yes i agree my comp is really slow in games like undercover,crysis i must need to go for 4GB ram soon! but now cant you see the benchmarks against Q9550?Anusha said:It doesn't matter what the CPU can do, if it is not responsive
And whatever you say, Vista is hell without 2GB RAM. Meh! Even 2GB -> 4GB gives a significant boost in responsiveness.
Anusha said:
Eeka Nuwara Eliye gihin kiyala MSN eke "ujaaruwata" daala thiyenne
First time da manda
Dan athi katei.. kanei.. p***i redi othagena!!!
ruchira88 said:yes i agree my comp is really slow in games like undercover,crysis i must need to go for 4GB ram soon! but now cant you see the benchmarks against Q9550?
Yes I tested both apps on Intel and AMD systems...and what I said stands no matter what u say here.kamalmawa said:So did u tested the program by your self ? You must be so good at assembly language etc.. So are u working at a special Hardware lab too?
fallenzeraphine said:
It's getting hot out here!kamalmawa said:You can not make that argument just because you tested both apps on both systems.. It could be few reasons for example one apps might focusing on more Memory latency and stuff which favor AMD's results...Others not... because of that you can not say that AMD's are slow... After all both CPU's has ups and downs...
And by the way you making this argument over pretty outdated X2 with Core2Duo CPUs.. And if u don't trust these tests then it's your problem because there are millions of people who trusts these benchmarks..
I just did some benchmarking with EVEREST Ultimate Edition... Got some good results with that too... After all I'm happy I didn't spend twice a money on Core2Duo than AMD X2 because I don't see a different when I'm playing a game or any other app when I'm comparing to my brothers Core2Duo...
sri_lion said:Hey didn't see you around!! How things?
Definitely more fuelAnusha said:It's getting hot out here!
Guess I should pour some water...
To the end user, what matters is the real world performance tests, such as actual encoding tests, actual gaming tests, actual rendering tests, actual database tests and actual math/scientific tests. Why I emphasize on actual is because there are synthetic tests for all those categories.
Synthetic tests do have their purpose. For an overclocker, synthetic tests help determine QUICKLY if his overclock really worked. Also, to compare two products of the same family, say for example E8400 vs E8600, it helps determine what sort of real world result one can get. E8400 vs. Q6600 isn't a fair comparison in these synthetic tests, because synthetic tests usually do not give a generalized view of the CPU's performance as the real world tests do.
------
Why you don't see a performance difference with your PC and another with a C2D in GAMING is because your PC maybe is a balanced PC for gaming. I maen, your VGA might not be bottle-necked by the CPU. To get the best performance of a C2D, you need a highend VGA because otherwise the CPU will be waiting there for the VGA to do its thing. Then again, if you go for a good VGA, you need a bigger monitor to support the VGA's capabilities. Basically, you need to plan everything.
But this is not to say that everything also needs to be balanced. For someone who doesn't play games, there is no point wasting money on a VGA. But I see people buying Quad Core CPU's and just 1GB RAM and a 160GB HDD. That is utter stupidity. You get the quad core to do more work at the same time, but without RAM, how can it run more tasks at the same time? Always page in and page out! Then, you buy Quads to do video encoding and rendering, which need a vast amount of disk space!!! WTF are those apps gonna do with 160GB space??
Like wise, having the fastest *single* component doesn't mean anything. It's the setup for the requirement that matters.
Note: There are, however, synthetic benchmarks that give an overall idea about a PC. Eg. PCMark Vantage. It's actually not synthetic, because inside it, it runs many "real world" applications (not programs; APPLICATIONS)
Note2: Did I pour water or more fuel?
.
Anusha said:OMG! You are running Vista (x64??? :shocked) with 1GB RAM
I can't imagine how slow it should be
I don't even think about it
ruchira88 said:yes i agree my comp is really slow in games like undercover,crysis i must need to go for 4GB ram soon! but now cant you see the benchmarks against Q9550?
My gosh u r playing games with 1GB RAM 
, mata nikan kalanthe wage
Gosh u dont understand a thing Im saying dont you, memory Latency doesnt mean a lot of things when it comes to real world applicaions, it all about the CPU horsepoer, How much RAM you got how Fast is ur Hard Drives, How fast is ur VGA, its a Combination of Lot of things, Athlon X2 is the only Product from AMD to fight with Core 2 Duo so you cant call it Out dated, and Compairing to a Athlon X2 a core 2 Duo only has Ups, there are Virtualy no Downs, even the IMC on Athlon gives it a bit of Bandwidth, sheer brute force Performance of the Core 2 compensate for all of that, hence its faster on every damn real world application, 3D rendering, Video Encoding, Audio Encoding, Word Processesing, HTML Rendering, U name it, A similer clocked Core 2 will always beat the Athlon X2.kamalmawa said:You can not make that argument just because you tested both apps on both systems.. It could be few reasons for example one apps might focusing on more Memory latency and stuff which favor AMD's results...Others not... because of that you can not say that AMD's are slow... After all both CPU's has ups and downs...
And by the way you making this argument over pretty outdated X2 with Core2Duo CPUs.. And if u don't trust these tests then it's your problem because there are millions of people who trusts these benchmarks..
I just did some benchmarking with EVEREST Ultimate Edition... Got some good results with that too... After all I'm happy I didn't spend twice a money on Core2Duo than AMD X2 because I don't see a different when I'm playing a game or any other app when I'm comparing to my brothers Core2Duo...
kamalmawa said:
