New laptop :) battlefield 2 :(

[tech838]

Hello
I am getting a new laptop its the tosh m60 162 but the processor is only 1.86 ghz and battlefield neads 1.70 to run will it be ok or should i get anouther laptop while i can?
Thank you

[Noni]

Re: New laptop battlefield 2

If it is Penitum M its fine.

[tech838]

Re: New laptop battlefield 2

thank you is this right because ive heard that pentium m is something like 2x faster than a standard processor

[Noni]

Re: New laptop battlefield 2

I think so, but its like AMD too.

An 3000+ is rated at 1.8ghz, but is still faster than a 3.0ghz P4.

Clockspeed aint something you should judge a processor on nowadays .

Good luck with your new laptop.

[tech838]

Re: New laptop battlefield 2

Thank you very much noni hope we talk again soon

[Jammydodger]

Re: New laptop battlefield 2

AMD processors are better for gaming than intel (fact)

[Lt.Kris]

Re: New laptop battlefield 2

that might explain my Athalon XP 1800+ running bf2 pretty well.

[maranello]

Re: New laptop battlefield 2

AMD processors are better for gaming than intel (fact)

depends...I have 2 PCs, one of them has 3700+ 64bit and the other one has 3.0 P4. I use P4 mostly. Why? Here is why, i can play FEAR, BF2, HL2 at the same time, doing alt+tab. it takes less than 2 seconds to switch between games (I have 2 GB DDR2 ram in P4, 2 GB DDR RAM in AMD). I never agree with the fact that "AMD is good for gaming"

1. The companies that does gaming performance reviews for processors, such as xlabs sell AMD, they have contracts with AMD, they get free AMD processors for their use so it is a known "fact" that they exaggarate AMDs

2. It depends on the person using the PC. If you are not using your PC for multi-tasking and you are a gamer and you use your hardware only for gaming, go ahead and buy AMD, why waste money on Intel. But if you are doing multi tasking and that doesnt include only switching between games too, AND if you are a programmer (like myself) and use your PC for other purposes (such as assembly, C++, math applications), then AMD is worthless and useless as P3.

Just ask yourself this question. Why people keep saying AMD is better than intel? First of all the average gamer is not very rich so they can't afford to have an Intel system. Not only their CPUs (intel) cost more, but their motherboard, DDR2 ram, etc cost more as well. Do you really think there is such thing as "cheap and faster"? Well as a programmer, i can tell you it does not exist in software industry.

Also just ask yourself this question too, why in the world, all the big corporations, such as microsoft, IBM, sun, Dell, HP, GM, GE, Texas Instruments, even NASA, uses Intel instead of AMD. Do you think these people are dumb and love wasting money on a slow processor? No, of course not. It's obvious that they know something more than most of you guys do. AMD makes their processors mostly for graphical applications use, games on the top of the list. AMDs are so slow, so behind, using very old technologies in mathematical calculations. And let me tell you this, by mathematical calculations, i don't just mean math. applications such as mathematica or maple, i mean compiling a DVD video, or compiling a C++ project, or writing a Java web applet, all of these things include math, and Intel has FAR advanced tehcnology than AMD will ever achieve in the next 10 years.

Whatever you say, flame me if you want. I studied both of their architecture, i know how they work. AND i, myself, spent a little over $2000 and built an AMD system. Oh before i finish my post, here is the system specifications for the PCs i have.

1.
P4 3.0 ghz/HT Prescott Core
Intel DXCV925 Mobo
2 GB DDR2 667 Mhz (1024 x 2)
Gefore 7800 GTX OC (575 mhz/1150 mhz)
80 GB SATA

2.
AMD Athlon 64 bit 3700+
Asus Mobo
2 GB DDR 400 mhz (1024 x 2)
Geforce 6800 GT OC (don't remember mhz)
100 GB SATA (newer than P4 harddrive)

1st PC cost around $3000 with the accessories, like 6.1 sound system, 2 x 21" monitors, etc.
2nd PC cost around $2100 with everything

And 1st PC basically owns the second one in every application i run, from compilers, to DVD watching, to playing games. Oh an also

In the first one, i run BF2 at

1600 x 1200
High Settings
Ultra High Sound
32 AA
8 AF

I get around 65-75 fps

In the second one, i run BF2 at

1024 x 768
High Settings
Ultra High Sound
16 AA
4 AF

I get the same fps.

Well this also depends on the fact that first one has a better video card, but that's not the point.

The point is, the entire world is using Intel except gamers and some other graphical designers. Software industries, military industries, car companies, web developers, every major corporation is using intel. This is the same in US, same in Europe, same in Asia. You can look at how much Intel made last year and how much AMD made last year. In fact, what AMD made from CPU sell is less than what Intel made from its motherboard sell. You are comparing oranges and apples. Like comparing Sun and Microsoft.

Don't forget, i am one of the AMD buyers too, so i m not here to flame you or anybody else. Since you said it's a "fact", i wanted to give you some "real facts".

[maranello]

Re: New laptop battlefield 2

Oh and for those of you who have 64 bit processors (AMD), here is a little info. You think your PC will be faster than x86 family (i.e. intel) when 64 bit applications are released and when windows fully support 64 bit cpu with drivers etc. Well think twice. I have lots of compilers that support 64 bit CPUs and i did install 64 bit windows to my AMD, and you know what? You can't notice the difference. It's in nanoseconds, or sometimes less than that. AND still, Intel takes a lot less time to compile my C++ projects than AMD does even in 64 bit windows. I can compile 15 files (total of 30-40,000 lines of code) in intel less than 2-3 seconds, whereas this process takes over 15-20 seconds in AMD.

