Who still runs single core?

[Tarnsman]

March 4 is too soon for me to buy a new PC.

I will have to muddle along with my current rig: 3.2 P4HT 800Mhz bus, 2GB 667Ram, 525MB7950GT 500Watt PSW. I skiped my usual update cycle which would have been this summer, since my current rig runs everything:Il21946, rfactor, GTR2, SH4 very nicely at full details on my 24" widescreen. So I figured why upgrade if it still works. I play SH4 TMO no problem except I droped the texture detail down a notch.

So when they say E4400 dual core minimum do they really mean dual core only, since my P4 has a higher clock speed even than the E6850? Like does the game needs both cores to operate? I dont reallly understand dual core technology, but I do think a game has to be coded to take advantage of it. Now does this mean such a game is not backward compatiblle?

Is anyone here in a similar boat?

"Well she is a rather ageing man o war."
"Nonsense, She's in her prime"

[onelifecrisis]

Oh my god. No mention of DRM? No "funny" screenshots? No baseless rants about assumed features (or lack thereof)? I LOVE THIS THREAD ALREADY! :DL

On topic... from what little understanding I have: your CPU has hyper threading so in theory it should handle the (presumably multi-threaded) game, though it might chug.

[HundertzehnGustav]

if you have two cores running at, say, 2.5 GHz (2x2.5=5?), or one core at 3 GHz... wich one is better - faster - meaner - more capable?
(simplified)

and i guess that, being in 2010, all games use multiple cores, at least two...
you buy a new rig? go for quad core or octacore... 6 or 8 Gigs of Ram, a recent 64 Bit OS, one 128GB SDD, and a Terabyte HDD, 1024 MB Video memory, or 2048 if you can.

but dont forget a 1200Watt PSU, or bigger! and enough fans to cool the thing down!:D

...and NO, you are NOT advised to show the price tag to your wife...:o

[TDK1044]

Ironically, I recently purchased a new Laptop, and part of the decision making process was that it would have to be able to run Silent Hunter 5.

Now I'm not even buying the game. Too funny. :DL

[AVGWarhawk]

My single core ran SH4 ok. However, my quad core at 2.5 Ghz REALLY plays SH4 without issue. Time to upgrade sir and have fun!

[Schultz]

Beside this PC , I have an old that I used to play on it before I bought this one , and even sh4 worked on it.

[Letum]

I have two single core PCs, but they are just used as a mini render farm now.

One runs at 3ghz and the other at 900hmz

[danurve]

I'm not current with the Intell upgrade compatability scheme, but can't you drop a dual core chip into your current board?

[Tarnsman]

No, Danurve Id have to change the board too. Which is theoretically possible (Ive pulled other PCs apart and back together but not this one other than cards etc.) its a Dell XPS.

Im not buying another PC till at least the summer prefferably the fall period. This one plays every thing I do and well -- Im not chugging around watchin a SH4TMO slideshow or tweaking to get things running and I run at high fps in widescreen resolutions.

But the last games I bought were SH4 Uboat addon and ArmA, and they are basically 07 and 08 games. So past performance does not equal future success, but looking at the SH5 graphics they dont look like that much of a leap, frankly over SH4. I'll spring for a new Gfx card no problem. Im basically wondering if the new games Must be run by dual core machines, and if there are any guys out there with single core rigs that might know.

[wetgoat]

I guess we are in the same boat, 2.8 p4, 2g ddr1 ram, ati 1650pro, win xp, and I don't know either. Will buy something new by March (come on, tax refund) and I can't decide if I should go dual core or quad!:doh:

[Feuer Frei!]

I have a single core P4 2.8ghz with H.T. and it runs a lot of games quiet well, but it's unrealistic to assume that because there are as most of you would be aware more factors involved then just the CPU specs.......

P.S.U. and video card are the other two critical factors here.....
I have two rigs, one with the aforementioned P4, running a ATI 256mb @256mhz and 450P.S.U, which runs things along quiet nicely, namely SH3 and SH4, although SH4 struggles when trying to set to high or max settings.....

