Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Who cares about the Power?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 15, 2002 7:42:58 PM

Why people are so worried about AMD, you only hope that AMD continues to exisit, so you could continue to support them and invest your money into so you could play your games, then you test your pc on 3dmarks and brag: "Yeah my score is 16000 and your pc is weak!" :)  no one else needs new upgrades as much as gamers. Even that is not important, other things like system & video memory play a big role as well. It makes more sense to upgrade your computer with latest video card then cpu. Computers (CPU) are already powerful enough to run basic tasks, like e-mail, internet, or word processing.


--------------------------------------------
Here is part of an article from NYtimes:

PC Makers Hit Speed Bumps; Being Faster May Not Matter

By JOHN MARKOFF

Todd Schreiner, a Chicago business consultant, went to his local Best Buy recently to check out hot new PC's that could replace his three-year-old computer. He decided not to buy.
Mr. Schreiner represents an unpleasant new reality for the personal computer industry. For decades it has relied on the certainty that customers have an unquenchable desire for speedier new machines. But computers have reached a point where for the most common home purposes — Web surfing, e-mail and word processing — they are already more than fast enough to suit a typical home user's needs.
"I couldn't conceive of a situation with my software applications today where I need a computer with a 2.4 gigahertz Pentium processor," Mr. Schreiner said, referring to one of Intel's fastest new chips. So he decided to make do with his three-year-old Dell PC, with a Pentium III chip only one-fifth as fast, and instead spent his money on more memory, a new digital camera and a CD-ROM burner to store his photos...

----------------------------------------------

More about : cares power

October 15, 2002 7:46:58 PM

Well said that man :-)
October 15, 2002 7:46:59 PM

Well said that man :-)
Related resources
October 15, 2002 8:29:46 PM

Sorry, but I've got to disagree. The extremely vast majority of the home PC users I know regularly play games on their PC. Yeah, a new graphics card will help there, as will a memory upgrade. But also the extremely vast majority of home PC users I know aren't skilled enough to even open their case, not to mention replace their graphics card without screwing something up badly.

So <b>most</b> home PC users I know just replace the whole machine when they feel it has gotten too slow.

Besides, we know that email isn't going to make anyone's PCs feel slow. So right there the whole point is flawed because most people who are looking to upgrade are looking because their games aren't running fast enough anymore.

Besides, there are plenty of people running small SOHO servers, scientific apps, small digital recording studios, etc. that want AMD to survive and want processors to give them more performance for less money. It isn't <b>just</b> games that are driving PCs to be faster. If that were true, they'd all just be buying an XBox.

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"><font color=red>Join</font color=red> <font color=blue>the</font color=blue> <font color=green>THGC</font color=green> <font color=orange>LAN</font color=orange> <font color=purple>Party</font color=purple>!</A>
October 15, 2002 8:37:29 PM

Yes it isn't just for gamers, but I said "the majority" (not all) of people require powerful pcs just to play games.

And, also it's true some people have no skills whatsoever when it comes to hardware and they think their pc requires upgrade when they feel it's too slow to play games, so you just proved my point again... lol :-)
October 15, 2002 8:40:42 PM

Quote:
and they think they need upgrade when the computer became too slow to play games


so you are saying you wouldn't upgrade if you couldn't play new games?

Time Management is very important, a bucket with a small leak in the botom loses just as much water as a bucket that is kicked over.
October 15, 2002 8:50:19 PM

Heheh, talk about flawed analogies.

Let us not forget the ever so dreaded long DVD encoding, MPEG 4 edit and encoding, video editing, number crunching, molecular scientific applications, basically anything intensive!
Yeah 90 seconds to rip a 170MB wav file ain't enough, ya heard me! :smile:

--
What made you choose your THG Community username/nickname? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new">Tell here!</A>
October 15, 2002 8:55:43 PM

lol, the highest requirement I've seen for a game was 1Ghz cpu with Geforce 2, and 256MB of RAM, I would upgrade the last 2 on the first place and cpu is least of my worries.

Of course if you have 400 Mhz system with 16 MB Video Card and 64MB of Ram and then you definitely need an upgrade, but games don't need 2.0 Ghz or higher cpu, not a single game that requires that much power. so why people are so worried about AMD running out of juices when you already have more then you ever need to play games for the next few years... Just upgrade your memory and video card
October 15, 2002 9:40:31 PM

The last time when I played something was a game call Doom. Does anybody remember that game?
Games are just lost time. This is why my computer is just a Celeron400. The components are as follow:

1. IBM120Gxp = a quick HDD is required for a decent compile time
2. BX motherboard + buffered Crucial PC150 = because I need a stable computer
3. Yamaha CD-RW 24X = because I don't want to waste time


Indeed for the next 2 years I am not planning to upgrade my proc, since Linux and W2000 are working just fine on my box.






