CPU Processor Speed - Hidden!

[Lotsokids]

Hi y'all. I am taking an online college course (intro to computer systems). I posted this question on their message board. I had over 50 views, but zero replies. Here it goes...

I've been frustrated in the last couple years with the concealing of the processor speed on computers. It seems that once the market hit the 2.0 GHz speed, it completely fell off the radar. I recently purchased a new Acer laptop. While I was looking at them in the store, the worker came over and asked if I needed help. I asked what the processor speed was on this laptop. "It's a dual-core" he responded. Then I said, "So what's the processor speed?" He had to do a lot of asking and digging as it was not listed on any label on the box at all. I have games and utilities that require a minimum processor speed (which is displayed plainly). If a game requires a 2.5 GHz processor speed, a dual-core 1.3 does me no good. Who cares about Windows 7, DVD burner, card reader, memory, video card, sound card, etc. if you have a 1 GHz processor that's slow as molasses? Anyone have any ideas?

 

[vmaximum]

not sure but i know if you buy any i7 chip you will be good for any video game. what game do you play? im a counter strike source addict!

 

[mr.maxx]

i think the quality of the processor has more to do with it.
the dual and quad cores will handle much more. seems lately speed has leveled of around 2.7 g. i have yet to see a pc that didnt have the cpu speed listed on it.
generally laptops have stepping processors and in my opinion are not nearly as strong as a desktop config. im not into gaming but i think it would take a fairly high end laptop to get a decent gaming experience

 

[4gasem]

I know my Mac tells me what it is and Apple is VERY open about the numbers. This is my 3 or 4 year old laptop.

 

[gamorg02]

i've been out of the comp building and caring about CPU numbers game for a few years but still run the same desktop @ home i built a few years ago. i think the actual operating frequency means less than it used to. you have a dual core proc that runs 2 ghz each proc its going to be a 4 ghz proc basically i believe. crazy to think we're running into electron tunneling problems and have to start stacking processors instead of making them smaller.

 

[naughtyG]

Ya my Mac laptop is also very clear on what speed it runs - 2.6 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo.

I had no idea Piss-eees now started making this data unavailable - usually it's one of the main selling points on any computer's sticker.

Surely, (I have no idea about W7) you can just go to Control Panel, System Info and find out right there?

 

[diggerzmound]

The current game is multiple processors..

I think they found that there is more value in paralleling the load rather than stacking up against one core.

The speed isn't as easily measurable now where you are talking 2 cores running at once.

 

[98Redlne]

The speed isn't as easily measurable now where you are talking 2 cores running at once.

Even less so when you start talking quad core with Hypethreading or similar technology.

 

[RaWarrior]

If 50 people didn't know how to find processor speed in windows, are you sure you're learning anything from that online course?

Type "system information" into the search box on the start menu. It displays everything about all the components in your computer, including CPU speed. It's no secret.

They don't put "numbers" on boxes because 90% of computer buyers have no idea what it means, and the numbers don't mean as much as they used to either. Example: my old computer had a 3.0ghz pentium 4 processor in it. My current laptop has a Core 2 Duo at 2.5ghz. My old computer was roughly the speed of smell compared to the new one, despite technically having a lower clock frequency.

Computers are machines just like a Vmax. All the components depend on one another for the whole thing to work like it should. Memory needs to be large and fast enough for demands. Processor needs to be able to handle that much information. OS needs to optimize use of hardware resources to efficiently run.

The main reason I'm not a fan of Macs...you can't touch them. Everything is set in stone and non-removeable screws the day it leaves the factory. It'd be like buying a bike where every single component was welded together. No screws, no fasteners. That's fine and dandy, but what when it breaks? You guessed it, buy another one.

 

[naughtyG]

The main reason I'm not a fan of Macs...you can't touch them. Everything is set in stone and non-removeable screws the day it leaves the factory. It'd be like buying a bike where every single component was welded together. No screws, no fasteners. That's fine and dandy, but what when it breaks? You guessed it, buy another one.