My other rig's specs were posted in my thread "Kaleuns, what system are you running"?....
I3 2.93ghz (new dual core processor), which will handle all currently released games on market, incl. Mass Effect 2, Batman AA, Dragon Age Origins, and some of the older ones, like Fallout 3 and that beast of a game, Crysis, which, might i add is what i use as a measuring stick, like so many people, before custom building my new rig, i looked at benchmarks for various cpu's, gpu's and whatnot for Crysis to sway me in the various directions for the hardware......

If you can run Crysis, on high then you can run anything on the market currently.......
Current games are not utilizing quad core architecture yet, i was looking at quad core but thought i'd upgrade later once gaming actually addresses the 4 cores simultaneously, it would just be a waste of the extra cores at the moment playing with a quad core....
The mobo is the key to any good system, mine is good to go for at least the next 5 years supporting i5's and i7's and 16g ram.....

Can i give some advice to people looking at upgrading?
Try to custom build your system, don't if you can avoid it buy a prebuilt, as you will be stuck with that system to a certain extent, namely locked bios, mobo might not be the best so not much upgradeability there for cpu and ram and xfire.....
Also, and i'm sure you all know but don't get a system with "integrated" graphics, or dedicated, this will not suffice for gaming, or graphically-demanding apps......
Another thing to look out for is possible bottle necking in a system, i am active on overclocking forums and also other hardware and software forums and the amount of people that complain they can't run that game on max with their super duper new fandangled beast of a machine is because it's either the P.S.U. that can't distribute enough juice, the cpu can't handle the graphics card and P.S.U. or the graphics card isn't good enough, or cooling isn't sufficient and parts are overheating.......(serious lag in games can be attributed to a part overheating) or worse, all of the above....
Ensure you have a good P.S.U. to drive your graphics card, if in doubt, check gpu developer's website for advice, ensure your cpu will be up to the processing power and also ensure that your gpu will actually run the games that you want to play......
I look at core clock speed mainly on a gpu.....
I will post a link, which some of you will know, it's where you can check if you can run a game on your currently configured system:
http://cyri.systemrequirementslab.com/srtest/

Great little tool that one, and pretty precise too.......

[Mud]

P4 3.4
Geforce 7600GT
2 Gig Ram and a sloppy onboard soundcard :yeah:

Oh and on WinXP ofcourse

Mud

[Mikhayl]

It's good to see others who have dinosaur computers :woot:
I have a dual core, but it's the ugly brother that we don't show to people, a Pentium D 925 3.00Ghz, I'm sure it's slower than many simple core CPUs.
And an old ATI X1650 256MB. I'll go (again) for the cheap upgrade with a 8800GT or similar, and I guess a E7400 or something like that.

[AVGWarhawk]

Also, it is all what you use the computer for. My single core is used by my daughters. It is perfect for them and any game thrown at it. It is a E-machine and about 7 years old now I guess. Still cranking!

[Platapus]

one 128GB SDD,


I admit that I am a noob, what is SDD?

[Steeltrap]

If you're looking to build a new rig, I recommend going to www.tomshardware.com and spending some time reading. It covers everything about PCs to a very high level of detail.

You can learn all about CPUs, GPUs, RAM, mobo, power supplies, bottlenecks etc etc i.e. everything you need to make an informed decision.

As Feuer Frei! said, you'll pretty much always do better with a custom build than a prebuilt as the latter tend to make compromises in areas that can hurt performance, and they often aren't really optimised (e.g. they often build in readily anticipated bottlenecks, where one of the CPU, GPU or memory components significantly differ in capacity from the others).

Cheers

[bigboywooly]

It's good to see others who have dinosaur computers :woot:
I have a dual core, but it's the ugly brother that we don't show to people, a Pentium D 925 3.00Ghz, I'm sure it's slower than many simple core CPUs.
And an old ATI X1650 256MB.

wow my other rig is an identical match
Ugly brother just about sums it up
Those Pentium Ds werent the best

[onelifecrisis]

I admit that I am a noob, what is SDD?

