Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Teh bestest procesoor in teh wurld!

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 6, 2002 8:52:03 PM

<b>[begin extremely stupid mode]</b>

<b><font color=red>VIA C3 owns joo!</font color=red></b>

Get the <font color=red>powerful</font color=red> VIA C3 at 1GHz. Not only is this CPU inexpensive and quiet (when paired with a quiet heat sink) but it will even encode an MP3 file in 1224 seconds!

It's hard to beat performance like that in such a low-power package! Get yours today!
<b>[end extremely stupid mode]</b>

In other words, it will take over <b>twenty</b> minutes for the C3 to encode an MP3. Whoopie! I can hardly wait! (Which is why I wouldn't get one, because I can't stand to wait <i>that</i> long just to encode an MP3 file... I'd be up <i>all night</i> to rip a whole CD!)

Okay, I know this is a stupid post. ;)  I just <i>still</i> can't believe THG's review of the C3. Actually ... I <i>can</i> believe the review. I just can't believe VIA would actually produce such a crappy product.

Okay. Scratch that. I <i>can</i> believe VIA would produce such a crappy product.

Anywho, back to my point.

Oh. Where did I put that pencil sharpener? My point seems pretty blunt. Oh well...

So, my point was that in the THG article of the P4b @ 2.43GHz vs. AXP2100+, the P4b @ 2.53GHz encoded its MP3 file in 92 seconds, less than 10% of the time the 1GHz C3 took! Imagine that. A modern processor from a company who actually has half a clue on what they're doing can release a CPU that kicks the tar out of something from VIA. Ooh. Shock.

You just know the C3 has got to have some serious issues if it's running <i>that</i> slowly. My guess is that it just royally sucks walrus snot at bitshifting operations. That, and it has severe cache envy.

Anyone else have any theories (or facts) on why the C3 sucks so badly at encoding files into compressed formats? (And has anyone even <i>tried</i> to watch MP4 movies on a C3-based system? Is it even <i>possible</i>?)

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't <i>totally</i> suck at <i>some</i> things, and the low power and thermals are cool too.

But then again, try looking at the specs for Intel's Ultra Low Voltage Celeron at 650MHz. It only consumes 1.10V (as compared to the VIA C3 @ 1GHz taking 1.35V) and puts out only 7W of heat (as compared to the VIA C3 @ 1GHz putting out 12W of heat). In my opinion, this kicks the VIA C3's arse in electrical and thermal design.

But it's only 650MHz, you say? Well, if it performs anywhere near The Beast (Celery 666) from THG's review(http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q2/020605/index.html), then it should be a very worthy alternative to VIA's C3. And after all, for low-power/low heat CPUs, performance is hardly the primary issue.

Of course, I have no idea what the cost for one of Intel's Ultra Low Voltage Celerons is. So that might be VIA's only saving grace. Anyone know how much one of the little buggers costs?


Tech support said take a screen shot.
Putting it down with my .22 was the humane thing to do.
June 6, 2002 9:08:38 PM

Well, I think the VIA C3 is a brilliant processor. Just not one you'd use to play any intensive games or do anysort of encoding. Not sure how well it would handle decoding a fullsize DivX stream.

My computer stays on most of the day. It isn't the loudest system I've seen, but it is loud. If all I want to do is surf the web, write a few docos, do some programming or so, the C3 is perfect. I'm even thinking of getting one as a second system, as long as the ram prices come down. Maybe using a flexATX mobo, a couple of fans using near silent 5v modes, and it should do fine. all of that would probably cost less than the latest Intel or AMD processor alone. Also, the 12w power in comparison to the ~75w of the others would make it friendly not only to the environment, but also to the ears. And no extra heat for the summer.

Of course a more powerful system would be necessary for gaming. But it wouldn't have to stay on all day.

<b><font color=red>This is not a signature.</font color=red></b>
June 6, 2002 9:43:16 PM

Quote:
the VIA C3 is a brilliant processor.

roflMAO.


<i>if <b>you know</b> <font color=white>you don't know</font color=white>, the way could be more easy ...
Related resources
a b à CPUs
June 6, 2002 10:58:21 PM

Here's the kicker-VIA has been trying to sell these as <i>value</i> processors. But both the Celeron (blah) and Duron are MUCH cheaper, at MUCH higher performance levels. In fact, you can get a Duron with 4x the performance for less money!

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
June 6, 2002 11:16:16 PM

Yeah but the point tom was making about the situations where the C3 becomes viable still stands valid, from my perspective at least. You have to accept that not everybody buys a computer to play the latest games or to rip dvds or mp3s.