You are joking, right? I've taken every single one of my Mac laptops apart!

Check this out - full instructions with pictures on how to dismantle the whole thing..

http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Browse/Mac

All you need is a #0 Philips screwdriver, and for older ones some little Torx bits.

 

[4gasem]

Yep! Removed and replaced my hard drive in my laptop at work. No worries.

Nice thing about my macs that other than adding ram or upgrading the hard drive, I don't have to do anything to them. I turn them on and use them.

iPad is my next purchase.

Chris

 

[RaWarrior]

There's an iBook G4 at work where the hard drive crapped out, and the computer ended up getting the mac equivalent of the "blue screen"(so much for macs never crashing). Now it clicks and whirrs when you press the power, but otherwise it's a brick. I looked all over the damn thing for how to open the case, and didn't find a single screw or fastener. I assumed they must "snap" together like all the ipods do. A friends PC crashed at school, the hard drive failed and windows got corrupted. I pulled the disk, hooked it to a USB interface, and copied 90% of all his files onto my computer. Got a new drive, installed windows through my computer onto the new disk, and put all his files back. Slapped it in his computer, booted up, ready to go. Figured I could do something similar with the iBroke, but no such luck. Pulled the 2001 Dell laptop out of the closet, where it had been residing for about 3 years. The battery was even still charged! Fired it up and went back to work. It's slow as beans, but then again so was the ibook.

I love my Xotic.....all power, all the time. Outperforms any off-the-shelf machine, either pc or mac, and cost about $800 less than a top-shelf Mac laptop. Now THAT's bang for your buck. It weighs a ton and lasts about an hour on it's battery, but I'm not the kind of person who needs to be "connected" at all times either.

As for the ipad...I'm sorry, I just don't get it. They might as well called it the iTouch XL or something, it doesn't have any features or apps the itouch doesn't(since they use the same iphone OS). A netbook is far cheaper and does far more. You can buy a netbook, and a iTouch for about the same price as an ipad, so......yeah. Kinda pointless to me.

 

[AmnChode]

I know it was pretty much answered before but I figure, WTH, might as well throw my :twocents: in.

The main reason they stopped list the clock speed is because it started becoming problematic by doing so. For example, when the P4s were out, AMD's lower clocked CPUs were out performing Intel's higher clocked chips. Clock for clock, they just flat out performed better. The problem was, normal joe schmoe computer buyer didn't know that. All he knew was that the faster the clock speed, the better. It is kinda like engines. Everyone assumes that bigger is better, period, and that is not always the case...as we all know.


Soooo...AMD starting marketing their chips using a Performance Rating (which was used before, but they caught alot of flack the first time) to name their processors. Kinda funny when you think about it...ie PR rating as a "Marketing" move...heh

Anyways.... it kinda got picked up from there and took off to where chip makers would market using model numbers vs clock speed. When they started to run multiple threads per chip via hyper-threading, multiple cores, and/or combinations of both and then combine that with the fact that processors were being designed to be way more efficient at lower clock speeds, it just kinda forced the issue. Now, it wouldn't be such a bad thing as long as the employees of the stores would know the differences (and/or advantages and disadvantages) between the chips...but they don't.


BTW...here is a wikipedia article that kinda covers the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_Rating

 

[ghostntheshell]

Yep. Dual-core 2.0ghz does not mean u are going to running at 4ghz. Theoretically you will be computing at 2.0ghz but at a marginal load per core thus allowing the computer to be running multiple applications with a less substantial work load.


The more interesting problem lies in the fact that processor speed is somewhat bottle necked and only future technoogy will uncork it.

I don't suggest that I fully understand the problem, but I gather it is the heat generated by the small pathways for travelling current.


When u look at video card technology now - you will see the current trend is having multiple video cards. Ati's version is called crossfire and I can't recall what nvidias tech was called.

We will likely see a reverse of large desktop machines (designed for gaming and heavy load applications (no not **** sites

Multiple cores, multiple video cards and drastically needed cooling systems - far more substantial than 2 case fans.