Processor Speeds - How to compare?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Alan, Jun 20, 2006.

  1. Alan

    Alan Guest

    Hi All,

    I am looking at a new laptop, and I don't really understand how to
    compare the processor speeds.

    For example, we bought one last year (about 10 months ago I think)
    that has a P4 (2.6GHz) processor.

    One of the ones I am looking at new today has Intel Core Duo T2400
    (1.83GHz) processor.


    On the face of it, the older machine is much faster. But does that
    'Duo' thing mean I am getting two 1.83GHz processors = 3.66GHz so the
    new one would be much faster?

    This is probably wishful thinking, but is there some way of just
    comparing the two so that, if the first one is deemed to run at '100'
    (whatever that may mean), the second one would run at 130 being 30%
    faster? Is there a website that dumbs it down to that kind of level
    somewhere out there? I can find lots of review sites, but I would
    really like to put two options side by side.

    Thanks!

    Alan.

    --

    The views expressed are my own, and not those of my employer or anyone
    else associated with me.

    My current valid email address is:



    This is valid as is. It is not munged, or altered at all.

    It will be valid for AT LEAST one month from the date of this post.

    If you are trying to contact me after that time,
    it MAY still be valid, but may also have been
    deactivated due to spam. If so, and you want
    to contact me by email, try searching for a
    more recent post by me to find my current
    email address.

    The following is a (probably!) totally unique
    and meaningless string of characters that you
    can use to find posts by me in a search engine:

    ewygchvboocno43vb674b6nq46tvb
    Alan, Jun 20, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alan

    thingy Guest

    Alan wrote:
    > Hi All,
    >
    > I am looking at a new laptop, and I don't really understand how to
    > compare the processor speeds.
    >
    > For example, we bought one last year (about 10 months ago I think)
    > that has a P4 (2.6GHz) processor.
    >
    > One of the ones I am looking at new today has Intel Core Duo T2400
    > (1.83GHz) processor.
    >
    >
    > On the face of it, the older machine is much faster. But does that
    > 'Duo' thing mean I am getting two 1.83GHz processors = 3.66GHz so the
    > new one would be much faster?


    Yes and no. Intel marketing at its finest. The key (according to intel)
    is a cpu should not break the 130watts heat output barrier plus the die
    size. As the clock speed climbs heat output is a hugh issue...so to get
    round that they are looking for different ways to give the cpu grunt and
    since the die size is now so small they can offer 2 and even 4 cores in
    the CPU. In order to not break the heat limit they wind the clock speed
    back slightly and as the heat output is a square (or cube) of the clock
    speed you save heaps of heat, hence 2 cores is easy...

    > This is probably wishful thinking, but is there some way of just
    > comparing the two so that, if the first one is deemed to run at '100'
    > (whatever that may mean), the second one would run at 130 being 30%
    > faster? Is there a website that dumbs it down to that kind of level
    > somewhere out there? I can find lots of review sites, but I would
    > really like to put two options side by side.
    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    > Alan.
    >


    Unless you really want the ultimate in grunt (in which case look at a
    gaming laptop) look at the laptops features and not its CPU, a big
    screen is a key one for me, as is light weight and battery life (in that
    order).

    Is the old laptop you have fast enough? if so why worry...the biggest
    limiter is hard drive speed and ram. Look for the biggest fastest
    spinning hd and work from there IMHO. Pick a laptop that can hold 2 gig
    of ram, get the biggest screen you can afford...makes life so much easier.

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Jun 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. T'was the Wed, 21 Jun 2006 07:00:44 +1200 when I remembered thingy
    <> saying something like this:

    >Yes and no. Intel marketing at its finest.


    Bare in mind AMD's Athlon XP marketing names, 2400XP always reminds me
    of 2.4GHz, but it's not quite true.
    --
    Cheers,

    Waylon Kenning.
    Waylon Kenning, Jun 20, 2006
    #3
  4. Alan

    Daniel Guest

    Alan wrote:
    >
    > I am looking at a new laptop....
    >


    If you can wait a couple of weeks, then I'd suggest you do so.

