# how to tell how fast



## tom j (Apr 3, 2009)

when looking at computers ,, how do I tell the fast one from the sloooooow one ???
and how fast is it ??


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Most everything today is FAST. Many times faster then even just a few years ago. 2.34 GHz to 3 and up. 2 Gigs of RAM and such now are pretty much the norm.
But for ANY home computer ANYTHING IMO over 2.30 GHz is PLENTY plenty Fast for 90% of people unless you are a "Gamer".


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

While what arabian knight says it true for WinXP, from a practical standpoint if you are looking at new computers you should be looking for a dual or quad core computer. That's because Vista & 7 will run best on multi-core processors.

The short answer is that you should right-click on the My Computer icon and select the General tab. You'll see the processor type & speen and amount of RAM under "Computer" in that tab. For XP look for 1 gig of RAM and a 2 to 3 GHZ Pentium 4 processor. If you're looking to run Vista or 7 then look for a multi-core machine witrh 2 to 3 gigs of RAM.

Multi-core processors are sized a little differently, so it can be deceiving. If you find a 1.5 GHz dual core processor then that's 1.5 GHz for each core, but since data is moved in and out more efficiently it will outperform a 3 GHz single core processor. Likewise, a 1.5 GHz quad core processor will run at 4 times that speed, since it's for each core.

If you're looking for a used machine to run XP then arabian knight's advice is sound. If you're looking for a new machine then you won't find single-core processor machines on the market anymore. In that case look for a good multi-core machine with 2 to 3 gigs of memory.


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

The "Ghz" speed will give you some indication of speed but you have to be careful and not use it as the only inidcator of speed. The processor type and chip technology count. The number of cores come into play. E.G. A 2ghz Intel P4 is slower than a 1.5ghz dual core Intel core chip.

Check out http://www.cpubenchmark.net for some nice graphics on CPU performance.

You also need to keep in mind the entire computer when looking a speed. A fast CPU using slower memory or a fast CPU using ATA disk is going to be slow than the same CPU on sata disk. Buss speeds, I/O the motherboard handle all come into play.

If your buying new your looking at levels of fast, most everything on the market is more than fast enough for your average computer user.


----------



## Windy in Kansas (Jun 16, 2002)

The front of my computer is labeled 64 X 2 dual core processor. What does the 64 represent? It is an AMD Athlon processor 3800+ 2.0 GHz. 

Thanks.


----------



## Mechanic Intern (Jun 10, 2007)

Nevada said:


> While what arabian knight says it true for WinXP, from a practical standpoint if you are looking at new computers you should be looking for a dual or quad core computer. That's because Vista & 7 will run best on multi-core processors.
> 
> The short answer is that you should right-click on the My Computer icon and select the General tab. You'll see the processor type & speen and amount of RAM under "Computer" in that tab. For XP look for 1 gig of RAM and a 2 to 3 GHZ Pentium 4 processor. If you're looking to run Vista or 7 then look for a multi-core machine witrh 2 to 3 gigs of RAM.
> 
> ...


Nevada, you need to learn a few more things about computers... First, the number of applications that can take advantage of multiple CPUs\multicore CPUs is a very small one. I'll grant you that it's growing slowly, but it'll likely be a while until ALL of the apps that most internet users use support multicore CPUs; case in point, the JVM (aka Java) doesn't yet do multi-threading (one of the requirements to take advantage of multicore CPUs) because it causes bugs in the applications that run inside it if the apps aren't coded a certain way. In which case, you'd actually be taking a pretty sizable step backward in performance, since you'd only be using one of the cores of that CPU chip. In general, I recommend holding out on buying a new computer until more applications can take advantage of current technology, as most people will be disappointed by the app support for current CPU tech. Besides, multicore CPUs are really better at multi-tasking than mono-tasking (most users don't generally multi-task that much), as has been said by tech guru Jay Lee many many many many times; here's a link to his blog.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Windy in Kansas said:


> The front of my computer is labeled 64 X 2 dual core processor. What does the 64 represent? It is an AMD Athlon processor 3800+ 2.0 GHz.


The 64 represents the number of bits that can be processed at a time. The standard single core processors are 32-bit processors. The Athlon 64 isn't really a true 64-bit processor, it has two 32-bit processors (or cores) so it's said to be 64-bit.

2.0 GHz tells you what frequency the processor oprates at (how quickly the processing registers can charge & discharge), but remember that they are two in a dual core processor. As I said above, since data is moved in and out of the dual core processor more efficiently than a single core processor, you'll actually get more performance from a 2 GHz dual core processor that you would from a 4 GHz single core processor.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Mechanic Intern said:


> Nevada, you need to learn a few more things about computers... First, the number of applications that can take advantage of multiple CPUs\multicore CPUs is a very small one.


