PDA

View Full Version : am i the only person who finds this really anoying?



markp1989
March 28th, 2009, 11:22 PM
when looking over computer specs, i see things advertised with a 12ghz cpu, when they realy mean it has a 3ghz quad.

or i hear other people bost (about a year ago now)about having a 5ghz when they have a 2.5ghz dual core.

Is it just me . or is this really anoying?

.Maleficus.
March 28th, 2009, 11:24 PM
It's pretty annoying.

Mulenmar
March 28th, 2009, 11:26 PM
Hadn't seen that, but it would be really annoying -- and something of a bait-and-switch to the computer-barely-literate. Lawsuits, anyone?:popcorn:

Skripka
March 28th, 2009, 11:26 PM
when looking over computer specs, i see things advertised with a 12ghz cpu, when they realy mean it has a 3ghz quad.

or i hear other people bost (about a year ago now)about having a 5ghz when they have a 2.5ghz dual core.

Is it just me . or is this really anoying?

Annoying, and displays the speakers/retailers ignorance for all to see,

CraigPaleo
March 28th, 2009, 11:36 PM
I haven't seen that but it would be annoying.

I have noticed though, that processor speed is increasingly being left out of specs altogether in stores in the U.S. Descriptions usually read something like "IntelŪ PentiumŪ Dual-Core Processor E5300."

swoll1980
March 28th, 2009, 11:38 PM
I haven't seen that but it would be annoying.

I have noticed though, that processor speed is increasingly being left out of specs altogether in stores in the U.S. Descriptions usually read something like "IntelŪ PentiumŪ Dual-Core Processor E5300."

I think this is do to the fact that clock speed isn't as good a measure of a processors performance like it use to be.

markp1989
March 28th, 2009, 11:39 PM
I haven't seen that but it would be annoying.

I have noticed though, that processor speed is increasingly being left out of specs altogether in stores in the U.S. Descriptions usually read something like "IntelŪ PentiumŪ Dual-Core Processor E5300."

yer i see that alot, then the computer literate do research on the cpu, and the computer ileterate just go for the 1 with the highest number they can afford, even if its nt always the best bang for you buck.

BGFG
March 28th, 2009, 11:40 PM
there's a surplus of sub 2ghz laptops out there. Retailers are scrambling to get rid of them in the face of 45 and soon to be 32 nm tech.

CraigPaleo
March 28th, 2009, 11:43 PM
I think this is do to the fact that clock speed isn't as good a measure of a processors performance like it use to be.

I believe that is the reason as well -- and a good one.

markp1989
March 28th, 2009, 11:44 PM
there's a surplus of sub 2ghz laptops out there. Retailers are scrambling to get rid of them in the face of 45 and soon to be 32 nm tech.

for a laptop you dont really need 2ghz or anything more, my 1.5ghz laptop, is fine.

CraigPaleo
March 28th, 2009, 11:45 PM
yer i see that alot, then the computer literate do research on the cpu, and the computer ileterate just go for the 1 with the highest number they can afford, even if its nt always the best bang for you buck.

Exactly!

Skripka
March 28th, 2009, 11:47 PM
for a laptop you dont really need 2ghz or anything more, my 1.5ghz laptop, is fine.

That depends on what you are doing and what is acceptable.

markp1989
March 28th, 2009, 11:49 PM
That depends on what you are doing and what is acceptable.

true, most laptops are used for email and wordprocessing, and both these can be done on pretly low spec laptops .

alot of other tasks that do demand alot more processing power, i can understand people wanting more powerfull pcs.

swoll1980
March 28th, 2009, 11:49 PM
I believe that is the reason as well -- and a good one.

A very good one. I have a 2.66 GHz my brother has a 2.0 GHz, but his has four cores, and like 8mb lvl 2 I have a p4 northwood. Who's is faster?

Skripka
March 28th, 2009, 11:52 PM
A very good one. I have a 2.66 GHz my brother has a 2.0 GHz, but his has four cores, and like 8mb lvl 2 I have a p4 northwood. Who's is faster?

It depends on what you are doing. Some tasks are better suited to many-core processing, some better suited to high requency single-cores.

markp1989
March 28th, 2009, 11:56 PM
It depends on what you are doing. Some tasks are better suited to many-core processing, some better suited to high requency single-cores.

i see where your coming from, its like my mate comes to me and goes

him"I want to get a new laptop , how much will it cost me"
me "Depends on what you want to use it for?"
him"I just want to do computer stuff faster"
me "whats wrong with your current one?"
him "its just got slower then it used to be"
me "just that the os is getting messed up because it hasnt ben defraged , and the AV is out of date. if you reinstalled windoes again it would be as fast as the day you brought it"
him "that doesnt make sence, id rather buy a new one"

so he ended up getting a dual core laptop with 3gb of ram for face book ,and msn use.