    Intel's Conroe is to be released next month.

    AMD has been dropping prices on select CPUs recently (e.g. Athlon64
    3500+ has basically dropped 40%-50% in the last few weeks), and AMD are
    expected to make a couple of official announcemnents at about the same
    time Conroe is unveiled (my guess is yet another price drop, and
    reverse-hyperthreading on their AM2 CPUs). You know you have to do
    something when the competitors mid-range offering obliterates your
    top-end product.
    Daniel, Jun 20, 2006
    #4
  5. Alan

    Daniel Guest

    Daniel wrote:
    > Alan wrote:
    >>
    >> I am looking at a new laptop....
    >>

    >
    > If you can wait a couple of weeks, then I'd suggest you do so.
    >


    Actually, make that a month. Looks like late(ish) July may be the launch
    date.
    Daniel, Jun 20, 2006
    #5
  6. Alan

    PeeCee Guest

    "Alan" <> wrote in message news:e77s1s$rfb$...
    >
    > Hi All,
    >
    > I am looking at a new laptop, and I don't really understand how to
    > compare the processor speeds.
    >
    > For example, we bought one last year (about 10 months ago I think)
    > that has a P4 (2.6GHz) processor.
    >
    > One of the ones I am looking at new today has Intel Core Duo T2400
    > (1.83GHz) processor.
    >
    >
    > On the face of it, the older machine is much faster. But does that
    > 'Duo' thing mean I am getting two 1.83GHz processors = 3.66GHz so the
    > new one would be much faster?
    >
    > This is probably wishful thinking, but is there some way of just
    > comparing the two so that, if the first one is deemed to run at '100'
    > (whatever that may mean), the second one would run at 130 being 30%
    > faster? Is there a website that dumbs it down to that kind of level
    > somewhere out there? I can find lots of review sites, but I would
    > really like to put two options side by side.
    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    > Alan.
    >

    snip

    Alan

    Toms hardware has this excellent page where you can compare CPU's with
    various benchmarks.
    http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=238&chart=51&model2=212

    Cheers
    Paul.
    PeeCee, Jun 21, 2006
    #6
  7. Alan

    Alan Guest

    "thingy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Unless you really want the ultimate in grunt (in which case look at
    > a gaming laptop) look at the laptops features and not its CPU, a big
    > screen is a key one for me, as is light weight and battery life (in
    > that order).
    >
    > Is the old laptop you have fast enough? if so why worry...the
    > biggest limiter is hard drive speed and ram. Look for the biggest
    > fastest spinning hd and work from there IMHO. Pick a laptop that can
    > hold 2 gig of ram, get the biggest screen you can afford...makes
    > life so much easier.
    >


    Hi Thing,

    Thanks for replying.

    The old laptop that this new one is replacing is actually much older
    (four years old now) the batteries are dead, the CPU is a PII 550MHz.
    The one I was comparing it to, just hapenned to be the last one we
    purchased.

    I am thinking of this for the required specs (I want it to last at
    least three years - too much hassle changing PCs!):

    Criteria Requirement
    Processor (Type) ???
    Processor (MHz) ???
    PXE? TRUE
    DEP Compliant TRUE
    L1 Cache (KB) 32
    L2 Cache (KB) 1024
    FSB (MHz) 800
    RAM (MB) 512 (Upgradeable to 2Mb)
    HDDs (GB) 160
    HDDs (RPM) 7200
    HDDs (Type) SATA - Not sure about this?
    DVD / CD CD-RW / DVD-RW / Dual Layer
    FDD? TRUE
    USB Ports 6
    Mouse PS2 & USB
    KeyB PS2 & USB
    Serial Port? TRUE
    NetCards Gigabit NIC / Wireless LAN (A, B, G, Pre-N)
    Other HW 14" XGA Anti-Glare screen / Bluetooth / 6 Cell Battery
    / Multi-card Reader
    OS Version WinXP Pro SP2
    OS License WinXP Pro 1-2 CPU OEM
    Notes 3 year limited warranty



    Is there anything important that I am missing?

