From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

I'll be certain to check the specs next time

A 2.3 GHz processor is significantly slower than a modern PC processor,
not just because of clock speed, but due to architectural advancements
like more cores, higher instructions per cycle (IPC), and larger caches. Modern processors, even those with a lower clock speed, can outperform
older, high-GHz processors because they complete more work per cycle. A
2.3 GHz processor is suitable for basic tasks, but a modern PC with a multi-core processor in the 2.5-4.0 GHz range will be much faster for demanding applications like gaming or video editing.

Performance comparison

Task efficiency: Modern processors are far more efficient at executing instructions, meaning a modern processor can do more work in a shorter
amount of time compared to an older one, even with the same clock speed. Multiple cores: Modern CPUs have multiple cores (quad-core, octa-core,
etc.) that allow them to run multiple tasks simultaneously, a feature
the 2.3 GHz era lacked. A modern processor will be faster for
multitasking and programs designed to use multiple cores.

Single-core performance: Even for tasks that are limited to a single
core, a modern processor will generally outperform an older 2.3 GHz CPU
due to architectural improvements and higher IPC.

Benchmarks: For a true comparison, a benchmark score is the most
reliable metric. A modern processor with a similar or even lower clock
speed will have a much higher benchmark score than an older one.

Other factors: Processor speed is not the only factor. Modern PCs also
benefit from faster RAM, faster storage (like SSDs), and better
integrated graphics.

What this means for you

Basic use: A computer with a 2.3 GHz processor is still capable of
handling basic tasks like web browsing, word processing, and email.

Demanding tasks: For gaming, video editing, or other CPU-intensive applications, a 2.3 GHz processor will struggle significantly. A modern processor with a clock speed of 2.5 GHz or higher and multiple cores is necessary for a smooth experience.
--
The esssential conditions of everything you do must be choice, love, and passion.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

The World of Is! <[email protected]> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

I'll be certain to check the specs next time

A 2.3 GHz processor is significantly slower than a modern PC processor, <snip>

Has nothing to do with the clock speed and everything to do with the
cores, streamlined code execution and branch prediction.

If it's a laptop it will tend to have a lower clock speed since it will
be running on battery a lot of the time.

Old computer Athlon II 3.20 GHz, 4 cores, a decade old at least.
New computer Ryzen 5 5600x 6 core at 3.7 GHz.

The clock is only a little more, but everything else is optimized more,
the OS the programs themselves.

WinXP for instance did not optimize that much or use the cores you had -
either a game or app used it directly, or it did not use more cores -
the most you could do was assign certain tasks an affinity for a
particular core so the OS ran on one and the game on another, but almost
no games actually used more than one core.


Now the OS and games/apps do have multi-core support and that makes a
HUGE difference.

Which of course the developers pissed away with horrible spaghetti code
and bad unoptimized ports of games developed for consoles with much more limited controls and power.

It's all a shell game with constantly moving goal posts.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 07 Nov 2025 18:21:50 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Xocyll wrote:

Which of course the developers pissed away with horrible spaghetti code
and bad unoptimized ports of games developed for consoles with much more >limited controls and power.

This. It's always this.

Software engineers will always find a way to make your machine run
slower.
--
Zag

Give me the liberty to know, to think, to believe,
and to utter freely according to conscience, above
all other liberties. ~John Milton
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2