Clockspeed History?

[Brother Shatterstone]

I saw this and thought the other computer geeks on the board would be interested in reading, and maybe commenting on it:

Clockspeed is History

This week was dual-core week for the many Web sites that cover the latest and greatest processors from AMD and Intel. All of us dutifully reported our numerous benchmarks comparing the new dual-core processors from both companies. And while I am biased and think that our coverage from our editor Patrick Schmid is the best of the lot, I am here today to tell you that it doesn't really matter which CPU you end up buying, because clockspeed is history...

For the longest of times upgrading the process, and board if need be, has always giving the fastest, and therefore best, results while adding RAM and in more recent years picking up a newer video card has given good but not nearly as fast results.

I can see what he’s saying, and agree with it, but at the same time I still think we’ll all be replacing board and processors at the same rate we are now…

 

[trancejeremy]

To a certain extent that has been true for a while.

My computer runs at 2.2 GHZ, but is actually more powerful than the clock speed would indicate (though perhaps not as generous as the name AMD gave it, 3400)

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

To a certain extent that has been true for a while.

To a certain extent I would agree with you but not as much as he seems to be proclaiming in the article/editorial.

 

[drothgery]

I can see what he’s saying, and agree with it, but at the same time I still think we’ll all be replacing board and processors at the same rate we are now…

I'm actually becoming more and more convinced that it makes more sense to buy a lower-midrange system every year or two than what I actually do, which is buy a midrange to upper midrange sytem every three or four years, add a few minor upgrades over the years (okay, doubling the RAM and going from the cheap video card around launch to the midrange card of a year or two later probably isn't all that minor, but it's not too expensive). Still, I suspect it will be a while before it'll be reasonable for even an occasional gamer to go five years without replacing most of their PC.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

Yeah I hear ya Dave, it’s been far to long since I've upgraded my system (3 years) so I'm down to playing alot of console games.

 

[RangerWickett]

I got my computer in '99.

It has a 6 GB hard drive.

Take pity on me.

 

[drothgery]

Yeah I hear ya Dave, it’s been far to long since I've upgraded my system (3 years) so I'm down to playing alot of console games.

I've been thinking that I got my third PC (3.2 GHz P4; replaced an 800 MHz PIII) a little too soon when I got it last year (and dropped a GeForce 6600GT in it yesterday), but the transition to 64-bit, dual-core CPUs and from XP to Longhorn should be about done by the time I get a new desktop if I can hold out until 2007. Though I might grab a notebook next year.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

Oh well I'm at then end of this PC's lifecycle, at least for me its going to become the wife's PC, its a 1.8 GHz and its time to take it out to the pasture in my mind.