Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

what`s all this fuss about?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 23, 2002 4:55:55 PM

CPUs are so blazing fast, it`s useless to discuss whether the celeron is faster or the A-XP is faster, ect.

all of u guys out there, is this debate just for leisure?

"Is Celeron good?"
"No. Celeron is bad."
LOL

More about : fuss

October 23, 2002 4:57:35 PM

also, other forums don`t seem that active, compared to the CPU forum.

"Is Celeron good?"
"No. Celeron is bad."
LOL
Related resources
October 23, 2002 4:59:08 PM

of course, for me too. lol

but, isn`t all this talking a bit of a waste, since the performance of a t-bird 800 and a p4 2.4 wouldn`t matter much in most application?

"Is Celeron good?"
"No. Celeron is bad."
LOL
October 23, 2002 4:59:26 PM

thats because people are lazy and go to the first forum to chat. There should really be a general hardware forum for people to chat about hardware.

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
October 23, 2002 5:03:02 PM

i use 2 PCs, one with a c3-667, and another with a tbird OCed to 1500, FSB333.

word processing, web surfing, ect. most don`t matter.

also, the c3-667 is crap, benchmarkings show that it`s slower than the p2-233, but i just don`t care; it`s fast enough for me.

"Is Celeron good?"
"No. Celeron is bad."
LOL
October 23, 2002 5:59:07 PM

And you've always got that excitement "Wow, a faster CPU came out, I wish I could have it to get high benchmark scores and tell it to all my friends", but then another voice inside you says "Dream on!" and it's always better not to wait 30 min for a thing that a faster CPU could get done in 1 min

:mad:  Are you talkin' to me? :mad: 
:cool: That means you know martian :cool:
October 23, 2002 7:24:29 PM

in most applications? depends if you're just a normal end-user or not.

I use Maya 4, video editing (right now i'm using ulead video studio 4 blah), and video encoding.



Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
October 23, 2002 7:28:43 PM

Having experienced the difference between general usage performance (i.e. what I usually do) between my mom's 667 MHz Celeron with 64MB of PC66 SDRAM and my current P3 1 GHz with 384MB of PC133 SDRAM running at 154MHz at 2:2:2, I can definitely tell you there is a huge difference. And still, my system feels sluggish at times just through general usage. Kazaalite loads somewhat slow. If I open a lot of multiple windows, then performance lags. WC3 doesn't get the framerates I'd like at the detail levels I'd like, etc.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
October 24, 2002 1:40:52 AM

I agree. Many people say there isn't much difference in everyday apps, but they are speaking for those who don't know much in computers. People like us, realize every bit of speed, and yes, a 1GHZ P3 COULD open IE in Win98, faster than a P2 400 would. Processor DOES affect speed, contrary to what most say.

--
I guess I just see the world from a fisheye. -Eden
October 24, 2002 2:20:28 AM

i really don't think it helps with regular word processing and web surfing. I had a pentium 200mmx, piii 933, and athlon xp1700. Besides the fact there is a couple of seconds loading difference, i see no speed difference. Surfing the web isn't much faster either. Pages don't load up faster by more than one or two seconds and thats probably cause i got a slower hard drive between the three. Games and Photoediting however is a different story. So in general, if you are buy a computer to surf the web, type, and listen to mp3s, you can buy the cheapest computer on the market right now and it will do you good. Intensive applications users should pay close attention to what is out there.

"If you sign up for AOL now, we'll give you 1024 hours of slow service and disconnects free of charge"
October 24, 2002 3:42:12 AM

I have noticed about the same between the wifeys 633,and my 1.6.....:) 

If ya don't ask..How ya gonna know.
October 24, 2002 7:25:01 AM

all i do is word processing, power point, web surfing, DVD/divX movies. that`s it.

my t-bird1500 and radeon8500 is a waste, but at least i can show off =(

"Is Celeron good?"
"No. Celeron is bad."
LOL
October 24, 2002 12:12:27 PM

There are some reasons:

1) People like to buy the best for the lowest. At least that's my case. Why? Maybe I'm not using at 100% right now, but if it cost the same, why not? It's an intelligent decision IMO. Also it will become obsolete latter.

2) I agree partially on your argument. Today an average computer con handle almost everything without too much difference (GENERAL statement, continue reading please). I remember the days of 386, 486 and Pentiums. Those days computers really needed improvement to keep pace with user demands.

3) BUT, your argument is not right, because it depends on what you are doing with your computer. Example:

- Playing swapmines, solitaire, internet, some Office, maybe some good old games (not really demanding): of course, a crapy Celeron 1.7 with SDRAM can handle, as well as a P4 2.8 with RDRAM 1066 and a K6-2 400 with EDO RAM.

