+1, my monitor is one of those shity ones, if I can understand the images perfectly, its fine.

Nekys, WATAFAK??????? I also have to render things sometimes, imagine that a 18 MB flsh movie Im making takes about 1 hour to open and about 30 mins to save. Also I did a movie in 3D studio max and it took like 10 hours to render (it had like 2 minutes)

AMD Sempron 2.6 64bit
512 RAM
128 ATI video
120 GB hard
before 4.5 years it was best and i still rule with it

Yeah, you need some cpu power and ram to render quicker. It's a good thing you don't need video cards for it. That's why i sacrificed 200 mhz from my cpu to put another 2 gigs of ram.

lol raidfight thats's not a computer ....

My PC:

RAM 4GB DDRII 667 MHz
Intel Core2 Duo T8300 - 2.4GHz -Cache 6MB - FSB 800MHz
nVidia GeForce 9500M GS - 512MB
Blu-ray + DVD+/-RW
TFT 18.4" Full HD
Hard Drive 320GB SATA - 5400 rpm

Atm i have: Intel Celeron 2000+ MHz proccesor
512 of RAM
Nvidia GeForce FX5500 128mb video card

Im planning to buy new components for the next year. Like a 4GHz(2GHz dual core) processor, i will add 4-5GHz of RAM and buy a brand new video card ^^

It's a wrong conception that one 2 ghz dual core is actually 4 ghz. It's just 2 ghz, but it has two, smaller cores.

I will not spend precious money on components anymore... The cheapest way: buy a new computer

Oh and btw guys, 6000+ isn't that much. It's not like 6000 mhz lol. His cpu is a bit under a stock E6600.

Raidfight, why don't you go for quad core? Look, i wanna ask you something: take this program http://files.extremeoverclocking.com/file.php?f=36 run the 1M decimals test and tell me what result you get. I'm really curious if my cpu stands up to the challenge.

my result is: +000h 01m 19s [1M] - is that good or bad?

Nope, it has a better performance than 4ghz, even more it's stable, not like unicore.
It's like ram, the more there is, the better is and if one goes off, there's still the others. [ofc 4 512 with different mhz will just make it worse, but 2 1gb ram is better than 1 2gb, especially if it's kingstonxD]

Yes, but you can't just add the frequencies. For example, a single core cpu may outperform versus a dual core cpu in single core performance. That's why i was so fucking amazed when i compared my cpu with a q6600. The q6600 would do 19 seconds and i would get 17 seconds.


Shitbad.

Like i said. I used to get 17 seconds. I think that was at 2.8 ghz.

hey man,I have amd athlon 2000+ lol... it`s very old,like 5 years

@raidfight. Well, i can't blame you, but the point is that overall, intel duos are cheaper because of one major thing: HIGHLY overclockable. I mean really, from 1.8 to 3.2 without any big stretch on a medium motherboard is really good. On a good motherboard they go over 3.6, perfectly stable. I think when you bought that duo they were at the begining. They were pretty expensive back then. Amd really lost the market when the q6600 came with duos' price being off.

amd above all...