Hardware Analysis Community Forums http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/8826/ 2009-01-09T03:36:18-05:00 http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/8826/ http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/halogo.gif text/html 2003-08-29T04:41:45-05:00 Carl Stowers http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/8826/?o=20#56587 I have a 3.06Ghz P4B 512k/533mhz FSB on a Gigabyte GA-8IHXP(3) Motherboard w/512mb of Samsung PC1066 RDRAM.I currently run at a overclocked but stable 3.45Ghz by increasing the FSB to 600Mhz.I run it all without any exoctic cooling.I saw in MaximumPC magazine this month they spent &amp;11,000.00 getting a 3.2GHZ P4C to overclock to 3.53Ghz.I'll wait until the new technology and motherboards with PCI express on board.Until then,My 3.06 can do everything that the 3.2 can and cost a hell of alot less.So work with what ya got Guys. text/html 2003-08-28T14:40:18-05:00 Michael Mackenzie http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/8826/?o=20#56424 lol my old system was a celeron 533 and a raeon 32 mb card and i could overcloc that thing so much i could pull 25 fps on 800x600 resolution!!! <img src="http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/smilies/smile1.gif" width="14" height="14" border="0" alt=":)" title=":)"><img src="http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/smilies/smile1.gif" width="14" height="14" border="0" alt=":)" title=":)"><img src="http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/smilies/smile1.gif" width="14" height="14" border="0" alt=":)" title=":)"> text/html 2003-08-17T03:58:04-05:00 Calvin Chan http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/8826/?o=20#53486 EDIT: &quot;couldn't&quot; get more than 20 FPS... text/html 2003-08-17T03:56:18-05:00 Calvin Chan http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/8826/#53485 HEnry martin...how did u manage??? 667 celeron!!! that what i had...i couldnt play jack on it... i had a ATI radeon 9200 128DDR and 380 DDR ram but it could get more than 20 FPS in counter strike!! text/html 2003-08-13T16:17:06-05:00 Karras Schaff http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/8826/#52722 3.2 is not a big increase at all from a P4 that already has an 800 Mhz FSB. Thats whats important, even if you have a 5 Ghz processor but your FSB and memory run at like 400 Mhz it will still be limitted.<br /> <br /> **Current PC** P4 3.0 Ghz, 800Mhz FSB, 2X512 DDR 400 PC3500 run in dual channel. 2X 10,000 RPM SATA 36GB HD run in Raid 0. Radeon 9800 Pro 128Mb. text/html 2003-08-07T15:04:36-05:00 Jay G http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/8826/#51150 I get all my computers for free from my dads work, (xeon) so I cant complain lol! <img src="http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/smilies/smile1.gif" width="14" height="14" border="0" alt=":-)" title=":-)"> text/html 2003-08-07T14:54:30-05:00 Caveman017 http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/8826/#51142 I remember seeing 7 years ago Pentium 200MHzs for 550USD. 2 months later the 233MHz Pentium with MMX came out and was MUCH better for the same price. also the 3.4 is going to be the prescott core. text/html 2003-08-07T14:47:21-05:00 Jimi Tijani http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/8826/#51136 Anyway, Intel wants to con us all. Who would be stupid to have a 3 GHz PC and then splash ridiculous amounts of money for the 3.2? Besides if you're daring, you can overclock the 3.06GHz baby to exactly 4001MHz (4.01GHz), BUT YOU NEED SERIOUS, SERIOUS VENTILATION... text/html 2003-08-04T12:29:20-05:00 Bawitdaba http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/8826/#50117 I run a P4 2.53ghz ASUS P4S8X PNY GeForce4 Ti-4400 128mb, 512DDR PC2700.<br /> <br /> Its still not fast enough for me. Id buy a 3.2ghz in a second if it was cheaper. Why in GODS NAME would u buy a celeron ever? The only thing a celeron is good for is microsoft word. Why u would want a 3ghz proc? Video encoding, gaming, or like most of us people who have 20 things open at the same time or multiple people on the same pc or two monitors ? Needless to say who wouldnt want a cpu that fast if u dont think u can use faster then a 1ghz cpu then you have another thing coming.