How fast of a computer do you REALLY need?
Sunday, August 19, 2001 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
My office machine died last week. One of the CPUs went bad (one of two). Ticked off, I started looking at getting a brand new mega machine. My current work machine is a dual (now single) 650mhz P3 setup with 512MB of RAM.
So I go over to Dell's site and look at the top of the line workstations - 1 gig RAM, dual Xeon 1.7Ghz P4's, etc.
Then it dawned on me. Have computers simply lost their umph or has software simply not advanced fast enough to make getting such a mega system worth it?
I remember back in 1991 getting a 386SX-16 and getting a noticeable performance improvement simply by playing around with shadow bios.
But now, the various machines I have here at home don't really show much difference. I have a 1Ghz machine on the other side of this room that I"m not even using to type this (the P3-800mhz laptop is the main machine).
So what's the deal? Unless I'm doing CAD or rendering or something, what is a P4-1ghz (a dual no less) going to do for me, a developer, that a dual 650 setup won't be able to do in almost the exact same amount of time?
What are your views?
So I go over to Dell's site and look at the top of the line workstations - 1 gig RAM, dual Xeon 1.7Ghz P4's, etc.
Then it dawned on me. Have computers simply lost their umph or has software simply not advanced fast enough to make getting such a mega system worth it?
I remember back in 1991 getting a 386SX-16 and getting a noticeable performance improvement simply by playing around with shadow bios.
But now, the various machines I have here at home don't really show much difference. I have a 1Ghz machine on the other side of this room that I"m not even using to type this (the P3-800mhz laptop is the main machine).
So what's the deal? Unless I'm doing CAD or rendering or something, what is a P4-1ghz (a dual no less) going to do for me, a developer, that a dual 650 setup won't be able to do in almost the exact same amount of time?
What are your views?
 |
|
Page 2 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Buzz_Hog
Reply #22 Monday, August 20, 2001 12:13 PM
Reply #22 Monday, August 20, 2001 12:13 PM
Paxx, the noticable difference come into play when you hit 256 Meg RAM...
Some of my SAS programmers churn out some serious data sets. With 128 Meg RAM, the machine will chew away for about 13-15 minutes. When I bumped them up to 256, the process time dropes to below 30 seconds. Yes, this is a specific scenario where most users won't run into needing to process these data sets, but overall, the users have reported back that multi-tasking had also taken tremendous gains.
In essence, the extra RAM reduces the need for all the extra disk writes to cache files and running apps.
Some of my SAS programmers churn out some serious data sets. With 128 Meg RAM, the machine will chew away for about 13-15 minutes. When I bumped them up to 256, the process time dropes to below 30 seconds. Yes, this is a specific scenario where most users won't run into needing to process these data sets, but overall, the users have reported back that multi-tasking had also taken tremendous gains.
In essence, the extra RAM reduces the need for all the extra disk writes to cache files and running apps.
feline
Reply #23 Monday, August 20, 2001 12:59 PM
Reply #23 Monday, August 20, 2001 12:59 PM
put it this way, on my K62-400 with 256 meg of ram, if i start web surfing, downloading a file with getright, and trying to move the mouse pointer all at the same time CPU usage never drops below 98%
i tried playing mp3's in the background the other day. bit of a bad plan really.
i think i need an upgrade.
i tried playing mp3's in the background the other day. bit of a bad plan really.
i think i need an upgrade.
Buzz_Hog
Reply #24 Monday, August 20, 2001 4:52 PM
Reply #24 Monday, August 20, 2001 4:52 PM
feline, I don't think that's a hardware problem... Are you running Seti or a CPU cooler app?
GreenReaper
Reply #25 Monday, August 20, 2001 5:13 PM
Reply #25 Monday, August 20, 2001 5:13 PM
pjpowell - See my WindowBlinds skin optimization tips at http://www.greenreaper.btinternet.co.uk/wboptimise.htm
SickPuppy
Reply #26 Monday, August 20, 2001 5:59 PM
Reply #26 Monday, August 20, 2001 5:59 PM
I started off on a 286 at 8mhz with a 5mb HD, that was the business back then, then I got a 15mb HD and 8Mb RAM put in it and it felt awesome at the time. About 6 months later we got our first 386 with VGA, that machine was the centre of my world for about 9 months........
Anyways at present I've got a 550 Athlon O/C to 650mhz with 768Mb RAM, Geforce 2 MX 400 and SB Live Platinum. It's not too shabby I suppose BUT I'm getting a 1.4Ghz Athlon, with 768Mb DDR RAM at the weekend to upgrade. SHould be much happier with Max Payne when it's swopped.....
I have to say I think that the amount of RAM can be a lot more positive on performance than most people give it credit for, I generally have 380Mb free, thats with XP RC1, IE6, Winamp, AIM, PSP7, Dreamweaver 4 UltraDev all open as well.....
The beefier the better when watching DVD and creating music and graphics...... If I didn't do that I'd probably be quite happy with what I have although the SB Audigy looks awesome..... will be getting one as soon as
Anyways at present I've got a 550 Athlon O/C to 650mhz with 768Mb RAM, Geforce 2 MX 400 and SB Live Platinum. It's not too shabby I suppose BUT I'm getting a 1.4Ghz Athlon, with 768Mb DDR RAM at the weekend to upgrade. SHould be much happier with Max Payne when it's swopped.....
I have to say I think that the amount of RAM can be a lot more positive on performance than most people give it credit for, I generally have 380Mb free, thats with XP RC1, IE6, Winamp, AIM, PSP7, Dreamweaver 4 UltraDev all open as well.....