    Thanks,

    Alan.


    --

    The views expressed are my own, and not those of my employer or anyone
    else associated with me.

    My current valid email address is:



    This is valid as is. It is not munged, or altered at all.

    It will be valid for AT LEAST one month from the date of this post.

    If you are trying to contact me after that time,
    it MAY still be valid, but may also have been
    deactivated due to spam. If so, and you want
    to contact me by email, try searching for a
    more recent post by me to find my current
    email address.

    The following is a (probably!) totally unique
    and meaningless string of characters that you
    can use to find posts by me in a search engine:

    ewygchvboocno43vb674b6nq46tvb
    Alan, Jun 21, 2006
    #7
  8. Alan

    Alan Guest

    "Daniel" <> wrote in message
    news:e79roo$jua$...
    > Daniel wrote:
    >> Alan wrote:
    >>>
    >>> I am looking at a new laptop....
    >>>

    >>
    >> If you can wait a couple of weeks, then I'd suggest you do so.
    >>

    >
    > Actually, make that a month. Looks like late(ish) July may be the
    > launch date.


    Hi Daniel,

    Thanks for replying.

    I could wait a few weeks - the timing is not that critical.

    I posted my current thinking on specs in reply to Thing's post. How
    would the new Conroe stack up in that context in terms of making a
    difference compared to the Duo 1.83Ghz?

    Thanks,

    Alan.
    --

    The views expressed are my own, and not those of my employer or anyone
    else associated with me.

    My current valid email address is:



    This is valid as is. It is not munged, or altered at all.

    It will be valid for AT LEAST one month from the date of this post.

    If you are trying to contact me after that time,
    it MAY still be valid, but may also have been
    deactivated due to spam. If so, and you want
    to contact me by email, try searching for a
    more recent post by me to find my current
    email address.

    The following is a (probably!) totally unique
    and meaningless string of characters that you
    can use to find posts by me in a search engine:

    ewygchvboocno43vb674b6nq46tvb
    Alan, Jun 21, 2006
    #8
  9. Alan

    Alan Guest

    "PeeCee" <> wrote in message
    news:e7a3a4$t8b$...
    >
    > "Alan" <> wrote in message
    > news:e77s1s$rfb$...
    >>
    >> Hi All,
    >>
    >> I am looking at a new laptop, and I don't really understand how to
    >> compare the processor speeds.
    >>
    >> For example, we bought one last year (about 10 months ago I think)
    >> that has a P4 (2.6GHz) processor.
    >>
    >> One of the ones I am looking at new today has Intel Core Duo T2400
    >> (1.83GHz) processor.
    >>
    >>
    >> On the face of it, the older machine is much faster. But does that
    >> 'Duo' thing mean I am getting two 1.83GHz processors = 3.66GHz so
    >> the
    >> new one would be much faster?
    >>
    >> This is probably wishful thinking, but is there some way of just
    >> comparing the two so that, if the first one is deemed to run at
    >> '100'
    >> (whatever that may mean), the second one would run at 130 being 30%
    >> faster? Is there a website that dumbs it down to that kind of
    >> level
    >> somewhere out there? I can find lots of review sites, but I would
    >> really like to put two options side by side.
    >>
    >> Thanks!
    >>
    >> Alan.
    >>

    > snip
    >
    > Alan
    >
    > Toms hardware has this excellent page where you can compare CPU's
    > with various benchmarks.
    > http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=238&chart=51&model2=212
    >
    > Cheers
    > Paul.
    >


    Thanks Paul - I will have a look at that.

    Alan.
    --

    The views expressed are my own, and not those of my employer or anyone
    else associated with me.

    My current valid email address is:



    This is valid as is. It is not munged, or altered at all.

