Computers now are so fast for every day tasks

[soccerballtux]

Want: Q9550
Have: Plenty of power

I might be given an e8400 (about a year old, hopefully not a C0 but it'd still be an upgrade) which I plan to overclock.

I don't even have the urge to upgrade to SSD. The Vista caching is great, storing all my frequently used programs in RAM. I have no need for anything faster.

Even with the minimal photo stuff I do (image stitching with Hugin) it's lickity split.

 

[Cogman]

When intel releases an affordable chipset for i7, then I would say upgrading would be valid. However, as it stands there isn't much of a reason to upgrade right now. (unless you start doing lots of multitasking/using programs that use 4+ threads)

 

[Stoneburner]

I've been converting my brother's old westerns to my archos 604. I still use autogordianknot. Back in the p4 days, 6-12 hours to convert to xvid. Then i went to opt 165, it was cut to 2-3 hours. Now with a phenom 2 920? 12 - 20 minutes !!!


That's justification enough.

 

[MagickMan]

My e7200 @4GHz is crazy fast for everything I do, even in the most demanding apps and games. I was considering going to a Q9650, but I really don't see the point. You're right, it is a bit depressing.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I can think of reasons for ever-faster processors and systems, and reasons to upgrade to them.

Like Brad Pitt says in "12 Monkeys:" " . . . . EEE-lectronic Sechs-ual Devices . . . "

There's always a reason for either being . . . or getting . . . it . . . . faster . . . .

I hope that was subtle enough under the rules of these-here forums . . . .

 

[Hulk]

The only application I use that I could take come more processing power is Sony Vegas Pro 8.

Faster renders would be nice.
Better previews would be nice.

But you're right. For the most part even my C2D@3.2 is more than enough.

If I wasn't working with HD video I'd be fine. I'll probably be moving up to a Quad in the near future.

 

[chiew]

i need a faster cpu for photo and video processing. my 2.7ghz core 2 duo is starting to stutter. i would love an i7

got a canon 5D mark II and i'm dabbling in HD videos

 

[deeznuts]

I have a spare QX6700 and I need to build an office machine. This is way too much for an office machine (think Quickbooks, Office, etc.). But what do I do. Buy a cheapie pentium dual core? Then I stll have the spare CPU adn would need to build a whole new system around it?
/

 

[Bateluer]

Give software a year to catch up and you'll be getting the upgrade itch again.

 

[Rick James]

If i went back to intel i would not even waste my money on the LGA 775. I REALLY want to play with a Nehalem dual core. The QPI is 2X as fast as the 1600FSB

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: deeznuts
I have a spare QX6700 and I need to build an office machine. This is way too much for an office machine (think Quickbooks, Office, etc.). But what do I do. Buy a cheapie pentium dual core? Then I stll have the spare CPU adn would need to build a whole new system around it?
/

Sell the QX6700 and use the proceeds to completely build yourself a low-power office machine.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Give software a year to catch up and you'll be getting the upgrade itch again.

But wait a year for what though? Windows 7? It's as fast or faster than XP; friend has verified this with some of his games. They've probably improved the WDDM.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: deeznuts
I have a spare QX6700 and I need to build an office machine. This is way too much for an office machine (think Quickbooks, Office, etc.). But what do I do. Buy a cheapie pentium dual core? Then I stll have the spare CPU adn would need to build a whole new system around it?
/

You already created a separate thread about this.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

I agree with the OP; there's such an abundance of CPU power available, even for those who render video/graphics, an ultra-fast CPU is more of a luxury than a necessity. And for most of us, unless we're gaming, the extra CPU cycles are just not needed. Most software has lagged behind available CPU power for years.

IMO opinion, it's storage that has lagged, and hinders the overall speed of most PC's.

Over the last 1/2 year or so, I've gone from an AMD X2 @ 3ghz to Phenom 9850 (it was free) @ 3ghz to X3/X4 720 @ 3.4ghz, yet none of those "upgrades" made as much of an impact on my day-to-day stuff as moving from 4gb RAM to 8gb.

