| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
blackjack
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: anyang
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject: Faster CPU? |
 |
|
Why do people get the latest, fastest cpus? Ram i understand, vid cards i understand but cpu?
I have a p4 3.06 cpu.
i am currently running at the same time
opera with 7 tabs,
4 word docs,
3 excel docs (one with over 30,000 rows and 56 columns),
adobe photoshop cs2,
ARCGIS 9.1
and SAS (a rather large statistics programme),
i also have winamp, VLCplayer, thunderbird, AVG running in the background.
my cpu almost never gets above 40% (normally when printing, or doing calculations with SAS or ARCGIS) most of the time runs at 1-3%. the only time my cpu is at 100% is when ARCGIS is crashing (software not hardware problem. it has a small memory leak)
My question is why do people need more powerful cpu? what could you possibly need more power for? even games like oblivion and FEAR don't really get the cpu above say 5%
Last edited by blackjack on Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Convert some video and get back to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackjack
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: anyang
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
okay i don't do video conversions, so I am guessing that is cpu intensive. anything else?
I really am curious, people spend megabucks on a new cpu but is there really a difference? They would have to be reaching a ceiling soon. However I know it has been said many a times before, (why would i possibly need more than a 1 gig harddrive and 32 mb of ram?  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoe
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject: . |
|
|
It's like socks.
Sure the old pair might have a small hole or two; but still function.
Yeah ok, the elastic is gone but you get used to the socks bunching around the ankles. (At my age ankles need extra support)
Or if that bothers you; get a rubberband or two depending on one's ankle width!
But hey wait, it's summer isn't it?! I haven't worn socks for two months now. Of course socks would clash with my wannabe imitation Birkenstocks from Emart.
Damn...sorry to get off track...Time to go to the beach! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KOREAN_MAN
Joined: 01 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
3D intensive games require powerful CPUs as much as they require powerful graphics cards. Anyone, who wants to watch HD-quality videos (H.264), would probably need a fast dual-core CPU. I have an HDTV tuner card and Sempron 2800+ just wouldn't cut it. 100% CPU usage even when overclocked.
Last month, I spent $70 on an Intel dual-core CPU, E2140. When you overclock it, it performs like E6600 which costs over $200. Now I get no more jitters when watching TV on my PC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EssPea
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I would say your meter is not measuring properly. Having just upgraded CPU's I can tell you the speed change is insane, especially for photoshop and video games. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
logan2003
Joined: 20 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually modern games are very cpu intensive...very. Case in point battle field 2, now u can run this on your cpu but you will have to turn off alot of the eye candy and such. I upgraded from a 2ghz p4 oced to 2.4ghz, my wife is using the same cpu ur using. Games ran a bit faster on her system.
I upgraded to a core 2 duo the E6300 only 1.86ghz (but with 2 cores of course) It is MUCH MUCH faster period! In all applications!
I am also using DDR 2 ram trust me there is a huge difference and not just with video encoding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Average multitasking user does not need a faster CPU. A PC Gamer, Graphics designer, and video editor need faster computers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:59 am Post subject: Re: Faster CPU? |
|
|
| blackjack wrote: |
Why do people get the latest, fastest cpus? Ram i understand, vid cards i understand but cpu?
I have a p4 3.06 cpu.
i am currently running at the same time
opera with 7 tabs,
4 word docs,
3 excel docs (one with over 30,000 rows and 56 columns),
adobe photoshop cs2,
ARCGIS 9.1
and SAS (a rather large statistics programme),
i also have winamp, VLCplayer, thunderbird, AVG running in the background.
my cpu almost never gets above 40% (normally when printing, or doing calculations with SAS or ARCGIS) most of the time runs at 1-3%. the only time my cpu is at 100% is when ARCGIS is crashing (software not hardware problem. it has a small memory leak)
My question is why do people need more powerful cpu? what could you possibly need more power for? even games like oblivion and FEAR don't really get the cpu above say 5% |
I have a Q6600 with 4 gigs of RAM and I usually have the system running at 50-60% CPU loads with number crunching / economic modeling and during video or animation creation (hobby time) often max it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
TTpats, thundarr, and others have it correct. Your CPU will get bogged down when doing graphically intensive things such as playing games or editing videos. I do BOTH therefore I have a powerful CPU (Intel E6600). Trust me when I say it gets used when I am whipping up some videos or playing OBLIVION or FEAR.
If you are not into gaming or video editing, then there is no need to get such a monster of a PC. Period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DCJames
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anybody have a quadcore?
How is it?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DCJames wrote: |
Anybody have a quadcore?
How is it?? |
It's OK. I run a quad q6600 @2.4ghz (no overclock) with 4 gigs of RAM on a Gigabyte GA-P35-S3 mainboard with a combined total of 2 terabytes of HDD. The quad core is actually 2 dual core dies bonded together.
It processes very well with multi-threaded applications (typical for video editing, ray-tracing, and rendering), where its processing ability approachs double that of each of its halves comprising the equally clocked dual-core CPU.
Single or dual-threaded applications alone, including most games, do not benefit from the second pair of cores of a quad-core CPU over an equally clocked dual-core CPU.
For a gamer it would probably be better to run an E6750 dual core instead of a quad but a quad-core CPU is useful to run both the client and server processes of a game without noticeable lag in either thread, as each instance (up to four) could be running on a different core. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackjack
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: anyang
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cheers for the replies, i was just wondering I do some pretty serious spatial and environmental data crunching and had not really seen any major cpu useage (however i was doing some bootstrapping the other day that took the cpu usage over 60%).
So for your average homeuser (eg office, web and maybe WOW) they are not going to see a significant improvement? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You will notice faster load times and smoother computing experience, but other than that, the average computer user (not playing any HD content) is perfectly fine with an old P4 or AMD XP processor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Quad core hasn't come of age. Buying one now...well, can anyone say Willamette? or Pentium "D" series?
Penryn is when the real deal will come. It will lay waste to current quad-cores.
Yes, the current quads are 2 dual lashed together. History has shown us that this is atypical middle step, but soon, these quad that are out now will be exposed as the "quasi" and "pseudo" quads they are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
