Snarkpit Forum Index » General Banter » Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
« previous page 1
2
3
...
8910 next page »
Post Reply
Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Crono on Sun Mar 14th at 12:29am 2004

Orph, ram is way more important then the processor.

I was suggesting the processor simply so you don't have to worry about it later on. Because your computer is getting to the point where the CPU is holding things back and the ram and VGA aren't picking up slack. Which in general you can do with a better video card and more ram. But eventually your CPU will become a problem again. but the CPU isn't somthing you'd NEED to upgrade at this point in time, it's just a good idea. My suggestion would be, if you wanted immediate performance increase, Video Card and Ram. the processor doesn't really effect certain performance issues if you got a new video card because it will take in most of the processes it should have in the first place, but couldn't because of a lack of speed on the GPU or ram on the card.

Having more memory is always good, less times the cpu has to stop and wait for a recongnition from the chipset. Meaning it takes the chipset longer to write if you have less ram, because you use VMM more often, and that includes writting to your hard drive. and your CPU sits idle durring all of this, so the fast the message comes back the faster your programs run. [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Wild Card on Sun Mar 14th at 12:32am 2004

yea the 2500+ Im looking at (with my friend's discout for co-op) is 114$. The memory is 62$ after the discount.

I might get a vid card later in the year when I get more money for a 128mb later on.

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Orpheus on Sun Mar 14th at 12:34am 2004

? posted by Crono
Orph, ram is way more important then the processor.

it is, but not in this case, his 800 duron is holding him back more than his ram is.. if it were an 800 athlon, or some such maybe, but the duron is IMO more critical in this instance.. the difference gained from a 2500+ would more than compensate for the 256 he is at currently.

i must confess, i am rather new at all this, but i feel i am at least correct enuff to be taken seriously.. at least on this one point.

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Wild Card on Sun Mar 14th at 12:36am 2004

I have to agree with you Orph, my friend has pretty much the same setup as me:

AMD Athlon XP 900
256mb SDRAM
64mb GeForce 4 MX440 AGP8x

and he can run things better than I can. Even with Win XP which sucks a lot or ram.

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Crono on Sun Mar 14th at 12:38am 2004

No, the compensation wouldn't be that great. What I was saying is that if he had more ram, it would be the same as if he got a new processor with the same amount of ram he has now....look at which is cheaper. By the way, over 80 US for a processor is way too much. Including the fan and heat-sink. Also, this is kind of my field, or at least part of it, I have to know how this stuff works. But it is up to WC in the end. But everyone ALWAYS says upgrade the CPU and frankly it just isn't that important in most cases. He could benefit in the long run from a new CPU, but if he bought one now with his current configuration he's not going to notice much of a difference.

[EDIT]
XP, actually uses the ram properly, as opposed to ME. The change of OS's alone would probably make your games playable....but don't listen to the CS Major guy....he doesn't know what he's talking about
[/EDIT] [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Wild Card on Sun Mar 14th at 12:39am 2004

Crono, what if I got the CPU and the ram? [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Crono on Sun Mar 14th at 12:47am 2004

Your stuff would probably load faster and thats about it. Mostly because of the ram. You must remember that the CPU sits idle most of the time. And right now your CPU is doing a good amount of work, in that, it's being used to its potential. Think about this for a second, I mean seriously. Most people upgrade their processors too readily.

Your game performance would still be close to what it is now, but it will probably run smoother. But you wouldn't be able to up your effects or anything like that. Or have compressed textures run smoothly or anything, why? Because that's all taken care of by the video card, and if it even goes back to the CPU for processing help it's running too slow to play already.

It is up to you. I think you should upgrade your processor, maybe not to a 2ghz, you wont use it. But the only reason I'm saying this is that, your processor is going 100% right now, which is a good thing in most respects, in some cases it causes the cache to stay valid longer.

So, basically, if you want IMMEDIATE, MAJOR performance increase, go for the big boys, Video, Ram. CPU sit's there with a thumb up it's ass most of the time, so it's not the biggest factor in all this, especially with games.

You can ask Edge to elaborate, but, if your computer is slowing down because of polycounts or something, that isn't your CPU that's struggling. Its your GPU.

