None

edited January 2014 in General Discussion
-

Comments

  • Well, in order to make use of those extra cores (I assume your 2.5 one has multiple cores) the game has to be programmed with multiple cores in mind. When Tribes 2 was created, there were no widely available multi core processors, so it only uses one processor. Correct me if I am wrong.
  • I found this Tribes 2 Multi-Core Processor:
    With multi-core processors (dual, quad, octo) you are required to set the core affinity for the “Tribes 2 Executable” tribes2.exe or "Defense Turret Executable" dt.exe in Windows Task Manager. Alternately you can add the required parameters to a batch file.
    here http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9306881
  • how much cache does each cpu have?
  • There are lots of factors, cache size being one important one.

    You don't even know if the processor is the problem or not. Try upgrading all your drivers and check your processes list for something eating CPU.

    This sounds more like a video card (or lack thereof) problem.
  • There are lots of factors, cache size being one important one.

    You don't even know if the processor is the problem or not. Try upgrading all your drivers and check your processes list for something eating CPU.

    This sounds more like a video card (or lack thereof) problem.
    I agree. I played WoW on my laptop fine, then one day it was horrible and kept giving me the blue screen. I updated the graphics drivers and it worked fine after that.

    Also, what operating system do you have? Cuz something like Vista with only 1.5 GB could be the issue.
  • What operating system are you using?

    Here is some specs from Intel's site. Processor speed is not the only thing that matters.
    Your first computer had an Intel® Celeron® Processor 420, which launched in Q2 2007. Your "newer" one has Intel® Celeron® D Processor 326, which launched in Q2 2004.

    Here is a paragraph I took from HowStuffWorks.
    Bus speed usually refers to the speed of the front side bus (FSB), which connects the CPU to the northbridge. FSB speeds can range from 66 MHz to over 800 MHz. Since the CPU reaches the memory controller though the northbridge, FSB speed can dramatically affect a computer's performance.

    Your old CPU had 800 MHz FSB
    Your new CPU has 533 MHz FSB
  • Also, here are some benchmarks.
    Your new CPU http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Celeron+2.53GHz
    it got 321

    Your old CPU http://www.cpubenchmark.net/[email protected]+1.60GHz
    it got 464
    464 is better than 321

    There's so many things you have to take into consideration on a PC. Bigger numbers does not mean better. Unfortunately, that's how most consumers see it. Everyone thinks 8 GB RAM is better than 4 GB RAM. While that is true, how often do you need 8GB worth of stuff open at one time? Never.

    Same thing for cameras. Most people think a 12 MP camera is better than an 8 MP camera, which isn't true. It just means you can blow your images up bigger. How many times have you printed a picture more than 8 1/2 x 11 inches?
  • the 1.6 has 512kb cache, the faster one has 256

    256 hasnt been enough since 1999

    cache makes a huge diff

    this is a perfect example of how more cache but a slower cpu can be faster or smoother running than a faster core with less cache
  • for experimentations sake, you can go into bios and disable cache temporarily to see how horribly a cpu is hindered without cache

    just remember to go back and enable it afterwards

    all cache is is memory, very fast localy stored memory to keep instructions and often needed data close to the cpu, inside it actually

    with cache disabled, or a very low amount of cache on hand, the cpu must access main memory for everything not found in cache, and that is terribly slow compared to getting the same data from cache

    if we could run everything from cache we would have really fast systems, however, cache is very expensive cpu die-and-wafer-wise, and getting huge amounts of cache to run at 3+Ghz is tough enough as it is

    all this happy horse poop isnt to say that theres not some software reason rather than hardware why your systems run as they do but my money is on the cache

    just be glad you dont have 128kb!
  • Bigger numbers does not mean better. Unfortunately, that's how most consumers see it. Everyone thinks 8 GB RAM is better than 4 GB RAM. While that is true, how often do you need 8GB worth of stuff open at one time? Never.
    Lies! Horrible, horrible lies!!
    Same thing for cameras. Most people think a 12 MP camera is better than an 8 MP camera, which isn't true.
    So my 1.2 MP camera is fine? ;)


    And seriously, who doesn't get at least a meg of cache these days?
  • Bigger numbers does not mean better. Unfortunately, that's how most consumers see it. Everyone thinks 8 GB RAM is better than 4 GB RAM. While that is true, how often do you need 8GB worth of stuff open at one time? Never.
    Lies! Horrible, horrible lies!!

    You don't need 8 GB of stuff running at once. If you do you're wasting your CPU anyway.
    Same thing for cameras. Most people think a 12 MP camera is better than an 8 MP camera, which isn't true.
    So my 1.2 MP camera is fine? ;)

    1.2 MP may be OK. What matters the most is the actual image sensor itself and the lens. Your 1080P television is 1920x1080, which is 2 megapixels. As cameras get better they get more MP's, have better lenses and better image sensors. But if you go out right now and buy a camera with 15 MPs and think it's going to be drastically better than an 8 MP one, then you'd be mistaken. Here's a chart.


    The number of megapixels and how good the picture will look at the following print sizes:
    GOOD BETTER BEST
    1 MP 5" x 7" 4" x 6" Wallet
    2 MP 8" x 10" 5" x 7" 4" x 6"
    3 MP 8" x 10" 8" x 10" 5" x 7"
    4 MP 11" x 14" 8" x 10" 5" x 7"
    5 MP 11" x 14" 11" x 14" 5" x 7"
    6-7 MP 16" x 20" 11" x 14" 8" x 10"
    8 MP 17" x 22" 16" x 20" 8" x 10"
    10 MP 20" x 30" 17" x 22" 11" x 14"

    2 or 3 MP will give you great pictures at 5x7 up to 8x10. 10 MP will give you 20x30. When was the last time you needed to print a picture at 20 inches wide by 30 inches long?
  • ohh ohhh! *raises hand* I know this

    the 2.5x is prescott based off the old P-4 Line, infact, its a weak P4

    the 420 is based off the core 2 series, which has much greater efficiency then anything based off prescott

    and there you have it. "Knowledge is power!"
  • edited September 2010
    that could be so, and also explains the horrible performance with the 2.5, p4s need all the cache they can get because their long pipeline makes cache misses (and likely context switches) very costly - the core 2 architecture is indeed a fine cpu and much more efficient/powerfull than a p4

    to see this p4 cache threshing for yourself, if you have a p4 core system available, just have several system user accounts up but not doing anything, and try to game on one account, and yes if you think you can host a dedicated game of t2 on one account and then browse the web from another on the same p4 system your players will be complaining loudly about the stuttering and lag

    this brings me to another like subject: if you have multiple user accounts on a system, when you want to play games log each of them off first so all system resources are devoted to the game
  • this brings me to another like subject: if you have multiple user accounts on a system, when you want to play games log each of them off first so all system resources are devoted to the game
    Like that'll do much. Most people brag about how 1337 they are and while they game they're downloading pr0n, watching youtube vids of their favorite bands, leeching/seeding torrents, instant messaging, and Skyping.
  • i meant user account on the local host, not at websites
  • I know, but doing all that stuff hogs your Internet. So while they game they brag how they're downloading a movie at the same time.
Sign In or Register to comment.