Will you really get 3.0Ghz

[shampionnaux]

Am I the only person who thinks you pay too much for less CPU cycles? I am seeing new machines these days sporting 1.3Ghz to 2.4Ghz that run applications as if they were 600 and 750Mhz machines. Intel is now saying 3.0Ghz which to me implies that users will be blown away with speed. I Know when I get my hands on this CPU its performance will be that which I expected of the 1.8Ghz or 2.0Ghz CPU. You see my friends, when you begin to load your, heavy apps, games, and what have you, 3.0Ghz will not be the 3.0Ghz you are expecting. I hope you see my point. Is it that software requirements lead hardware support?

Kacey,
Peace.

[Collin]

I have been looking at the new CPUs with they Hyper Treading support and my comment was - finally a CPU built with me in mind !! ;D

Based on the reviews if this CPU really performs as touted then I figure we will really see great performance increases.

The other side is that a lot of current software are just bloated and a lot of stuff is loaded that just hogs the processor thus slowing down everything else.

I beleive that in a post elsehwere that CKnight alluded to the issue of hardware developments allowing developers to write more "sloppy bloated codes". This begs the question - are the hardware requirements specified by software developers realtistic?

[Chris]

Kacey, I often think that very same thing. One must also realise several things though:

1. that the majority of users never use anywhere near the full potential of the newer processors.

2. the processors by themselves do not determine the overall speed of the PC and the experience that users have. There are many bottlenecks in the PC making it slower than the processor - RAM speed, system bus speed, hard disk speed, video card speed, to name the major ones.

The point that we've come to realise is that we don't always need the latest, fastest, most expensive processor

[shampionnaux]

Thanks for your point Chris; the systems I speak of are those with defacto specifications.

Hyper-threading, this reminds of the duel pipelining technology introduced in the 1st and 2nd generation Pentiums. Dual pipelining if I remember clearly, is like having two 486 CPU running in a Pentium, thus handling two lines of instruction sets simultaneously and independently. Hyper- threading based on what I hear, is having the CPU handle Two separate threads of software simultaneously , and I suppose independently.

I know this concept sounded Familiar.

Peace,
Kacey

[Collin]

I noticed that what is popularly referred to as the place on Red Hills road now has PIV 3.06GHz processors in stock now.... ;D unlike the long time it took them to have the 2.xx when they released.

[Chris]

[quote author=Collin link=board=3;threadid=296;start=0#2174 date=1039030933]
I noticed that what is popularly referred to as the place on Red Hills road now has PIV 3.06GHz processors in stock now.... ;D unlike the long time it took them to have the 2.xx when they released.
[/quote]

Yes they do Collin, and as you know you're gonna pay top dollar for it. I'd lean more towards buying the PIV 2.5 or PIV 2.6 if I were buying for myself.

[Collin]

Yes indeed I have seen the price :

more than what quite a few persons will spend to buy an entire system.

[tech_guru]

Also a factor could be whether or not the program you are running I coded to utlilize the innovations of these newer processor....
Remember when Pentium MMX technology came out.....
It was the next generation processors with new instructions for graphics manipulation and 3-D graphics accelaration....Programmers were then able to utilize this new technology making faster programs......

[Ropy]

I'm not an Intel guy, to how I see it nowa days. Intel processors are more geared for mutlimedia purposes, like video and audio editing. Why not buy an Athlon XP or wait for the nu Athlon, they are just as fast if not faster and half the cost. AMD is a good alternative to Intel, for those who want a processor that preforms to expectation.

[Skillachi]

AMD is not really as fast as the pentium as you say. The thing about AMD is that they are built with a higher bus speed so they will seem faster in certain applications but pentium is still the better processor for multipurposes, when you buy an AMD processor, you cannot really be as diverse in the kind of programs you use as they will start moving sluggish.
Pentium processors are good because they are really powerful processors, Pentium processors can be used in all different kind of areas. If you dont believe me, compare somebody useing a pentium 1 ghz processor to somebody using a amd 1 ghz processor.. even now wen 1 ghz is basiclaly obsolete, the pentium processor will be able to run the newer high end programs that are coming out. with amd if u dont upgrade it, then dont expect much from it in the long run.