He probably meant SSD (solid state drive i.e. basically a hard disk made of RAM)

[bigboywooly]

I admit that I am a noob, what is SDD?

I think he means SSD
Solid state drive
Like a big flash card

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive

[HundertzehnGustav]

:D SSD...

[guynoir]

On the new Win7 machine I built last year, I have two RAID-0ed Intel SSDs as my OS drive (along with important programs (games)), and you can pry them from my cold dead fingers! :DL

The machine is very fast to boot up, nearly instantly drops to the desktop, and I can immediately click all of the programs in the taskbar and they all quickly open up.

SSD drives are probably the best general performance upgrade you can make for your PC... They make everything snappy! :rock:

[Wilcke]

On the new Win7 machine I built last year, I have two RAID-0ed Intel SSDs as my OS drive (along with important programs (games)), and you can pry them from my cold dead fingers! :DL

The machine is very fast to boot up, nearly instantly drops to the desktop, and I can immediately click all of the programs in the taskbar and they all quickly open up.

SSD drives are probably the best general performance upgrade you can make for your PC... They make everything snappy! :rock:

The SSD technology is just awesome and price points are coming down. Although the high quality ones are still a bit expensive when compared to a WD Raptor. I have built two SSD systems for friends as HTPC and they boot to the desktop at frightening speed. The SSD is a huge leap for the PC as it brings it to an almost instant on device.

As for dual core chips, I started on that road in '05 with AMD and still run an old dog X2 4800 on the 939 socket. The chip is good but the old ASUS Mobo is slowly dying. Its best to rebuild on a 2-3 year cycle these days and recoup your money by selling the parts on Ebay for on average 1/2 price. Wait to long and you just about have to give it away but at least its still being used and not going into a land fill or worse.

I do run a new Intel Core 2 Duo at 2.83 Ghz on my HTPC and I find it to be very capable and runs anything I need including Blu-Ray very nicely. There is plenty of CPU power available now and with multiple cores its up to the developers to write code that takes advantage of the processing power.

[kptn_kaiserhof]

i agree

[Ships-R-Us]

I really don't know what I have except my task manager is displaying 2 cpu's. Is this a dual core? I have 3gb ddr ram installed. The only game I play is SH4 and it goes fine on a Nvidia 9800GTX+ / 512mb DDR3 ram.

I copied this from the HP site. It's a A747C model. Is this a dinosaur rig?

Hardware
Base processor
Intel Pentium4 520 (P) 2.8 GHz (HT)
•800 MHz Front side bus
•Socket 775
•Hyper Threading technology
Chipset
Intel 915G
Motherboard
•ASUS name: PTGD1-LA
•HP name: Grouper-GL8E

[Kresge]

If you're looking to build a new rig, I recommend going to www.tomshardware.com (http://www.tomshardware.com) and spending some time reading. It covers everything about PCs to a very high level of detail.

You can learn all about CPUs, GPUs, RAM, mobo, power supplies, bottlenecks etc etc i.e. everything you need to make an informed decision.



Tom's is also a good source if you are trying to compare your old system specs with the SHV requirements. There are all sorts of charts and you can compare the performance of say a Pentium 4 3.2GHZ to a newer DuoCore, etc. model and see how they stack up. Video cards are in there too.

[GREY WOLF 3]

Minimum system configuration

CPU: Intel® Core2Duo® E4400 or AMD® Athlon™ 64 X2 4000+ or higher
Operating System: Windows® XP (with Service Pack 3) or Windows Vista® (with Service Pack 2)
RAM: 1 GB (XP) / 2 GB (Vista)
DVD-ROM: DVD-ROM speed 4x, dual-layer drive
Minimum Drive Space: 10 GB
Video Card: 256 MB DirectX® 9.0c-compliant video card (ATI® Radeon HD2600/GeForce® 8800 or better)
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c-compliant sound card
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (included on disc)
Recommended system configuration