<br /> <br /> -Bawitdaba text/html 2003-08-03T06:40:08-05:00 phil lefe http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/8826/#49769 &quot;um, if you use a 1gig computer for Star Wars Galaxies, your gonna crash and burn... I use a 2.53, 1gig of PC2700 ram, Asylum Ti4200 128mb 8xagp, and my Star Wars Galaxies still isnt perfect... &quot;<br /> <br /> Dude you got some probs, on my current PC i have a 900 celeron and 256 ram, 64mb geforce4mx440se and so forth. i can run that game FULL tilt and it is perfect.<br /> <br /> but what can i say, i'm a miracle man. text/html 2003-07-25T21:28:59-05:00 Henry Martin http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/8826/#47503 I guess you are right- but you can still get by with a 1 Ghz CPU, as long as you have lots of RAM, DDR preferably, and a good graphics card. Heck, I'm using a 667 Mhz Celeron, 256 mb PC100, and a Radeon 7500 PCI! Of course, I just ordered the parts for a new one, so I guess you could say that that's not my system anymore. Oh, and I'm not trying to say I could play SWG on it, just that I was able to play stuff like Jedi Outcast and UT2003 with most settings maxed out. text/html 2003-07-25T20:06:00-05:00 Aaron Kamins http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/8826/#47495 um, if you use a 1gig computer for Star Wars Galaxies, your gonna crash and burn... I use a 2.53, 1gig of PC2700 ram, Asylum Ti4200 128mb 8xagp, and my Star Wars Galaxies still isnt perfect... <br /> <br /> SW:G was designed to be the best game for tomorrows computers... The best commercial computer in existence (Im not talkin Raid-0, quad processor, multiple gigs of ram..) cannot play it at maximum quality. Even with my stuff, if i turn the detail um i drop from 29fps to about 6. My friend (3.06 HT, rest is similar) from 29 (the cap) to like 11... text/html 2003-07-25T18:36:54-05:00 Tunde Adeolu http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/8826/#47488 Don't fool youeselves you intel fans. You equate the frequency at which intel processors is working to the speed. You have forgotten that clockspeed is just a factor just like cache, FSB as well as others. To have a processor working at this frequency is great. At least they been able to turn numbers to fool us. My point here is show me that every increase in MHz is directly proportional to the Performance it truely delivers. Intel was a good company because they had always been in the affairs of dominating the marketing trends for a very loing time. Remember also that no kingdom in the world has endured for too long. I think 34yrs in chip making is not a joke at all at least when compared to their rival AMD that is just 27yrs in the same business. I am trying to stress the fact that being in the market for too long does not matter again with the current trend of technological development going on now. Well 3.2GHz is high and good for processors now but there has always been no justification for the increase at all. If you see in every Athlon XP production, every increase in Hz is always obvious. The bitter truth is you can eat you cake and have it. Intel has scarificed performance for clock speed and AMD has scarificed clockspeed for an excellent and superior architecture that results in high performance. Each at the same rate claiming superiority. I think the release of Athlon 64 and Prescott will help create the clear allowance of superiority in leadership. It is very obvious that this is a clear war indeed. As for me, my Athlon XP 200+_1.67GHz is good enough for me to run top games and amazing multimedia applications. If numbers matters I think Intel is there but when performance matters, AMD is an undisputable winner. text/html 2003-07-04T22:20:02-05:00 Rodney Armstrong http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/8826/#43489 I am sticking with the P4 3.0 The price difference is not worth the extra few hundred dollars for the chip.<br /> <br /> The 3.2 is probably pushed close to it's limit. That is why you can overclock a Barton 2500 to around the 3000 specs, but you cannot push the 3200 hardly any farther.<br /> <br /> Have the 3.0 now, and probably gonna wait till the 3.8 to come out before I even think of upgrading. text/html 2003-06-30T14:46:11-05:00 Henry Martin http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/8826/#42442 Right on the money, Matt.<img src="http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/smilies/smile1.gif" width="14" height="14" border="0" alt=":)" title=":)">