Anyway. CPU and Ram is fine. But, you wont need anything above a 1.6-1.8 right now. and that's keeping the future in mind. Taking that 64-bit processing runs at 1ghz and has the equivilent preformance of a stacked system with a 3ghz instruction speed, you can see how flawed the X86 arch. is. Ram, is a definite upgrade. upgrading the CPU will make it 'modular' for things later on. take that however you'd like, I can't tell you exactly what to do, just give you the facts on how it works and let you choose what exactly you need out of your computer.

For games: Ram and Video.
Data intensive: Ram and CPU.
General User: Ram.

hope this all helps.


[EDIT]
I don't want anyone thinking that I meant he will be able to use a current processor for 64-bit processing, I was using an example of 64-bit processing to show how innefficient the actual architecture is, and by that you can see that some of the other parts are infact more imporatant.
[/EDIT] [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Orpheus on Sun Mar 14th at 12:50am 2004

sometimes i am forced to concede defeat... but i find it hard to grasp that an 800 duron runs so close to a 2500+

i can grasp ram deficiencies, hell more ram is always better, but 256 is no small fish either, its not as if were were discussing 128 or even 96.

what i am having trouble with is the 800 and 512 ram will be better than a 2500 and 256..

we are discussing a duron afterall

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Crono on Sun Mar 14th at 1:20am 2004

Orph, you're missing the point.

Just because a processor can punch out commands at 2500mhz doesn't mean it will run faster then a processor that puts out commands at 800mhz.

It's just how the architecture works. It has a bottleneck for a bus (which is why it's slow) and that makes accessing ram a slow endevour. I never said that 800mhz is faster then 2500mhz. I was saying that his 800mhz is going at 100% right now, and a 2500mhz would probably never go over 20% usage.

I can't really explain this well, you'd honestly have to take a course on X86 archetecture to see what I'm really saying, and believe me, you'd REALLY understand if you did. (it takes programming knowledge though, so get reading )

Okay, in a game, what does the video card really do? It draws the verticies and polygons, right? What is that really? Well, its a series of Matrix equations of vectors and coordinates on the 3axis planes. Okay. The GPU does those calculations, meaning the CPU sees them and spits them out to memory (a CPU thinks everything is memory). The chipset then tells everything where to go, based on that address in memory's label. Meaning, if a program wanted to show a pixel on the screen the compilers have been written in a way to want a specific point in memory, this then goes to the CPU, because everything goes to the CPU first, the CPU sees it as a write access no big deal, it takes like 1/10 of a pico second to do it. So it sends it out to memory, down the (slow) bus the chipset recieves this and tries to write to memory, OH!, that's not physical space, so it sees what it really is, oh it's the video card, then it gets sent to the video card and the video card works on it alone. The video card can send out requests for assistance (if I remember correctly), but by that point your video would be running so slowly you wouldn't even care, you'd want to shut it off.

Now, why did I just explain all that? To show an example of how the processor isn't responsible for something as runtime effective as video processes.
ALL a CPU does is mathmatical operations. +, -, *, / and so on. (there's some other stuff in there, but this is staying simple). Meaning, if you say 2 + 2 and then write that result to memory (or a variable in your program) the processor adds two and two and writes it to ram. You can see how innefficient this system can get. Thats why they're devloping 64-bit processing, meaning the size of each 'chunk' of ram is 64-bits as opposed to the current 32-bits. How does this speed it up? well. there's more ram. Also, processors have been developed to pipline (do more then one operation at once). So you can have 2 + 2 going at the same time you're getting the address of its variable placement (taking that the variable already had a value). It goes faster.

The clock speed of a processor is just how fast it can send out commands onto the bus. That's it. That is determined by how fast it can go through one cycle. Yes, this helps, but, since when were your applications SO CPU dependant that you couldn't fix the problem with more space in ram. Because the real reason why its gets so boged down is because of VMM. Otherwise known as, writting crap to the harddrive, but still conceptually exists in ram, meaning it can be accessed. Writing to the hard drive is bad to say the least. Because it takes forever, in computer-land.

This is the real reason why your computer slows down. Most of the time, your CPU is idle, meaning it's not doing ANYTHING, why would this matter? well, if it's waiting on ram then it will go the same speed as if it were syncing up with ram speed. Does that make sense?

Anyway, it doesn't really matter, because new things are well into development, and the bottlenecked system that is X86 will be no more in the next decade or so.

And come to think of it, I really want a SPARC, with Solaris 9 on it, but I'm not sure why lol.


