Community weekly poll: 4/19/05 What is your computer's processor speed?
- 4/19/05 11:41 AM
4/19/05 What is your computer's processor speed?
by Lee Koo (ADMIN) - 4/19/05 11:41 AM
What is your computer's processor speed?
-- Less than 200MHz
-- 200MHz to 500MHz
-- 500MHz to 900MHz
-- 1.0GHz to 1.49GHz
-- 1.5GHz to 1.99GHz
-- 2.0GHz to 2.49GHz
-- 2.5GHz to 2.99GHz
-- More than 3.0GHz
-- I have no idea, it just runs
Bar is raised??
by SpeedracerXtreme - 4/19/05 2:12 PM In reply to: 4/19/05 What is your computer's processor speed? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Interesting, I thought the majority of cpu speeds would still be in the 1.5-1.99GHz range, but the numbers are actually in the 2GHz and up...surprisingly, seems like a lot of folks have 3.0GHz and faster?!?!?!
~SpeedRacerXtreme
CPU speeds
by Pedrovian - 4/19/05 2:31 PM In reply to: Bar is raised?? by SpeedracerXtremeNot surprising really, people change PCs like they change cars, and speeds in the 3 GHz range are now at reasonable prices. My CPU is 1 GHz. It's an old PC, but I've modded it to do what I want (plenty of RAM and multi HDs) while not finding any reason to change the CPU. The day I notice a problem I'll think about it.
Average speed???not in mhz any more.
by bluemalibu71 - 4/19/05 8:34 PM In reply to: Bar is raised?? by SpeedracerXtremeAverage speed below 2ghz? I havent been into computers very long(8 months) but I cant remember using a machine any slower than 1.8ghz. Its a little different with AMD though. You will always see Intels processors have a high clock speed but does it really make a difference? It has been my experience so far that AMD gets more work done per clock cycle, so therfore they have still been able to compete or dominate the processor race. With the introduction of the Athlon 64, AMD has been on top of the game with a far lower clock speed. Intel makes a fine chip that is awesome for multitasking(hyperthreading), but its really not as productive in the real world. For instance, there is some apps(very few) where the Intel will surpass the Amd. But there is too many apps and normal tasks where the Athlon 64 is far faster and far more productive. I am comparing an Intel 3.8ghz E.E. to the Athlon FX 55(2.6ghz). The Athlon is more than a 1000mhz slower in clock speed but will "Mop the floor" with the Intel. In most every day there really isnt much need for a "rocket" processor. If you do a lot of gaming then you will want a pretty fast processor and mem. If all you do is use Microsoft Word and browse the web a little then you really dont need a processor faster than 500mhz. Kind of like drag racing though, who wants a to drive a station wagon when you could afford to drive a Viper.
3.6 outa a 2.4 prescot
by cschwede - 4/19/05 11:48 PM In reply to: Bar is raised?? by SpeedracerXtremestock cooling 1 gig of 2.5 lat 3200 with an 9800 radeon and ive scored over 21000 on the 3dmark 2001 se score.
3dmark 2001 se
by tdwhite - 4/20/05 11:06 AM In reply to: 3.6 outa a 2.4 prescot by cschwedeWhy with your hardware would you be using 3dmark 01 se? Try 3dmark 05, Can't bare to see your 21000 drop to 4 digits????
ill prove it
by cschwede - 4/20/05 12:00 AM In reply to: Bar is raised?? by SpeedracerXtremeAnother 50% overclock
by swansonegger - 4/20/05 11:27 PM In reply to: Bar is raised?? by SpeedracerXtremeI'm pushin' a 1.6 Northwood to 2.4 GHz, stock cooling with a little Arctic Fox thermal grease. It's a bit dated, but it does the job well. Voted in the 2-2.49 range of course.