Well, I don't want to go over anyone's head here so I didn't get into that. But I do have a few remarks regarding software taking advantage of multi-core processors.

First, with Windows becoming more and more bloated all the time, having Windows operate at 64-bits would take the load off the machine by processing native Windows tasks at 64-bit, which would obviously help make way for 32-bit applications to run more quickly.

Second, since they don't make 32-bit processors anymore, I think we can expect to see more newer applications take advantage of 64-bit processing. I suspect that will be the norm before long.

I think we can conclude that you're better off running a 64-bit operating system with a dual core processor than you are running a 32-bit operating system with a single core proccessor, even if all of your applications still operate at 32-bit.


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

Nevada said:


> The 64 represents the number of bits that can be processed at a time. The standard single core processors are 32-bit processors. The Athlon 64 isn't really a true 64-bit processor, it has two 32-bit processors (or cores) so it's said to be 64-bit.
> 
> 2.0 GHz tells you what frequency the processor oprates at (how quickly the processing registers can charge & discharge), but remember that they are two in a dual core processor. As I said above, since data is moved in and out of the dual core processor more efficiently than a single core processor, you'll actually get more performance from a 2 GHz dual core processor that you would from a 4 GHz single core processor.


The AMD is a true 64bit machine on both CPU's. Also the frequency tell you the clock speed nothing more. In the old Pentium days it was an indicator of instruction processing but now multi instruction can be run per clock cycle.


In any case her machine is more than fast enough to do about anything she wants.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Mine is a 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo. Plenty fast~! 
Oh btw this in on a IMac.


----------



## Windy in Kansas (Jun 16, 2002)

Gary in ohio said:


> In any case her machine is more than fast enough to do about anything she wants.


I appreciate the information from both of you. Indeed my computer is fast especially compared to the newer laptop computer of my daughter and SILs. Theirs seems to take forever to load web pages while mine pulls them up about as fast as I click onto them. I have Google and app set to bring up Wikipedia info during a Google search as it often has the better answer. That said, Wikipedia frequently is slow loading compared to the Google response so I have been thinking of taking the application off.

BTW, Windy in Kansas is a guy rather than a gal, and always has been. lol There is a Wendy that posts also so folk tend to get us confused.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Gary in ohio said:


> The AMD is a true 64bit machine on both CPU's.


Yes. I stand corrected on 64-bit Athlon architecture.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Windy in Kansas said:


> Indeed my computer is fast especially compared to the newer laptop computer of my daughter and SILs. Theirs seems to take forever to load web pages while mine pulls them up about as fast as I click onto them.


Web browsing speed isn't normally effected much by processor speed. That's more of a function of how fast the Internet connection is. It could be that they're having some other problem though, such as not enough memory.


----------



## Windy in Kansas (Jun 16, 2002)

Doubt it should be a memory issue as it is a couple of years newer than my computer but you never know. Might be they have never set their start menu items for only those they need.


----------



## Mechanic Intern (Jun 10, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Well, I don't want to go over anyone's head here so I didn't get into that. But I do have a few remarks regarding software taking advantage of multi-core processors.
> 
> First, with Windows becoming more and more bloated all the time, having Windows operate at 64-bits would take the load off the machine by processing native Windows tasks at 64-bit, which would obviously help make way for 32-bit applications to run more quickly.
> 
> ...


Nevada, be quiet since you clearly don't know what you're talking about. True, intel and AMD have stopped making 32bit CPUs, but the road to making a 64bit application is a very trecherous one; I know 12 professional Objective C developers who are currently struggling to make a 64 bit version of their software that doesn't constantly crash, while noting that the 32bit version works fine! That's what I'm emphasizing here; making a 64 bit app is exceptionally hard, and as such it'll take a while to get most 32bit apps ported over to 64bit.

In response to your closing remark about being better off using a 64bit OS on 64bit hardware even if your apps are 32bit, you REALLY need to do your research! Even *I* know that that's total BS, for cripes sake! Everyone who knows computers worth a crap knows that ALL applications depend on some part of the OS, and if the OS is 64bit but the app isn't, it'll unpack its own version (if the devs had the foresight to ship it with the 32bit OS dependencies) of what it needs which can cause serious conflicts, and even break the OS installation! If the devs don't ship their app with its 32bit dependencies and you're on a 64bit OS, then you're basically skrewed; the app won't work, and nor can it be removed properly once installed.

