what`s all this fuss about?

tbirdXPplus

Distinguished
Jul 17, 2002
181
0
18,680
0
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
 

tbirdXPplus

Distinguished
Jul 17, 2002
181
0
18,680
0
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
 

xxsk8er101xx

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
3,955
0
22,810
15
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>
 

tbirdXPplus

Distinguished
Jul 17, 2002
181
0
18,680
0
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
 

coolcat

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2002
76
0
18,630
0
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:
 

xxsk8er101xx

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
3,955
0
22,810
15
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>
 

imgod2u

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2002
890
0
18,980
0
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.
 

eden

Champion
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
 

LancerEvolution7

Distinguished
Jul 17, 2002
571
0
18,980
0
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"
 

tbirdXPplus

Distinguished
Jul 17, 2002
181
0
18,680
0
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
 

baldurga

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2002
727
0
18,980
0
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!
 

eden

Champion
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
 

knewt

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2002
132
0
18,680
0
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?
 

baldurga

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2002
727
0
18,980
0
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!
 

zwaarst

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
139
0
18,680
0
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>
 

knewt

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2002
132
0
18,680
0
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.
 

eden

Champion
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
 

zwaarst

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
139
0
18,680
0
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>
 

Spitfire_x86

Splendid
Jun 26, 2002
7,248
0
25,780
0
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?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=25137#25137" target="_new"> Tell Here</A>
 

zwaarst

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
139
0
18,680
0
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>
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS