Viewing Thread:
"what does the average person need a 2.8GHz CPU for"

i know someone who is going to get a pc for everyday use, the internet, the odd game and typing, the graphics card is a ti4200 so theres no need for such a fast cpu, what is the point of this, u can barely tell the difference between a 2.0 and a 2.8 anyway

if you don't need that much power you'd buy a lower spec like DUH!


it's mainly a games thing but my dad has a meaty CPU as he wires his DV camera up and edits video's and stuff which need shedloads of power esspecially when encoding to mpeg2 to put on DVD

champ man is the king of modern games :D
no need for a geforce 4 but ram is needed.
ut2003 eats alot of CPU i heard :S

A puppy isn't going to speed up Championship Manager 4. This hay has *issues*.

I'm beginning to think like that as well. It just seems like a bit of a waste of money. I spent a small fortune on a system about a year ago, and apart from the graphics card it would be entry-level now. And if I bought the same system now I'd be able to play Half Life, Deus Ex, all the Quakes, the original UT - all at the highest detail level, or near as. And it would still be good enough for Medal of Honour, Wolfenstein and UT2003. I think you might as well get good quality components that aren't at the bleeding edge, and just enjoy good old games: then do the same a couple of yearrs down the line.

A fast processor is nice if you do video conversions or whatever, but I'm not sure it's worth it.

Example:

You average punter plays Unreal Tournament 2003. Now, let's say your average framerate is 55fps (as is mine) on the botmatch benchmark. This is a real-worl bench so don't give me that applicable crap.

The thing is, this doesn't even begin to tax my Ti550 at 1024x768. Wanna know why? The CPU can't do that maths. This is a 1.85ghz XP2000 we're talking about here - not slow. Now, there is no way, even if I bought a Radeon 9700Pro. Sure, I could have better effects and resolutions, but it would never get above 55fps on the botmatch demo. That's about 30fps ingame.

This, my furry friend, is why we have 2.8ghz Pentium 4s (or 2.5ghz XP2400s RAR!) - or the 3.06ghz ones released a few days ago :-D

On the other hand:

[00:08:42] want a 2.8ghz P4?
[00:09:04] i want a puppy
[00:09:22] all about priorities I suppose.

i think its stupid u have to upgrade each tiem to play new games.... when games had no 3d graphics the gameplay took control and having pc's getting faster and faster it aint helping nor the fact that the amount of games that are actualy original on the pc other than sequels (ut, ut2003, quake, quake 2, quake 3) what next?!
PC gaming will die if we have any more of that so i say thank god for consoles ACTUALLY dedicated to gaming and so u dont need to worry about the speed of the console.

If it's just a home PC where you check your mail, play a few 'old' games and browse the web a lot, you definatly won't need such a big processor.
Pretty sure you won't need it if you intend to play every single game thats released (UT2003..etc) you might aswell buy an AMD processor and save yourself a few hundred pounds.
I actually have no idea why you'd want any more than a 1.3Ghz PC at the moment (what I'm using) :p if it takes a long time to do something, I wait. Doesn't bother me.

Tell us what you use your PC for and i'm sure someone will point you in a direction more suited for your needs.

Fast porn??

I dunno!

Fast games and all that crap!

Believe me, within 3 years it will be outdated!

My 800mhz PC was top-of-the-range 3 and a half years ago, now it only just meets the specs for UT2003!

Invest for the future!

i know someone who is going to get a pc for everyday use, the internet, the odd game and typing, the graphics card is a ti4200 so theres no need for such a fast cpu, what is the point of this, u can barely tell the difference between a 2.0 and a 2.8 anyway