Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Just upgrade to E6400 - not impressed

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 28, 2006 12:42:11 PM

hello, I manage to (at last) upgrade from a p4@3.0 prescott (the frypan!) to a E6400. This thing runs a whooping -20*C@stock cooling than my 60*C (with artic freezer 4) prescott. Thats very nice indeed. Super-pi 1M is under 28 secs.


......but........ I can't say it is blazing fast in real everyday use. And for the most part, second core is doing nothing. Is it the xp-32bit that don't take advantage of the new cpu or do I have to wait for vista and new versions of all software that would take advantage of 2 cores? CS:S is like +5 fps. (ok there it must be my aging 6800 agp). I never had a dual core b4, I thought I would be impressed, but nope.
November 28, 2006 12:50:06 PM

Eh, what you say is mostly true. Nothing can really handle dual-core proc's right now unless you use certain multi-threaded apps, such as encoding and such. Games aren't CPU limited, more GPU limited, so you're framerates shouldn't change either. Most computers from 3-4 years ago are perfectly fine running word, surfing the web, or using a computer in general.

However, what this dual-core will get you is future use when more multi-threaded apps come out. Also, if you multi-task a lot, then you're bound to see more performance. Try running a virus scan while doing other things, you'll see quicker responses and less hang-ups.
November 28, 2006 12:57:18 PM

True. Where the dual core CPU's really stretch their legs is in multi-tasking and CPU-intensive apps. I can run multiple high-usage apps, plus encode a DVD in the background, and Windows still runs like butter. My old Barton 2500 XP would puke just thinking about doing a few of those things together ;) 

As for your Super-Pi times, if you are into OC'ing, then you can OC the snot out the 6400. You'll get sub-20 sec times NO PROBLEM. If you got good hardware and decent air cooling, you should hit 3.2 ghs without breaking a sweat on the 6400. My 6300 @ stock does 29 sec in Super-Pi 1 million, now @ 3.0 ghz it does 19 and change :D 
Related resources
November 28, 2006 12:59:46 PM

LOL, no. The E6400 did!
November 28, 2006 1:04:57 PM

Quote:
Eh, what you say is mostly true. Nothing can really handle dual-core proc's right now unless you use certain multi-threaded apps, such as encoding and such. Games aren't CPU limited, more GPU limited, so you're framerates shouldn't change either. Most computers from 3-4 years ago are perfectly fine running word, surfing the web, or using a computer in general.

However, what this dual-core will get you is future use when more multi-threaded apps come out. Also, if you multi-task a lot, then you're bound to see more performance. Try running a virus scan while doing other things, you'll see quicker responses and less hang-ups.


I would like to know how further down the road would that be? I mean we have dual cores for 2-3 years? (roughly). For everyday use for the likes of us, not professional use. Yet no game manufacturer took that into account when developing a new game these 2 years.Only some video encoding etc. So after vista (jan) all will change? I think not for another 2 years at least. this sucks.....
November 28, 2006 1:07:19 PM

Well, this is not really big news, we all know that very few apps can take advantage of multithreading (audio/video encoding, and the like). Games are not one of them. The advantage of the dual core is that your computer doesn't slow down when it has to do more than one thing at a time. When I installed my new computer, I was putting 2 cd's in at the same time, installing multiple pieces of software at the same time. I never would have considered that with my old comp.

Also, I think you can switch in and out of games more quickly. That certainly is true on mine, but I'm not sure if it's because I went up to 2G of RAM.

Did you reinstall windows? Windows performance degrades over time, so you may want to take this chance to do a fresh install. Also, be sure that both cores are in use... check in the bios. And of course make sure you are using the latest bios (motherboard).

And, you can have a hundred cores and your computer will not speed up if you don't have enough RAM! 1GB is minimum, but you should really get 2GB. That way you know there's plenty of leeway for your computer to do more than one thing at the same time without running to the hard disk.

