 |
Cheat Engine
The Official Site of Cheat Engine
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
1929394839292057839194958
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
![]() Reputation: 130
Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1509
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Slugsnack wrote: | | konr wrote: | | Super_Phreak wrote: | Look, konr and cryoma, I'm not trying to be mean about this, and please don't take offense, but I'm not sure you are aware of how shallow your understanding is of how computer processors, and computers in general work.
Read up on the basics of how processors work and the history of processors, and it will make sense. That's all.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/microprocessor.htm |
Yes I know nothing because I don't understand why a good processor would have a shit clock speed, because usually all of the good parts of a processor come hand in hand with the others. Shut up Phox. |
fuck me. okay connor. seriously, you're actually wrong and he's actually right. i'm not even trolling or some shit right now |
I'm wrong for thinking it's weird that a modern processor has such a shit clock speed? I don't recall me saying anything at all about it being any of the things he implied I thought it was, but he just assumed and I'm wrong? No, I'm not. He's reading far too much into something that I said very very little about. I was wrong saying an i5 didn't have it, obviously, but then the surprise afterwards isn't wrong, it's pretty normal if you think about it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Slugsnack
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
![]() Reputation: 71
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 1857
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| konr wrote: | | Slugsnack wrote: | | konr wrote: | | Super_Phreak wrote: | Look, konr and cryoma, I'm not trying to be mean about this, and please don't take offense, but I'm not sure you are aware of how shallow your understanding is of how computer processors, and computers in general work.
Read up on the basics of how processors work and the history of processors, and it will make sense. That's all.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/microprocessor.htm |
Yes I know nothing because I don't understand why a good processor would have a shit clock speed, because usually all of the good parts of a processor come hand in hand with the others. Shut up Phox. |
fuck me. okay connor. seriously, you're actually wrong and he's actually right. i'm not even trolling or some shit right now |
I'm wrong for thinking it's weird that a modern processor has such a shit clock speed? I don't recall me saying anything at all about it being any of the things he implied I thought it was, but he just assumed and I'm wrong? No, I'm not. He's reading far too much into something that I said very very little about. I was wrong saying an i5 didn't have it, obviously, but then the surprise afterwards isn't wrong, it's pretty normal if you think about it. |
you're wrong to think that a clock speed is an accurate representation of how much useful work a processor can do in a unit of time. you're wrong to think such a correlation even exists. within the same family of processors, it is useful to compare that number. outside of that it is completely inappropriate to do so
when you say the i5 has a shit clock speed, you are comparing to another family of processor. as a random example, the core 2 duo. i'm telling you it is invalid to make such a comparison and that it makes no sense
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1929394839292057839194958
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
![]() Reputation: 130
Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1509
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Slugsnack wrote: | | konr wrote: | | Slugsnack wrote: | | konr wrote: | | Super_Phreak wrote: | Look, konr and cryoma, I'm not trying to be mean about this, and please don't take offense, but I'm not sure you are aware of how shallow your understanding is of how computer processors, and computers in general work.
Read up on the basics of how processors work and the history of processors, and it will make sense. That's all.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/microprocessor.htm |
Yes I know nothing because I don't understand why a good processor would have a shit clock speed, because usually all of the good parts of a processor come hand in hand with the others. Shut up Phox. |
fuck me. okay connor. seriously, you're actually wrong and he's actually right. i'm not even trolling or some shit right now |
I'm wrong for thinking it's weird that a modern processor has such a shit clock speed? I don't recall me saying anything at all about it being any of the things he implied I thought it was, but he just assumed and I'm wrong? No, I'm not. He's reading far too much into something that I said very very little about. I was wrong saying an i5 didn't have it, obviously, but then the surprise afterwards isn't wrong, it's pretty normal if you think about it. |
you're wrong to think that a clock speed is an accurate representation of how much useful work a processor can do in a unit of time. you're wrong to think such a correlation even exists. within the same family of processors, it is useful to compare that number. outside of that it is completely inappropriate to do so
when you say the i5 has a shit clock speed, you are comparing to another family of processor. as a random example, the core 2 duo. i'm telling you it is invalid to make such a comparison and that it makes no sense |
You would agree that a high clockspeed (like on my i5 2500k which is running at 3.5ghz atm and is 3.3 by default) is a good thing, right? If so, then me saying that it has a shit clockspeed when it has dramatically lower than that and is still the same processor as mind makes sense right? That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying I know a fuckton about what differences it makes at all, I'm just saying it surprises me that it has such a low clockspeed considering what mine is.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OP.
I post too much
 Reputation: 0
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 2217
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
all i asked for, is 2.4ghz & 8gb ram enough for photo/video editing
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimm808
How do I cheat?
![]() Reputation: 1
Joined: 12 Mar 2012
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| More than enough on a small scale, if you're looking into rendering feature length videos at 1080p i'd reccomend something a little more hefty, it also depends on the model of the CPU
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barnold Swolezzenegger
Cheater
 Reputation: 20
Joined: 12 Mar 2011
Posts: 45
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| konr wrote: | | Slugsnack wrote: | | konr wrote: | | Slugsnack wrote: | | konr wrote: | | Super_Phreak wrote: | Look, konr and cryoma, I'm not trying to be mean about this, and please don't take offense, but I'm not sure you are aware of how shallow your understanding is of how computer processors, and computers in general work.