CraigPaleo
March 29th, 2009, 12:11 AM
i see where your coming from, its like my mate comes to me and goes

him"I want to get a new laptop , how much will it cost me"
me "Depends on what you want to use it for?"
him"I just want to do computer stuff faster"
me "whats wrong with your current one?"
him "its just got slower then it used to be"
me "just that the os is getting messed up because it hasnt ben defraged , and the AV is out of date. if you reinstalled windoes again it would be as fast as the day you brought it"
him "that doesnt make sence, id rather buy a new one"

so he ended up getting a dual core laptop with 3gb of ram for face book ,and msn use.

Did you offer to take the "useless" laptop off his hands?

zekopeko
March 29th, 2009, 12:15 AM
It depends on what you are doing. Some tasks are better suited to many-core processing, some better suited to high requency single-cores.

well 2GHz Core 2 Quad/Duo will beat P4 any time. Core 2 Duo is 80% faster at same clock speeds so 1GHz Core 2 Duo = 1.8GHz P4

jwbrase
March 29th, 2009, 12:20 AM
I would perhaps argue, though, that whether or not you *need* a given processor for whatever you're doing, buying a fairly top end machine does give you room to grow. Even if you don't need a 3 Ghz quad processor and 8 gigs of ram for whatever you're doing and whatever OS you're running now, you may need one in three or four years.

CraigPaleo
March 29th, 2009, 12:25 AM
well 2GHz Core 2 Quad/Duo will beat P4 any time. Core 2 Duo is 80% faster at same clock speeds so 1GHz Core 2 Duo = 1.8GHz P4

But doesn't it depend on whether an application is designed for multiple processors? Some may only be able to take advantage of one core at a time, which could actually make the single core faster with that app.

Skripka
March 29th, 2009, 12:26 AM
well 2GHz Core 2 Quad/Duo will beat P4 any time. Core 2 Duo is 80% faster at same clock speeds so 1GHz Core 2 Duo = 1.8GHz P4

You just committed the classic logical fallacy- You presume that we are comparing multi threaded apps, which utilise some or all CPU cores of a many core CPU. And that the task benefits from that usage.

Which would be faster?

1) A single core CPU, running at 3.2 gHz.

or

2) A dual core at 3.2 gHz. Where very core is running at 1.6gHz

or

3) A quad core at 3.2 gHz. Where ever core is operating at 800mHz.



As I said. It depends on the task you ar doing, and how the software is written. If you app is only written to use 1 core at a time- #1 is the CLEAR winner. If you app can use many cores-chances are #3 would be best, although not necessarily.

Kirby Johnson
March 29th, 2009, 12:32 AM
What is really confusing is the fact that we supposedly have Gigahertz devices in our homes without serious medical and shielding problems. Having worked around Aircraft radar etc. which really does operate at these frequencies, I'm astonished that the general public has been sold this bill of goods.

IE: Why does a 4 Gigahertz machine still only have a 133 Mhz clock? Spare me, I already know the answer. Many moons ago, a processor was said to run at say, 15 Mhz. And sure enough, there was a 15 Mhz crystal oscillator on the board. Then the climb started, but there was still the same frequency crystal on the board that the processor ran at. When the manufacturers shortly got the processor frequencies to the limit for a device which could be mass produced and sold to the general public, the funny business started.

Believe me, if these modern machines were actually running anywhere near the speeds they are advertised to run, cell phones, pacemakers, radar, and aircraft communications would be in big trouble.

nothingspecial
March 29th, 2009, 12:32 AM
I have no idea what any of you are talking about.

What is gHz?

Has my laptop got gHz?

How do I find out how much?

How can I get more if I need it?

How important is gHz?

Paqman
March 29th, 2009, 12:33 AM
i see things advertised with a 12ghz cpu, when they realy mean it has a 3ghz quad.


Can't say i've ever seen that. Surely they'd be leaving themselves wide open to getting bodyslammed for false advertising? They're definitely trying to be misleading, after all, for a lot of tasks a 3GHz quad wouldn't be any faster than a 3GHz single core, but anybody would expect a 12GHz to be faster.

Tell you what is annoying though: folks who're allergic to the shift key ;)

markp1989
March 29th, 2009, 12:41 AM
Did you offer to take the "useless" laptop off his hands?

i did, but he didnt wana give it to me :(lol

he gave it to his dad.

Skripka
March 29th, 2009, 12:42 AM
What is really confusing is the fact that we supposedly have Gigahertz devices in our homes without serious medical and shielding problems. Having worked around Aircraft radar etc. which really does operate at these frequencies, I'm astonished that the general public has been sold this bill of goods.