    It will be valid for AT LEAST one month from the date of this post.

    If you are trying to contact me after that time,
    it MAY still be valid, but may also have been
    deactivated due to spam. If so, and you want
    to contact me by email, try searching for a
    more recent post by me to find my current
    email address.

    The following is a (probably!) totally unique
    and meaningless string of characters that you
    can use to find posts by me in a search engine:

    ewygchvboocno43vb674b6nq46tvb
    Alan, Jun 21, 2006
    #9
  10. Alan

    Daniel Guest

    Alan wrote:
    >
    > I posted my current thinking on specs in reply to Thing's post. How
    > would the new Conroe stack up in that context in terms of making a
    > difference compared to the Duo 1.83Ghz?
    >


    Google "intel core 2 duo benchmark" and then start reading :)

    Intel have been very open about the Conroe (unlike previous marketing
    spins with their doomed Netburst cores).

    Basically, Conroe is fast - real fast (and very power friendly).

    Waiting for Conroe to arrive is a smart move primarily for the sake of
    the ripple effect (or should that be tsunami effect) it will have on
    existing CPU pricing, and subsequent OEM products that include them.
    Daniel, Jun 21, 2006
    #10
  11. Alan

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Daniel wrote:
    > Alan wrote:
    >>
    >> I posted my current thinking on specs in reply to Thing's post. How
    >> would the new Conroe stack up in that context in terms of making a
    >> difference compared to the Duo 1.83Ghz?
    >>

    >
    > Google "intel core 2 duo benchmark" and then start reading :)
    >
    > Intel have been very open about the Conroe (unlike previous marketing
    > spins with their doomed Netburst cores).
    >
    > Basically, Conroe is fast - real fast (and very power friendly).
    >
    > Waiting for Conroe to arrive is a smart move primarily for the sake of
    > the ripple effect (or should that be tsunami effect) it will have on
    > existing CPU pricing, and subsequent OEM products that include them.


    Yep, Conroe's release might actually make Microsoft Vista capable machines
    (I mean *capable*, not crawling along, dragging a leg) affordable for most
    of us.

    Well, not for me as this old beast will have to last a few years yet. :)
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Jun 21, 2006
    #11
  12. Alan

    thingy Guest

    Alan wrote:
    > "thingy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>Unless you really want the ultimate in grunt (in which case look at
    >>a gaming laptop) look at the laptops features and not its CPU, a big
    >>screen is a key one for me, as is light weight and battery life (in
    >>that order).
    >>
    >>Is the old laptop you have fast enough? if so why worry...the
    >>biggest limiter is hard drive speed and ram. Look for the biggest
    >>fastest spinning hd and work from there IMHO. Pick a laptop that can
    >>hold 2 gig of ram, get the biggest screen you can afford...makes
    >>life so much easier.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Hi Thing,
    >
    > Thanks for replying.
    >
    > The old laptop that this new one is replacing is actually much older
    > (four years old now) the batteries are dead, the CPU is a PII 550MHz.
    > The one I was comparing it to, just hapenned to be the last one we
    > purchased.
    >
    > I am thinking of this for the required specs (I want it to last at
    > least three years - too much hassle changing PCs!):
    >
    > Criteria Requirement
    > Processor (Type) ???
    > Processor (MHz) ???


    Is it going to sit on a desk? or is it going to do a lot of travelling
    and battery use, or mains available?

    If it is not moving much then weight and battery life is no biggee, I
    lug my D600 about and its a piggy after 30 mins walk....

    > PXE? TRUE


    PXE boot? probably not.

    > DEP Compliant TRUE
    > L1 Cache (KB) 32
    > L2 Cache (KB) 1024
    > FSB (MHz) 800
    > RAM (MB) 512 (Upgradeable to 2Mb)
    > HDDs (GB) 160
    > HDDs (RPM) 7200
    > HDDs (Type) SATA - Not sure about this?


    If sata is available, yes but its no biggee...ata is little if any
    slower....

