TechSpot

Hello 2.8Ghz

By Top_gun
Aug 26, 2002
  1. eddy05

    eddy05 TS Rookie Posts: 223

    Awwwhhh...

    Makes me feel inferior about my PC more...

    I felt that for consumers' usage, a CPU at roughly P4 1.6ghz/Athlon XP 1600+ is sufficient though. a 2.8ghz is much too fast IMO. I think a 2.8ghz CPU's performance is more noticable with the server market.
     
  2. Tarkus

    Tarkus TechSpot Ambassador Posts: 837

    Re: Awwwhhh...

    Yeah, and Bill Gates said "640K ought to be enough for anybody."
     
  3. Nick

    Nick TS Rookie Posts: 216

    640k cant even buy a mcclaren
     
  4. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 TS Rookie Posts: 6,504   +6

    My feeling is that, by the time we get Windows 4000 or whatever, we will need processors of these kind.

    I remember when the Pentium II was first announced, and there was talk of like 500 MHz processors and stuff. "What on Earth does someone need with something like that?" we were asked. But the truth was, the software evolved to fit into the larger capacities of the hardware, and soon we have software that does need something like that. Believe me, there will certainly be games, and before long there will be operating systems and applications as well.

    To suggest for a moment that a 2.8 GHz system is "too fast" is just meaningless in computing. Processors are never too fast, hard drives never too big. Believe me, once developers see hardware like this on the market, they will start writing software that uses it.
     
  5. Vehementi

    Vehementi TechSpot Paladin Posts: 3,199

    Yep, and 3GHz is just over the horizon. Then comes 4GHz, 5, 6, 7, 8...

    Then GHz will be at the level MHz is at today. It's inevitable. I don't know why this comes to be surprising to people :D
     
  6. Top_gun

    Top_gun TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 81

    And by the time software comes out taht uses 3Ghz we will have 6Ghz LOL
     
  7. phizzl

    phizzl TS Rookie

    This is my first post to this board. I have cruised it for a few and everyone looks pretty decent. :grinthumb So here I go. I have never been able to be on the cutting edge of computer hardware due to being an old fart on a limited budget, but when I saw the price of a P4 2.53 drop from $512 to $248 in three days I lost control and my MS Explorer 3 Optical rodent ran across the page and clicked on "Buy Now". I have always been a fan of AMD due to pricing and bang for the buck. I have built no less than 40 AMD systems for myself and others in the last 4 years. I am in new territory here though. I have slowly gathered together an Asus P4B 533e mobo, the P4 2.53, a Chieftech server tower with a window, a TTGI 420watt power supply, a Chaintech Ti4200, an Asus 32x burner, a Maxtor 40gb 7200(I know, kinda small but I don't do mp3's), 512mb (2 256's) PC2700 DDR, and a floppy in a pear tree.

    I am ready to roll tomorrow. I never dreamed I would have this setup. Whooie boy. I was just born about 35 years too damn soon. :giddy:
     
  8. Didou

    Didou Bowtie extraordinair! Posts: 5,899

    People with P4s right now might want to consider this 2.8 GHZ processor. The next scheduled one at 3GHZ ( not Prescott ) will have steep power requirements & might even need a new board.:eek:

    Certain high end motherboards currently available might actually be able to make it work properly, but I'm guessing the board makers won't support it. Isn't it just like them ? Always trying to make you buy another board.:rolleyes:

    The new P4s ( with Hyper-Threading & Yahmill technology ) will probably need a new socket so P4 right now isn't the way to go for an upgrade path ( unless you're a Celeron user ).
     
  9. Th3M1ghtyD8

    Th3M1ghtyD8 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 794

    I disagree, as programmers are simply just exploiting the fact that people will upgrade to play new games/ use new apps, in order to save both time on effort in actually writing software. I know this because I am a programmer. Back in the old days of the Spectrum where it only had 48k of RAM, and a 3Mhz CPU, every single byte of memory had to be used wisely, routines had to be written and rewritten so that they did not use all of the cpu time. Console programmers are similar in this respect, in that they have definite machine specifications in which to code for, and must optimise in order to produce quality games for a console which would otherwise look dated in its 3+ year lifespan. PC specifications are so varied that either programmers become lazy or simply code for lower end systems, and so reduce the quality of games. Either way, we as PC users are losing out.
     
  10. PanicX

    PanicX TechSpot Ambassador Posts: 830

    Thats precisely why tools like DirectX are created. Hardware manufacturors aren't stupid. Companies like NVidia and Intel pressure software companies and other hardware manufacturors to utilize their new technologies as best as possible. Case and point, Intel is pushing motherboard manufacturors to eliminate legacy ports in favor of USB ports, well USB is more CPU intensive than legacy ports, therefore driving the need for a faster CPU.

    If you're a game developing company, in order to have a successful sequel, you must improve your original game in all aspecs. Would you buy quake III if it was identical to quake II you bought 5 years ago?

    While I'm not a programmer, and programmers may indeed be lazy, you still have to work to get paid. And to produce software that sells, its got be on the top the ball and out shine its competitors.
     
     
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.