IE: Why does a 4 Gigahertz machine still only have a 133 Mhz clock? Spare me, I already know the answer. Many moons ago, a processor was said to run at say, 15 Mhz. And sure enough, there was a 15 Mhz crystal oscillator on the board. Then the climb started, but there was still the same frequency crystal on the board that the processor ran at. When the manufacturers shortly got the processor frequencies to the limit for a device which could be mass produced and sold to the general public, the funny business started.

Believe me, if these modern machines were actually running anywhere near the speeds they are advertised to run, cell phones, pacemakers, radar, and aircraft communications would be in big trouble.

I'm impressed, that took planning and calculated effort. ;)

markp1989
March 29th, 2009, 12:42 AM
Can't say i've ever seen that. Surely they'd be leaving themselves wide open to getting bodyslammed for false advertising? They're definitely trying to be misleading, after all, for a lot of tasks a 3GHz quad wouldn't be any faster than a 3GHz single core, but anybody would expect a 12GHz to be faster.

Tell you what is annoying though: folks who're allergic to the shift key ;)

i have seen it a few times, especialy on ebay.

CraigPaleo
March 29th, 2009, 12:46 AM
What is really confusing is the fact that we supposedly have Gigahertz devices in our homes without serious medical and shielding problems. Having worked around Aircraft radar etc. which really does operate at these frequencies, I'm astonished that the general public has been sold this bill of goods.

IE: Why does a 4 Gigahertz machine still only have a 133 Mhz clock? Spare me, I already know the answer. Many moons ago, a processor was said to run at say, 15 Mhz. And sure enough, there was a 15 Mhz crystal oscillator on the board. Then the climb started, but there was still the same frequency crystal on the board that the processor ran at. When the manufacturers shortly got the processor frequencies to the limit for a device which could be mass produced and sold to the general public, the funny business started.

Believe me, if these modern machines were actually running anywhere near the speeds they are advertised to run, cell phones, pacemakers, radar, and aircraft communications would be in big trouble.

Hi neighbor. You're about thirty miles north of me!

I'm a little lost. Are you saying that the speed of an xGhz machine is the same as the radio frequency xGhz and would interrupt communications?

CraigPaleo
March 29th, 2009, 12:48 AM
i did, but he didnt wana give it to me :(lol

he gave it to his dad.

You should stick Ubuntu on it for his dad and a year from now, your mate will be complaining that his dad's computer is faster than his. Hehehehe!

swoll1980
March 29th, 2009, 12:49 AM
Hi neighbor. You're about thirty miles north of me!

I'm a little lost. Are you saying that the speed of an xGhz machine is the same as the radio frequency xGhz and would interrupt communications?

frequency is a measure of "how frequent" the clock speed of a processor and the frequency of the wave lengths in a beam of light have nothing to do with each other. Do they?

Paqman
March 29th, 2009, 12:51 AM
i have seen it a few times, especialy on ebay.

Ah, say no more. If a company tried that, they'd get in big trouble fast.

CraigPaleo
March 29th, 2009, 12:51 AM
Tell you what is annoying though: folks who're allergic to the shift key ;)

LOL! He could have lost his pinkies in a tragic accident. You never know.

CraigPaleo
March 29th, 2009, 12:56 AM
frequency is a measure of "how frequent" the clock speed of a processor and the frequency of the wave lengths in a beam of light have nothing to do with each other. Do they?

That's what I'm thinking. They're frequencies of two different things. Otherwise, if one had two computers with the same processor, they'd interrupt each other, wouldn't they?

markp1989
March 29th, 2009, 01:02 AM
LOL! He could have lost his pinkies in a tragic accident. You never know.

na, both my pinkies are intact, im just abit lazy when it comes to forums about my capitalisation. If i can get my message across without doing it then i dont see the need to, if im doing paper work , then i do everything as it should be.

swoll1980
March 29th, 2009, 01:07 AM
That's what I'm thinking. They're frequencies of two different things. Otherwise, if one had two computers with the same processor, they'd interrupt each other, wouldn't they?

I'm thinking, not unless they emitted, and were sensitive to electromagnetic waves of the same frequency, which they don't, and aren't.

CraigPaleo
March 29th, 2009, 01:08 AM
na, both my pinkies are intact, im just abit lazy when it comes to forums about my capitalisation. If i can get my message across without doing it then i dont see the need to, if im doing paper work , then i do everything as it should be.

That's reassuring! I'm now reminded of this thread about grammar: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1050685

Paqman
March 29th, 2009, 01:12 AM
If i can get my message across without doing it then i dont see the need to

It just makes it easier to read, IMO.

CraigPaleo
March 29th, 2009, 01:16 AM
I'm thinking, not unless they emitted, and were sensitive to electromagnetic waves of the same frequency.

They'd have to be pretty darn powerful to emit very far no matter what the frequency. I've been out of school far too long to even remember how to begin to figure this stuff out. It'd be nice if Kirby could give some references though.