CPU: Intel® Core2Duo® E6850 or AMD® Athlon™ 64 X2 5600+ or higher
Operating System: Windows® XP (with Service Pack 3) or Windows Vista® (with Service Pack 2) or Windows® 7
RAM: 2 GB (XP / Vista / Win7)
DVD-ROM: DVD-ROM speed 4x, dual-layer drive
Recommended Drive Space: 15 GB
Video Card: 512 MB DirectX® 9.0c-compliant video card (ATI® Radeon HD3000 series / GeForce® 9 Series or better)
Sound Card: DirectX® 9.0c-compliant sound card
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (included on disc)

Internet connection required :damn:

[Platapus]

He probably meant SSD (solid state drive i.e. basically a hard disk made of RAM)


Ah ok, thought there was another initialization I had to learn. Thanks

[jazman]

I really don't know what I have except my task manager is displaying 2 cpu's. Is this a dual core? I have 3gb ddr ram installed. The only game I play is SH4 and it goes fine on a Nvidia 9800GTX+ / 512mb DDR3 ram.

I copied this from the HP site. It's a A747C model. Is this a dinosaur rig?

Hardware
Base processor
Intel Pentium4 520 (P) 2.8 GHz (HT)
•

That (HT) means HyperThreaded. That's fake dual CPU. Note that Windows sees a core as a CPU, and it sees a thread as a CPU. So if you have two quad-core hyperthreaded Nehalems, the OS thinks you have 16 CPUs. But you don't.

Although Hyperthreading works OK for very short-lived threads being created and torn down frequently. Look at a Sun T5120, for example: 64 threads, one real CPU.

http://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/servers/sparc-enterprise/cmt-servers/031579.htm

Runs like a slug when you have unthreaded CPU-churning apps.

[jazman]

On the new Win7 machine I built last year, I have two RAID-0ed Intel SSDs as my OS drive (along with important programs (games)), and you can pry them from my cold dead fingers! :DL

The machine is very fast to boot up, nearly instantly drops to the desktop, and I can immediately click all of the programs in the taskbar and they all quickly open up.


I am drooling.

[jazman]

So when they say E4400 dual core minimum do they really mean dual core only, since my P4 has a higher clock speed even than the E6850? Like does the game needs both cores to operate? I dont reallly understand dual core technology, but I do think a game has to be coded to take advantage of it. Now does this mean such a game is not backward compatiblle?


Don't go by clock speed. Go by CPU throughput, which pretty much is higher for all the multi-core CPUs than for a single-core CPU, not because of clock speed, but because of bandwidth between RAM and CPU and CPU throughput. If SHV is not built with multithreading able to spread load across multi-cores, it's a dead dog. If it is built with multithreading (very likely is), your CPU is the dead dog.

But even clunky old games like IL-2 work better on a multi-core CPU. The game is bound to one of the cores, and all the other OS processes can use the other core(s), and it flies. You don't have to do all that stupid stuff like shutting down all services to reduce CPU usage.

[Tarnsman]

Thanks. I'll have to wait and see. I am still looking forward to SH5, but now I dont think Ill get it on day one, and will take a wait and see approach. But if Im flush on March 4 -- what the heck. Im not going to change my update schedule for just one title. After Battle of Britain SOW comes out (which is way behind schedule) and rFactor2 I will see whats on the market hardware wise and see who here is runnning SH5 on full settings and make my buying choices then.

Im only looking forward to SH5, rFactor2 and Oleg's BOBSOW, Im a simmer at heart and sim relases guide my hardware requirements. Also I want my next rig to support a 30-32" monitor at max frame rates and Id like to get a SSD and the other new tech. So I will wait and see how these sims run in the real world.

[onelifecrisis]

But even clunky old games like IL-2 work better on a multi-core CPU.

Umm, wrong! IL-2 is heavily CPU locked and runs faster on my sxi-year-old FX-55 than it does on my new Core i5-750.

[jazman]

Umm, wrong! IL-2 is heavily CPU locked and runs faster on my sxi-year-old FX-55 than it does on my new Core i5-750.