Comp processor Speed
by Morrowind123 - 4/19/05 2:22 PM In reply to: 4/19/05 What is your computer's processor speed? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Dual Athlon 2400+ at 2.0 Gigahertz. I am an United States Chess Federation (USCF) National Master. Running on a Tyan 2466N-4M mother board. I use various Deep chess programs with Windows XP Pro. So processing power is good to go!
4/19/05 What is your computer's processor speed?
by Phil S - 4/19/05 2:22 PM In reply to: 4/19/05 What is your computer's processor speed? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
1.5 to 1.99 GHz
It's fine until I have some problem. then I will consider changing!
Not a fair comparison
by W00ter - 4/19/05 2:23 PM In reply to: 4/19/05 What is your computer's processor speed? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
An AMD has less MHz than an Intel, but an AMD uses it's resources better than an Intel Processor.
Example: An AMD Athlon 64 3200+ runs @ 2000 MHz. On which one should you vote for that? More than 3.0 GHz or 2.0GHz to 2.49GHz.
Whatever AMD states
by thecoolnessrune - 4/19/05 3:43 PM In reply to: Not a fair comparison by W00terI would just vote for whatever the AMD "states" that it can do. Personally though, when I try AMD 64's they are a heck of alot slower than the P4 counterparts. (Albeit if it were 64 bit apps the AMDs would smoke intels.)(Unless the new 64 bit intels were used.)
Bunch of Crap!
by bluemalibu71 - 4/19/05 8:55 PM In reply to: Whatever AMD states by thecoolnessruneYou must not Play doom 3 or do any photo choppin, or fold, or do any audio editing, or have any benchmarking apps installed.
Answer me this:
Intel P4 3.8ghz Extreme Edition
AMD Athlon FX 55 (2.6ghz)
Who would win if you were folding?
Who would win if you ran Sisoft Sandra?
Who would win if you used Photo Shop 7.0?
Who would win if you had the opportunity to use a 64 bit app?
Who has a wide support for dual core processor motherboards?
Who the hell would spend more than 800 dollars on a processor that will heat a small appartment? And would require you to run a very limited choice of chipsets that are made by the processor manufacturer to run dual core(the future of processors)?
Intel would be nothing without Dell. Fact of the matter is that they lost the cpu battle when AMD released the Athlon XP series processor. If you have to make a processor run at 3.0ghz and be on the edge of burning up to compete with a processor that runs at under 2ghz with a temp below 40c, Then something is wrong. I had Intels and enjoyed them, but I would rather get more work done at less clock speed and less heat, not to mention the price is far lower. How far could you overclock an Intel 3.0g to on a factory heat sink and fan?????? Take an Athlon XP 2500+ to 2.2g with the factory hs/f with no stabilty or heat issues and get more work done below 3ghz. Kind of like those little import cars with the loud mufflers(fart Cans), make a bunch of noise and look fast but really cant get out of their own way.
only 3200 memory on AMD?
by thecoolnessrune - 4/21/05 1:58 PM In reply to: Bunch of Crap! by bluemalibu71The biggest "Bunch of Crap" has to be AMD. They can't even use anything higher than 3200 memory. (Granted, I realize that some people will try to override this.) But I find alot of sites and people saying that the system is unstable with anything over 3200 memory. Lol that is stupid. AMDs own website was even admitting it. I would never want a system that is still so stuck in the past.
Yet it can still do more
by JBbons - 4/22/05 7:11 PM In reply to: only 3200 memory on AMD? by thecoolnessruneHeck, they don't need it anything higher than that right now. Just in case you haven't read anywhere else, DDR2 does not really make a differecne in DDR 400MHz (actually goes worse), not even 533MHz. You will barely see a slight difference in 667MHz. That's why AMD doesn't implement DDR2 memory controller on their current processors.
AMD64 can do more with PC3200 DDR than a Prescott with DDR2 PC4200. Why would you spend a LOT MORE and not even reach what AMD can do?
Now that's another proof of AMD giving more bang for your buck!
On another note, there are rumors on AMD's next generation processors that they will skip DDR2 and go straight to DDR3. Now that will be sweet.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