 

[GLeeM]

I remember a salesman saying similar 23+ years ago: :laugh:

This 286 at 12 Mhz is so much faster than that old 8088 at 4.77 Mhz you will never have to upgrade again! And it's only $5,000 without monitor.

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: Cogman
When intel releases an affordable chipset for i7, then I would say upgrading would be valid. However, as it stands there isn't much of a reason to upgrade right now. (unless you start doing lots of multitasking/using programs that use 4+ threads)

It seems Intel feels the same way. Core i5 is supposed to only come in 32nm dual core flavors with integrated GPU. (although Core i7 is supposed to get a 6 core 32nm CPU around the same time)

At this point it seems SSD is where the true gains are.

 

[videogames101]

Gaming ftw, always a reason to upgrade!


(idk if thats good or bad...)

 

[Soulkeeper]

i7 won't be in my upgrade path
SSD's do sound interesting tho, backing up 100GB still takes forever on traditional drives

 

[Cogman]

Until SSDs start to become competitive with regular hard-drives in capacity (By competitive, I mean within a range of 2x the capacity/price ratio of a regular HD) I don't think I will be giving them the time of day. Rather, large amounts of ram will give a better speed boost for me then a faster HD, a good program should try and hit the HD as little as possible.

 

[fffblackmage]

I have a e6320 at 2.8GHz, and I'm having a hard time justifying any upgrade. Either to e8400, or Corei7.... Even an upgrade to E5200 doesn't seem to make sense to me.

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: Cogman
Rather, large amounts of ram will give a better speed boost for me then a faster HD, a good program should try and hit the HD as little as possible.

Does Windows 7 do a better job of this than Windows XP.

Lets say I had a game that used up 8 GB of space on my hard drive fully installed.

If I had 12 GB of ram via a X58 motherboard would that mean I would never have to use my hard drive for loading information during gameplay?

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Just learning

Originally posted by: Cogman
Rather, large amounts of ram will give a better speed boost for me then a faster HD, a good program should try and hit the HD as little as possible.

Does Windows 7 do a better job of this than Windows XP.

Lets say I had a game that used up 8 GB of space on my hard drive fully installed.

If I had 12 GB of ram via a X58 motherboard would that mean I would never have to use my hard drive for loading information during gameplay?

I'm not sure how superfetch works, so I couldn't tell you for sure. Its possible that Vista/Windows 7 will load up the data before you start the game, however as far as I understood it, it just loads up the program information rather then the data for the programs.

During gameplay (not the time loading levels) your game shouldn't ever touch the hard drive.

 

[eelw]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I've been converting my brother's old westerns to my archos 604. I still use autogordianknot. Back in the p4 days, 6-12 hours to convert to xvid. Then i went to opt 165, it was cut to 2-3 hours. Now with a phenom 2 920? 12 - 20 minutes !!!


That's justification enough.

And I can convert my h.264 videos for my Touch in 7-8 minutes with my i7

 

[Nightsilencer]

Originally posted by: fffblackmage
I have a e6320 at 2.8GHz, and I'm having a hard time justifying any upgrade. Either to e8400, or Corei7.... Even an upgrade to E5200 doesn't seem to make sense to me.

That's because you don't have to upgrade. Most people are driven by the "OMG IT'S NEW AND SHINY!" argument. Some people just gotta have the latest and greatest.

Those people don't realize that in the long run, they are throwming money away.

For example, I spent money on a whole new system back in October 2008. I went with an E8400. I'm really, REALLY happy with it. Do you even think i'm considering upgrading in the next 2 years? Of course not! I want this CPU to exhaust its horsepower.

Just let your hardware live its lifecycle.

 

[wwswimming]

if you don't need more speed, then the only 2 reasons i could think of are
power consumption & size.

then again, with Vista's sleep mode, how much does the computer consume ?

i was glad to side-grade from a 2.4 Xeon in a 4U server case to a 3.06 Shuttle
1/4 the size in 2003.

i'd say the CPU industry will eventually have to deal with what Microsoft is dealing
with - whether you like XP or Vista, they done worked themselves out of a job,
by making a decent enough OS that no one needs a new OS !