[EDIT]
The fact that it is a Duron vs. an Athlon, doesn't really mean anything, unless you get into registers.
[/EDIT] [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Orpheus on Sun Mar 14th at 1:24am 2004

ok, now you did it, my head hurts..

/me bows to my superior.. i am forced to acknowledge your skills crono..

unless someone can come to my defense, i suggest you listen to crono wildcard.

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Crono on Sun Mar 14th at 1:31am 2004

I'm not your superior, it's just how the thing works. I was just trying to clear the air of misconception

My post is probably more indepth then most peoples understanding of a computer, sorry if it's too technical. And my examples weren't the greatest. [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by scary_jeff on Sun Mar 14th at 1:34am 2004

Crono, that's all very nice, but seriously, no decent performance boost going from 800 to 2500MHz on DDR333 RAM? hu?



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Orpheus on Sun Mar 14th at 1:53am 2004

? posted by Crono
I'm not your superior, it's just how the thing works. I was just trying to clear the air of misconception

My post is probably more indepth then most peoples understanding of a computer, sorry if it's too technical. And my examples weren't the greatest.

never apologize for information.. but i am still iffy.. i am still thinking like jeff just posted.. no offense to your schooling i promise.. if i had examples before me, maybe, but.. my brain hurts from all this gay stuff..

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Crono on Sun Mar 14th at 2:03am 2004

? quote:
Crono, that's all very nice, but seriously, no decent performance boost going from 800 to 2500MHz on DDR333 RAM? hu?


Not as much as everyone is insinuating. I never said there wouldn't be a performance increase. It just wont be amazingly drastic. Will you notice a difference, well, yeah, of course you will, because his processor is probably going at 100% capacity, which also means that the ram and bus (especially at 333mgz) can be accessed faster then the processor can keep up. But, my point was that usually WC's situation is not the case. However, if you noticed, I said that he should upgrade his CPU, it's just not entirly needed at the moment. I like how people only read like a fourth of what I write in my posts..... [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Orpheus on Sun Mar 14th at 2:17am 2004

? posted by Crono
? quote:
Crono, that's all very nice, but seriously, no decent performance boost going from 800 to 2500MHz on DDR333 RAM? hu?


Not as much as everyone is insinuating. I never said there wouldn't be a performance increase. It just wont be amazingly drastic. Will you notice a difference, well, yeah, of course you will, because his processor is probably going at 100% capacity, which also means that the ram and bus (especially at 333mgz) can be accessed faster then the processor can keep up. But, my point was that usually WC's situation is not the case. However, if you noticed, I said that he should upgrade his CPU, it's just not entirly needed at the moment. I like how people only read like a fourth of what I write in my posts.....

i for one an only capable of comprehending that much i am afraid.

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Gorbachev on Sun Mar 14th at 4:04am 2004

I'd like to agree with you Crono, but it's tough, your reasons are *almost* right. But you have to realize that you also do not utilize more than 256MB of memory that often. If you're a smart enough computer user you should be using roughly 120-200MB of memory if you're running XP. Games generally use 30-300MB. So the only games that'd need the extra memory are top games. But the issue is the processor power needed for the games at that very time is not there. A Duron, especially an older model 800Mhz is not enough for newer games. I upgraded from 256-512MB of RAM and there's a neglible difference, the only few areas I felt it different where if I was running a ton of processes at the same time (which he shouldn't be doing with a system such as his anyway, especially if you're playing a game.)

The biggest jump in performance game-wise for him would end up being a PCI video card to AGP.

I would agree with how you said that the examples you gave weren't the greatest...because quite frankly they're confusing. I understand computers and I think that you're slighly mixed up in a few areas.

Saying that the CPU is idle most of the time is true *but* when he needs it, it won't be there.

Performance wise my order of upgrading would be

AGP Video Card -> CPU -> Memory

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Crono on Sun Mar 14th at 4:56am 2004