I bind the IL2 process to a single core and it works very well, even with a slower clock speed. If I don't it's a sloth because the OS tries to balance the load by switching it among the four cores. That's high overhead and the game runs like a sloth getting switched like that. But's that true of any monolithic CPU-eating process you run.

Your mileage may vary, of course, the FX-55 is a 64-bit AMD that had the big bandwidth between CPU and RAM (HyperTransport, I believe) that shivered Intel's timbers for a while. The Pentium 4 is a dog by comparison. And your FX-55 is two years younger than his Pentium.

FX-55: October 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Athlon_64_microprocessors

Intel Pentium4 520: August, 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_4_microprocessors

So what you said is true in some situations, and what I said was not true in some situations. So I'll narrow it down to cases like the original poster.

Here are some old CPU throughput benchmarks:

Pentium 4 630, 3.0 GHz:
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2006q1/cpu2000-20060221-05653.html

Xeon 3040 1.86 GHz:
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2006q4/cpu2000-20061114-08106.html

Yes, it's two sets of test runs going on simultaneously. But if you run only 1 on the dual-core box, you have at least the same amount of throughput available (half of 39.7), plus a second core to do all the OS stuff.

[Tarnsman]

My Cpu is a 640 Prescott, its not a dog. It is old tech, but it runs everything I have thrown at it. It was a very good buy and I was easily able to skip the first generation dual core chips and I ve only skipped the Core2Duo because till now I havent needed it. The PIV did way more than I expected of it and Ive read my many stories of guys running newer chips and getting equal or sometimes worse performance than I.

I agree that throughput is a big performance differentiator (especially bus size), but i just could not see going for a lower clock speed once a) the 3.xmhz speed had been breached, b) despite the arguments to the contrary the chip makers were still marketing chips on clock speed and it was clear that Core2 would reach +3mhz speeds again. and c) most games were not coded to take advantage of multiple core technology. Also XP does a pretty decent job of managing processes. I hope 7 is as stable as XP was.

Now for the first time Im confronted with a game requiring dual core technology, Im kina bummed but not really, it might yet run, or I wait a bit. I still feel I saved myself one computer since 2008 with my PIV and should be well placed to swoop an i7 or whatever looks like the next long term solution.

[jazman]

OK, I was a little confused, I was thinking of the Pentium 4 520, which is the old dog. I have a lot on my mind.

I had an Athlon XP 3000, and I called it my "Hardware Convoy Detector." I was running SH4 borderline, at about 25 FPS, and when I got near a small convoy or task force, it would slow down big time. Whenever I got the slowdown I knew it was "Battle Stations!"

[Tarnsman]

No biggie.

next rig will be a custom build, then I will be able to replace things and upgrade as frequently as I wish/need. Pulling the board on this would be a major chore due to the way its built and mostly the proprietry PSU, its 500W but I dont think thats enough for the new chips.

Question -- when you change the Mobo or PSU what happens with your Windows license?

[jazman]

No biggie.

next rig will be a custom build, then I will be able to replace things and upgrade as frequently as I wish/need. Pulling the board on this would be a major chore due to the way its built and mostly the proprietry PSU, its 500W but I dont think thats enough for the new chips.

Question -- when you change the Mobo or PSU what happens with your Windows license?

I do the exact same thing. I like being able to change a component when needed. The big one is when you have to change the mobo. Then you get the license problem, because I think Windows OEM is licensed to a mobo, basically. If you had a retail version, you could move it around. I don't think it matters about power supply, but your proprietary PSU is a pain. There is a documented way to install Windows 7 Upgrade on a clean disk (search Paul Thurrot's site), which can save some money.

BUT. I installed an old disk of Windows XP into a Virtual Machine recently. I hadn't run this version (by which I mean serial number) for a couple of years. When I activated it online, it worked, no problems.

