Does processing speed really matter?

Topic

New Reply

Assuming that all other things are pretty much equal (OS, Graphics Card, RAM, etc.), will I really see a performance difference between my old computer (2.93 GHz processing speed) and a new one I am thinking of buying (3.7 GHz)?

Reply | Quote

Replies

MDR,

You’ll have to provide more information about the processors the clock speed is only one factor to consider.
How many cores in each processor?
How many threads per core?
32 or 64 bit processors?
L1/L2/L3 cache sizes?
Processor chip transistor size, e.g. 20, 18, 16, 14, 12 Nano Meter (the closer the transistors the quicker the processor).
I’m probably missing something but you get the idea.

HTH :cheers:

May the Forces of good computing be with you!

RG

PowerShell & VBA Rule!
Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

Do you have programs that can use the power of multi-core CPUs or Dual CPUs [2 physical CPUs]?

Before you wonder "Am I doing things right," ask "Am I doing the right things?"

Reply | Quote

More recent CPUs process commands quicker for a given clock speed.
If all you are doing is replacing a CPU then I can think of better ways to spend your money – SSD, backup, beer, not necessarily in that order!

cheers, Paul

Reply | Quote

Assuming that all other things are pretty much equal (OS, Graphics Card, RAM, etc.), will I really see a performance difference between my old computer (2.93 GHz processing speed) and a new one I am thinking of buying (3.7 GHz)?

Whether or not there will be a noticeable performance difference depends very much on how you use your computer.

If you are primarily browsing the internet, watching Youtube video clips, using email, using facebook or other social media, the speed of your internet connection has very much more influence on performance than any difference in processing speed.

There may be a difference in the speed of starting up the computer and shutting it down, but that is the tiniest percentage of most users’ computer time. I have a laptop that is nearly 12 years old, has a 1.4GHz Pentium M single core processor, and it’s just as fast on the internet as my desktop, which has a 3.4GHz i5 4-core CPU.

Without a lot more information, your question is not an easy one to answer.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

Assuming that all other things are pretty much equal (OS, Graphics Card, RAM, etc.), will I really see a performance difference between my old computer (2.93 GHz processing speed) and a new one I am thinking of buying (3.7 GHz)?

Provided you choose a processor with more than one core, yes, your multitasking abilities & performance will be quite nicely improved over a single core weaker processor.
I’ve got an 8 core, 3GHz processor, but for many a dual or quad core is more than sufficient.

I don’t care how you use your computer, it doesn’t matter if all you do is internet surfing, you’ll always benefit with a more powerful
multi-core processor as opposed to just a weaker single core.

I’ve worked on too many sh*t boxes with weak single core 2.something GHz processors, and they just suck. [period]

Reply | Quote

Why Hyper-V? (Utterly ignorant here.)

Reply | Quote

Why Hyper-V? (Utterly ignorant here.)

It’s Microsoft’s Virtual Machine platform that requires hardware support in the CPU.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

Assuming that all other things are pretty much equal (OS, Graphics Card, RAM, etc.), will I really see a performance difference between my old computer (2.93 GHz processing speed) and a new one I am thinking of buying (3.7 GHz)?

Keeping everything else the same I think it will come down to how many cores your new processor has. If it is the same number of cores, you may notice an improvement but I don’t think you will be impressed. I have 8 cores and the performance monitor shows most of them idle most of the time so increasing from 4 cores will probably not be impressive. Increasing from 2 cores might be a better situation. Your running programs will not improve much but your background programs will get a chance to get off the core that your foreground program is using. (having 2GB of RAM per core could help – assuming you are running 64 bit OS)

Take a look at your Windows Experience score. It might be more worthwhile to go SSD if you are not already there.

Reply | Quote

Generally speaking, speed only helps in three situations if you are not using the computer for heavy processing.
1 Down/up loading large files or graphics.
2 Virus scanning.
3 Backing up your system.
In most of these cases the speed of the HDD/SSD is more limiting than the speed of the processor.
If you are gaming then processor speed is important.

Reply | Quote

Assuming you already have an SSD, plenty of RAM and no malware slowing down the system then upgrading to a faster processor will mainly benefit you in tasks that require more than several seconds to complete.
As an example, our 4 year-old basic laptop with Windows 7, an Intel Pentium P6100 dual-core 2.0GHz processor, Kingston 96GB SSD and 6GB of DDR3 RAM boots and runs almost the same as our Windows 7 PC with an Intel Core i7 (quad-core) at 3.2GHz, Sandisk 240GB SSD and 12GB of DDR3 RAM. However, when i run several tasks at the same time, or edit/transcode video, or play 3D games then it’s a very different story. The quad-core 3.2GHz machine is much, much faster.
Long story short, light use equals small-ish benefit with faster processor. Heavier use equals greater benefit with faster processor.

Reply | Quote

I keep getting the [Not responding] temporary hang. Resource Monitor shows that my RAM is maxing out so I suspect upping it to 8GB may have more effect than anything else. But 2x 4GB of RAM is pricey!

Component Details Performance Subscore
Processor Pentium(R) Dual-Core CPU T4300 @ 2.10GHz … 5.4
Memory (RAM) 4.00 GB … 5.4
Graphics Mobile Intel(R) 4 Series Express Chipset Family … 3.5
Gaming graphics 1695 MB Total available graphics memory … 3.3
Primary hard disk 151GB Free (400GB Total) … 5.6

I found turning Aero off and clearing the desktop of widgets significantly improved speed.

Reply | Quote

my RAM is maxing out

When this happens Windows will swap memory to disk and you will have very high disk use. I would do is find out what programs have consumed all your RAM. If you need to use them all then you must add more memory. Adding memory is best done by replacing the existing to guarantee there are no timing problems with mismatched memory.

cheers, Paul

Reply | Quote

It sounds like you have some unwanted apps running on your machine all the time.
Most software sets itself up to load on startup, then it sits there running, using processor time unnecessarily.
Start> type in [ MsConfig.exe ] enter.
look in the startup menu and stop all unnecessary processes. You can still rum them with the desktop icon, they just take longer to start.
shutdown/restart.
This will stop many leaches.

Reply | Quote

To ‘dsf’, I will just add to the above that the ‘best practice’ is to put in RAM sticks in matched pairs. Also, have a hard time to call RAM “pricey” these days. Of any component in a machine, RAM is, usually, the inexpensive piece. Additional RAM can help but, that Pentium is not fundamentally all that fast but, again, more will help that. …
Cheers,
Drew

Thanks, however

In UK 2x4GB DDR2 PC2-6400 • CL=6 • Unbuffered • NON-ECC • DDR2-800 • 1.8V • 512Meg x 64 • (Series: Crucial) costs £185.99 ~ $300 (US). At that price I wonder whether the money would be better spent towards a new laptop (i5 or i7?) and leave Ubuntu on the Pentium (I already have a bigger disk on it and dual boot – it works fine when booted to Linux).

David

Reply | Quote

2x4GB DDR2 PC2-6400 costs £185.99

I bought a whole new machine with I5 and 8GB RAM for £370, excluding SSD which I nicked from the old machine. I do have to put up with Windows 8, but it’s a small price to pay for blistering performance.
If you want the details….

cheers, Paul

Reply | Quote

I bought a whole new machine with I5 and 8GB RAM for £370, excluding SSD which I nicked from the old machine. I do have to put up with Windows 8, but it’s a small price to pay for blistering performance.
If you want the details….

cheers, Paul

I will probably buy new this year; but I am tempted to wait until Windows 10 comes out, get a view on what people think of it (i.e. not a turkey) and what hardware specs are required for effective performance (and see if the price of touch screen laptops drop as a consequence). Touch at the moment seems to be the main reason for sticking with Windows rather than going Linux (probably Ubuntu or Lubuntu). If I go Linux my current hardware is perfectly adequate.

I guess your new machine is unbranded? What are views on reliability and effective matching of components – which are meant to be the benefits of buying big brand? (Having said which my last two HP touchpads gave up a a year and a few days after I brought the associated laptops!)

David

Reply | Quote

To ‘dsf’, … I do agree, check for unnecessary or unwanted programs running, even, in the background. Also, check for any malware that may be causing issues. Aero does consume resources so cool to turn that off. I am a bit concerned when you mention widgets or Gadgets. These should no longer be used. This has been the case for quite a long time, now. …

Cheers,
Drew

I have been through the startup programs and pruned the “obvious”. Malwarebytes and Norton are also hopefully keeping on top of any unwanted stuff. Some I am not sure about (e.g. 3 instances of “Intel(R) Common User Interface”, 4 instances of “Microsoft .NET Framework NGEN” – v2.0 and v4.0) and some (e.g. Lightscribe – which I don’t use and has been “stopped” in msconfig/services) are hard to shift.

I turned off Aero at the same time that I ditched the gadgets (when the security issues were raised “quite a long time” ago). I actually prefer the non-Aero experience. I mainly used gadgets for monitoring system performance – the sort of stuff that Resource Monitor can give. It also significantly reduced the core temperatures!

The other area that I periodically review are add-ons for Firefox and Thunderbird; it is very easy to add one that “looks useful” but which you never / rarely use. I am also looking for a way to prune my bookmarks which I think impacts on the performance of Firefox (an add-on that allows me to group my bookmarks by work-type and then swap “groups” in or out would be useful!).