And i do maintain my PCs well, i have 2 external 20 GB harddrives which i backup my data regularly and i format my harddrives every month and i defrag every week.

Sorry to talk like this, but we are living in a capitalist world. Who wouldn't love the idea of having a cheaper but better processor. It's better in some cases, but its not perfectly good and its bad in some other cases.

[imported_Rosco151]

Re: New laptop battlefield 2

Maranello - i can play FEAR, BF2, HL2 at the same time, doing alt+tab.

A little too impatient for all that 'close one application and then start another' cr@p, eh? :laugh:

[maranello]

Re: New laptop battlefield 2

i can play FEAR, BF2, HL2 at the same time, doing alt+tab.

A little too impatient for all that 'close one application and then start another' cr@p, eh? :laugh:

well bf2 gets very boring temporarily sometimes. I usually play 32 player city maps, which if you play it with 10-15 people, takes over 1 or even sometimes 2 hours to finish. i don't want to close BF2 because of that darn account server problem, and logging in and finding the server is a pain in the a$$ as you know. So i do alt+tab and play FEAR (single player) and even that gets boring too, and i miss HL2 graphics and my hero gordon freeman, then i switch to HL2. Well this doesn't only depend on my, it depends on the RAM too, but again Intel beats the AMD because it doesnt support DDR2. Again i know you will say "no difference between DDR and DDR2" well there is difference. Most of you guys have 333 mhz ram, DDR2 is 667 mhz (at least what i have), so its 2 times faster.

[Jammydodger]

Re: New laptop battlefield 2

Nice bit of info there maranello, U obviously know your stuff so i'll shut up

[CaptJordus]

Re: New laptop battlefield 2

I seriously doubt you play two fo the most hardware taxing games ever by Alt tabbing between one another (FEAR, BF2).

Also, you miss the point entirely.

The purpose of AMD being a gaming tank is because its CHEAPER.

You spent 900$ less on the AMD system and with an identical video card I can guarantee you it will perform the same, if not better.

I get the feeling you are an intel fanboy.

Every (read: Every single one) bench ive seen for GAMING shows AMD way up on top of Intel. Even companies who dont even sell processors and have no reason to back AMD.

AMD takes "shortcuts" in their designs to keep up with Intel. Using On Dye memory controllers as opposed to using, more expensive, DDR2 RAM that Intel already implimented. Things like that.

On the note of 64 bit processing in Win64. I bet the program you used to compile was NOT a 64 bit program. Thats like saying you ran a 16 Bit DOS program in XP and it ran the same as it would in DOS. Of course it would, its not using the rest of the past 16 bit capability.

I must concede though, Intel is a far more reliable chip. Thats why all the huge corporations and government agencies use them. They dont take shortcuts to keep up in speed, but you certainly pay for the difference.

Also, I benched my PC (athlon 64 3400+ Clawhammer) against several of my friends PCs. And the results follow:

AMD Athlon 64 3400+ Clawhammer
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ NewCastle
Pentium 4 3.0
Pentium 4 2.8
Pentium 4 2.4


We all used the same video card and all had very comparable memory. The two AMD systems were identical aside the processor itself.

Funny, the 2.2 and 2.4Ghz AMD systems raped the heck out of the intels with much less clock speed. (although core clock is less relevant these days)

Simply put, AMD is great for gaming, but they are "cheaper" products and as such, are prone to reliability quirks. Intel makes a fantastic chip, great for reliability and still good for speed if you have the money to fork over. I primarily use my PC for gaming and very light multitasking so its not a huge deal to me, or the average person to Compile C++ or encode too many DVDs.

I use to hate underdog companies. I hated AMD, i hated ATI. I only wanted a Pentium and a Nvidia chip. I took a lunge and got an AMD 3400+ and a Ati Radeon X800 Pro, and i love the AMD, the ATI is a peice of **** because it cant stay cool, but it renders fine.

[<DV8>mrbucket]

Re: New laptop battlefield 2

Yes, your benchmarking test's are very reliable. Considering you're using 4 different CPU's at 4 different clocks. I bet my P4 3.2 would be comparable with your 3400 clawhammer. If the 3.0 you ran against was a Northwood, it is a decent processor, but the difference lies in the construction compared to the Prescott.

In regard's to your vid card- You need to get an aftermarket cooler. Almost all vid card that go out have under-powered cooling.

NO i'm not a fanboy of either, In fact my next rig will have AMD Athlon 3800 and a 7800 vid card.

[CaptJordus]

Re: New laptop battlefield 2

Yes, your benchmarking test's are very reliable. Considering you're using 4 different CPU's at 4 different clocks. I bet my P4 3.2 would be comparable with your 3400 clawhammer. If the 3.0 you ran against was a Northwood, it is a decent processor, but the difference lies in the construction compared to the Prescott.

In regard's to your vid card- You need to get an aftermarket cooler. Almost all vid card that go out have under-powered cooling.

NO i'm not a fanboy of either, In fact my next rig will have AMD Athlon 3800 and a 7800 vid card.

Umm....

I'm hoping you made a mistake in what you typed or i just took it wrong.

The Bench's WOULD be reliable from having different CPUs because were testing the DIFFERENT CPUs in a gaming environment.

EDIT: your 3.2 should be close give or take. the "3400+" means it is designed to perform right around the range of a 3.4 Intel.