[fromhell]

i have been building rigs for freinds and family and myself fo several years now. i find it hard to understand enyone going out and buying a rig ready made when for less than half the price you can build one yourself. my current rig is;
quadcore 3ghz
nvidia gtx295 video card
1000 watt psu
asus p5q-e motherboard
4 gigs ram @ 1066hz
win7
48x duel layer dvd
1terabyte hitachi hd for storage @7200rpm
300gb western digital velicio raptor hd @10000rpm:rock:
x-fi platinum sc
about £1,700 to build
dell do one similar for £3,500! see what i mean.

[fromhell]

just a thought but if enyone needs help or advise on building a rig, i am here

[msalama]

Is anyone here in a similar boat?Yep, except mine leaks even worse than yours.

You may not believe this, but I've a single core P4 2.4GHz / NVidia GeForce 7600GS / 2 GB RAM rig here and even have DCS:BS ( http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/ ) running pretty well now. The secret? Tweaking the hell out of the pooter, OS (WinXP SP3) and the game all, and that includes downsizing most textures etc. to 128x128 or thereabouts.

The downside is the sim looking pretty rudimentary - and I still get some stuttering etc. every now and then of course - but that's OK in a proper study simulator like the Shark IMHO... and as a byproduct my SH3/4 now runs like a mofo on crack too :D

Will post BS screenshots with the FPS counter on if you like - am getting over 100 FPS in outside camera views sometimes now, and a steady 30ish in the cockpit most of the time :|\\

So yah, it's doable with an old rig (within sensible limits of course) if you're willing to live with the inevitable tradeoffs in visual quality methinks.

[Skybird]

Funny, just this morning I had to spend hours on getting my old single core, 3 GHz, AGP, working again, it did not boot whehn switching on power. Sicne two years I consider to get a new rig, and then only chnage a HD or graphics board. Don't know what the problem was this morning, but for whatever the reason, it now works again, but I had to reactivate Windows (strange) although I did not change the installation.

Why this dinosaur still is in service? Becasue it does the job I want it to do. It runs the sims I use it for, and does so with fluid (fluent?) frames. But I am not having interest in buying new up-to-date-graphics games anymore, so this is a major reason.

Various strategy titles, FS9, GTR2, SBP, Oblivion,internet stuff, office, chess - all this a 3GHz single core does fast and well.

3 GHz, 2 GB, XP, AGP nVidia 7950GT (512 MB), Audigy 2, 550 Watt PSU

[CaptainHaplo]

Those with single core machines WILL have struggles with SH5. Each core has access to memory, and with the footprint of the game being around ~15Gigs - each core will be loading quite a bit. A single core design will not have enough memory throughput to be able to run the game well.

For those thinking of upgrading - bypass dual core chips. Quad core prices are very reasonable, and your getting ALOT more power for the money. For example - a solid MB that isn't designed for overclockers, and a Phenom 2 X4 965 can be had as a package for about $250 US dollars. A solid, long term video card for a between 100 - 200 more. Add in a solid power supply that will run it all, memory (if needed) - and your upgrade cost usually is around $600 - $800. This allows you to reuse your existing drives where possible, and your case too. If you want to improve those, you can when you have the extra money.

[Tarnsman]

Will games actually use the extra cores or will they be picking thier noses managing IM and background processes while one core is working its butt off moving me accross the Atlantic at 2460X time compression?

Bad example, but since games have to be programed to use dual core, is that the same with quad? Because Id just as soon target my upgrade to the game Im playing rather than the fancyiest hardware available.

[CaptainHaplo]

Tarnsman - I don't know if SH5 will be written for multicore or not - but given its a minimum requirement, it is HIGHLY likely it is.

You don't have to go top of the line everything to still get a great gaming rig - but if you update only for one game - your going to have to update again when that next game you want is out.

[Submarine]

P4 at 3.4ghz
Geforce 7800 @ 256mb
2gb ram

We are on the same boat.. errr... submarine :). It runs SH3 and COD 4 just fine, so I am good to go :D

[Tarnsman]

Funny thing is I bought this rig to play SH3 (thats how old it is) my former rig was a 1mhz PIII that I spent more time tweaking files, adding cards and generally farting around with than gaming. It was speced for Janes 688I, Janes WW2 and Grand Prix Legends box release. But it ran EA sports F1 99, IL2 Sturmovik and sort of IL2 FB with alot of work. SH3 did it in.

