333mhz vs 266mhz ...

[Dijay]

Is there much noticable difference between a system with a 266mhz fsb and memory compared to a 333mhz fsb and memory for a NON-Gamer. I'm just wondering if its worth the extra money to get the higher proc with 333.....the more expensive motherboard that supports it. (the ram costs about the same so thats no big deal)

anyway, I'm just wondering if it makes much difference or if I'm better off saving some money.

thanks

 

[LikeLinus]

If you're just doing web browsing, word, outlook....things like this, then you will not be able to tell the difference what so ever.

If you're doing things like photoshop or video, then you will tell the difference.

 

[Dijay]

awesome. thanks for the help

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
If you're just doing web browsing, word, outlook....things like this, then you will not be able to tell the difference what so ever.

If you're doing things like photoshop or video, then you will tell the difference.

even with mp3 encoding and divx encodes?

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: Sid59

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
If you're just doing web browsing, word, outlook....things like this, then you will not be able to tell the difference what so ever.

If you're doing things like photoshop or video, then you will tell the difference.

even with mp3 encoding and divx encodes?

What do you mean even with mp3 encoding and divx? divx encoding would be video editing. If you plan on video editing it is very CPU intensive, so it'd be wise to have the fastest processor needed. Mp3 encoding is cpu dependent, but It's not very intense and pretty easy to do.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
What do you mean even with mp3 encoding and divx? divx encoding would be video editing. If you plan on video editing it is very CPU intensive, so it'd be wise to have the fastest processor needed. Mp3 encoding is cpu dependent, but It's not very intense and pretty easy to do.

::cough::bullshit::cough::

MP3 Encoding is HIGHLY CPU intensive; that's one of the reasons it makes a great benchmark.

See this image: http://www.themach5archive.com/misc/MP3-encoding-CPU-usage.gif

That's on an Athlon 1800+, stock settings. Encoding at 224 VBR/ABR. Yes, that's more intensive than 128 CBR, but what kind of idiot would rip at 128 CBR?

Anyways, the point is, if you're doing lots of MP3 ripping, video editing, playing in Photoshop, or gaming, then every MHz counts for something. It's just a matter of how much of that something you're gonna end up using, and if it's worth the potential risks. YMMV.

 

[McCarthy]

He said intense, not intensive

Yeah, mp3 is cpu intensive, but even high quality mp3s encode in time spans measured in seconds on current hardware. Not minutes, not hours, not overnight....as was the case with mp3 encoding just a few short years ago and still is the case for some video encoding. Video's still pretty intense use, and intensive as well!

Back to Dijay's question as it applies to mp3, no, not much of a noticable difference. For video, yes.

 

[RyanM]

When the limiting factor in ripping a CD is my CD drive's read speed, then I'll be impressed. But the CPU is still the bottleneck. ;-)

 

[paralazarguer]

My system encodes mp3s as fast as my 52x cdrom can spin em off.

 

[RyanM]

Well, that's your problem. I rip off a TrueX 72X drive, so I'm still being limited by CPU. Then again, most people don't have this problem. I think I'm like one of the last people on the planet to still have a working version of this drive.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

72x??? Do your CD's break a lot or something? Or does it just not spin at 72x most of the time?

 

[ElFenix]

mp3 encoding doesn't care about the fsb much at all, from what i've seen

 

[RyanM]

The TrueX drives don't ever spin at 72X. They spin at 12X CLV, and read 7 tracks at once (1 for error checking). It's quieter than hell. The only problem is these drives always had difficulty reading CDR/W media, but that's what my RW drive is for. Everything that's silver goes in the 72X drive.

 

[Dulanic]

I loved my 72X drive except with scratched CDs, then it died on me But my 16X Lite-On DVD rips only slightly slower, so its fine.

 

[IncendiaryLemon]

Originally posted by: paralazarguer
My system encodes mp3s as fast as my 52x cdrom can spin em off.

Doesn't that kind of speed compromise quality?

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: IncendiaryLemon

Originally posted by: paralazarguer
My system encodes mp3s as fast as my 52x cdrom can spin em off.

Doesn't that kind of speed compromise quality?

jitter city


i only rip in secure mode

 

[paralazarguer]

Doesn't that kind of speed compromise quality?

No. Actually, it copies the entire CDA (wave basically) file onto the hard drive first and then converts it. It does not "jitter" as someone suggested since it's being done from the harddrive on an accurate digital copy. I do VBR high quality and it sounds purrrrrrrrfect.

 

[GnomeCop]

I still have a 52x true x scsi drive, but yeah most 72x owners had theirs die.