- Playing latest games, 3D stunning effects, with lot of AI, all real time, etc: you will notice a BIG diference. Obviously the video card is crucial, but don't forget that most of these games are also CPU hungry.

- Rendering 3D, ripping videos, data analysis, etc: again, you will notice the diference. 16% faster is doing something that take 6 hours in just 5, and if you are doing quite frecuently, it's a lot. Bandwidth aplications really run faster with higher CPU and better memory. So choosing the better one is worth the effort.

That's my point of view.

DIY: read, buy, test, learn, reward yourself!
October 24, 2002 9:01:04 PM

The local Radio Shack's P4 1.8GHZ Celery with DDR was so low-performing in WinXP, that it still has that fade lag effect when you open a menu!!! LOL you'd see that on P3 750MHZ and basically any Celeron, but ouch for a 1.8GHZ one)

--
I guess I just see the world from a fisheye. -Eden
October 25, 2002 4:31:46 AM

What is the fade lag you talk about? It sounds like you are talking about the default .5 sec delay that Windows has set for opening menus, which can be changed. If not then what do you mean?
October 25, 2002 6:46:28 AM

Well, also it's important to select the appropiate OS for each machine ... my old and lovely K6-2 500 runs under W98SE!

Maybe you can downgrade the OS of that Celly ;-)

DIY: read, buy, test, learn, reward yourself!
October 25, 2002 1:31:31 PM

where can you edit that 0.5 second delay in the menu structer. ?? in win2000

<font color=red>duk-tape is like the force, it has a bright side and a dark side, and it keeps the universe together.</font color=red>
October 25, 2002 4:23:35 PM

i'd like to know too
October 25, 2002 7:41:11 PM

Open your regedit file. Follow the path: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop
Edit the value for MenuShowDelay from 500ms to whatever you like.

This should be the same for all versions of Windows as far as I know.
October 26, 2002 1:28:52 AM

WinXP has a new menu effect which is the fade in. When you right click, it fades in.
Well, old comps seem to lag on it, you can see the frame skips to get that action, while on fast comps (P3 1GHZ and above) it will appear smoothly. In the Display Properties under Appearance/Effects, you can use either Fade menu or the traditional Scroll effect first appeared in Win98. (menu "slides" open)

--
I guess I just see the world from a fisheye. -Eden
October 26, 2002 1:37:18 AM

I see, that makes sense.
October 26, 2002 6:56:40 AM

It can aslo be blamed on the videocard. Just after 2 days my ti4200 produced some smoke (no overclocking) and now i have to work with the second video card in my system (a PCI with 4mb.) and now i can say: "AGP you mis it when it is not there anymore." When I scroll the averything start to stutter (including sound) movies won't play full-screen (well that is a lie. when you set the resolution of the monitor to 640X480 it can play full screen.)
What i try to say is that also in 2D the video card has a big influence on the things happening on the screen.

<font color=red>duk-tape is like the force, it has a bright side and a dark side, and it keeps the universe together.</font color=red>
October 26, 2002 8:25:38 AM

Win 2000 has also fade effect for menu and tooltips.

Old comps (K6-2 and above) will not lag in the eye-candies of WinXP, if you have a decent graphics card.

My old K6-2 450 MHz lagged in eye-candies in 1024 x 768 res. and above. In 800 x 600, everything was fine. I had a SiS 6326 graphics card. (45 megapixels, 2 Mtriangles/sec, unknown memory bandwidth, don't know kind of video the memory, may be edo or SD). IMO, the graphics card was guilty there. If everything runs fine at 800 x 600, it should be fine also at higher res. unless the graphics card is guilty.

What Audio Compression Technology you use for storing music? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"> Tell Here</A>
October 26, 2002 12:01:42 PM

your right, that is wath i ment.

recomandations for the next version of windows to open a window:
minimal:
a geforce 3
or radeon 8XXX
recomanded:
a geforce 4
or radeon 9XXX
ore higher.

this is becoming a little bit out of place topic......

<font color=red>duk-tape is like the force, it has a bright side and a dark side, and it keeps the universe together.</font color=red>
October 26, 2002 4:05:01 PM

I agree with everyone who thinks that there is no significant difference in performance between the latest and older CPUs for mainstream appplications and normal users. But then some of us in this forum are not normal users - we are ENTHUSIASTS.
Being an enthusiast in many ways is like having an addiction. A car enthusiast will want to have a 400 horsepower car that runs 200 miles per hour, even if speed limits and traffic will never let him reach even half that speed. And he will spend tons of money in modifications to make his car even faster. For me this doesn't make any sense, because all I need is a reliable car to take me from point A to point B...not worth making any fuzz about a car.
Its exactly the same case for us computer enthusiasts. I upgraded my PC in June this year with the latest components available, and I will probably upgrade it again in June next year...I know it doesn't make sense to many, but as I said, its like having an addiction. And that's why we make all the fuss.