Seriously, nevada; do your homework next time!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Mechanic Intern said:


> Nevada, STFU since you clearly don't know what you're talking about. True, intel and AMD have stopped making 32bit CPUs, but the road to making a 64bit application is a very trecherous one; I know 12 professional Objective C developers who are currently struggling to make a 64 bit version of their software that doesn't constantly crash, while noting that the 32bit version works fine! That's what I'm emphasizing here; making a 64 bit app is exceptionally hard, and as such it'll take a while to get most 32bit apps ported over to 64bit.


It's going to happen. 



Mechanic Intern said:


> In response to your closing remark about being better off using a 64bit OS on 64bit hardware even if your apps are 32bit, you REALLY need to do your research! Even *I* know that that's total BS, for cripes sake! Everyone who knows computers worth a crap knows that ALL applications depend on some part of the OS, and if the OS is 64bit but the app isn't, it'll unpack its own version (if the devs had the foresight to ship it with the 32bit OS dependencies) of what it needs which can cause serious conflicts, and even break the OS installation! If the devs don't ship their app with its 32bit dependencies and you're on a 64bit OS, then you're basically skrewed; the app won't work, and nor can it be removed properly once installed.


The operating system is doing other things besides just supporting the application you're using.


----------



## Mechanic Intern (Jun 10, 2007)

Nevada said:


> It's going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> The operating system is doing other things besides just supporting the application you're using.


Alright, nevada, let's go. You and me in the parking lot right now. You're completely missing what I'm saying; yes 64bit app development is happening, but it's a very excruciatingly long drive on an icy road with bald tires no brakes and a slipping clutch. it's gonna take a ---- long time to get done!

And I'm well aware that the OS is doing more than keeping apps running; it's also using up 99% CPU time with the "System Idle Process" when you're not constantly engaging it in some way! I'm putting app compatibility and functionality first because windows in all its bloated glory doesn't have that many programs that computer users frequently use; it doesn't ship with adobe flash player (still a 32bit app, and one that breaks any 64bit OS it's installed on at that) and most popular websites these days depend on flash player (youtube, hulu, megavideo, just to name a few). Adobe has only started developing a 64bit version of its flash player in the last few months, and released it as a public beta shortly after that. They admit that they're nowhere near being ready to release a stable version of flash, and neither is mozilla ready to release a 64bit version of any version of Firefox! Frequently used apps aren't yet stable in 64bit, so stop trying to push people to a computing platform that can't support their usage needs just yet!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Mechanic Intern said:


> Alright, nevada, let's go. You and me in the parking lot right now. You're completely missing what I'm saying


Is there a problem here? I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, but the intent to answer the original poster's question was lost a long time ago.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Mechanic Intern said:


> Nevada, STFU since you clearly don't know what you're talking about.


MI, back off. You are close to having the dubious honor of being issued the first infraction for the PC forum ever, that I can remember.

There's a saying amongst board admins: "Attack the argument, not the person." I could care less how wrong you think Nevada is or not; you do NOT attack a person like that. End of discussion. 

If you REALLY want to know the 'truth' I'll be glad to get my friend to weigh in. Not only does he develop applications and drivers, but he helped design Windows XP and Vista, IIRC.



Nevada said:


> Is there a problem here? I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, but the intent to answer the original poster's question was lost a long time ago.


Agreed. She wanted to know what 'fast' is, and discussions about 32 bit vs. 64 bit, app dependencies, etc., is WAY the heck over a standard user's head. One of the cardinal rules of instructing people is that you tailor your instruction/teaching to your target audience - something that hasn't been done in any of your posts, MI.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Since this was made public, I decided to ask my friend about it. He not only used to work for Microsoft, but helped to create several very important things (i.e., the Bitlocker drive encryption mechanism, as well as the means by which WinXP did *NOT* have to reboot after every major update, like Win2K did). Plus, he has coded for Amazon AND now codes for Nvidia, so he has a bit of a clue what he speaks of. I'll address the points he made.

1. A dual 1.5GHz core won't necessarily be 'faster' than a single 3.0GHz core.

2. JVM does indeed do multithreading. My friend has written apps for Amazon.com using Java that utilize its multithreading capabilities to a HUGE extent.

3. GENERALLY, 64bit will run something faster than 32bit. Where it gets 'slow' is when a program is 'pointer happy' (i.e., C#, interpreters, JVM). Java recently fixed this problem.

4. The reason that it is 'harder' to 'code' for 64bit is not because it's inherently harder to code - creating an app for 64bit is no harder than for 32 bit. What is HARDER is porting from 32bit to 64bit. According to him, a lot of devs want to code an app that stores their pointers in 32bit - and that's where you run into your problems, when a program coded for 32bit, loaded with pointers and the like, has to run in 64bit.

Now...I'm locking this thread. The last thing we need is to have another throwdown, and insults, over such a silly subject, as coding for 32bit vs. 64 bit.


----------

