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: Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps) on 4 Mar 2010 07:54 > 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. No, they would not go back. Once you have a better and faster, the old ones would be replaced! I only think most people are not using the full potential of the latest and greatest! :) -- @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you! /( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.33 ^ ^ 20:52:01 up 1 day 4:47 1 user load average: 1.06 1.06 1.07 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
From: seth on 4 Mar 2010 08:44 > 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. The implication here is that if it were not for gamers our PC's would still be P1's. This is utter nonsense With "continuous improvement" factor in the business model coupled with other apps like CAD, Video editing, TV tuner cards, Capping TV programs on your PC, HTPC's, mutltimedia apps and countless other apps, aside from graphics cards and power supplies that can power the whole damn neighbor hood, performance and technology would be no different without out gamers.
From: Sjouke Burry on 4 Mar 2010 19:02 GT wrote: > "Mickel" <mickle(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > news:uuDjn.11038$pv.1543(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... >> "Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps)" <toylet.toylet(a)gmail.com> wrote in >> message news:hmikdb$96f$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> Esp when most PCs are not being used to play DirectX games.... :) >> Most people watch video on their PC and it takes a 3ghz dual core PC to >> watch a hi def video while recording one or 2 others. > > I don't think that is true. At least half of the PCs in the world must sit > on desks in offices and aren't used as TV. Of those PCs in peoples home, I > would be surprised if more than 1 third are used to watch TV - most people > have a TV for that job. That means that less than 1 sixth of PCs are used to > watch TV. I also don't think many of those PC TV watchers actually watch 1 > channel while recording 1 or 2 others - there are dedicated boxes that do > this job much better and easier. > > I agree with your spec statement, just not the % of users implied. > > I watch an occasional tv program fine on a 2.6G singlecore celeron, with 512mb memory. Mostly the transmissions have a lousy quality, and no improvement on your system will cure that.
From: Mickel on 4 Mar 2010 19:19 "GT" <ContactGT_rem_ove_(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4b8f7b19$0$21127$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > I don't think that is true. At least half of the PCs in the world must sit > on desks in offices and aren't used as TV. Of those PCs in peoples home, I > would be surprised if more than 1 third are used to watch TV - most people > have a TV for that job. That means that less than 1 sixth of PCs are used > to watch TV. I also don't think many of those PC TV watchers actually > watch 1 channel while recording 1 or 2 others - there are dedicated boxes > that do this job much better and easier. > > I agree with your spec statement, just not the % of users implied. I'm not sure of the actual specs exactly but don't you require something reasonably quick just to watch 1 full high def movie? I think a guy at work here had something around 2.6ghz or 2.8ghz that wasn't up to the task. Also I would think that most of the PCs at work would have been used to watch a video of some sort at some stage Although there isn't really a lot to argue about, I think the OP is correct in that most PCs were more than powerful enough 5 years ago for most users and all the new power is mainly used by MS bloat. > >
From: VanguardLH on 4 Mar 2010 19:21
nobody > wrote: > VanguardLH wrote: >> 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)? > > Methinks you are mixing generations here. > > P-ones @ 100 megahurts were usually running Windows. M# Office won't do > diddly in 640K. Did I mention Microsoft Office? No, I said "word processor". Remember Wordstar (both DOS and Windows versions)? Wordstar 3.3 was written for hosts with just 128KB of system memory. I don't know what the later DOS and Windows versions for Wordstar required for memory. Xywrite worked on a host with 384KB. Word for DOS 3.1 ran on a host with 256KB. I didn't feel like wasting my time in my prior reply to have to prove what I know I did over 20 years ago on a PC. I remember paying somewhere around $2500 for an IBM PC-AT around 1984 with 640KB and also had a word processor (don't remember which) along with Multiplan, a spreadsheet program. I don't recall how much I spent on a full-size memory card to get all the way up to a whopping total of 2MB. That was back using an Intel 8088 (which got replaced with a NEC V20) and having to buy a separate math coprocessor. Yes, I was single-tasking under DOS but I did word processing, too. My point was that typical applications found on consumer-grade hosts do not require the high-speed CPUs and gobs of memory that users are demanding for their computers. The computer is waiting eons between the keystrokes when a user is typing in their document (whether using a word processor or sending e-mail) and is dying of eternal boredom while waiting for a user to read that same document. |