The rackmounted situation for example would be excellent for via cpu's. If someone said they needed a computer to put in their study just to do some wordprocessing and accessing internet, the C3 would allow a very "convenient" computer. A LOT of people have such needs.

<b><font color=red>This is not a signature.</font color=red></b>
June 6, 2002 11:17:55 PM

Yes, as the rumour goes, your ass does seem to "come off" quite easily.

<b><font color=red>This is not a signature.</font color=red></b>
a b à CPUs
June 6, 2002 11:32:38 PM

IMO such applications would be better served with a low voltage Celeron, or even a laptop PIII.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
June 6, 2002 11:35:22 PM

|
V

now im a tank, armoured against bs@dum.
<i>if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy
June 7, 2002 12:03:57 AM

your previous post, im puzzling...
is it a come off itself or not.

figure out a little about, this will give you some work to unfreeze your brain. haha.


now im a tank, armoured against bs@dum.
<i>if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy
June 7, 2002 12:40:12 AM

With the low voltage celeron, the heat concerns remain, while laptop p3's are rather expensive in comparison.

<b><font color=red>This is not a signature.</font color=red></b>
June 7, 2002 12:42:31 AM

Which mental institute are you a subject of again?

<b><font color=red>This is not a signature.</font color=red></b>
June 7, 2002 1:41:43 AM

I think the easier question would be of which one he <i>isn't</i>.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
a b à CPUs
June 7, 2002 3:07:03 AM

Doesn't low voltage Celeron have minimal heat output?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
June 7, 2002 9:54:48 AM

I wanna know what app they are using, cause with acid pro 3, my athlon 2000++ can encode an mp3 in about 6 seconds.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 7, 2002 4:32:08 PM

But are they the same size? You could be comparing a 40MB wave file to a 400MB wave file.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 7, 2002 7:53:35 PM

as low as 12watts?

<b><font color=red>This is not a signature.</font color=red></b>
a b à CPUs
June 7, 2002 8:56:08 PM

Silver Phoenix claims the ULV Celeron 650 desplaces 7w of heat.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
June 7, 2002 11:03:25 PM

cool. Then I'd recommend one of those.

<b><font color=red>This is not a signature.</font color=red></b>
June 8, 2002 12:02:45 AM

i think the main use of this processor would be for things that doesn't require much power and doesn't produce any heat. i mean those 8086's are becoming hard to come by. So now there is a replacement and cheaper then those hard to find 8086's they use to direct traffic and stuff...

heh ya thats pretty much coming out of my butt. *shrugs*

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2002 1:28:58 AM

You can still buy 386, 486, and even I believe Pentium CPU's from Intel for such applications (imbedded processor line), Transmeta already fills the moderate performance area quite well (probably at least as well as the C3, and for less money), and the ULV Celeron most likely cost less with lower heat output and better performance. If it's all about price vs heat, assuming 100% reliability for all those mentioned, all fill the nich better than the C3.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
June 8, 2002 11:08:32 AM

Quote:
But are they the same size? You could be comparing a 40MB wave file to a 400MB wave file


A full quality 5 minute wav ripped at the highest settings, its base filesize was 90megs, my question is why is he encoding 400 meg wav files? Thats like 25 minutes of sound.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 8, 2002 6:47:45 PM

im not a expert in english but is "teh" means "the"?
June 8, 2002 6:49:11 PM

maybe for a audio CD?
June 8, 2002 6:51:36 PM

what is "acid pro 3", a music band?
June 8, 2002 6:53:35 PM

im not sure about your purpose. is there a difference other than size?
June 8, 2002 7:55:05 PM

Well since you're new here, I'd recommend you this, which is to try to keep all what you have to say, in one post, preferably. Don't do like Labdog, who posts irrelevant stuff everywhere.
You have two questions above for Matisaro, you can delete one of the posts, edit the other and paste what you wanted to say.

Just a friendly tip so that nobody would tell you this too late!

PS: And yes Slvr was just kidding when he wrote "Teh", he wanted to be sarcastic on how the C3 is so good, and that I would assume this is to also say only those who don't know so much, will write this way! a.k.a dumbasses

--
Meow
June 8, 2002 8:09:40 PM

who is this guy, "Labdog"?
he seems not be worthwhile, here. but this is just some king of impressing, im not here for long.
June 8, 2002 8:52:12 PM

you are speaking about what?
June 8, 2002 8:54:59 PM

he seems to be maybe a little strange... no?
June 8, 2002 8:56:43 PM

you are maybe a little strange, no?
well, but it is just a assumption..
June 8, 2002 9:24:11 PM

coughmfud=labdogcough

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 8, 2002 9:28:31 PM

Blind, I was.
Fool, I always be.

Words Yoda would spit out.

--
Meow
!