So when I bought I knew what I needed, and AMD and Intel were in a hardware war with new chips coming out every month. If I had my money together in March, I would have wound up with a 5xx Pentium with a smaller Bus size (333 or 500mhz I think) and AGP graphics. But I was forced to wait and I got the then hot 800mhz bus PCI graphics and 6XX series Pentium at a great price. Since then only going to a 24" monitor and SH4 forced a major upgrade to the 512MB 7950GTO card.

I write all of this to point out that there are sweet spots, especially if you are not into the Quake DOOm and Crysis type of games. Simulators are released only every couple of years, and getting a 12 month old former top line cpu can really be an advantage. IMHO get the most forward speced mainboard you can (socketed for the newest class of chips) check out whats comming down the pike,info on Intel and AMD next designs are on the web( check out http://www.anandtech.com/ ) for the release pattern on chip classes and know the type of chip in the computer you are buying. Wikipedea actually has alot of info on this stuff.

Of course builders know all this and a lot more, but alot of guys buy off the shelf and may not realize that the chip/board/socket configuration they are getting is at the end of its development cycle and literally has no future.

[Skybird]

Those with single core machines WILL have struggles with SH5. Each core has access to memory, and with the footprint of the game being around ~15Gigs - each core will be loading quite a bit. A single core design will not have enough memory throughput to be able to run the game well.

For those thinking of upgrading - bypass dual core chips. Quad core prices are very reasonable, and your getting ALOT more power for the money. For example - a solid MB that isn't designed for overclockers, and a Phenom 2 X4 965 can be had as a package for about $250 US dollars. A solid, long term video card for a between 100 - 200 more. Add in a solid power supply that will run it all, memory (if needed) - and your upgrade cost usually is around $600 - $800. This allows you to reuse your existing drives where possible, and your case too. If you want to improve those, you can when you have the extra money.

Would you also recommend that for somebody like me who has no interest in new games and only wants to run some old stuff that probably always will use just one core anyway? Wouldn'T a dual core, but that one with a high Ghz, be better than a quad core with lower GHz per core?

SH5 is not necessarily a criterion for me. I demand more than just eyecandy from it. If it really offers realism and a good AI, then I may wish to join the boat (upgrading first). If it is just a 3D boat, but detail, realism and AI letting players down, I would pass.

My only sim today that could need more system power is FS9, which nevertheless is fully playable in frames even with plenty of mods.


P.S. I have started to scan the market, but I admit that the plethora of labels and terms and products and standards has left me behind, I no longer feel competent to keep up with the stuff, it changes so damn fast. There is so much input about so many things from so many sources - I can'T say which constellation gives me the loudest bang for the buck, would be a reasonable compromise modest in price, or the fastest thing you can get.

[Tarnsman]

P.S. I have started to scan the market, but I admit that the plethora of labels and terms and products and standards has left me behind, I no longer feel competent to keep up with the stuff, it changes so damn fast. There is so much input about so many things from so many sources - I can'T say which constellation gives me the loudest bang for the buck, would be a reasonable compromise modest in price, or the fastest thing you can get.

Im with you, but I will be looking to add newer sims such as BOB SOW and SH5 so an upgrade is a metter of time for me. But I havent kept up with technology. Check out the http://www.anandtech.com/guides/ site above to get the big picture. They will have overview articles about Mobos, CPU, RAM, technologies. They go into some detail and when you are through you will know the what and most importantly the why of various PC technologies. You will be much better able to decide for yourself what you need after reading up on their site. Then go to Tomshardware for comparisons and Newegg for prices and user comments. Takes a while but you will be much more informed.

[Arclight]

Aye, Anand really goes into detail, though the tech-babble can be a bit much at times. Tom's is a little more "user friendly". Best sources on the web for this kind of stuff. :)