    > DVD if possible Dual Layer
    > FDD? TRUE
    > USB Ports 6 (4 and a hub might be more realistic)
    > Mouse PS2 & USB
    > KeyB PS2 & USB
    > Serial Port? TRUE
    > NetCards Gigabit NIC / Wireless LAN (A, B, G, Pre-N)
    > Other HW 14" XGA Anti-Glare screen / Bluetooth / 6 Cell Battery


    15inch is nicer and little more $

    > / Multi-card Reader


    can be got externally for peanuts

    > OS Version WinXP Pro SP2
    > OS License WinXP Pro 1-2 CPU OEM
    > Notes 3 year limited warranty


    > Is there anything important that I am missing?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Alan.



    built in bluetooth?

    Get at least 3 years warrantee...

    You are not specifying a graphics card, if it is a desktop mostly
    machine a higher spec card is worthy of consideration, but even that is
    not really up to games much. if its spending life on its
    battery.......im for more basic.

    external sata? hough you have a big drive anyway...

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Jun 21, 2006
    #12
  13. Alan

    JBS Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:4498d8e6$...

    > Yep, Conroe's release might actually make Microsoft Vista capable machines
    > (I mean *capable*, not crawling along, dragging a leg) affordable for most
    > of us.


    Is the Conroe going to be installed in laptops, or is it primarily designed
    for desktops?

    You make a good point about Microsoft Vista, because you may want to take
    into account Vista's hardware requirements when buying your new computer
    system. See for example this article which sets out the minimum requirements
    for running Vista:

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060518-6863.html

    In this article it stresses the word "MINIMUM", particularly if you want to
    run the new Aero user interface. To run Vista Premium, you need at least 1Gb
    RAM, and some people are recommending 2GB is nearer the mark. You also need
    at least a 40Gb hard disk drive with 15Gb of "free space" space available.
    Perhaps an 80Gb hard drive would be more realistic if you want to run Vista.
    It also looks like you could do with 128Mb of dedicated graphics, rather
    than 128Mb shared with main memory, would you agree with this?

    Here's an extract from the article referred to above:

    "Of course, we here in the Orbiting HQ want to stress that these
    specification recommendations are minimum, minimum, minimum! If you have a
    PC with a 1 GHz processor, 1GB of RAM, and a 128MB DirectX 9.0-compliant
    video card... you'd be insane to install Windows Vista (in our not-so-humble
    opinions.)"
    JBS, Jun 21, 2006
    #13
  14. Alan

    ~misfit~ Guest

    JBS wrote:
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > news:4498d8e6$...
    >
    >> Yep, Conroe's release might actually make Microsoft Vista capable
    >> machines (I mean *capable*, not crawling along, dragging a leg)
    >> affordable for most of us.

    >
    > Is the Conroe going to be installed in laptops, or is it primarily
    > designed for desktops?


    With it's fairly low heat output I'd say it's a prime candidate for laptops,
    maybe with some tweaks.

    > You make a good point about Microsoft Vista, because you may want to
    > take into account Vista's hardware requirements when buying your new
    > computer system. See for example this article which sets out the
    > minimum requirements for running Vista:
    >
    > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060518-6863.html
    >
    > In this article it stresses the word "MINIMUM", particularly if you
    > want to run the new Aero user interface. To run Vista Premium, you
    > need at least 1Gb RAM, and some people are recommending 2GB is nearer
    > the mark. You also need at least a 40Gb hard disk drive with 15Gb of
    > "free space" space available. Perhaps an 80Gb hard drive would be
    > more realistic if you want to run Vista. It also looks like you could
    > do with 128Mb of dedicated graphics, rather than 128Mb shared with
    > main memory, would you agree with this?


    Oh definately. 128MB dedicated graphics RAM, even then, just having a DX9
    compliant card won't be enough. Take the nVidia 6200. That's DX 9.0
    compliant but only has about half the horsepower that my old GF4 ti4200 has.
    I doubt that would run Aero.