Bruce
November 28, 2006 1:12:38 PM

Eh, it might suck, but it's life. Developers won't make things if most of the population won't buy it or can't use it, so they have to wait for the hardware to be in place. But look at Alan Wake, the beginning of the trend of multi-threaded games. Valve is also beginning to develop multithreaded games, and Intel is making a push also. I don't say 2 years, I say 1 year for games at the most. Apps, most of them are already multi-threaded, but still, Office, Vista, they all really won't benefit from Dual-core much anyways just because of the nature of their program.

Either way, it's better to have than not to have.
November 28, 2006 1:13:46 PM

I did a clean install of XP, cause I changed m/b along with the cpu.
Both cores work fine, they show at task manager. I'm currently doing a stress test: running 2 instances of superpi and both cores are maxed out, also typing here, listening to winamp radio. Ok i'll admit that my p4 would be crawling right now.

I am planning replacing my gfx and ram, but I can't right now (luck of green papers). So I'm taking it one step at a time. Next upgrade is gonna be at march. So I'm pretty stuck with what I've got in my sig right now.

What I thought is (except the dual core thing) that even 1 core would devastate my p4. kinda 1 vs 1 (lol)! But nope.
November 28, 2006 1:32:59 PM

Might be a bit off topic, but did everything go well with your 775 Dual ?

I'd like to upgrade to C2D, while still keeping my DDR and AGP card for a while... and I'd like to be sure this mobo is as interresting as it seems.
November 28, 2006 1:46:02 PM

Quote:
Might be a bit off topic, but did everything go well with your 775 Dual ?

I'd like to upgrade to C2D, while still keeping my DDR and AGP card for a while... and I'd like to be sure this mobo is as interresting as it seems.


Sure glad to help you. Well it's been rock solid so far. Haven't overclocked yet due to waiting for 200 hours to pass so my artic silver 5 @ stock cooling can be fully functional. I have done all torture tests I can think of. memtest, prime95, superpi, all night playing cs:s. I think it's a great choice for people that can't afford to milk 2000$ for a brand new system. But don't expect to overclock to anything more than ~300fsb. What do you expect from a 56$ m/b? I heard there are some problems with some high end pci-express gfx, but when I'll be able to afford a high end one myself, I'll probably will be getting a new m/b to house my stuff.
there's a very nice thread here: clicky

Anything else you need to ask, feel free to.
So to sum it all up: I def recommend it!
November 28, 2006 1:58:33 PM

Quote:
Might be a bit off topic, but did everything go well with your 775 Dual ?

I'd like to upgrade to C2D, while still keeping my DDR and AGP card for a while... and I'd like to be sure this mobo is as interresting as it seems.


ditto, i might do the same thing.
November 28, 2006 2:00:05 PM

You are also hamstringing yourself if you are not at least running XP Pro.

Ultimately thought whether or not you'll see any real benefit any time soon is pretty much the mantra of any newer pc technology. We hear how great DX10 is going to be, and people are already jumping on the 8800 nvidias, but, how many game companies are really going to immediately take advantage of all that DX10 has to offer? What you will see, over the next few months at least, are new games performing very very well under older cards still. And looking as nice, but maybe a few frames (out of 100) worse than something 2x the amount of money.
Then, when finally DX10 optomized software starts showing up, you'll see how pretty it is, but, that very same DX10 card that cost you $450, is now... $300... or there is a better one.
It's a crapshoot. I can say one thing, that dual core processors are becoming so cheap so fast that anyone buying a new system may as well go with a dual-core aware os and a dual core processor, if only for the very near (imo) more broad use of multithreaded programs, i.e. games.
It could be days, weeks, or months, and sure, by then you'll want something better, but that's the risk you take.
I think the next-gen consoles, with their multithreaded processors will help drive PC games to start using that 2nd core to make their stuff more attractive. I think dual core pc games are going to start showing up real soon. Sooner rather than later I hope.
Me? I just bought my first Dual Core proc, an Opty 165 for $105 ;)  So, I'm not taking a huge risk, but still something that would, if my theory is correct, have a nice step up over a single core none-the-less.
As someone mentioned before, especially about games, they seem to be more GPU limited anyway, and this is true, have you ever really seen what kind of a difference a cpu makes in a game? For the most part it's pitifully little. A frame, or two, at best for a difference of hundreds of dollars. Which is why you won't ever see me buy anything beyond a midrange cpu, but not a budget one, cache/bus are where it's at and I try to look for the best price-point.
November 28, 2006 2:08:53 PM

Quote:
You are also hamstringing yourself if you are not at least running XP Pro.