The beefier the better when watching DVD and creating music and graphics...... If I didn't do that I'd probably be quite happy with what I have although the SB Audigy looks awesome..... will be getting one as soon as
berzerka
Reply #27 Monday, August 20, 2001 6:11 PM
Reply #27 Monday, August 20, 2001 6:11 PM
im happy with my 300mhz, if i want it to go faster, i add more RAM
hoverboy
Reply #28 Monday, August 20, 2001 7:12 PM
Reply #28 Monday, August 20, 2001 7:12 PM
RAM is a huge performance booster for minimal $$$ these days. I've maxed out a system per paycheck since prices hit rock bottom
rmiles7721
Reply #29 Monday, August 20, 2001 7:20 PM
Reply #29 Monday, August 20, 2001 7:20 PM
hehe, currently running with P3 1ghz, 512 Ram, TNT2 32 meg, 5 HD's, DVD, CD-Burner, LS-120, Floppy Windows, lights, fans, etc. The only thing I am missing is that when I was running Win98, I had an atapi tape drive running with direct tape access. I am still not satisfied Seriously though, I do want a faster video card, and am restling between a geforce 3, or one of the new radeons. My problem is that the more powerful I make my PC, the more STUFF I try to make it do. I would like to be able to have my email proggy running, listen to tunes, run DX, WB, Nextstart, LS, WindowFX, etc, my PVR software recording in the background, Trillian running, Playing Half-Life, all while defragging the HD's. Almost there, bwah-ha-ha.
feline
Reply #30 Tuesday, August 21, 2001 11:35 AM
Reply #30 Tuesday, August 21, 2001 11:35 AM
Buzz_Hog - feline, I don't think that's a hardware problem... Are you running Seti or a CPU cooler app?
personally i think it is something to do with one of:
software firewall, atguard
IE being a terminal resorce hog
antivirus program, which literally adds 10 minutes to boot time
i keep toying with stoping antivirus, but with all the fuss, ect i am not sure it is safe.
my machine is fine off line, so long as i dont go totaly silly, so its not a general problem.
personally i think it is something to do with one of:
software firewall, atguard
IE being a terminal resorce hog
antivirus program, which literally adds 10 minutes to boot time
i keep toying with stoping antivirus, but with all the fuss, ect i am not sure it is safe.
my machine is fine off line, so long as i dont go totaly silly, so its not a general problem.
Buzz_Hog
Reply #31 Tuesday, August 21, 2001 11:45 AM
Reply #31 Tuesday, August 21, 2001 11:45 AM
Feline,
Watch yur task manager when this is happening and see what is hogging up the processesor... On NT or Win2K hit Ctrl, Shift and Escape. Check the processes tab.
Under the CPU column, it'll give a number in percent of processor usage.
Watch yur task manager when this is happening and see what is hogging up the processesor... On NT or Win2K hit Ctrl, Shift and Escape. Check the processes tab.
Under the CPU column, it'll give a number in percent of processor usage.
iMike
Reply #32 Tuesday, August 21, 2001 12:06 PM
Reply #32 Tuesday, August 21, 2001 12:06 PM
my p3 550 with 320 megs of ram suits me well enough ... no need for anything faster or more memory ... course im a soder so all i really NEED is something that can run notepad heh but i also fart around a lot so the 320 megs of ram is often sued to its max ... seeing as how i usually have 20 windows open at a time at least
GreenReaper
Reply #33 Tuesday, August 21, 2001 3:25 PM
Reply #33 Tuesday, August 21, 2001 3:25 PM
Same here, iMike - I make do with my PII 350 - 320Mb of memory and plenty of hard drive space eases the pain . . . *g*
MobiusCo
Reply #34 Tuesday, August 21, 2001 5:24 PM
Reply #34 Tuesday, August 21, 2001 5:24 PM
Personally I will not be happy until you can directly plug the systems into your mind and eliminate the need for a keyboard, mouse, and monitor all together. But then again the power would be limited to your mind and a damn hard thing to upgrade that would be.
paxx
Reply #35 Tuesday, August 21, 2001 10:32 PM
Reply #35 Tuesday, August 21, 2001 10:32 PM
I've read an article about a laser shooting the display directly on your retina, eliminating the need for a screen. They say the laser is harmless because it's not strong ebough... but let me doubt that a little. My momy used to scold me if I sat in front of the TV to close...
feline
Reply #36 Wednesday, August 22, 2001 1:04 PM
Reply #36 Wednesday, August 22, 2001 1:04 PM
Buzz_Hog - Watch yur task manager when this is happening and see what is hogging up the processesor... On NT or Win2K hit Ctrl, Shift and Escape. Check the processes tab.
good point, i never seem to remember to check this once i get busy though.
just after it finally finshing booting though the "system idle process" always seems to be hogging all the CPU power.
perhaps i should kill it next time my machine slows down
good point, i never seem to remember to check this once i get busy though.
just after it finally finshing booting though the "system idle process" always seems to be hogging all the CPU power.
perhaps i should kill it next time my machine slows down
ess-vid
Reply #37 Thursday, August 23, 2001 2:48 AM
Reply #37 Thursday, August 23, 2001 2:48 AM
Circular question, as the more processing power I have available, the more I'm capable of and the faster I can get current capabilities done (graphic apps just love resources).
And P4 is a pile, at least at this point. Look at a good AMD rig (or build your own).
And P4 is a pile, at least at this point. Look at a good AMD rig (or build your own).
Mackintosh
Reply #38 Thursday, August 23, 2001 3:05 AM
Reply #38 Thursday, August 23, 2001 3:05 AM
I don't see any improvements with new CPUs, but that might have something to do with the fact that I upgrade as soon as they hit the market
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Monday, August 20, 2001 11:49 AM