    > Here's an extract from the article referred to above:
    >
    > "Of course, we here in the Orbiting HQ want to stress that these
    > specification recommendations are minimum, minimum, minimum! If you
    > have a PC with a 1 GHz processor, 1GB of RAM, and a 128MB DirectX
    > 9.0-compliant video card... you'd be insane to install Windows Vista
    > (in our not-so-humble opinions.)"


    Couldn't agree more. What are/were MS's minumum specs for XP? 233MHz and
    128MB RAM? How painful would that be? Especially if the swapfile was on an
    ATA33 disk (that was still common at the time).

    Also, I see that, in a lot of places, DDR2 RAM is cheaper than DDR. Or
    should I say; DDR RAM has gone up in price. Anyone who is thinking of
    upgrading RAM in a DDR machine anytime in the future should buy soon.
    Obsolete = expensive. Try buying SDRAM at a reasonable price.
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Jun 21, 2006
    #14
  15. T'was the Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:52:40 +1200 when I remembered "JBS"
    <> saying something like this:

    >You also need
    >at least a 40Gb hard disk drive with 15Gb of "free space" space available.


    I'm dual booting Vista Beta 2. It's taken up around 9.5GB of the 10GB
    partition I gave it.
    --
    Cheers,

    Waylon Kenning.
    Waylon Kenning, Jun 21, 2006
    #15
  16. Alan

    Alan Guest

    "thingy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Alan wrote:
    >> "thingy" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>>Unless you really want the ultimate in grunt (in which case look at
    >>>a gaming laptop) look at the laptops features and not its CPU, a
    >>>big screen is a key one for me, as is light weight and battery life
    >>>(in that order).
    >>>
    >>>Is the old laptop you have fast enough? if so why worry...the
    >>>biggest limiter is hard drive speed and ram. Look for the biggest
    >>>fastest spinning hd and work from there IMHO. Pick a laptop that
    >>>can hold 2 gig of ram, get the biggest screen you can
    >>>afford...makes life so much easier.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> Hi Thing,
    >>
    >> Thanks for replying.
    >>
    >> The old laptop that this new one is replacing is actually much
    >> older (four years old now) the batteries are dead, the CPU is a PII
    >> 550MHz. The one I was comparing it to, just hapenned to be the last
    >> one we purchased.
    >>
    >> I am thinking of this for the required specs (I want it to last at
    >> least three years - too much hassle changing PCs!):
    >>
    >> Criteria Requirement
    >> Processor (Type) ???
    >> Processor (MHz) ???

    >
    > Is it going to sit on a desk? or is it going to do a lot of
    > travelling and battery use, or mains available?
    >
    > If it is not moving much then weight and battery life is no biggee,
    > I lug my D600 about and its a piggy after 30 mins walk....
    >
    >> PXE? TRUE

    >
    > PXE boot? probably not.
    >
    >> DEP Compliant TRUE
    >> L1 Cache (KB) 32
    >> L2 Cache (KB) 1024
    >> FSB (MHz) 800
    >> RAM (MB) 512 (Upgradeable to 2Mb)
    >> HDDs (GB) 160
    >> HDDs (RPM) 7200
    >> HDDs (Type) SATA - Not sure about this?

    >
    > If sata is available, yes but its no biggee...ata is little if any
    > slower....
    >
    >> DVD if possible Dual Layer
    >> FDD? TRUE
    >> USB Ports 6 (4 and a hub might be more realistic)
    >> Mouse PS2 & USB
    >> KeyB PS2 & USB
    >> Serial Port? TRUE
    >> NetCards Gigabit NIC / Wireless LAN (A, B, G, Pre-N)
    >> Other HW 14" XGA Anti-Glare screen / Bluetooth / 6 Cell
    >> Battery

    >
    > 15inch is nicer and little more $
    >
    >> / Multi-card Reader

    >
    > can be got externally for peanuts
    >
    >> OS Version WinXP Pro SP2
    >> OS License WinXP Pro 1-2 CPU OEM
    >> Notes 3 year limited warranty

    >
    >> Is there anything important that I am missing?
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >> Alan.

