processor question

[ares416]

<p>I am looking into upgrading from an AMD X2 3800 </p><p>I'm running windows XP with 2 Gigs of ram.</p><p>Video - 7600 gt in SLI - also thinking of upgrading to single 9600gt or 8800 gts soon. I'm not noticing much benefit from the SLi but I did get the new card at the same time as a LCD monitor with higher res to handle.</p><p>Would I notice much difference if I get an AMD 5600? It's like $50 more for an AMD 6400, would it be worth it? I think that's the highest my motherboard can support.</p><p>Thanks!</p>

[Cassea]

Currently EQ2 does much of the graphics with your CPU instead of your video card. It also will only use one core of a multi-core CPU.Having said this (if all you care about is EQ2 performance) you want the fastest "MHZ" CPU you can get....In other words...A quad (4) core 2500mhz CPU will run EQ2 slower than a dual (2) core 2800mhz CPU.As far as video goes... you will see some boost if you run at higher resolutions but not as much as you would expect.If you have an AM2 motherboard I would strongly recommend one of the AMD "Black Editions" as they are cleap and unlocked... IE you can set them to whatever speed you want and even the cheap $90 version will go 3000 or 3200mhz!-JB

[Karlen]

Would a 1.2 GHz Core2Duo be too slow then?  That is likely what my next laptop will have.

[Cassea]

Nothing is too slow per say but 1.2 is on the lower end of the charts. The 1.2 is not on this list:<a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/quake-iv,389.html?p=1273%2C1306%2C1259%2C1245%2C1249%2C1 246%2C1247%2C1236%2C1300%2C1233%2C1254%2C1229%2C12 95%2C1294%2C1296%2C1226%2C1281%2C1220%2C1222%2C128 0%2C1279%2C1288%2C1219%2C1277%2C1315%2C1311" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...7%2C1315%2C1311</a>But the 1.8 compares to an AMD X2 4000+ running at 2000mhz so I am guessing that the 1.2 would equate to an AMD running at about 1500mhz.If this is the case then it is really slow. The extra core does nothing for EQ2 (well it does allow non-EQ2 stuff to not have to share with EQ2) but remember that laptops are not really meant for gaming unless you are talking about the high end ones - a 1200mhz is not a high end CPU.It should play EQ2 just fine providing you do not expect to run at higher than 1024x768 and understand that you will have to use medium video settings at best. I am more concerned with the laptop video on such a system.-JB

[Karlen]

<span class="postbody">>>>It should play EQ2 just fine providing you do not expect to run at higher than 1024x768 and understand that you will have to use medium video settings at best. <<<Thanks.  My main objective with the laptop would be to sign on into town to check my store and mail and such.  Any serious adventuring would be on my regular computer.  But being able to run it at all on a laptop would be great for when I'm stuck in a hotel somewhere.>>>I am more concerned with the laptop video on such a system.<<<Intel X3100 in the system I am getting.</span>

[Noxxia]

I recently bought one of the AMD Phenom 9600's 3600fsb, 256(dedicated)up to 1024 shared video ram, 4 gigs of ram, 64bit vista. I get a very high framerate, even with every [Removed for Content] option in the world cranked to full graphics. Amazing, but I can say with some certainty that I still get lag even with a commercial bandwidth broadband connection, not as often as I used to but raids still have some skip, and I crank the graphics down for those out of habit.

[Cassea]

Hmmmmm maybe not.See here:<a href="http://www.techradar.com/products/computing/components/graphics-cards/intel-gma-x3100-270612/review" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.techradar.com/products/c...0-270612/review</a><p>The GMA X3100 also continues the philosophy of Intel's previous graphics solutions (going back as far as its discrete i740 line), and that is one of compatibility. While there's rarely been the power available to run games at anything more than PowerPoint slideshow speeds, being able to render those images correctly means that you'll often put up with poor frame rates as long as everything looks right.</p><p>In testing, the improvement this new engine offers over the older solutions isn't massive - 3DMark06, the industry benchmark for ascertaining the capabilities of graphics engines in general, <span style="color: #ff0000;">returned a score of 416</span>. While this result is twice that from the previous generation of integrated graphics, it still proves that integrated graphics aren't for next-generation titles. Top-end cards score around 8,000, with <span style="color: #ff0000;">even cheaper cards managing scores around the 4,000 mark</span>.</p><p>In real-world performance terms, the low throughput of this engine shows when trying to play Doom 3 back at the high-quality setting at <span style="color: #ff0000;">800 x 600 - less than 10fps</span> isn't playable. Half-Life 2 fared a little better at 18fps, but surprisingly this score is bettered by its last-generation graphics, which were 5fps smoother. Despite the presence of hardware T&L, the lack of fill rate is clearly a limiting factor.</p>---------------------------Sounds like you'll be able to log in and everything will "look" right but you will be in single digit fps unless you turn everything down. Enough for what you want to do but not much more.-JB