Read up on the basics of how processors work and the history of processors, and it will make sense. That's all.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/microprocessor.htm |
Yes I know nothing because I don't understand why a good processor would have a shit clock speed, because usually all of the good parts of a processor come hand in hand with the others. Shut up Phox. |
fuck me. okay connor. seriously, you're actually wrong and he's actually right. i'm not even trolling or some shit right now |
I'm wrong for thinking it's weird that a modern processor has such a shit clock speed? I don't recall me saying anything at all about it being any of the things he implied I thought it was, but he just assumed and I'm wrong? No, I'm not. He's reading far too much into something that I said very very little about. I was wrong saying an i5 didn't have it, obviously, but then the surprise afterwards isn't wrong, it's pretty normal if you think about it. |
you're wrong to think that a clock speed is an accurate representation of how much useful work a processor can do in a unit of time. you're wrong to think such a correlation even exists. within the same family of processors, it is useful to compare that number. outside of that it is completely inappropriate to do so
when you say the i5 has a shit clock speed, you are comparing to another family of processor. as a random example, the core 2 duo. i'm telling you it is invalid to make such a comparison and that it makes no sense |
You would agree that a high clockspeed (like on my i5 2500k which is running at 3.5ghz atm and is 3.3 by default) is a good thing, right? If so, then me saying that it has a shit clockspeed when it has dramatically lower than that and is still the same processor as mind makes sense right? That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying I know a fuckton about what differences it makes at all, I'm just saying it surprises me that it has such a low clockspeed considering what mine is. |
Clock speed has little to do with how well a processor works. Higher clock speeds allow for slightly faster performance, but what matters is the core architecture, caching, and all that other fancy mumbo-jumbo. As Slugsnack said, comparing a 2.4ghz i5 to a core2duo is idiotic. Clock speeds aren't a comparison among generations or brands. At all. Nor will they ever be.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1929394839292057839194958
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
![]() Reputation: 130
Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1509
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Apotheoun wrote: | | konr wrote: | | Slugsnack wrote: | | konr wrote: | | Slugsnack wrote: | | konr wrote: | | Super_Phreak wrote: | Look, konr and cryoma, I'm not trying to be mean about this, and please don't take offense, but I'm not sure you are aware of how shallow your understanding is of how computer processors, and computers in general work.
Read up on the basics of how processors work and the history of processors, and it will make sense. That's all.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/microprocessor.htm |
Yes I know nothing because I don't understand why a good processor would have a shit clock speed, because usually all of the good parts of a processor come hand in hand with the others. Shut up Phox. |
fuck me. okay connor. seriously, you're actually wrong and he's actually right. i'm not even trolling or some shit right now |
I'm wrong for thinking it's weird that a modern processor has such a shit clock speed? I don't recall me saying anything at all about it being any of the things he implied I thought it was, but he just assumed and I'm wrong? No, I'm not. He's reading far too much into something that I said very very little about. I was wrong saying an i5 didn't have it, obviously, but then the surprise afterwards isn't wrong, it's pretty normal if you think about it. |
you're wrong to think that a clock speed is an accurate representation of how much useful work a processor can do in a unit of time. you're wrong to think such a correlation even exists. within the same family of processors, it is useful to compare that number. outside of that it is completely inappropriate to do so
when you say the i5 has a shit clock speed, you are comparing to another family of processor. as a random example, the core 2 duo. i'm telling you it is invalid to make such a comparison and that it makes no sense |
You would agree that a high clockspeed (like on my i5 2500k which is running at 3.5ghz atm and is 3.3 by default) is a good thing, right? If so, then me saying that it has a shit clockspeed when it has dramatically lower than that and is still the same processor as mind makes sense right? That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying I know a fuckton about what differences it makes at all, I'm just saying it surprises me that it has such a low clockspeed considering what mine is. |
Clock speed has little to do with how well a processor works. Higher clock speeds allow for slightly faster performance, but what matters is the core architecture, caching, and all that other fancy mumbo-jumbo. As Slugsnack said, comparing a 2.4ghz i5 to a core2duo is idiotic. Clock speeds aren't a comparison among generations or brands. At all. Nor will they ever be. |
You need to read what I said. I was comparing it to another i5 that I have.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slugsnack
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
![]() Reputation: 71
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 1857
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yes if you overclocked something to have a higher clock rate, it will be faster by definition. this in no way relates to what has been discussed in the rest of the thread
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OP.
I post too much
Reputation: 0
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 2217
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
omg clock this block speed omg stop
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slugsnack
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
![]() Reputation: 71
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 1857
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stfu you no longer played a part in this thread since i made my first post
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1929394839292057839194958
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
![]() Reputation: 130
Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1509
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Slugsnack wrote: | | yes if you overclocked something to have a higher clock rate, it will be faster by definition. this in no way relates to what has been discussed in the rest of the thread |
Urm I think you missed that I said 3.3 was the original. 3.3 > 2.4. That's what I was comparing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slugsnack
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
![]() Reputation: 71
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 1857
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| how does that relate to anything else in this thread?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barnold Swolezzenegger
Cheater
Reputation: 20
Joined: 12 Mar 2011
Posts: 45
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If you have 2 of the same processor, one is at 2.4 Ghz and the other is at 3.5 ghz, then yes the 3.5 will be faster. But comparing similar processors by clock speed is idiotic.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1929394839292057839194958
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
![]() Reputation: 130
Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1509
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Apotheoun wrote: | | If you have 2 of the same processor, one is at 2.4 Ghz and the other is at 3.5 ghz, then yes the 3.5 will be faster. But comparing similar processors by clock speed is idiotic. |
Which I did not do. What?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slugsnack
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
![]() Reputation: 71
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 1857
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| omg you're literally too close-minded to reason with
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
