CPU differences

[rucksw]

All right. I just purchased a new laptop. I'm looking to potentially run Skyrim on it. (I promise this will get to the processor question). So when I did an online test of whether my laptop would run it, it said yes, to everything, except the processor (AMD A4-3300M APU, 1.9 GHz, Radeon HD graphics card, 512Mb, 4GB ram. Lenovo Z575.)

Minimum is 2.0, mine is a 1.9GHz. What are the functional differences between a 2.0 and a 1.9, or a 3.0 and a 2.8? Is it more of a logarithmic difference, as opposed to a linear difference? I'm using skyrim as an example, but I've always wondered this question.

 

[guavasauce]

Ghz, which is more a measure of repitition than quantities, is a per second amount.

your cpu at 1.9ghz will (roughly, without doing the math) push out 19,000,000,000 1's or 0's per second of information. now, when bethesda set out the minimum requirements, the found that a cpu @ 2.0ghz was just barely enough to get the game to run.

this is how i understand cpu output, i hope this helps.

 

[popatim]

well if it can play skyrim a 100mhz should not make a noticble difference.
I'm not finding any videos of an A4 playing skyrim though.

 

[kinggraves]

The CPU also runs at 2.5 when in turbo core mode, and it would be easy to get it up to 2.0 full time with some overclocking.

BUT the minimum requirements are usually the lowest possible situation where it will RUN, not run smoothly. In general, you could maybe run Skyrim on the lowest settings with that APU, but perhaps not even smoothly. Skyrim is fairly demanding.