Ultimately thought whether or not you'll see any real benefit any time soon is pretty much the mantra of any newer pc technology. We hear how great DX10 is going to be, and people are already jumping on the 8800 nvidias, but, how many game companies are really going to immediately take advantage of all that DX10 has to offer? What you will see, over the next few months at least, are new games performing very very well under older cards still. And looking as nice, but maybe a few frames (out of 100) worse than something 2x the amount of money.
Then, when finally DX10 optomized software starts showing up, you'll see how pretty it is, but, that very same DX10 card that cost you $450, is now... $300... or there is a better one.
It's a crapshoot. I can say one thing, that dual core processors are becoming so cheap so fast that anyone buying a new system may as well go with a dual-core aware os and a dual core processor, if only for the very near (imo) more broad use of multithreaded programs, i.e. games.
It could be days, weeks, or months, and sure, by then you'll want something better, but that's the risk you take.
I think the next-gen consoles, with their multithreaded processors will help drive PC games to start using that 2nd core to make their stuff more attractive. I think dual core pc games are going to start showing up real soon. Sooner rather than later I hope.
Me? I just bought my first Dual Core proc, an Opty 165 for $105 ;)  So, I'm not taking a huge risk, but still something that would, if my theory is correct, have a nice step up over a single core none-the-less.
As someone mentioned before, especially about games, they seem to be more GPU limited anyway, and this is true, have you ever really seen what kind of a difference a cpu makes in a game? For the most part it's pitifully little. A frame, or two, at best for a difference of hundreds of dollars. Which is why you won't ever see me buy anything beyond a midrange cpu, but not a budget one, cache/bus are where it's at and I try to look for the best price-point.


ok, my mistake for forgetting to mention it, I HAVE XP PRO INSTALLED! rolf!
I do the same thing mostly. Skipping enough generations of cpu's and wait for something that is truly worth upgrading. All I've heard about C2D since August is that it RULEZ, period. There's always something better coming some months later and it never ends, but you have to make a choice (upgrading) and hope it's the best. I hope that you are right and we see new software coming up sooner than later that can take full advantage of dual cores.
November 28, 2006 2:28:34 PM

Quote:
I can't say it is blazing fast in real everyday use. And for the most part, second core is doing nothing. Is it the xp-32bit that don't take advantage of the new cpu or do I have to wait for vista and new versions of all software that would take advantage of 2 cores? CS:S is like +5 fps. (ok there it must be my aging 6800 agp). I never had a dual core b4, I thought I would be impressed, but nope.


You have a good point about the slow movement of today's applications to multiprocessor optimization. I personally find that the money spent for my CPU was worth it. While I may not be able to gain much over a single proc in many tasks, I just love the way that this thing burns through encoding. If you are a genuine multitasker, you will find a lot of improvements in speed with dual procs. If you are someone who focuses upon one application at a time, however, you won't see much of this.
One place in which I also didn't notice a huge gain was gaming. When compared to a friend's late model p4 single proc, the speeds were more dependant on the video card; just as the other poster mentioned above. But, then again, the current generation of games are programmed to be more dependant on the GPU.
The bad news, or good news - for some people, is that the console market is what is pushing game development more than anything else. Now we have the Xbox 360, which has a triple core PowerPC cpu I believe, and the PS3, which has an 8 core (if they all happen to function) IBM cell cpu.
The game programmers are going to have to get creative for cross platform coding. The less that they use the extra cores, the easier it will be for them to make something run the "same way" on each system - at least from what I have read. We will have to wait and see if any of this creative push helps the common PC game development. I read once that there were games being made for the PS3 that use one "cell" just for enemy AI. Interesting concept. I am hoping that all of this turns into something positive for all of us.
November 28, 2006 3:01:09 PM

