I have done all of the tests etc, that were in that link you gave me, I done most of them through bitdefender and also the CC programme, alas to no real avail, although the computer did speed up slightly after doing the CC one

toms hardware didnt test the 9500gt
but the 9500gt is very simular to the 8600gt (witch toms did test)
both are 128-bit with 32 stream prossesors
the 8600gt with 256mb mem scored 4913.
the variable here is the system this 8600gt was tested in.

im not sure what your problem is as for your computer, maybe its just software related like rage suggests.

but something tells me your 3dmark score should be atleast 4000.
if you can burn the money for that new cpu, do it. it cant hurt anything but your wallet (just be sure your mobo can take it)

i hope you get it all worked out.

You're completely wrong with your analogy. If you had the most basic understand of how a modern multitasking OSkernel operates, from Linux to Windows to Mac OS X, you'd understand why your statement is completely wrong.

You cannot liken cores to adding additional "horsepower" to a computer, nor can you liken additional cores to ANY sort of linear performance gain metric. You cannot compare a CPU to an engine. THAT is comparing "apples to oranges". An engine produces force to operate the drivetrain. A CPU is a decision-making calcuator, intepreting instructions and performing operations on those instructions to change register states and memory states.

There's hundreds of factors involved in how additional processing power scales on a CPU. Things like the length of the pipeline, the amount of L1 cache available, the failure rate of instruction prediction, the cost of a failed instruction, et cetera. Even in true multi-threaded applications, there's no guarantee that you're going to see a linear increase in performance just by adding additional cores. Ultimately each individual CPU is going to share resources with other parts of the system, and this includes interaction with the OS.

And not to mention we are dealing with hardware and software in 2008, not 2015 or 2020. For the overwhelming majority of applications and games available today, there will be little to no benefit in seeking more cores with a lowered clockspeed over a smaller number of cores with a substantially higher clockspeed. Unless someone can truly justify the need for a quad-core system, such as a multi-threaded CAD applications, it's much easier to justify saving money on a dual-core CPU.

Yes, processors with dozens or even hundreds of "cores" is the future. You're 100% wrong as to why and as to how.

Well I ordered myself a new cpu, so I will see how that goes, and will let you know

I'm afraid you are wrong. Check out these real world results and take a look at the chart which compares the Penryn Duo and Penryn Quad running at exactly the same speed (3.33ghz). The quad is almost twice as fast as the Duo (which would make sense)

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/521/1/

In case you dont know what Cinebench is
http://www.maxon.net/pages/download/cinebench_e.html

What I meant from the beginning is that clock speed alone does not determine performance. which a lot of people cant seem to grasp. And you can argue about all day long about it but YOU are wrong. Real world results is what matters

Oh and by the way. It wont take till 2015 for OS's and apps to catch up to multi-core technology. Give it a year at best. Windows 7 should take care of this. Oh and I know an engine is not a CPU, The analogy I was trying to portray is that an 8cyl is more efficient than a 4cyl (requires less cycles), RPM's in this case. Core 2 Duo CPU's are more efficient and do not need to run as fast to achieve the same results as other CPU's regardless of the OS. Anyway enough said (for me anyway).

Where do you even get that 4 and 3GHz from? And then there's another thing to, if u'r planing to play games on the computer...how meny games are there that actually use all the 4 cores?

Switch to AMD Athlon...u get more for the money..! (atleast that's how it's here where i'm from, the intel cpus are very expensive)

Motherboards:
ASUS - Ok, but har to find drivers and slow to download
Gigabyte - Ok
MSI - almost Ok
DFI (LanParty) - Good
EVGA - Never tested one
aBit - Ok, has some nice features (not sure about the spelling there :/ )

@gguerra, you are still very confused as to how a CPU works. As I suggested before, read up on it before spouting nonsense like your above post.

Just to make it clear, Cinebench is only one of the few apps like Photoshop that is actually able to take advantage of multiple cores. How many such apps can you name? And how many of them actually provide a significant speed boost when using quad-core CPUs as opposed to dual-core ones? Another thing to know is that rendering apps like Cinebench and 3ds Max are optimized for multi-core use in a much better way and sooner since they need high-end hardware to run so as to speed up rendering as much as possible.

And as for the frequency, it absolutely does matter. Read Tom's Hardware's CPU Charts and you'll find that the E8400's higher frequency allows it to easily pull ahead of or be on par with the Q6600 in the majority of the tested apps and games.

Well I got my new CPU ,E5200, which speeded up my computer a lot, then not happy with that I decided to buy myself a new gpu, Radeon HD 4670 - and now boy is my computer running fast and smooth, so thankyou to everyone for you're advice

great job.

happy to hear you have it all behind you now

now to convice the missus I need more RAM hahaha

dont feel bad bro.

the computers at my work have these spec's

intel celeron 1.3ghz (single core)
onboard graphics
128mb ram


my owner just installed a T-1 line
(im wondering if he thinks the pages will load faster with this new line?)