New computer speeds

[Jimw]

Are they now using a different computer speed rating?
My computer is a Pentium III, 1ghz. I also have an older PII 700mhz.
A friend has a PIII 2.7ghz. which is much newer than mine, and only a
few years old. I was just looking at new computers are Walmart. I'm
not planning to buy, but just wanted to see what they are rated these
days. All of them are Pentium4 now, but some are still rated right
around 2.8ghz, and another was over 6.0ghz. Is this like the fastest
now? But I also noticed they are all labelled as dual core and stuff
like that. I have not been keeping up with the latest computers, so
I'm kind of lost. Do they really exceed 6.0ghz now? What is dual
core?

Heck, just a few years ago I was running a 233mhz and that was
considered fast at the end of the 1990s. I didn't think I'd ever see
the ratings go this high in such a short amount of time, but I
question whether they still use the same ratings????

Of course all these new computers come with Vista, so all the speed
gain from hardware gets lost running that power hog Vista. At the rate
MS is creating software, by the end of 2010, people will need 1thz
(trigga hertz), and it will run as slow as an old 286, but require
50amps of electrical power to start it.

Linux is looking better every day !!!!
Once XP is abandoned, we're all screwed.

Jim

 

[JS]

Dual Core:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_(computing)

Core 2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2

The speed of the CPU and the number of cores
is not the only factor. The slowest part of the chain
is the hard disk, then ram. Ratings or benchmarks
can be misleading except possibly for gamers.

As I am typing this response to your question I'm
using a 933Mhz P3 with 512MB of ram. My "Test"
PC has a dual core cpu which is overclocked and I
can't type any faster on it.

My Photoshop PC use for scanning slides and photos
is a 2.6 P4 with Hyper Threading, Windows XP OS.

I'm in the process of building two computers, one is
a dual core to replace my Photoshop PC and the other
is a Quad Core.

Probably the only computers you should stay away from
are the PCs that come with a 64 Bit OS as applications
are still relatively scarce. If fact there is a lot of software
that still can't take full advantage of a dual core cpu.

 

[Twayne]

Dual Core:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_(computing)

Core 2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2

The speed of the CPU and the number of cores
is not the only factor. The slowest part of the chain
is the hard disk, then ram. Ratings or benchmarks
can be misleading except possibly for gamers.

As I am typing this response to your question I'm
using a 933Mhz P3 with 512MB of ram. My "Test"
PC has a dual core cpu which is overclocked and I
can't type any faster on it.

My Photoshop PC use for scanning slides and photos
is a 2.6 P4 with Hyper Threading, Windows XP OS.

I'm in the process of building two computers, one is
a dual core to replace my Photoshop PC and the other
is a Quad Core.

Probably the only computers you should stay away from
are the PCs that come with a 64 Bit OS as applications
are still relatively scarce. If fact there is a lot of software
that still can't take full advantage of a dual core cpu.

And the "uniprocessors". Walmart et al love those. OK for the
inexperienced, but no good for real computing. The mobo's are real dogs
too.

 

[Patrick Keenan]

Are they now using a different computer speed rating?
My computer is a Pentium III, 1ghz. I also have an older PII 700mhz.
A friend has a PIII 2.7ghz.

AFAIK P3's were never made with speeds more than about 1gHz.

which is much newer than mine, and only a
few years old.

Clock speeds are by no means the whole story.

I was just looking at new computers are Walmart.

Not the best place to buy such items.

I'm
not planning to buy, but just wanted to see what they are rated these
days. All of them are Pentium4 now, but some are still rated right
around 2.8ghz, and another was over 6.0ghz. Is this like the fastest
now?

Clock speeds have not risen the way you might think. Higher speeds often
mean more power is required, and instead, chips have become more efficient.

But I also noticed they are all labelled as dual core and stuff
like that.

Yes. Dual-core processors are mainstream now, and can perform work much
faster than a single-core processor of identical clock speed.

I have not been keeping up with the latest computers, so
I'm kind of lost. Do they really exceed 6.0ghz now? What is dual
core?

It means that there are two processor cores, the parts that acutally does
the computing, on one chip. You'll also see 4 and 8 core processors for
higher-end use. Dual-core is very common now.

Heck, just a few years ago I was running a 233mhz and that was
considered fast at the end of the 1990s. I didn't think I'd ever see
the ratings go this high in such a short amount of time, but I
question whether they still use the same ratings????

Yes, but the clock numbers by themselves don't tell the whole story. There
are many other important factors.

Of course all these new computers come with Vista,

Just about any computer targeted to businesses, rather than consumers, has
XP as an option.

so all the speed
gain from hardware gets lost running that power hog Vista.

Not necessarily. My Thinkpad laptop runs Vista faster than it does XP.
It came with Vista, I put XP on, and took it off for performance reasons.

At the rate
MS is creating software, by the end of 2010, people will need 1thz
(trigga hertz), and it will run as slow as an old 286, but require
50amps of electrical power to start it.

You will find that power consumption is a very real issue for chip
designers. More and more systems are intended for mobile use, and power is
a huge issue there, for heat and battery life.

Linux is looking better every day !!!!

No, it's not really looking any different.

Once XP is abandoned, we're all screwed.

Not really. On the other hand, if you're ever at a large hospital or
government installation, such as a border point, you may very well see a lot
of Windows 2000 systems.

 

[Anteaus]

True, but don't overlook the fact that the slowdown is at least in part due
to preinstalled junk software. Especially Norton. A clean install of Vista
will run reasonably satisfactorily on a PIII/1GHz, provided it has adequate
RAM.

Unfortunately it's the case that virtually any computer you buy today needs
to be wiped and reloaded as soon as you take it out the box, because of
foistware impairing its performance. Since XP does perform better than Vista,
it makes more sense to reload it with XP.