So i have a question for you guys. which would be better for gaming, ripping and burning and all around interwebing, an fx-55 at 2.8 stock single core or a dual core opty 165 at 1.8 stock. i probably wont overclock, but i just want to know if i choose the opty will it be slower. i know its dual core but the 2.8 to 1.8 thing is putting me off. since most things dont use dual core should i just stick with the fx-55?
November 28, 2006 3:05:17 PM

CS:S has not yet been updated for dual core, but will be soon. I'm an avid CS:S player (www.clanlod.us) and I can say that your problem is clearly the video card. When you can get a GeForce 8800 for around $300 I would say grab it and make the upgrade. That way you'll have DX10 hardware and you'll be ready for DX10 games (which CS:S is not, but they are evolving it so who knows!).
November 28, 2006 3:08:55 PM

Quote:
So i have a question for you guys. which would be better for gaming, ripping and burning and all around interwebing, an fx-55 at 2.8 stock single core or a dual core opty 165 at 1.8 stock. i probably wont overclock, but i just want to know if i choose the opty will it be slower. i know its dual core but the 2.8 to 1.8 thing is putting me off. since most things dont use dual core should i just stick with the fx-55?


For Single core gaming, FX-55.

For multi-threaded apps and games, Opty 165. However, I you should pick an Opty that has a price more in line wit the FX-55.

I would guess that any game released in 2007 will more than likely be multi-threaded. So for tomorrow's games you're going to want a dual core.
November 28, 2006 3:12:59 PM

Quote:
So i have a question for you guys. which would be better for gaming, ripping and burning and all around interwebing, an fx-55 at 2.8 stock single core or a dual core opty 165 at 1.8 stock. i probably wont overclock, but i just want to know if i choose the opty will it be slower. i know its dual core but the 2.8 to 1.8 thing is putting me off. since most things dont use dual core should i just stick with the fx-55?


Foul! off topic!!!

rolf, at least the other guy (raytracer06) was kinda relative with my topic. Well I went from p4 to C2D, so I don't know squat about amd's or how they perform. (I've read about, but haven't own one.) So go make your thread!!
a c 99 à CPUs
November 28, 2006 3:17:42 PM

Actually, with the exception of a handful of things like straight video encoding, number-crunching math apps, and perhaps compiling source code, not all that much is CPU limited. Games are generally limited by the rendering power of your GPU if you play at normal (1280x1024+) resolutions and video/photo editing is more limited by RAM size than CPU speed. And the general snappiness of the OS is mostly limited by the HDD speed (boot speed, opening/listing folders and opening apps) and somewhat just the way the OS is designed.
November 28, 2006 3:40:41 PM

Quake4 supports dual-core, so does quake3 although not very well. You'll need to enable it in the config though.
r_usesmp 1

Valve is going multi-threaded too.
November 28, 2006 3:45:33 PM

Quote:
Quake4 supports dual-core, so does quake3 although not very well. You'll need to enable it in the config though.
r_usesmp 1


It DOES???? thanx for the heads-up!!! I will install it right now!!!!!
a c 471 à CPUs
November 28, 2006 3:47:17 PM

Quote:

However, what this dual-core will get you is future use when more multi-threaded apps come out. Also, if you multi-task a lot, then you're bound to see more performance.


Yeah, I play games while encoding a DVD sometimes. Or I simply encode two DVDs at the same time. Dual core only comes in handy when multi-tasking since there are very few games out right now that are multi-threaded. But that is going to change.

Alan Wake is a suspense/thriller game that should be coming out next year. It will have 4 or 5 different threads running at the same time (probably for the AI, graphics, physics, etc.). If that is true then a dual core processor is likely to be the minimum requirement for it.
November 28, 2006 4:18:21 PM

Quote:
I don't say 2 years, I say 1 year for games at the most.

Amen, to that. If the game developers aren't feeling the pressure already, they undoubtedly will as soon as just one multi-threaded game makes it to market and shows a noticeable usage improvement.

Threading is the "next big thing" that will allow them to make their game stand out from all the others. And you only get the a lot of mileage out of a "next big thing" when you're one of the first to have it.

So, yes, 1 year at the most before multi-threaded games start popping up. After that, the pace probably picks up exponentially.

-john
November 28, 2006 4:24:44 PM

Quote:
You are also hamstringing yourself if you are not at least running XP Pro.