First off, I'm not wrong or 'confused' as to how this all works. Secondly, I said the fastest performance increase he would get is from a new video card. Thirdly, how the hell can you justify the processor being more runtime impendant then memory? The processor WAITS on the memory, most of the time (as in always) you run out of it and begin using VMM, which obviously slows down the computer even more. The way Windows uses the ram is still dependant on the systems use of memory, which doesn't change depending on the OS. Saying that you don't utilize more then 256mb of ram at a time is not true. You're saying that hardware/software developers envoke VMM when they could avoid it? That's rediculous. In fact, the system is set up such that it doesn't know the difference. Such as, your processor thinks that there is at least 4 gigs of ram at all times. Through VMM is can have that. it doesn't use VMM unless it runs out of physical memory. Your devices which have addresses in memory aren't physical addresses. The memory gets appended. Such as, if your hard drive took up a specific place in memory that memory can't be directly accessed, instead of the memory ending on whatever byte number, it is appended at the end numerically. Unless Windows is written more poorly then I am aware of, this holds true. Where did you get that it only goes to 256, then basically wont be used after that point, not being utilized. Also, I never said his Duron was up to handling newer games. I was saying that.....you know what this is about the 30th time I've explained it on these forums and I don't really want to explain it again. Case in point -> Processor is not the most important thing in your system. It gives out commands and its overall, noticable to humans, speed, is based on everything else in the computer. My suggestion to WC still stands as at least upgrade the ram. Video and CPU is up to you. I do suggest the CPU, simply because right now you're is being used to it's maxiumum meaning it can't pick up the slack (speed wise) for other units in the computers size or speed. Also, for the most part, CPUs are rather cheap right now. 333mhz ram isn't as cheap, but getting both of these isn't as expensive as a new video card, which you need as well, if you want to play newer games. (I said this before, that games are mostly dependant on the video card's performance). And Orph, that comment wasn't really directed at you, But I have noticed that lately many people only respond to like two sentences (probably the only two sentenes they read out of my post) to comment on, and then continue to preach on it and basically try to demean everything I've stated. I don't see it as anything person or an attack or anything like, it's just rather odd to, as it seems to everyone else reading the post, read one comment harped on.


[EDIT]
......and my post is completly unformated for some reason.
[/EDIT] [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Wild Card on Sun Mar 14th at 5:23am 2004

Well, I guess for sure I go with another 256mb ram chip. Then I can either get a CPU or maybe a new video card. Depends how much they are/which ones I should get.

I have a friend in need of a PCI video card as well, so I could probably sell it to him, lol.

As for all this CPU/memory stuff Crono, as much as I like computers, I think I'll stick with the physical hardware of it, this is getting way too technical for me, lol. And I though JAVA was confusing. By the way, whats this VMM you keep talking about?

Also, I've been reading on and off about Win ME bashings, lol, I have yet to encounter problems with ME, but with XP home I did have some. it was before I got my current computer, it was the Duron 800 with 128mb SDRAM but the damn thing was sooo slow. Booting up, loading windows, VHE, internet, etc.

I know getting more ram will make a difference though, I've seen first hand the difference playing the same game with 128mb, then adding in a 256mb stick (all SDRAM)

But as I said, I'm leanning more towards the CPU because graphics cards are expensive as f**k.

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Wild Card on Sun Mar 14th at 5:43am 2004

Which one of these would your recommend?:

http://www.pccyber.ca/scrItem.asp?product_id=2902&product_subtypes_id=287&product_types_id=26

http://www.pccyber.ca/scrItem.asp?product_id=2492&product_subtypes_id=287&product_types_id=26

http://www.pccyber.ca/scrItem.asp?product_id=2466&product_subtypes_id=285&product_types_id=26

http://www.pccyber.ca/scrItem.asp?product_id=1604&product_subtypes_id=78&product_types_id=26

I found these ones that seemed interesting. Im trying to keep under 150$ though. Here's the main page, if there is something else you would recommend:

http://www.pccyber.ca/scrMain2.asp?product_types_id=26

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by $loth on Sun Mar 14th at 7:35am 2004

? quote:
There is a price difference of about 40$ between each. So I am wondering if its really worth the extra 40 to go with the 2500+.

yes it is worth the extra $40, i have an AMD 2000+ on this pc and on my new which i got for xmas, i have an AMD 2500+ and when compiling there is a difference, so i would go for the 2500+,[if you do get it though make sure you go to advance in the bios and make sure that it is at 1.833GHz]

? quote:
I also want to get a second stick of ram.

Definately[sp?] get another stick of RAM, 512! it will really boost up your performance and loading times.

? quote:
By the way: whats the difference between barton boxed and retail?

the difference is that the retail comes with a fan and heatsink and the boxed is just the processor, if u upgrade your CPU then make sure that your fan can handle the heat[or get outta the kitchen] or otherwise your new pc would crash in a matter of seconds

[addsig]




« previous page 1
2
3
...
8910 next page »
Post Reply