__________________________________________________
It's not important to know all the answers, as long as you know how to contact someone who does.
October 26, 2002 8:47:05 PM

I can't even BEGIN to conceive how somebody could say that they honestly don't perceive any difference between a 700-1.2GHz PC and a 2+ GHz one -- even if it IS just for "things like productivity apps and web surfing".

No, a faster CPU won't make the binary data collectively comprising a web page transfer over the network any faster, but it sure as hell makes a difference in the post-load, pre-display offscreen composition time.

Maybe normal, unsophisticated users DO have different perceptions -- or more likely, lower expectations -- but my stress and frustration level go through the STRATOSPHERE whenever I'm forced to use a PC slower than 1.8GHz or so. When I click the taskbar icon to launch a new instance of Internet Explorer, I want it loaded NOW. Not 1 or 2 seconds from now. NOW!!!

Likewise, with respect to word processing, doesn't it drive normal people NUTS to grab the scrollbar and NOT have the window's contents INSTANTLY follow their every gesture? "inertia" is bad enough, but even THAT isn't as bad as having to stop scrolling for a moment to wait for Windows to catch its breath and finish redrawing the window being scrolled.

Personally, I think AMD and Intel should send road tours across America to grab people off the street and pay them to use a system with the fastest available CPU for a half hour just to show them HOW GOOD a computer can be. Or better yet, a system running Windows XP with TWO of the fastest available CPUs, just to eliminate every last thread-starvation related hiccup. I guarantee that they'll NEVER be happy using their old, creaky 700MHz system again. Things they never really thought about or noticed before will leap out at them and become increasingly annoying. Mission accomplished ;-)

Actually, I have a second theory as to why "normal" people don't think speed is important. Consumer-grade computers built by compaies like Compaq and HP use the slowest, cheapest components the manufacturers can get away with -- because manufacturers know that "normal" people are stupid, and don't understand anything besides CPU speed. It's absolutely sinful how willing normal companies are to use components that are just a LITTLE cheaper, but carry a HUGE performance penalty relative to the cost savings.

I mean, for god's sake, selling a 2.4GHz system with a 5400RPM hard drive, 128megs of CL-3 PC-133 SDRAM, on-board UMA video, and a HSP winmodem should be a criminal offense. Such a system, when compared to a 14 month old 1.6GHz system owned by an enthusiast friend, WON'T seem to be much faster. Of course, the friend's nominally slower system probably has 512 megs of DDR, a 7200RPM hard drive, and a GeForce-family video card, and its owner would sooner slash his wrists than touch a HSP winmodem. Compare the crippled 2.4GHz Compaq or HP system against one with a 7200RPM hard drive, 512 megs of DDR, and a Radeon 9700, and I guarantee the GOOD 2.4GHz system will totally SPANK both the HP/Compaq 2.4GHz system and the year-old 1.6GHz system.
October 26, 2002 11:44:11 PM

Well said that man! :-)
October 27, 2002 12:29:46 AM

That is pretty much what I was trying to say.
However you might be putting it a bit too extreme, though your ideology is true and I agree.
Let us not forget how much HDD fragmentation, RPM speed and capacity filling can affect that. Fresh systems with 500MHZ and 5400RPM drives could load IE faster than messy ones at 2.4GHZ! I can speak that from experience on a 350MMX P2 system I had.
However under normal user-care circumstances, after many speed grades, you can notice a slight performance increase. WinXP is especially sensitive to that.

--
I guess I just see the world from a fisheye. -Eden<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 10/26/02 08:33 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 27, 2002 11:28:20 AM

That's exactly my point jskubick...for us enthusiasts that difference of a few seconds is more than enough to make us want to upgrade our PCs. We notice it and we consider it important.
But to many people, "a few seconds" are not important in a computer, just as its not important to me to spend more money in a car that reaches 60 miles per hour "a few seconds" faster. But a car enthusiast will surely notice the difference and will spend his money on the faster car.

__________________________________________________
It's not important to know all the answers, as long as you know how to contact someone who does.
October 27, 2002 2:23:25 PM

Oh god no! One second off my life waiting for IE to load is going to kill me...
Is it really worth spending another $500-$1000 every year just because IE can load a fraction of a second faster. I mean to enthusastics that may be needed, but to the common person who uses it basically to surf the internet, type and check email, anything above a pentium can do fine.

"If you sign up for AOL now, we'll give you 1024 hours of slow service and disconnects free of charge"
October 27, 2002 6:48:53 PM

That wasn't the point, it was to prove that CPU CAN affect general usage. I personally cannot stand computers which take over 5 seconds to open My Computer or IE, nor do I like it when MS WORD plays with me and takes more than 3 seconds when it usually takes 1.

--
I guess I just see the world from a fisheye. -Eden
!