Huh :?: :?

I've never heard of there being any performance differences between the different (32-bit) versions of Windows XP. Could you say more about what you meant?

-john
November 28, 2006 4:30:59 PM

Quote:
hello, I manage to (at last) upgrade from a p4@3.0 prescott (the frypan!) to a E6400. This thing runs a whooping -20*C@stock cooling than my 60*C (with artic freezer 4) prescott. Thats very nice indeed. Super-pi 1M is under 28 secs.


......but........ I can't say it is blazing fast in real everyday use.


I happen to run both a P4 530 (3 Ghz) and an E6400. The C2D runs rings around the P4. for instance encoding Mpeg2 is about 22fps using HC encode on the P4, but, ready for this? over 90 FPS on the C2D! Yes having two cores is part of it, but I think that many of your applications are limited by Hard drive access and GPU speed, not the raw power of the CPU itself.

Also I should add that I run Folding@home on both systems. The C2D is 50% faster PER CORE. Since both cores are used on the C2D that makes the C2D a 300% speed boost over the P4. 3 times the points per day..
November 28, 2006 4:34:24 PM

Quote:
Are you saing your P4 got 28 seconds in 1M super PI?? Odd, my 3.6 GHz P4 only was able to muster 38 seconds.


Are you saying calculating Pi is "everyday use" for you? xD

I finally got a dual core myself, an x2 4200+ 10% OC. It runs a little more smoothly then my P4 Northwood @2.88ghz did (each core should have about 20% more processing power and about 15% more memory bandwidth or something like that), but for multi-tasking I found that the memory, memory bandwidth, chipset, HD and internet connection are bottlenecks that the extra core does nothing to fix. I still have to turn off other apps (FAH, eMule) to increase minimal FPS and be most competative in games even though I have enough memory and should have like 240% more processing power then my old rig.

Quote:

What I thought is (except the dual core thing) that even 1 core would devastate my p4. kinda 1 vs 1 (lol)! But nope.

Heh, I saw no difference in performance of every day apps when I went from P4 1.6ghz to P4 2.66ghz (new HD array, mobo, ram GFX) to P4 2.88ghz (overclock with new mobo, ram, GFX) to s939 x2 2.42ghz (new everything) so I can feel your dissapointment. CPU just hasn't been a bottleneck to "everyday use" for a long time. Each time I would see a very slight performance bump in gaming and large increases for CPU intensive stuff, but opening up a web browser window takes just as long as it did 5 years ago. Granted my web browser is a more complicated beast and I'm running more apps at the same time, but several thousand dollars in a chain of upgrades later I still reminice about the "wow factor" I got when I first booted up my P4 1.6ghz with 512mb RDRAM on a 5400rpm scsii drive with GF2 video. Also, I used to be able to get more performance by doing software tweaks and OCing the CPU, performance I could see... now it doesn't seem to matter if I have a clean system or not, and if I want more performance I'm expected to spend $thousands to get it.

Much has changed, perhaps I need a new hobby xD
November 28, 2006 5:01:17 PM

Windows XP Pro supports multiple CPU (2 cores) and Windows XP Home support 1 CPU (1 core).
November 28, 2006 5:07:53 PM

Quote:
Windows XP Pro supports multiple CPU (2 cores) and Windows XP Home support 1 CPU (1 core).


I am running XP Home on a c2d e6600.. and both cores show up in taskman, and they both work, is this a fluke?
November 28, 2006 5:13:00 PM

Quote:
Windows XP Pro supports multiple CPU (2 cores) and Windows XP Home support 1 CPU (1 core).

I believe that is wrong. Microsoft has tied their processor support to the number of sockets, not cores. (Thankfully!)

If you have a motherboard with 2 or more processor sockets on it, then you'd need Win XP Pro to use both sockets. But if you have a single socket, multi-core system then either Win XP Pro or Home would support it.

-john, the redundant legacy dinosaur
November 28, 2006 5:16:39 PM

Quote:
Quake4 supports dual-core, so does quake3 although not very well. You'll need to enable it in the config though.
r_usesmp 1

Valve is going multi-threaded too.


