U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Computers
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-22-2009, 06:16 PM
 
12,717 posts, read 18,854,705 times
Reputation: 20477

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by themaster View Post
My current duo is (t3200) seems to do about your average hour.. but it really could be 50 minutes.. also apparently there is a inherit design flaw per the geeks that will actually have vista drain your battery a little worse than xp..
Woah, my Dell D630 with the dual last almost 4 hours playing DVD's ( great for coast to coast flights). And probably I can squeeze 6 hours out of it running mild spreadsheet, internet applications with a few "standyby" breaks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-22-2009, 07:37 PM
 
28,645 posts, read 40,622,302 times
Reputation: 37346
Pulling pieces and parts from different answers:

You don't need a quad core. Google programs that use SMP, or SMP and quad core and try to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I favor maxing RAM. The way I look at it the longer I can keep the system from using drive space as RAM, the faster it's going to run under heavy load. You should consider installing 4GB and see if it runs at an acceptable speed. If you're not happy with it, add more. Might save some money...

I agree with the poster that mentioned gamers and video. If reselling to a gamer is a future plan put the money in graphics instead of a quad core CPU.

For a number of reasons consider a computer that has a separate number pad.

The faster the CPU, the better, usually. It gets to a point of cost versus speed. If a step of .2gHz is going to cost $50 then you might want to forgo the faster CPU.

Some laptops now come with 2 hard drives. There is an opportunity for a RAID array that can increase speed.

RAID-0: RAID-0 is called disk "striping". All the data is spread out in chunks across all the disks in the RAID set. RAID-0 has great performance, because you spread out the load of storing data onto more physical drives. There is no parity generated for RAID-0. Therefore there is no overhead to write data to RAID-0 disks. RAID-0 is only good for better performance, and not for high availability, since parity is not generated for RAID-0 disks. RAID-0 requires at least two physical disks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2009, 09:15 PM
f_m
 
2,289 posts, read 7,590,618 times
Reputation: 874
You need to check if the programs you use are multi-threaded, so that they would use more than one core. Certain versions of Photoshop do I believe, but you'd have to check the benchmarks to see if it's worth it. Flash is mostly pure CPU power. On my 3.4GHz work computer, I can peg 60% or up to 100% CPU usage on some Flash video because Flash is dumb and basically uses 1 core.

What you should look at, not to spend too much money, is higher GHz and bigger CPU cache on a dual core.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 07:13 AM
 
Location: United Kingdom
339 posts, read 1,149,757 times
Reputation: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotornot View Post
Okay, thanks for shedding some light on this. Aside and totally seperate from the quad vs. duo core issue, I have a basic, bonehead, 101 type question:

In order to ensure snappiness and speed while surfing the Internet and running programs like Dreamweaver, Flash and Photoshop; would it behoove me to aquire a new laptop with as high a GHz number rating as possible? For example, a 3GHz machine would be snappier and faster than a 2GHz machine, correct?
Yes and no. A 3GHz processor is faster than a 2GHz processor, but performance is affected by a whole host of issues, like amount and speed of RAM, HDD speed, clock speed, FSB speed, number and size of programs running etc etc etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 08:29 AM
 
28,645 posts, read 40,622,302 times
Reputation: 37346
Quote:
Originally Posted by collinsl View Post
Yes and no. A 3GHz processor is faster than a 2GHz processor, but performance is affected by a whole host of issues, like amount and speed of RAM, HDD speed, clock speed, FSB speed, number and size of programs running etc etc etc.
Excellent points.

f_m mentioned CPU cache which is something, along with front side bus speed, that hadn't been mentioned before (I don't think?)

10k rpm drive for laptops? If you see any listed as Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) and shown as being for a laptop, they're not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2009, 01:48 AM
 
Location: kcmo
712 posts, read 1,963,989 times
Reputation: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Woah, my Dell D630 with the dual last almost 4 hours playing DVD's ( great for coast to coast flights). And probably I can squeeze 6 hours out of it running mild spreadsheet, internet applications with a few "standyby" breaks.
I've heard lots of bs claims about 4-6 hours.. never had it happen once.. myself.. here's the thing I don't like my brightness turned down and other things they do to save some battery..

I am not a 100% tweak your laptop expert.. but by my guess is the only way you could save any power on laptops besides for using 6+ cell batteries and lots of spares.. is to underclock them the way intel is supposed too.. I suppose if you had a flash drive and one of those 7" screens I could see a netbook.. make it 2-4 hours..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2009, 09:36 PM
 
1 posts, read 1,394 times
Reputation: 10
I've just bought a Toshiba Satellite running on Quad 9000 processor only to become bitterly dissapointed. With Its 6 G RAM and Quad processor at 2 GHz I expected it to be screaming fast but it's not just even so good as my old 1.67 GHz Core 2 T5580 machine. I am talking about start up and shut down time, opening files such as words and power point and surfing the web.
It is to be upgraded from Vista to Windows 7 but I am not very optimistic it's making a big difference since I already adjusted the machine for best performance and tweaked my vista.
Could someone be kind enough to tell me what the heck is this Quad processor good for then?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2009, 12:13 AM
 
1 posts, read 1,302 times
Reputation: 10
ok what about a 1.6 quad compared to a 2.1 dual. what would be the fastest for a new laptop for pictures editing and games.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2009, 01:25 PM
 
28,645 posts, read 40,622,302 times
Reputation: 37346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtur View Post
I've just bought a Toshiba Satellite running on Quad 9000 processor only to become bitterly dissapointed. With Its 6 G RAM and Quad processor at 2 GHz I expected it to be screaming fast but it's not just even so good as my old 1.67 GHz Core 2 T5580 machine. I am talking about start up and shut down time, opening files such as words and power point and surfing the web.
It is to be upgraded from Vista to Windows 7 but I am not very optimistic it's making a big difference since I already adjusted the machine for best performance and tweaked my vista.
Could someone be kind enough to tell me what the heck is this Quad processor good for then?
Not much. That's why I keep telling everyone to skip paying extra for a quad core and spend it elsewhere. See below also.

Quote:
Originally Posted by soscharlie View Post
ok what about a 1.6 quad compared to a 2.1 dual. what would be the fastest for a new laptop for pictures editing and games.
Depends. The straightforward answer is the 2.1 simply because it's a faster CPU. The quad vs. dual is meaningless because the software you are talking about doesn't use the "quad" portion of the quad core. Very little software does now. Maybe in a few years....

More important are things like the speed of the RAM used on the mobo, the speed of the front side bus (very important, even more so that the speed of the CPU when the CPU speeds are close IMO), throughput speeds of the graphics card and hard drive, etc.

You can have a screamer quad or dual core CPU, but if the throughput of all the other equipment is at the low end of the spectrum your PC will suck and you won't be happy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2009, 01:36 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,720 posts, read 25,916,189 times
Reputation: 9219
Many people forget that Vista and Windows 7 can use a quad very effectively even if the applications running do not. You might be running Word, printing a long report, and an antivirus program at the same time - each on a cpu core.

Some apps that DO use multiple cores very well are video editing applications. I use Sony Vegas Studio regularly and it drives 4 cpus during rendering.

I think many people are over spending on memory. My system has an overclocked Q6600 with 4 Gb and it does not use all of its memory the vast majority of the time.

I think a typical user only needs 2-4 Gb for perfectly acceptable performance. Going to 6 Gb or more will produce zero gain in performance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Computers
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:03 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top