Are PCs having TOO MUCH computing power?
in [Home Built PC]
|
Prev: close-up picture of the pins in an Intel CPU socket
Next: The importance of video card specifications?
From: Allen on 3 Mar 2010 09:36 On 3/2/2010 2:09 PM, VanguardLH wrote: > Allen wrote: > >> On 3/2/2010 4:30 AM, VanguardLH wrote: >>> Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps) wrote: >>> >>>> Esp when most PCs are not being used to play DirectX games.... :) >>> >>> Um, other than games, just what software pushes the envelope to prod users >>> to buy more powerful hardware? You think you need that 3GHz dual- or >>> quad-core processor with 4GB, or more, of system memory to run a word >>> processor (when then used to run back in DOS in under 640K on old P1 >>> processors running at 100MHz)? You think PC sales having bleeding edge >>> maxed out hardware is driven by users of AutoCAD or video editing programs? >>> Games push for more powerful hardware and games are what draw consumers to >>> pay for that more powerful hardware. >> For a start, there are photo and video editing programs. >> Allen > > Photo editing can be done on decade or older hosts. Video editing requires > horsepower to complete in a shorter time but then I already mentioned that. > You thought the vast majority of PC users are doing video editing? If you don't want answers, don't ask questions. Goodbye. Allen
From: GT on 3 Mar 2010 13:23 "Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps)" <toylet.toylet(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hmlno8$6sh$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 3/2/2010 22:52, John McGaw wrote: >> No. Not nearly enough power for me. I run two i7, one Q6600, and an old >> P4 24X7 as part of a distributed processing project supporting medical >> and energy research. I could use much more speed from my machines. Or >> more machines but my electric bills would surely suffer then. > > niche, minority! :) If the demand for these high powered gaming or number crunching machines was lower, then the manufacturers wouldn't bother developing them. I think your 'niche, minority', but actually be a significantly large group to justify all the R&D money. Quite whether we 'need' all this power for everyday use is another question, to which the answer is probably no. But we also don't 'need' 40" plasma TVs and corvettes do we - we choose to buy them and the manufacturers therefore make money from researching and producing them.
From: GT on 3 Mar 2010 13:24 "Allen" <allent(a)austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:_dydnThyC6FK7hPWnZ2dnUVZ_jcAAAAA(a)giganews.com... > On 3/2/2010 2:09 PM, VanguardLH wrote: >> Allen wrote: >> >>> On 3/2/2010 4:30 AM, VanguardLH wrote: >>>> Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Esp when most PCs are not being used to play DirectX games.... :) >>>> >>>> Um, other than games, just what software pushes the envelope to prod >>>> users >>>> to buy more powerful hardware? You think you need that 3GHz dual- or >>>> quad-core processor with 4GB, or more, of system memory to run a word >>>> processor (when then used to run back in DOS in under 640K on old P1 >>>> processors running at 100MHz)? You think PC sales having bleeding edge >>>> maxed out hardware is driven by users of AutoCAD or video editing >>>> programs? >>>> Games push for more powerful hardware and games are what draw consumers >>>> to >>>> pay for that more powerful hardware. >>> For a start, there are photo and video editing programs. >>> Allen >> >> Photo editing can be done on decade or older hosts. Video editing >> requires >> horsepower to complete in a shorter time but then I already mentioned >> that. >> You thought the vast majority of PC users are doing video editing? > If you don't want answers, don't ask questions. "I want the truth" "You can't handle the truth" "Son, we live in a world that's protected by walls."... etc. etc.
From: kony on 3 Mar 2010 17:36 On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:10 +0000, Darklight <nglennglen(a)netscape.net> wrote: >GT wrote: > >playing devils advocate who amongst you would go back to a pIII 1 gHZ pc >after having a dual or quad core. 2 to 3 gHZ pc. > >That should answer your question. P3/1GHz is below the minimum threshold needed to comfortably surf the internet today, with all those horribly designed heavy flash usage websites running like slideshows... BUT, I go back to lesser systems than my main rig all the time, they're scattered throughout the house and do fine for most tasks... though through consolidation of parts many systems are more endowed than the average OEM system was a few years back, having a video card, more memory, a couple hard drives, etc.
From: kony on 3 Mar 2010 17:41
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 04:30:19 -0600, VanguardLH <V(a)nguard.LH> wrote: >Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps) wrote: > >> Esp when most PCs are not being used to play DirectX games.... :) > >Um, other than games, just what software pushes the envelope to prod users >to buy more powerful hardware? You think you need that 3GHz dual- or >quad-core processor with 4GB, or more, of system memory to run a word >processor (when then used to run back in DOS in under 640K on old P1 >processors running at 100MHz)? You think PC sales having bleeding edge >maxed out hardware is driven by users of AutoCAD or video editing programs? >Games push for more powerful hardware and games are what draw consumers to >pay for that more powerful hardware. Most users aren't pushed to buy new hardware. It's those on the internet who want to feel modern, those who buy new parts and get into conversations about them to learn more about their parts, and enthusiasts in general who do it as a hobby which comprise the majority of new system owners who bought for some other reason than replacing after a system failure. Recovering from system failure is the scenario I see most often these days. People just want to restore their system to a reliable state for the least money possible, and maybe increase the memory while they're having someone look at it for them. This puts aside young gamers who are always wanting to feel in the loop by playing same games as their peers, and rightly so I suppose... if you can't benefit from modern technology then what is the point of modern technology? |