Is 2 GHz neccessary to play any PC game nowadays? (1 Viewer)

[ClockworkSoldier]

No.

Not the most helpful being in the world, are you, mister "no"?

 

[SnowFox]

Not the most helpful being in the world, are you, mister "no"?

Meh, i negged him.

 

[Arcorn]

He is right though. Each core only has it's usage, so let's say 2ghz. Say you have 4 cores, they each only have 2ghz, it doesn't mean you're running at 8ghz it just means they are able to effectively multi-task(Like a woman making a sandwich while cleaning or something) and also organise its tasks for the future. A processor can only do one thing at a time but it switches between each so quickly it appears as though it is doing more.

So it doesn't mean you're running at 8ghz more so 4x2ghz.(Yes there is a difference XD)

 

[SnowFox]

He is right though. Each core only has it's usage, so let's say 2ghz. Say you have 4 cores, they each only have 2ghz, it doesn't mean you're running at 8ghz it just means they are able to effectively multi-task(Like a woman making a sandwich while cleaning or something) and also organise its tasks for the future. A processor can only do one thing at a time but it switches between each so quickly it appears as though it is doing more.

So it doesn't mean you're running at 8ghz more so 4x2ghz.(Yes there is a difference XD)

If playing a game and you know what you are doing, you can make the processors push more power into the one program.

 

[goony]

It depends how efficiently game/software utilises multi-threading.

 

[SnowFox]

I'd like to know what you consider as 'knowing what you are doing' in terms of gaming.

Disabling every background program and desktop/explorer.exe.


You will notice the difference.

 

[harrisony]

He is right though. Each core only has it's usage, so let's say 2ghz. Say you have 4 cores, they each only have 2ghz, it doesn't mean you're running at 8ghz it just means they are able to effectively multi-task(Like a woman making a sandwich while cleaning or something) and also organise its tasks for the future. A processor can only do one thing at a time but it switches between each so quickly it appears as though it is doing more.

So it doesn't mean you're running at 8ghz more so 4x2ghz.(Yes there is a difference XD)

4 sets of hands making sandwiches at 2000 speed compared to 2 sets of hands at 8000 speed

 

[8039]

My laptop uses a 2.53ghz core 2 duo and it plays most games quite fine. But there's no way in hell I could play high-end massive games like GTA IV at more than low settings without lagging.

 

[Dx_God]

He is right though. Each core only has it's usage, so let's say 2ghz. Say you have 4 cores, they each only have 2ghz, it doesn't mean you're running at 8ghz it just means they are able to effectively multi-task

Well u can just use the double threaded application or even single threaded application if u want hardcore frequencies on a single core. and plus by operating at 4x faster i meant while a single core does 4 applications in 4 times, quad core does it in 1. because u will never get a single application running at a time (unless u want to shut down every application...), therefore i've said that it pretty much operates 4x faster

and yea if u don't understand what i meant for the first sentence then go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llOXMPXH2VA&feature=related

 

[poisonthemon]

Well u can just use the double threaded application or even single threaded application if u want hardcore frequencies on a single core. and plus by operating at 4x faster i meant while a single core does 4 applications in 4 times, quad core does it in 1. because u will never get a single application running at a time (unless u want to shut down every application...), therefore i've said that it pretty much operates 4x faster

and yea if u don't understand what i meant for the first sentence then go here: YouTube - Turbo Mode inside Intel's Core i7

Maybe you should do some parallel programming -_- There is a point at which it becomes stupid to introduce the synchronisation overhead or task allocation involved with a concurrent program. For example, last year I was writing a multithreaded quicksort implementation for an assignment. I found that I could make it much faster (given the allocation structure I had) by working out how many integers could fit into the cache of one core (I was targeting a machine with 8 identical AMD Opteron Dual cores) and just running a serial recursive sort once the list was small enough rather than the multithreaded one that involved creating a new task order for each chunk of the array, locking the task list, dumping the tasks on it and then unlocking it again for another thread to pick up later. The technology you mentioned isn't always available, and likely won't be on affordable chips for a long time, so it's best to err on the side of scalability and (if you're hellbent on performance) program concurrently where possible and aiming to cram the time critical values into a smallish cache, as we're unlikely to see any huge clock wars like we did 10 years ago, at least for a little while.