computer power
- Thread starter CasioTech
- Start date
They're getting faster. Look at the X2s, or the Pentium Ds. RAM is getting faster. Hard drives are getting faster. Ethernet is getting faster. Firewire and USB are getting faster and better. Bluetooth should get a nice boost in the future. 802.11 is getting better and better.
What's the problem again?
What does ghz mean? What exactly does it measure? How fast is 3ghz? Exactly how much work gets done in a reasonable time with 3ghz?
wasn't there a law that said processor power doubles every 18 mo? or was that transistor count...i don't remember.
Okay, let me give you the desktop scene in a nutshell....
Intel has lost out to AMD in the performance game. The fastest AMD processors are, for the most part, faster than the fastest Intel processors. What's more, AMD chips are still a lot cheaper than Intel's. So it really doesn't make much sense to buy Intel, anymore, for a desktop system.
The MHz race is over. Neither Intel nor AMD identify their processors by clock speed, anymore. Intel uses a crazy three-digit naming scheme where the first digit represents the type, and the second and third digits (as one number) represent performance. So, for example, the Pentium 4 540 is faster than the Pentium 4 530. The Pentium 4 630 and 640 have a similar relationship, and are considered faster than the 530 and 540, respectively. These are called 5xx and 6xx processors, by the way.
AMD uses a much better naming scheme, based on the old MHz race. The top AMD mainstream CPU is the Athlon 64 4000+, and the bottom model is the Athlon 64 2800+. In between, we have the 3000+, 3200+, 3400+, 3500+, 3700+ and 3800+. Some major-brand vendors have oddities like the Athlon 64 3300+. But, in all cases, the higher the model number, the faster the CPU.
Below the Athlon 64, we have the Athlon XP. Note that the top model Athlon XP 3200+ is slower than the bottom model Athlon 64 2800+, despite having a higher rating. In that sense, the model numbers are not comparable, but within each group, they're pretty accurate. The Athlon XP model numbering goes all the way down to 1500+, and, as mentioned just now, up through the 3200+.
Finally, we have the AMD Sempron. The Sempron model numbering is very confusing, and I suggest looking at benchmarks to find out how they compare to the Athlon 64 and Athlon XP.
....is that what you wanted?
Intel has lost out to AMD in the performance game. The fastest AMD processors are, for the most part, faster than the fastest Intel processors. What's more, AMD chips are still a lot cheaper than Intel's. So it really doesn't make much sense to buy Intel, anymore, for a desktop system.
The MHz race is over. Neither Intel nor AMD identify their processors by clock speed, anymore. Intel uses a crazy three-digit naming scheme where the first digit represents the type, and the second and third digits (as one number) represent performance. So, for example, the Pentium 4 540 is faster than the Pentium 4 530. The Pentium 4 630 and 640 have a similar relationship, and are considered faster than the 530 and 540, respectively. These are called 5xx and 6xx processors, by the way.
AMD uses a much better naming scheme, based on the old MHz race. The top AMD mainstream CPU is the Athlon 64 4000+, and the bottom model is the Athlon 64 2800+. In between, we have the 3000+, 3200+, 3400+, 3500+, 3700+ and 3800+. Some major-brand vendors have oddities like the Athlon 64 3300+. But, in all cases, the higher the model number, the faster the CPU.
Below the Athlon 64, we have the Athlon XP. Note that the top model Athlon XP 3200+ is slower than the bottom model Athlon 64 2800+, despite having a higher rating. In that sense, the model numbers are not comparable, but within each group, they're pretty accurate. The Athlon XP model numbering goes all the way down to 1500+, and, as mentioned just now, up through the 3200+.
Finally, we have the AMD Sempron. The Sempron model numbering is very confusing, and I suggest looking at benchmarks to find out how they compare to the Athlon 64 and Athlon XP.
....is that what you wanted?
i suppose, so computers are still becoming as obsolete as fast? and i noticed games aren't really getting much better. creative limitations there i suppose.
I never play games, nor have I ever. Unless you count that time my girlfriend bought The Sims a couple years ago. I think I played that once or twice. So, I can't comment on that remark. However...
Yes, computers are still getting faster and faster, at much the same rate as before. AMD is about to release a line of processors that will be so incredibly fast, they'll make the top-model Athlon XP from two years ago seem like a 286.
At this point, I believe you've been out of the loop for game engines too. The Unreal 3 engine will crush your system like a bug most likely unless you have a dedicated server for visual data proccessing.
Also, Doom 3 ran at 1600X1200 at ultra quality with maxed out AA/AF will probably run right past your system unless you've got a high end SLI system or a single 512MB video card.
Hard Drives are not realy getting faster.
RAM standards are also in a bit of a funk.
CPUs are introducing new features which will take a long time for software to fully utilize ( 64bit, multi-core).
Games are getting more advanced, but new releases seem to be not as frequent - and mostly shooters.
RAM standards are also in a bit of a funk.
CPUs are introducing new features which will take a long time for software to fully utilize ( 64bit, multi-core).
Games are getting more advanced, but new releases seem to be not as frequent - and mostly shooters.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter