speed

fletch

fletch

New Member
Hello,
I have 2 pc's running side by side in my home office,one biz(750 mhz) and the other personal(1 ghz). Both are hooked to cable internet. One is a 1ghz duron with 1gig sd ram and the other is 750 mhz with 1 gig ddr. The one with the ddr seems alot faster than the one with sd ram but it has a faster proc.Is this normal?Oh and the 750 is wireless and seems faster there too.Thanks.
 
There could be many differences why one is running faster than the other, from number of running processes to installed programs... or amount of dust inside the case... You would need a clean install of both, with a clean interior to gauge the difference accuratly.
 
one of the main reasons a "faster" proc can be slower is due to the L2 cache size of the "slower" proc. I bet that is where you'll find the difference between these two.
 
are they both duron processors? if so are they both the same core? how about the chipset on the motherboard? or the front side bus?

there are many many many many factors that can affect the speed of a computer. if one seems faster than the other, use it more!
 
Cleric7x9 said:
are they both duron processors? if so are they both the same core? how about the chipset on the motherboard? or the front side bus?

there are many many many many factors that can affect the speed of a computer. if one seems faster than the other, use it more!
Click to expand...

he gave different clock speeds with different ram sizes, but you are right, after L2 size, fsb would be the next bottleneck....
 
Cleric7x9 said:
it doesnt matter what the clock speeds are. a c2d 1.86ghz will blow a pentium4 3.0ghz out of the water.
Click to expand...

if you look at my earlier post on here, you would see that i mentioned just what you said. what i was referring to is that he mentioned two different clock speeds but only called one a duron, so im guessing the other is a different chip altogether...i may be new here, but im not new to the game
 
systek said:
one of the main reasons a "faster" proc can be slower is due to the L2 cache size of the "slower" proc. I bet that is where you'll find the difference between these two.
Click to expand...

all you talked about was the the cache size. having a higher cache size is a VERY small reason newer processors are faster than older ones...
 
Cleric7x9 said:
all you talked about was the the cache size. having a higher cache size is a VERY small reason newer processors are faster than older ones...
Click to expand...

the conversation has to start somewhere, especially when talking about techincal stuff...you lose ppl after a few sentences after that
 
systek said:
if you look at my earlier post on here, you would see that i mentioned just what you said. what i was referring to is that he mentioned two different clock speeds but only called one a duron, so im guessing the other is a different chip altogether...i may be new here, but im not new to the game
Click to expand...

systek said:
the conversation has to start somewhere, especially when talking about techincal stuff...you lose ppl after a few sentences after that
Click to expand...

alright, nobody was attacking you or your knowledge here. but in your earlier post you didnt mention anything close to what i said, and your response about different l2 cache sizes being the cause of different computer speeds is mostly incorrect. i am somewhat confused as to why you feel you need to be defending yourself, because i did not attack you, sorry if you took offense, but core architecture plays a much larger role than CPU cache. in fact, i would argue that two CPUs with the same fsb and different l2 cache sizes would not have a noticeable speed difference.
 
Cleric7x9 said:
alright, nobody was attacking you or your knowledge here. but in your earlier post you didnt mention anything close to what i said, and your response about different l2 cache sizes being the cause of different computer speeds is mostly incorrect. i am somewhat confused as to why you feel you need to be defending yourself, because i did not attack you, sorry if you took offense, but core architecture plays a much larger role than CPU cache. in fact, i would argue that two CPUs with the same fsb and different l2 cache sizes would not have a noticeable speed difference.
Click to expand...

actually, i dont care one way or the other. from an engineering standpoint, the reason L1 and L2 cache has always been miniscule is the price attached to this type of memory. the larger the cache, the more info that is located on or next to the cpu to be processed=faster speed. with duo core, not sure how far down cache size got bumped as far as bottlenecks go, but the architecture and flow of data as it is being processed remains the same. unless i went dumb in the last couple of years...(i no longer keep track of geeky details)
 
systek said:
with duo core, not sure how far down cache size got bumped as far as bottlenecks go, but the architecture and flow of data as it is being processed remains the same. unless i went dumb in the last couple of years...(i no longer keep track of geeky details)
Click to expand...

the architecture of the 'duo core,' or as it is correctly known, the core duo, is completely different, in no way has it remained the same...
 
Cleric7x9 said:
are they both duron processors? if so are they both the same core? how about the chipset on the motherboard? or the front side bus?

there are many many many many factors that can affect the speed of a computer. if one seems faster than the other, use it more!
Click to expand...


Yes they are both Durons. The 750 is on a m830 m/bd while the 1ghz is on an 810 m/bd.Both are PC chips. As I said before the 750 seems faster with the ddr ram.Both have the same amount. I know I need to upgrade I just don't know what I need.
 
Last edited:
systek said:
thanks for informing me...i didnt know
Click to expand...

FYI chip architecture is changed more often then you switch underwear.

Ok it's not that dramatic but still, the C2d architecture has already been altered once that I know of, possibly more, and it's a relatively new chip.

Cache size only helps when doing the same thing over and over again. There are two laws that dictate this, though I seem to have forgotten their names..
 
yeh, the more time that passes since I worked at dell, the more i fall behind on the latest technology since I dont interact with development engineers anymore. oh well...network administration does not solely dependon cpu speeds
 
PC ideas

Guys if I want to build another pc mainly for internet use and heavy bookkeeping what should I buy as far as m/bd,video card and ram? I want to watch videos too without having to wait for it to load and catch up with the sound.
 
Last edited:
You can get away with a budget system that you find slightly used or on sale. The main reason you will have slow downloads to watch videos will depend on your broadband speed, not your computer. The only other factor is whether or not you plan on upgrading to vista...then you need to meet and preferably exceed the hw requirements, good video card, enough ram(at least 2gb) and larger hdd.
 
systek said:
You can get away with a budget system that you find slightly used or on sale. The main reason you will have slow downloads to watch videos will depend on your broadband speed, not your computer. The only other factor is whether or not you plan on upgrading to vista...then you need to meet and preferably exceed the hw requirements, good video card, enough ram(at least 2gb) and larger hdd.
Click to expand...

Yes I have a slow cable connection and I would probably upgrade to Vista later on.What can I get for 500.00 with no monitor?I don't need nothing bigger than a 100 gig harddrive right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top