Just tried it. Well performance in quake is actually improved due to new cpu. But didn't took advantage of the second core. I checked in task manager. Only the first was working 100%, the other was like 10ish% load. meh
November 28, 2006 5:20:16 PM

Quote:
Are you saying calculating Pi is "everyday use" for you? xD


No, I was doing stress testing of every program I could think of, to ensure stability. It was a point of reference.

Quote:
Heh, I saw no difference in performance of every day apps when I went from P4 1.6ghz to P4 2.66ghz (new HD array, mobo, ram GFX) to P4 2.88ghz (overclock with new mobo, ram, GFX) to s939 x2 2.42ghz (new everything) so I can feel your dissapointment. CPU just hasn't been a bottleneck to "everyday use" for a long time. Each time I would see a very slight performance bump in gaming and large increases for CPU intensive stuff, but opening up a web browser window takes just as long as it did 5 years ago. Granted my web browser is a more complicated beast and I'm running more apps at the same time, but several thousand dollars in a chain of upgrades later I still reminice about the "wow factor" I got when I first booted up my P4 1.6ghz with 512mb RDRAM on a 5400rpm scsii drive with GF2 video. Also, I used to be able to get more performance by doing software tweaks and OCing the CPU, performance I could see... now it doesn't seem to matter if I have a clean system or not, and if I want more performance I'm expected to spend $thousands to get it.

Much has changed, perhaps I need a new hobby xD


Argh, I was starving for 2 weeks (kidding) so I can save the money for the C2D. I even reject going out with girls to save the money!!! The thing is that since their launch (C2D) back in August, I've only heard that C2D RULEZ, PWNES and BLOWS. So I got a little excited! I have mentioned somewhere in previous posts that I know about video editing encoding and whatever improvement. But I don't do much of that (well almost none).
I can't narrow down what specific I was hoping for. Well it hasn't been blazing fast for me. :(  (especially if you think about: that I never had a dual core system).
November 28, 2006 5:22:58 PM

Quote:
I believe that is wrong. Microsoft has tied their processor support to the number of sockets, not cores. (Thankfully!)

If you have a motherboard with 2 or more processor sockets on it, then you'd need Win XP Pro to use both sockets. But if you have a single socket, multi-core system then either Win XP Pro or Home would support it.

-john, the redundant legacy dinosaur


This is correct. XP home is fine for a 1 socket, 2 core system.
November 28, 2006 5:32:32 PM

I don't have Windows XP Home and when I look at MSFT site they have never said they supported mutli CPU on Windows XP Home but they do state they support 2 CPUs on Windows XP Pro. If you see 2 CPUs in task manager then it does support 2 cores on a single CPU. I guess you could run 2 Quad cores on XP Pro and have 8 processors show up and you could also run one Quad core on XP Home and see 4 processors. Thanks for the clarification.

I am pretty sure you don't get domain logon with XP Home (could be wrong as I have never used XP Home). I guess I was told the CPU limitation when there were no multi core CPUs.
November 28, 2006 6:58:16 PM

The theory behind it bounces around, but I've never seen conclusive evidence either way. For one reason I guess being so few people seem to benchmark with home and a dual core. If I'm wrong, then fantastic, I don't mind :p 
The prevailing theory last I heard is that while XP Home would "support" dual core, as it is only one cpu, it is not designed for multithreaded instruction (whether it be 2 individual cpus or one dual core).
Either way, since it's not like I have a vested interest in either, I hope Home works just as well ;) 

As far as the dual core being useful now, even in gaming, it should be fairly evident for just about everyone in at least one small scale. That meaning that more system overhead can be offloaded to the idle core leaving that much less for the working core to do. The difference may not be so obvious as a true multithreaded program, like a mindblowing FPS (which of course is more due to the GPU anyway) or lightning fast load times. But, it should be smoother. And that, is why I didn't get a terribly expensive cpu ;) , again an opty 165 at $105... i couldn't pass that up. It should be a nice improvement over the 3200+.