    >
    >
    > built in bluetooth?
    >
    > Get at least 3 years warrantee...
    >
    > You are not specifying a graphics card, if it is a desktop mostly
    > machine a higher spec card is worthy of consideration, but even that
    > is not really up to games much. if its spending life on its
    > battery.......im for more basic.
    >
    > external sata? hough you have a big drive anyway...
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >


    Thanks Thing - Much appreciated.

    --

    The views expressed are my own, and not those of my employer or anyone
    else associated with me.

    My current valid email address is:



    This is valid as is. It is not munged, or altered at all.

    It will be valid for AT LEAST one month from the date of this post.

    If you are trying to contact me after that time,
    it MAY still be valid, but may also have been
    deactivated due to spam. If so, and you want
    to contact me by email, try searching for a
    more recent post by me to find my current
    email address.

    The following is a (probably!) totally unique
    and meaningless string of characters that you
    can use to find posts by me in a search engine:

    ewygchvboocno43vb674b6nq46tvb
    Alan, Jun 22, 2006
    #16
  17. On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:17:05 +1200, "~misfit~"
    <> wrote:

    >Oh definately. 128MB dedicated graphics RAM, even then, just having a DX9
    >compliant card won't be enough. Take the nVidia 6200. That's DX 9.0
    >compliant but only has about half the horsepower that my old GF4 ti4200 has.
    >I doubt that would run Aero.


    I'm glad I'm not the only person who noticed that! I purchased a new
    Geforce 6600GT, and gave my parents my Ti4200 for one of their
    computers; and I got a cheap Geforce 6200 at the same time for their
    other PC (Both Sempron 2600+'s). I was amazed when my Geforce 6600GT
    is barely any better than the Ti4200 and the 6200 (which is what, 2
    years newer technology?) is utter shite.

    I'm still convinced the Ti4200 was a better card. The 6600 does HDR
    tho, so Half-Life 2 Lost Coast looks better. Which is all I got it
    for.. (oh, and to lag badly in 3dMark LOL)
    --
    Kristofer Clayton (KJClayton)
    Gisborne, New Zealand
    Kristofer Clayton, Jun 22, 2006
    #17
  18. Alan

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Kristofer Clayton wrote:
    > On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:17:05 +1200, "~misfit~"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Oh definately. 128MB dedicated graphics RAM, even then, just having
    >> a DX9 compliant card won't be enough. Take the nVidia 6200. That's
    >> DX 9.0 compliant but only has about half the horsepower that my old
    >> GF4 ti4200 has. I doubt that would run Aero.

    >
    > I'm glad I'm not the only person who noticed that! I purchased a new
    > Geforce 6600GT, and gave my parents my Ti4200 for one of their
    > computers; and I got a cheap Geforce 6200 at the same time for their
    > other PC (Both Sempron 2600+'s). I was amazed when my Geforce 6600GT
    > is barely any better than the Ti4200 and the 6200 (which is what, 2
    > years newer technology?) is utter shite.
    >
    > I'm still convinced the Ti4200 was a better card. The 6600 does HDR
    > tho, so Half-Life 2 Lost Coast looks better. Which is all I got it
    > for.. (oh, and to lag badly in 3dMark LOL)


    I agree, the ti4x00 series of cards were very good. I'm doing everything I
    can to prolong the life of the one that I have. If I ever find myself with a
    few spare dollars I'll be looking on Trademe for another one or two as well.
    (Or, if anyone reading has one for sale, an email to misfitnz at that gmail
    place would be appreciated, may take me a week or two to find the money but
    I'd really appreciate it) :)
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Jun 23, 2006
    #18
  19. Alan

    Alan Guest

    misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Oh definately. 128MB dedicated graphics RAM, even then, just having
    > a DX9 compliant card won't be enough. Take the nVidia 6200. That's
    > DX 9.0 compliant but only has about half the horsepower that my old
    > GF4 ti4200 has. I doubt that would run Aero.
    >


    Hi Shaun,

    On the subject of video cards, if I look at a spec that reads such as
    this:

    "Intel 945GM Graphics Media Accelerator with up to 128Mb of shared
    memory (UMA)"

    Does that mean it will take 128Mb of the main system memory, or does
    it mean that it has its own 128Mb of memory? The description seems
    quite ambiguous - at least to a novice like me. What is the UMA
    reference?