David

Reply | Quote

David,

If you’re waiting for Win10 you might also wait for Intel SkyLake processors due out about the same time. When I searched for the link I found an article that says they may be delayed to August 15.

HTH :cheers:

May the Forces of good computing be with you!

RG

PowerShell & VBA Rule!
Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

David,

If you’re waiting for Win10 you might also wait for Intel SkyLake processors due out about the same time. When I searched for the link I found an article that says they may be delayed to August 15.

HTH :cheers:

Oh, dear another processor architecture to try and compare!
Pentium, Celeron was difficult.
Intel i3, i5, i7 is moderately self explanatory, but
Intel vs AMD?
And now Skylake vs i7?

But I guess that Skylake may make i5s and i7s cheaper so (provided Win10 works well on them) thanks for the head-up!

Reply | Quote

Intel i3, i5, i7 is moderately self explanatory, but
Intel vs AMD?
…
I guess that Skylake may make i5s and i7s cheaper

Yep, I imagine RG was referring to the cascading price drops after the next gen launches. That’s almost always the sweet spot to shop in.

I built a new desktop a couple of months ago, so based on recent research:

Intel vs AMD? Intel is better performance at the high end, AMD is better value at the low end.

Intel i3, i5, i7 pocket summary:
i3 [or Pentium] is fine for the majority of people doing consumer-grade device use;
i5 is necessary if you do a fair share of productivity work, and will also cover you for high-end CPU-intensive use–even high-end gaming is fine with an overclocked i5 or vanilla i5 with game settings on medium;
i7 if you need this, then you’ll already know why–your software or main forum about it will have stressed how hard it is on the CPU.

Tom’s has a nice CPU chart using Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 for “Encoding Video to H.264 Blu-ray 720p (Video runtime 2min 21s)” here–Intel in blue, AMD in green.

The slowest CPU takes over 16 minutes, the fastest [over $1,000] under 3 minutes. You see Intel chips bunched at the bottom of the chart with the quickest times, but AMD does fine in the mid-range and lower. A quick glance at the quickest [excluding the $1K+ prices]:
i7 – 197 seconds, $370;
i5 – 239, $200;
i3 – 378, $135.
That certainly suggests i5 is the sweet spot for perf/value. But do your own check, I only skimmed and don’t know the detailed differences between the different CPU architectures.

Consider Xeon

If you have a separate graphics card, and don’t plan on overclocking your CPU [which is my situation], Xeon is a better chip than i5. The two provisos are because Xeon can’t use on-board graphics, and can’t be overclocked. I don’t understand why it isn’t better known as an option. I got the E3-1231V3.

Xeon has the performance of a low-end i7 for not much more money than an i5;
Xeon will probably generate less heat and use less power than the i5-i7 due to being designed that way and not having an integrated GPU to run;
Xeon is designed for 24/7 running [servers, workstations etc], so it should be more stable, especially if you leave your PC on all the time;
Xeon should give better performance for any high-end CPU stuff you do, like video, heavy data crunching, compression, or programming work–and play high-end games on top settings without a hitch [worked great for me on Far Cry 4 which I got free with my graphics card];
Xeon has hyperthreading like i7, so if you have software which uses that, you’re ahead there too–but I recommend you disable hyperthreading if not needed, so that you’ll get even cooler running temperatures.

Note that if you look for comparable performance by overclocking an i5, you will need a more expensive motherboard and additional cooling [replacement for the stock CPU heatsink, plus case fans], so Xeon would probably work out cheaper, and save you a day of overclocking.

Lugh.
~
Alienware Aurora R6; Win10 Home x64 1803; Office 365 x32
i7-7700; GeForce GTX 1060; 16GB DDR4 2400; 1TB SSD, 256GB SSD, 4TB HD

Reply | Quote

I’ve run home built machines for over 20 years and have not had any real issues – I did have an issue with firmware on a couple of disks. All the components have a warranty and I even sent my latest motherboard back, no questions asked – I had chosen the wrong one.
It’s only a sample size of 1, but it is over multiple machines over many years.

cheers, Paul

Reply | Quote

I keep getting the [Not responding] temporary hang. Resource Monitor shows that my RAM is maxing out so I suspect upping it to 8GB may have more effect than anything else. But 2x 4GB of RAM is pricey!

Definitely check Task Manager to see what’s using all the RAM. Usually, 4GB of memory is plenty unless you’re doing heavy tasks.

Also watch for specials on 2x4GB RAM kits at Newegg.com and Amazon.com and TigerDirect.com Overall, RAM prices are dropping a little recently so that trend may continue over the next couple of months.[/U]

Reply | Quote

David,
…
Some other thoughts:
I definitely do not recommend Norton, @ all! For one thing it is a huge resource hog!
Recommend not running “Add-ons” (period)
Nor any so-called “browser helpers”
Have nothing or almost nothing running @ start-up.

