWin2K

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Pro or XP Pro can show some real world improvements > "PowerPost 2000" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I'm looking to upgrade my old PII. > > For sims like GPL and N4 or N2003, how much difference would I see > > between a 2.6 GHz and a 3.0 GHz? Enough to justify the extra $200 for > > the 3.0?

If you compare any PII to any modern chip you'll see a big improvement all-round, and you'll be very happy with the 2.6. If you rarely upgrade I'd suggest you go for the best *you can afford*. It'll probably need to last you as long as your PII has, but personally I'd spend the $200 on a better graphics card since they have a shorter useful life-span. In the past 5 years or so I've upgraded the CPU three times, but I've had seven graphics cards in that time. I only tend to upgrade when I need to. Malc.

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 04:53:54 GMT, PowerPost 2000 <[email hidden]> wrote: >I'm looking to upgrade my old PII. >For sims like GPL and N4 or N2003, how much difference would I see >between a 2.6 GHz and a 3.0 GHz? Enough to justify the extra $200 for >the 3.0? Go AMD and save a lot more. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

Go for an AMD xp2800 runs at xp3400 all day long and then buy the top graphic card, Ati 9800 Pro would make you a very happy man. All for less than a 3Ghz Intel with mid range card and faster :) AD

PowerPost 2000 <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: > I'm looking to upgrade my old PII. > For sims like GPL and N4 or N2003, how much difference would I see > between a 2.6 GHz and a 3.0 GHz? Enough to justify the extra $200 for > the 3.0?The difference is very small. Even for pure in-proc operations that's only 15% difference, in reality overall performance will often be limited by bottlenecks in other places. Anyway after overclocking both will probably run about the same speed. Alex.

Where you live perhaps AMD is cheaper spamtrap. Where I live (silicon valley) there is virtually no price difference between AMD and Intel. If you compare actual clock speed instead of AMD's "rated" speeds you can really see what Im talking about. Intel has an 800MHz FSB and is Hyperthreaded. I noticed quite a performance gain going from a 2.53gig 533fsb to a 2.6-800HT. Of course you need a OS that supports multiple cpu's (win2k winxp-pro). AMD is falling behind intel in terms of price/performance ratios. If youre on a budget or high performance isnt a pre-requisite then maybe an AMD will suit but intel has similar. Mitch <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 04:53:54 GMT, PowerPost 2000 <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I'm looking to upgrade my old PII. > >For sims like GPL and N4 or N2003, how much difference would I see > >between a 2.6 GHz and a 3.0 GHz? Enough to justify the extra $200 for > >the 3.0? > > Go AMD and save a lot more. > -- > Andrew. To email unscramble

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 17:08:33 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Where you live perhaps AMD is cheaper spamtrap. The name is Andrew, as per the .sig. > Where I live (silicon >valley) there is virtually no price difference between AMD and Intel. If >you compare actual clock speed instead of AMD's "rated" speeds you can >really see what Im talking about. Intel has an 800MHz FSB and is Except that you *cannot* compare AMD and Intel on clock speeds. The AMD XP processors are definitely faster than their Intel counterparts. Intel Processors do start to outstrip the top end Athlon XP's which is where AMD's naming convention breaks down a bit. >AMD is falling behind intel in terms of price/performance ratios. If youre >on a budget or high performance isnt a pre-requisite then maybe an AMD will >suit but intel has similar. >For the XP2500's-XP2800 are great performers and have far better price/performance ratio. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

The name is Andrew, as per the .sig. Except that you *cannot* compare AMD and Intel on clock speeds. The AMD XP processors are definitely faster than their Intel counterparts. Intel Processors do start to outstrip the top end Athlon XP's which is where AMD's naming convention breaks down a bit. For the XP2500's-XP2800 are great performers and have far better price/performance ratio. -- Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

spamtrap@localhost wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Except that you *cannot* compare AMD and Intel on clock speeds. The > AMD XP processors are definitely faster than their Intel counterparts. > Intel Processors do start to outstrip the top end Athlon XP's which is > where AMD's naming convention breaks down a bit. > > >AMD is falling behind intel in terms of price/performance ratios. If youre > >on a budget or high performance isnt a pre-requisite then maybe an AMD will > >suit but intel has similar. > > > For the XP2500's-XP2800 are great performers and have far better > price/performance ratio.

The XP2500+ is a great CPU for the price, above that I'd go for a P4-"C", probably a 2.4 since it performs about on par with a 2800+ according to most benchmarks, like these http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030521/index.html http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834&p=1 and costs roughly the same according to Pricewatch, around 165-180 dollars, anything below that and I'd go AMD, but from there and up I'd go Intel Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

In article <[email hidden]>, PowerPost 2000 says... > I'm looking to upgrade my old PII. > For sims like GPL and N4 or N2003, how much difference would I see > between a 2.6 GHz and a 3.0 GHz? Enough to justify the extra $200 for > the 3.0? IMHO no. Spend the $100-200 extra on a better graphics card, and overclock your 2.6 to 3.0 :) There, problem solved. -- Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. ICQ: 138579247