Paqman
March 29th, 2009, 01:25 AM
They'd have to be pretty darn powerful to emit very far no matter what the frequency. I've been out of school far too long to even remember how to begin to figure this stuff out. It'd be nice if Kirby could give some references though.

There's a hell of a difference between emissions from aircraft radar and the normal interference given off by an electronic device. Aircraft radars are seriously hazardous to your wellbeing at short ranges.

huzzam
March 29th, 2009, 01:43 AM
for a laptop you dont really need 2ghz or anything more, my 1.5ghz laptop, is fine.

Depends on your use... I use my Macbook (yes I know this is an Ubuntu forum) to run Pro Tools & Ableton Live for mobile recording sessions, sometimes together, and the 2gHz core 2 duo, as well as the 4gb ram, is used to fullest potential.

For email & web, of course, 1.5gHz would be fine. But that's not everyone's only use of a laptop...

CraigPaleo
March 29th, 2009, 01:49 AM
There's a hell of a difference between emissions from aircraft radar and the normal interference given off by an electronic device. Aircraft radars are seriously hazardous to your wellbeing at short ranges.

I believe that about interference but how is aircraft radar hazardous to one's wellbeing? I notice you didn't say "health." Do you think it can cause tinnitus? I live in between two very small airports.

Paqman
March 29th, 2009, 10:59 PM
I believe that about interference but how is aircraft radar hazardous to one's wellbeing? I notice you didn't say "health." Do you think it can cause tinnitus? I live in between two very small airports.

Radar is microwave radiation. At short range it will burn you severely. You're at absolutely no risk from airborne aircraft if you're on the ground though, don't sweat it.

gletob
March 29th, 2009, 11:20 PM
for a laptop you dont really need 2ghz or anything more, my 1.5ghz laptop, is fine.

Why do you say that? A laptop is really just a desktop in a much more compact form with a screen attached. Why do you need 2Ghz on a desktop but not a laptop? Explain.

Paqman
March 29th, 2009, 11:34 PM
Why do you need 2Ghz on a desktop but not a laptop? Explain.

Depends what you're doing with your laptop I guess. If you're using it instead of a desktop then you'd need it to be just as powerful as one (although for a lot of people 1.5GHz would be fine for a desktop, too)

If you've got a laptop for the mobility of it, then it makes sense to go for a slightly lower spec though, since it'll have better battery life. And lets face it, web browsing and office apps don't actually need anything more than a 1.5GHz anyway.

Skripka
March 30th, 2009, 12:03 AM
Why do you say that? A laptop is really just a desktop in a much more compact form with a screen attached. Why do you need 2Ghz on a desktop but not a laptop? Explain.

Because of heat issues. Because of power needs issues. Also, if one is in need of real computing muscle, most of the time a desktop is far cheaper--otherwise most people in daily computer dicking around have real no need of a 3gHz dual or quad core.

red_Marvin
March 30th, 2009, 12:40 AM
A few pages late but I'm studying EE so I think I should add my thoughts...


What is really confusing is the fact that we supposedly have Gigahertz devices in our homes without serious medical and shielding problems. Having worked around Aircraft radar etc. which really does operate at these frequencies, I'm astonished that the general public has been sold this bill of goods.

IE: Why does a 4 Gigahertz machine still only have a 133 Mhz clock? Spare me, I already know the answer. Many moons ago, a processor was said to run at say, 15 Mhz. And sure enough, there was a 15 Mhz crystal oscillator on the board. Then the climb started, but there was still the same frequency crystal on the board that the processor ran at. When the manufacturers shortly got the processor frequencies to the limit for a device which could be mass produced and sold to the general public, the funny business started.

Believe me, if these modern machines were actually running anywhere near the speeds they are advertised to run, cell phones, pacemakers, radar, and aircraft communications would be in big trouble.
FUD.
The processor is likely using a so called phase locked loop, or PLL for short. This means that you inside the processor have a very fast but relative low precision oscillator circuit, and to make sure that it doesn't drift too much you sync it with the external lower frequency, higher precision crystal oscillator. And yes, aircraft, radar and whatnot would be in trouble, IF 1) The high frequency parts were outputting enough power. 2) They weren't shielded enough. 3) They were connected to something with good enough antenna properties. However there must be a reciever too, and pacemakers are/should be designed to withstand a certain amount of EM radiation. In fact any electrical product should, that is why we have EMC certification.



frequency is a measure of "how frequent" the clock speed of a processor and the frequency of the wave lengths in a beam of light have nothing to do with each other. Do they?
There is only one kind of frequency: f=1/T where T denotes cycle time, however you'd have to get up at almost PHz speed before the emitted EM radiation would enter the visible spectrum.


And to not go totally off topic: I am not sure if adding parallel clock speeds together like that in advertising would be legal here (Sweden).