    Thanks,

    Alan.

    --

    The views expressed are my own, and not those of my employer or anyone
    else associated with me.

    My current valid email address is:



    This is valid as is. It is not munged, or altered at all.

    It will be valid for AT LEAST one month from the date of this post.

    If you are trying to contact me after that time,
    it MAY still be valid, but may also have been
    deactivated due to spam. If so, and you want
    to contact me by email, try searching for a
    more recent post by me to find my current
    email address.

    The following is a (probably!) totally unique
    and meaningless string of characters that you
    can use to find posts by me in a search engine:

    ewygchvboocno43vb674b6nq46tvb
    Alan, Jun 28, 2006
    #19
  20. Alan

    ~mosfet~ Guest

    Alan wrote:
    > misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> Oh definately. 128MB dedicated graphics RAM, even then, just having
    >> a DX9 compliant card won't be enough. Take the nVidia 6200. That's
    >> DX 9.0 compliant but only has about half the horsepower that my old
    >> GF4 ti4200 has. I doubt that would run Aero.


    Hi Alan,

    > On the subject of video cards, if I look at a spec that reads such as
    > this:
    >
    > "Intel 945GM Graphics Media Accelerator with up to 128Mb of shared
    > memory (UMA)"


    Just a point, I take exception at that being called a card (even though most
    manufacturers do it). To me a card is a card, you can add it, remove it,
    swap it... That is on-board graphics, just a small bunch of chips on the
    motherboard, not a card at all. In fact I believe that the "Intel 945GM
    Graphics Media Accelerator" doesn't even have a discrete GPU, it's actually
    built into the chipset.

    > Does that mean it will take 128Mb of the main system memory, or does
    > it mean that it has its own 128Mb of memory?


    It means that it can use up to 128MB of the main system memory. Not the
    best, dedicated video RAM is better but it'll suffice for most (non-gaming)
    applications. In a lot of cases it's configurable (if you're comfortable
    going into the BIOS) and can be reduced if you don't use graphics-intensive
    apps.

    > The description seems
    > quite ambiguous - at least to a novice like me. What is the UMA
    > reference?


    UMA is Uniform Memory Access. Basically, to my understanding, it just means
    that both the CPU and the G(raphics)PU have equal access to the memory as
    far as timings and latency go. Older systems had the graphics engine jumping
    through hoops (buses) to get to the system memory, slowing the graphics down
    considerably. UMA is supposed to speed graphics (that use shared memory) up
    a bit.

    HTH,
    --
    Shaun.
    ~mosfet~, Jun 28, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Xeno Chauvin

    Core speeds and memory speeds???

    Xeno Chauvin, Oct 3, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    510
    ┬░Mike┬░
    Oct 3, 2003
  2. Dim
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    882
    Oxford Systems
    Jun 21, 2004
  3. The Frozen Canuck
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    821
    Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]
    Jan 16, 2006
  4. =?Utf-8?B?dW1lc2g=?=

    win xp pro sp2 64 bit is a multi processor or a uni processor

    =?Utf-8?B?dW1lc2g=?=, Jul 25, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    892
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Aug 1, 2006
  5. =?Utf-8?B?TkpU?=

    Internet Sharing: Equal upload speeds but un-equal download speeds

    =?Utf-8?B?TkpU?=, Sep 14, 2007, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,013
    =?Utf-8?B?TkpU?=
    Sep 15, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page