Processor speeds

  staples printer cartridge 10:02 05 Sep 2004

I'm a bit behind the times. A few years ago a reasonable comparison could be made between a pentium 1GHz processor and an Athlon 1GHz processor. Nowadays we have pentium 3.2GHz but we have Athlon 3200+. What processor speeds should you expect from the Athlon? Are they equivalent?

  GANDALF <|:-)> 10:08 05 Sep 2004

Unless you are SERIOUSLY into gaming you will notice no difference. I used to have a 350mhz computer and now use a 3200. Word documents open at the same speed and Photoshop is not noticeably faster. For the majority of uses there is no difference between a 3200 athlon and a 3.2Ghz pentium....I would go for the cheaper and put the money svaed towards an external HD which will be of more use.


  staples printer cartridge 10:11 05 Sep 2004

Thanks, so are you telling me that there is no point upgrading from an Athlon 1.4 to the 3200? I have done it, becasue I wanted to have a go at upgrading, but would like to know anyway.


  GANDALF <|:-)> 10:19 05 Sep 2004

You can upgrade and if you play a lot of games you might notice the difference. If you just use word-processing, play hearts and minesweeper, muck about with photos the difference will not be shattering and you would be better off getting an external HD. You would be better levering in as much RAM as the mobo will allow and if you do upgrade you need to ensure that the mobo is capable of the change.


  thedarkside 10:41 05 Sep 2004

An Athlon XP3200 runs at a clock speed of 2.2Ghz
Although this may seem way of the 3.2Ghz of the Pentium, the Athlon does more instructions per second. I know that it is all a bit confusing. The Pentium can stand to be overclocked more (if that's your thing)

As Gandalf rightly says, most modern desktop PC's have processing power to spare. Unless you are a serious gamer or are into digital video, or run a big relational database, there is more than enough OOMPH in either of these processors.

  Dorsai 11:01 05 Sep 2004

as thedarkside said, the AMD runs slower, but does more each clock cycle, so it makes little difference.

This is pretty much why AMD stopped listing their CPU's using MHZ, and started using numbers instead. What AMD are very roughly saying is that their XP3200 performs roughly as well as an Intel CPU at 3200Mhz. Only roughly.

As already said though, you probably won't notice any difference. the only difference i noticed from my recent upgrade, 1Ghz duron to 1.6Mhz AMD XP2000, can be attributed to the new board having ATA133, so things load slightly quicker than they used to on a ATA66 system, and now having 1Gig ram, the page file hardly gets used at all, so this also helps. I dont think the faster CPU has made any difference, it's the improvement to the rest that helped.

But i also admit it might all be imagined.

  Blues Breaker 11:30 05 Sep 2004

I recntly upgraded to a Pentium 4 2.8 from an AMD 2600+ because I do a fair bit of Video stuff.

The pentium and AMD are neck and neck with most things but video stuff is very much faster on the pentium, because it has enhanced instruction on the chip for this type of multimedia application.

Recent example is a 50 minute file being processed and burnt to a CD as an Vid file, took the 2600+ narly 4 hours but the Pentium did it in 25 minutes.

  Dorsai 11:44 05 Sep 2004

Horses for courses then,

  staples printer cartridge 18:49 05 Sep 2004

that's cleared a lot up for me.

  bremner 19:14 05 Sep 2004

I can not understand why it would have taken 4 hours?

I had an XP 2000+ with 512MB of PC2100.

To create a DVD (4.3GB) - Using Pinnacle Studio v8 - Capturing as an AVI from digital camcorder - editing and saving to mpeg - then creating it as and burning it to DVD, using Ulead DVD Movie Factory 2 would take about 2 hours all in.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

OnePlus 6 review: Hands-on

How to add texture to hand-drawn artworks

Best free iPad apps 2018

Comment créer un compte PayPal pour payer en ligne ?