To me, if you're a gamer you needn't worry too much about the cpu being uber fast, well in terms of value anyway, but, if it's your new rig, it'd be silly not to get a dual core at these prices. If you already have a fast single core, like the FX-55 guy, ride that horse 'till it's dead for the money you spent on it.. in fact.. OC it!. You won't be hurting for a dual core cpu for long enough time that Quad Core will probably be a realistic option. :p 
November 28, 2006 8:52:12 PM

Quote:


Argh, I was starving for 2 weeks (kidding) so I can save the money for the C2D. I even reject going out with girls to save the money!!!


I can definitely say that the games that you can "play" while going out with girls are far superior than the games that any of these CPU's can muster. I don't care what the benchmarks say. Promise us you won't ever do that again. :D 
a c 99 à CPUs
November 28, 2006 9:10:37 PM

Well, but remember that you can always just restart playing a video game if you majorly screw up. Not quite the same with women, but then again they're not camping behind a half-closed door with a sniper rifle either.

The PP should just be smart and keep his head and wits about him and he'll do fine with girls.
November 28, 2006 9:54:42 PM

Point well taken. I also haven't been able to find an Ultimate Strategy and Secrets Guide for Women... they must be sold out. :?

but heck.. I never read instructions anyway ;) 
November 28, 2006 11:53:44 PM

Well, I had Girlfriend 2.0, then decided to upgrade to Wife 1.0. Turns out it installs spyware and backdoor hacks without Admin privileges. Haven't been able to clean it out, I've used Flowers 2.1, Chocolate 5.5, and Jewelry 10.0, but no use. Interestingly enough, I've found the brand new verson of Yes Dear 4.0 to work very well, no lag. But forget about Dual Core, Wife 1.0 does NOT work well multitasking with other apps AT ALL. System Restore doesn't work either, so I think I'm stuck. Unfortunately, for the lifetime warranty of said software, I had to trade in Fun and Games 4U, Boys Night 3.0, and the latest version of Cool Car. I now have the older versions of Family Mobile 1.3 and Home Movies 6.6a.

Oh, and I forgot to mention......Wife 1.0 does not come with an Instruction Manual.....only a Quick Setup Guide. No toll-free Troubleshooting Guide either. I'm afraid I'm stuck with the User FAQ list, but it doesn't seem to provide answers in any language except Womenspeak Extreme 1.0.

I think I'm screwed.


;) 
November 29, 2006 1:52:47 AM

Quote:


Argh, I was starving for 2 weeks (kidding) so I can save the money for the C2D. I even reject going out with girls to save the money!!!


I can definitely say that the games that you can "play" while going out with girls are far superior than the games that any of these CPU's can muster. I don't care what the benchmarks say. Promise us you won't ever do that again. :D 

I really can't promise you that. IF the new core 32 or amd 128 cores come out (you get the point), I may have to starve again and say no to girls as well!
November 29, 2006 1:54:11 AM

Quote:
Well, I had Girlfriend 2.0, then decided to upgrade to Wife 1.0. Turns out it installs spyware and backdoor hacks without Admin privileges. Haven't been able to clean it out, I've used Flowers 2.1, Chocolate 5.5, and Jewelry 10.0, but no use. Interestingly enough, I've found the brand new verson of Yes Dear 4.0 to work very well, no lag. But forget about Dual Core, Wife 1.0 does NOT work well multitasking with other apps AT ALL. System Restore doesn't work either, so I think I'm stuck. Unfortunately, for the lifetime warranty of said software, I had to trade in Fun and Games 4U, Boys Night 3.0, and the latest version of Cool Car. I now have the older versions of Family Mobile 1.3 and Home Movies 6.6a.

Oh, and I forgot to mention......Wife 1.0 does not come with an Instruction Manual.....only a Quick Setup Guide. No toll-free Troubleshooting Guide either. I'm afraid I'm stuck with the User FAQ list, but it doesn't seem to provide answers in any language except Womenspeak Extreme 1.0.

I think I'm screwed.


