davidtaylorsmith wrote:Question about Processors...
Was looking at some on a website - was under the impression that the important number was processor speed - i.e. 2GhZ, 2.5, 3.0, whatever. The processors I was looking at also had a BUS SPEED number, and that number didn't seem attached to the GHZ number. For instance, saw a 2.4 GHZ processor with 2000MHZ bus speed, and saw a 3.2 GHZ processor with 800MHZ bus speed. What the heck is bus speed, and is that number more or less important than the processor speed (which I am assuming is the GHZ number)???
Bus speed, at least for Intel Processors, is the speed that CPU access the RAM, and other peripherals. For Intel processors, increase in bus speed nets significant improvement in performance. AMD processors, due to their built in memory controllers, do not benefit significantly with higher bus speed. So to answer your question, the bus speed is not a good measure for speed. It's like determining the top speed of car by RPM.
I really don't understand why the processor requirements are so high. Even recently released FPS with massive polygon counts don't require that much processing power.
As for the OP, don't upgrade your RAM over 2GB. Windows XP Pro (don't know about the home version) can address only upto 3GB. But it needs some hack to get it to use 3GB. By default it can use only upto 2GB and extra memory is wasted.
Only thing I would definitely upgrade is the video card. GeForce 5200FX is the low end card from 2 generations back. Infact, high-end card from 3 generations can blow it away. For "cheap" upgrade around $125USD (PCI-E version), go for GeForce 6600GT (1 generation back). AGP version may cost a little more, and non-"GT" version (e.g. plain 6600) may cost less ( around $90USD).