Cheers,
Drew

Not sure that current Norton (NIS v21) is the resource hog that it used to be. I think my major resource user is Firefox.

From Process on TaskManager Top 5 Processes by Memory (Private Working Set)
(Win7 Home Premium x64)
Showing: Memory, Page Pool, Handles, Threads, USER object, GDI objects

Mem PgPl H’dles Ths Obj GDI Process
760M 872K 1199 061 131 193 Firefox
173M 730K 1106 104 139 121 Thunderbird (also running RSS reader Bamboo)
129M 197K 0698 026 000 000 svhost.exe
053M 530K 1278 013 000 000 SearchIndexer.exe
055M 450K 2945 056 000 000 Norton Internet Security

David

Reply | Quote

I can verify the that current version of Norton is not the resource hog it once was. I’m running the version supplied by Comcast on my low end laptop with no issues. Performance is just as good as before the Norton install. Its easy to fall into the trap of assuming what was true for last years model is true for this year. Norton has scored well in most of the independent AV reviews I’ve read as well.

The laptop uses a dual core Pentium and with an SSD its pretty snappy. Altough preferable, you don’t always need an I3/I5/I7 to get good results. It depends on what you use your PC for.

Jerry

Reply | Quote

It depends on what you use your PC for.

Jerry

Indeed.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

The laptop uses a dual core Pentium and with an SSD its pretty snappy.
Jerry

Presumably Hybrid drives speeds things up because of the most frequently accessed file being on the SS bit. The most frequently accessed file however is likely to be the pagefile especially if you have insufficient RAM. So should more RAM come before you go SSD/Hybrid?

David

Reply | Quote

Presumably Hybrid drives speeds things up because of the most frequently accessed file being on the SS bit. The most frequently accessed file however is likely to be the pagefile especially if you have insufficient RAM. So should more RAM come before you go SSD/Hybrid?

A Solid State Drive (SSD) is not the same as a Hybrid Drive (SSHD). A hybrid drive combines a traditional spinner with 8GB or so of solid state cache. On a Solid State Drive (SSD), unless one moves the pagefile to a different drive, it’s right there with the rest of the OS, so the pagefile will be accessed just as fast as the OS.

If your drive is a traditional spinner, and funds are limited, an SSD will probably give you more of a noticeable performance increase than an increase in RAM, since you already have 4GB. Limiting the programs running in the background and at startup will also make a difference if you have a lot of that going on.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

A Solid State Drive (SSD) is not the same as a Hybrid Drive (SSHD). A hybrid drive combines a traditional spinner with 8GB or so of solid state cache. On a Solid State Drive (SSD), unless one moves the pagefile to a different drive, it’s right there with the rest of the OS, so the pagefile will be accessed just as fast as the OS.

Indeed. :rolleyes:

Reply | Quote

Assuming that all other things are pretty much equal (OS, Graphics Card, RAM, etc.), will I really see a performance difference between my old computer (2.93 GHz processing speed) and a new one I am thinking of buying (3.7 GHz)?

“…will I really see a performance difference…”

As others said, the answer to your question is that it depends almost totally on what you will be using the new computer for. If it’s a desktop, see my previous post for some extra info which may help.

If you’re doing general consumer or office work, you won’t “really see” a difference–there will be small and occasional differences, but nothing “really”. If your uses are more than that, tell us what they are so we can advise you better.

Lugh.
~
Alienware Aurora R6; Win10 Home x64 1803; Office 365 x32
i7-7700; GeForce GTX 1060; 16GB DDR4 2400; 1TB SSD, 256GB SSD, 4TB HD

Reply | Quote

Re “Intel vs AMD? …”
Please be reminded that recent Intel uP (i7) is hardware coded on video conversion. Any test/compare using video encoding will always show Intel wins, hands down.

If a uP beats others when ‘other’ have fairly higher clock speeds, something is not right in the comparing. For example, a 3.2GHz Intel wins a 4GHz AMD in the video test contest!

In the real world, higher clock rate wins, generally. The difference is minor between similar clock rate uPs. If the difference is too much (say, >25%) the test is biased, or the uP is superior on the specific test vectors.

It is quite confusing on upgrade. Too many variables.
If I do a lot of video encoding, I would go Intel i7, no looking back.
To lower cost, yet fast processing, nothing beats 3.8-4GHz AMD today.

Even multi-core is confusing. In my book why do we need 8-core? We are not running highly specialized software (that can fully utilize many cores). And we’re not predicting weather either!
But I would buy an 8-core uP! Just the same as buying a Maserati/4-wheel-drive for New York City/London driving.

Reply | Quote