;) 


that made me looooooooooooool. I've read it somewhere b4, but it's a classic! looooooooool!!!!
November 29, 2006 2:26:21 AM

Skyguy that's awsome, funny and true. That is why i choose not to have Girlfriend 2.0, because it will lead to upgrade to wife 1.0 and then the rest of it like you said. It might be possible to rearrange the Girlfriend 2.0 and wife 1.0 to after the Games4U and cool car?
November 29, 2006 1:09:27 PM

That's possible, but only if you provide Wife 1.0 with the CreditCard Unlimited 2.6 add-on ;) 

Otherwise, Kids Pro 2.0 need to be installed, and that is a VERY CPU-intensive program.....it chews up ALL system resources, even more than Wife 1.0. And Kids Pro 2.0 does not come with any sort of refund, warranty, guarantee, or Instruction Manual. It does, however, come with Nighttime Crying Extreme, Diapers 12.2, and College Fund Unlimited.

So, as you can see, it depends on the sequence of installation and the add-on features required by Wife 1.0

;) 
November 29, 2006 7:15:49 PM

I think the whole upgrade plan just went down the drain. Pls format c: /u and do a clean install of the Girlfriend 2.0!!!!!
November 29, 2006 9:36:44 PM

HAHA, I only half wish.

What I didn't mention was that those system specs are overriden by the one big thing: the Operating System which is universally known but often goes unmentioned: Happiness in Life, Happy Family Edition 999


:D 
November 29, 2006 9:46:02 PM

It wont use 100% of both cores, but it does help to boost performance nicely. BTW you can boost performance more tuning the image cache in the game config.
image_usecache 1 (turns on image caching)
image_cachemegs xxx (sets amount of memory cache will be)
image_cachemink (sets minimum size of objects in cache)

NOTE: These settings are overidden by ultra Quality setting as images are not compressed at this setting (Ultra Quality requires at least 512MB video RAM)

Depending on your setup you can play with these values and get some extra frames.
November 29, 2006 10:14:41 PM

Quote:
I did a clean install of XP, cause I changed m/b along with the cpu.
Both cores work fine, they show at task manager. I'm currently doing a stress test: running 2 instances of superpi and both cores are maxed out, also typing here, listening to winamp radio. Ok i'll admit that my p4 would be crawling right now.

I am planning replacing my gfx and ram, but I can't right now (luck of green papers). So I'm taking it one step at a time. Next upgrade is gonna be at march. So I'm pretty stuck with what I've got in my sig right now.

What I thought is (except the dual core thing) that even 1 core would devastate my p4. kinda 1 vs 1 (lol)! But nope.


you need the dual core driver, the patches, windows XP Servicepacks to make it work
you dont have any of these, then game over, you're not using both cores.. PERIOD.

get the proper drivers asap for better stuff.
btw, you can try using the Divx dual core encoding to test your speed :>

with dual core I managed to push my AMD oldie cpu ( dual core 3800+ ) and did a video in less than half of the time it with the single threaded one.
November 29, 2006 10:39:58 PM

Quote:
Are you saing your P4 got 28 seconds in 1M super PI?? Odd, my 3.6 GHz P4 only was able to muster 38 seconds.


Pentiums suck, every single one, but conroe pwns
November 30, 2006 2:14:55 PM

Quote:
you need the dual core driver, the patches, windows XP Servicepacks to make it work
you dont have any of these, then game over, you're not using both cores.. PERIOD.

get the proper drivers asap for better stuff.
btw, you can try using the Divx dual core encoding to test your speed :>

with dual core I managed to push my AMD oldie cpu ( dual core 3800+ ) and did a video in less than half of the time it with the single threaded one.

I have installed xp pro (with sp2) and then used autopatcher (so I didn't had to download 200mb's) to install latest patches and last I used xp autoupdate for whatever autopatcher didn't have (of the last month).
So I'm pretty sure that I am up-to-date.

Are there C2D xp drivers???? I just google it and nothing came up. Only for amd..... Can you pls provide me a link?
Does anybody else knows about it? [/quote]
November 30, 2006 4:06:42 PM

You're fine. They don't know what they are talking about. WinXP home used to not support multi-cpu. MS patched WinXP Home so that it would accept multi-core but not multi-socket. WinXP Pro has always worked with it.

It's not a bad idea to update all your drivers to the latest released version for that chipset and make sure your OS is pully patched, but both of your cores are working properly.
!