Razvan
October 16, 2002 2:29:32 AM

same here
October 16, 2002 2:51:53 AM

That's ur POV, I personally love certain games (CS for example, though u can get by on slow ass comps w/ it). However, any app that requires serious number crunching needs all the processing power it can get, so that's where people need it too. Hvae fun calculating a 2^16x2^16 matrix and then multiplying it, etc on an old proc, or even new ones, cause they never suffice. I'm hoping Hammer will have some breakthru stuff to help......

What if you had admin rights to life?
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2002 3:39:50 AM

You're forgetting that the "typical high end home user" doesn't know enough about hardware and can't possibly keep up. I know someone who sold their PIII 866 system (with GeForce2 GTS graphics) to buy a new P4 1.9GHz system with "Intel Ultimate AGP graphics" or whatever it's called. At least it came with PC2100 memory...

A card can take you far! It only takes about a 700MHz processor to get you all the gaming options you want, if you have a Ti4200 or better graphics card!

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
October 16, 2002 4:09:53 AM

is that right? you'll see by my title that i'm a newbie, but i've got to think that framerates etc are boosted by a faster processor based on the tests you see on this website, 3dmark includes some fairly processor intensive stuff doesn't it? hey morrowind won't run the way i want it on my machine, and i'm at 1.9 w/ ti 4400 @ 325/666, pc2700 slightly oc'ed
even if you don't need 400 fps on quake3, a slight boost in fps on morrowind would be great, and won't that come with a faster processor? 700 mhz to 2.0 or somethin seems like it would make a big difference even with a ti 4200, maybe i'm wrong tho
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2002 4:25:18 AM

I'll admit that some games are so poorly written as to use software rendering features (CPU powered) rather than hardware features (Graphics card powered)...but I had no problem play Marrowind at 1024x768, full detail, on a 3 year old video card (Radeon LE DDR) and two year old processor (Pentium III 1000). I still thought the game sucked.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
October 16, 2002 3:23:34 PM

Quote:
You're forgetting that the "typical high end home user" doesn't know enough about hardware and can't possibly keep up. I know someone who sold their PIII 866 system (with GeForce2 GTS graphics) to buy a new P4 1.9GHz system with "Intel Ultimate AGP graphics" or whatever it's called. At least it came with PC2100 memory...

1) Ugh. What an awful 'upgrade' (and I use that term loosely). At least it wasn't PC133. (Or worse, PC100.) And at least it wasn't a 1.7GHz Celeron.

2) That's my point though. zlcd said "<font color=blue>It makes more sense to upgrade your computer with latest video card then cpu.</font color=blue>" And many times it does. That aside, the vast majority of home PC users won't do it that way and will instead upgrade the CPU by buying a whole new system long before they'll simply upgrade their graphics card. This is why companies like AMD are needed. They produce cheap yet powerful processors that so far always run faster than a previous processor.

Quote:
A card can take you far! It only takes about a 700MHz processor to get you all the gaming options you want, if you have a Ti4200 or better graphics card!

That may be true of a well-written FPS like Quake. However try that with a flight sim and you'll be sorry. :(  A <i>good</i> flight sim will generally have much more complex AI and larger maps, so it'll suck up the CPU cycles like mad. At least that's been the experience of a friend of mine. I'd be my experience too if I could ever replace my old Celeron 500. :( 

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"><font color=red>Join</font color=red> <font color=blue>the</font color=blue> <font color=green>THGC</font color=green> <font color=orange>LAN</font color=orange> <font color=purple>Party</font color=purple>!</A>
October 16, 2002 3:31:25 PM

Quote:
And, also it's true some people have no skills whatsoever when it comes to hardware and they think their pc requires upgrade when they feel it's too slow to play games, so you just proved my point again... lol :-)

Sorry, but you're not even close to making sense here. Your point as you expressed in your first post was that companies like AMD aren't necessary because CPUs don't need to be faster anymore. "<font color=blue>Even that is not important, other things like system & video memory play a big role as well. It makes more sense to upgrade your computer with latest video card then cpu.</font color=blue>"

I pointed out that while it might make more sense to do it this way, the vast majority of people <b>don't</b> do it this way. They upgrade their CPUs by purchasing a completely new system. Sometimes (as Crashman pointed out) they even downgrade their graphics subsystem in the process.

So my point is that we need companies like AMD to not only put out good CPUs for a low cost, but to also keep Intel doing the same because of the competition. Why? Because this is how <b>most</b> people 'upgrade' their PC.

My point came nowhere close to proving your point. The simple fact that you even thought it did makes me wonder if you are even capable of debating this.

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"><font color=red>Join</font color=red> <font color=blue>the</font color=blue> <font color=green>THGC</font color=green> <font color=orange>LAN</font color=orange> <font color=purple>Party</font color=purple>!</A>
!