Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 73329	2006-10-15 12:09:00	PC Freezes	DragonMaci (11307)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
491702	2006-10-18 23:56:00	Sorry I guess I should have asked an expert. If I had realised you were the authority on cpu's I would have consulted you first. I wonder if some of those who set themselves up as experts realy know anything from practical experience or if they get their knowledge from magazines. Well, I can't speak for the others but from my experience dual cores are not an issue. It's the way Windows handles multiple cores. Since my problem was resolved by changing the way I connect to Woosh don't you think that rules the dual core being the problem? And I got the aforementioned software and am not having problems now. Well beyond the usual Windows ones anyway. You, however, didn't and did have problems beyond the usual Windows ones. Does that tell you anything? Also the server versions of Windows (which have more need for multiple processors) never had the problems with multiple cores like XP does without the aforementioned software. Does that tell you anything? As for you seeing the truth, no. You are clearly an irrational person. Only rational people can see the truth and reality as rational means "seeing the truth and reality" and irrational means the reverse.	DragonMaci (11307)
491703	2006-10-19 06:37:00	Firstly, Gigabyte are not the best brand. DFar from it. ASUS are the best. My cousin sells computers and has never once had to send a ASUS motherboard in for repairs. Secondly, you should never use generic no-name RAM. Always go with brand RAM as it is way more reliable and has better performance. It is worth the extra money. Thirdly, a 350 Watt PSU isn't that great for modern CPUs. 400 Watt is better. I think you're assuming a lot here. I didn't buy this computer. When I got it, it had a socket 478 Celeron D, and while the dual core was good, for anything processor-intensive it was really really slow. The reason the specs look odd/unplanned is because this started as a budget workplace PC, and I've been trying to turn it into a last-gen midrange gaming box by picking up parts off trademe, when I've got the money. The most recent addition was a good pair of headphones. Some more RAM will probally be next.	sinikk (9925)
491704	2006-10-19 23:05:00	I'd just ignore DragonMaci he doesnt know what hes talking about. For example there nothing wrong with Gigabyte boards, infact when it comes to Intel 965 based board its a Gigabyte board alot of enthusiast are buying because of its performance and overclocking ability. People wouldnt buy it if it was crap. Generic RAM has its place, the only performance benefit brand name ram has over generic is that it sometimes has tighter timings, offering slightly better performance that is only noticable in benchmarks. Most generic ram still has a brand name so its possible to find quality product for a good price.	Pete O'Neil (6584)
491705	2006-10-20 06:38:00	I'd just ignore DragonMaci he doesnt know what hes talking about. For example there nothing wrong with Gigabyte boards, infact when it comes to Intel 965 based board its a Gigabyte board alot of enthusiast are buying because of its performance and overclocking ability. People wouldnt buy it if it was crap. Generic RAM has its place, the only performance benefit brand name ram has over generic is that it sometimes has tighter timings, offering slightly better performance that is only noticable in benchmarks. Most generic ram still has a brand name so its possible to find quality product for a good price. Well actually this is the opinion of the aforementioned cousin who has had to return a lot of Gigabye motherboards. So I wouldn't say "nothing". " People wouldnt buy it if it was crap. " Incorrect. They would buy it if it was crap but thought it wasn't. Most people are quite prone to ignore reality. They do it all the time. As for generic RAM, well, if you don't know who made it you can't check quality assurance and make sure it is a reliable brand. That is enough to logically steer away from it.	DragonMaci (11307)
491706	2006-10-20 06:42:00	I think you're assuming a lot here. I didn't buy this computer. When I got it, it had a socket 478 Celeron D, and while the dual core was good, for anything processor-intensive it was really really slow. The reason the specs look odd/unplanned is because this started as a budget workplace PC, and I've been trying to turn it into a last-gen midrange gaming box by picking up parts off trademe, when I've got the money. The most recent addition was a good pair of headphones. Some more RAM will probally be next. Actually I assumed nothing. I was simply commenting of the parts. I don't make assumptions. If I don't have the facts I withold any judgment. Celeron D? Ug! Celerons are useless processors! Not that Semprons are much better. I have tried both and they are super slow.	DragonMaci (11307)
491707	2006-10-21 03:19:00	Actually I assumed nothing . If I don't have the facts I withold any judgment . Well, it looked to me like you assumed that I didn't already know that . Yup, Celerons suck . No cache = super slow . Still, they're cheap and they work, which makes them worth something .	sinikk (9925)
491708	2006-10-21 06:19:00	First step. Throw the Athlon 64 x 2 as far away as you can. It's rubbish!!!! Second step. Buy the most powerful single core you can afford. Well it worked for me:angry :angry I run an AMD 4400 X2 here with WinXP Pro SP2 and have had no problems so far. I can even run MS Flight Sim 2004 as well as it happens. There is nothing wrong with a dual core processor per se. I even remember motherboards set up with two processors. The first one I saw had two Intel 200 Mhertz CPUs. What we need now is for the software to catch up with the hardware I think. When I put this current system together I bought the 64 bit O/S to go with it. I found that there are not the right drivers for the rest of my hardware so I then had to buy a license for WinXP SP2. The 64bit O/S is still sitting waiting for someone to write the drivers. Personally I won't be holding my breath as I now think that everyone will be writing drivers for Vista.	Sweep (90)
491709	2006-10-21 06:36:00	A dual core cpu that only applies half it's resources to a program is useless for that program. Can't you understand that? Of course there was nothing wrong with the x2. It just lacked the resources to run the program properly If you want proof. Well faults with x2. Replace x2 with single core. Faults gone. Nothing else was done. A straight swap. Is that proof enough for you? Could you understand that Flight Sim 2004 was not programmed with dual core processors in mind. I hope you did not think MSFS would run twice as fast. I take it then that all your problems with Flight Sim have now gone and we never will hear about a Flight sim problem from you again will we? No spare bridges in Rotorua I would hope anyway. Until of course Microsoft give us version 2010 or whatever and you may bemoan the lack of dual processors.	Sweep (90)
491710	2006-10-22 10:58:00	I run an AMD 4400 X2 here with WinXP Pro SP2 and have had no problems so far. I can even run MS Flight Sim 2004 as well as it happens. There is nothing wrong with a dual core processor per se. I even remember motherboards set up with two processors. The first one I saw had two Intel 200 Mhertz CPUs. What we need now is for the software to catch up with the hardware I think. When I put this current system together I bought the 64 bit O/S to go with it. I found that there are not the right drivers for the rest of my hardware so I then had to buy a license for WinXP SP2. The 64bit O/S is still sitting waiting for someone to write the drivers. Personally I won't be holding my breath as I now think that everyone will be writing drivers for Vista. Indeed software does need to catch up. As I said earlier, where feasible my program will be have multi-threading enabled. Don't hold your breath on Vista driver support either. So far the drivers fro a lot of hardware is still missing in action or not fully Vista compatible.	DragonMaci (11307)
491711	2006-10-22 11:03:00	Could you understand that Flight Sim 2004 was not programmed with dual core processors in mind. I hope you did not think MSFS would run twice as fast. I take it then that all your problems with Flight Sim have now gone and we never will hear about a Flight sim problem from you again will we? No spare bridges in Rotorua I would hope anyway. Until of course Microsoft give us version 2010 or whatever and you may bemoan the lack of dual processors. Indeed it wasn't built with dual core support. Few games are. Also expecting things to run twice as fast is a misconception a lot of people have about dual cores. They don't realise that even if programs are developed with multithreading enabled that dual cores will give a performance speed and/or boost of 100%.	DragonMaci (11307)
1 2 3 4