....Help with PC knowledge

dee1949

..For those who are computer literate. I am an oldster....started with a Commadore 64 (still have 3 of them). Then moved up to Amiga 1000 (still have with monitor and all drives). From there went onto Pentium 150 with a huge 2gig HD (1995) (HA HA...$2300.00 with 17" CRT).

Well anyway....I now have a Pentium 4 3.2ghz with HT (1gig ram). What will I gain by moving up? I use it mostly as a music server and for graphics with video editing. Seems fast enough for my needs. Never locks up. Never used a faster pc......what would be the advantage of a faster processor??

sophie

much faster rendering after the editing of videos, and will burn dvd's much faster (with the exception of burning iso files.)

Payton

dee1949

Thank you

What processor do you use now and what processor did you move up from? Did you notice a massive improvement.

Also....any advantage of changing Operating software? I use XP pro and have had no problems. Any advantage for switching???

Also....is it wise to switch to a wide screen monitor??? Is it easier to work on graphics? Will this depend on wide screen becoming the norm?

And What is up with the new duo processors.....is there any software out there that takes advange of this? I never play games, so what is the NEED for SPEED???

WilliamM2

sophie wrote: »

much faster rendering after the editing of videos, and will burn dvd's much faster (with the exception of burning iso files.)

Payton

A Core2 or I7 will render video much faster. My current Core2Duo at 3.6Ghz takes about half as long as my P4 3.6Ghz.

But where did you ever get the idea that they would burn DVD's faster? My P4, Core2, and the I7 I use at work all take the same amount of time to burn a DVD at 16x. They are limited by the burner, not the processor.

In everyday use, I don't notice hardly any difference between any them, they are all fast enough...for now.

WilliamM2

What processor do you use now and what processor did you move up from? Did you notice a massive improvement.

See above. Other than video rendrering, hardly any difference. I don't game anymore, so there may be an advantage there, but sounds like you don't game either.

Considering I built the P4 3.6 w/2GB mem in September 2003, and the Core2Duo 3,6 w/4GB mem in August 2008, I was a little shocked at what a small difference there was. Use to upgrade every year, and would notice a bigger difference.

disneyjoe7

Dee you're scaring me I remember playing with those old computers also.

What motherboard do you have? Are you using SLI video card? If not a SLI dual card motherboard should be really FAST.


The processor will move data, but if it has trouble leaving the computer it bottles up.

dee1949

...just using a Dell Optiplex GX270.....with buit in graphics...do have a agp ati 128mb graphics card that i haven't installed yet. ...and an old Matrox g450 dual monitor card. Just upgrading from my old Optiplec GX110 1ghz that I used for years without problems. Want to KNOW, what, if anything, I am missing.

...also advantage of WIDE screen monitor...for Graphics ...i know about movies.

mmadden28

If you're doing video rendering/editing, Picture editing, or any CD Ripping (and encoding) or DVD ripping, you will benefit from an upgraded MoBo and Processor. Additional memory will add speed and performance as well.

Dual Video cards? No, not unless you're a hardcore gamer or require massive resolution at a high frame rate. But for video stuff, get a decent one. This is an area where you reach a point of diminished returns quickly--2 video cards does not give you twice the power.

Hard drives are faster and hold much more for the money. Get extra drives--setup RAID and have built in redundancy--the last thing you want is loss of precious video or pics.

I'm not sure you could even add a BluRay player to your older machine. If you care to go that route.

Planning on trying out Windows 7? You'll need an upgrade to get the most..

Plan to do any streaming of music and video from your PC to your XBox, etc? Then you're computer is going to be doing some heavy on the fly transcoding -with an older machine it will be choppy if it works at all.

Let's not forget to mention that today's components are more energy efficient, which will lead to a quieter PC, and savings on your Electric bill. :cool:

Check out Toms Hardware (among other similar sites) for their comparison charts. This link shows comparisons using iTunes to to audio transcoding and how long it takes with different processors.

Actually TH has charts for many application types and games to see the advantages between processors, hard drives, video cards, etc. Enough to keep you occupied for weeks. Here's a higher level link.
You can run a lot of the benchmarks they use on your own machine to see how your computer compares to give you a better idea of any possible improvements.

Note: The latest and greatest processors have multiple cores, such as the quad core is essentially 4 CPUs. However not all applications are developed to handle multiple cores and so won't benefit greatly from them. But many more are coming on board, and especially many video, graphic and encoding applications are taking advantage of multiple core CPUs and greatly increasing performance. Games, at least last year didn't take advantage fo the additional cores - at least very few did.

So not seeing a great performance improvement from and old machine to a new one, doesn't mean there aren't differences, just that the applications used didn't necessarily benefit from the improvements.

TH also has lots of articles on building your own system for various budgets, so you don't have to go insane to update and its really not that difficult, esp with the wealth of knowledge available at TH and other great sites like Anandtech

Sorry I spouted on so long--sorry if any of the above is choppy--I'm in a rush...:o

dee1949

Woh!!!!

...thank you for detailed report.

...for audio I use an old Chaintech 7.1 audio card...sent to 2 channel by way of the rear wolfgang dacs ....by way of optical....to a MSB DAC III....to B&K pro10mc preamp....to various amps. 2 ME sounds great.

I am retired with a lot of time and NO money. Would any upgrade be worth it, from my 3.2ghz HT w/1gig memory.

Want "BEST bang for the $$$$"

My xmas present 2 myself...if it is worth it. Better uses for $$$$.

WilliamM2

You could always add more RAM to take it up to 4GB. XP will only use about 3.25GB of it, but that's still over triple what you have now, and will still allow you to use dual cannel.

dee1949

...Would I gain anything important in Photoshop. ...say . (Major improvement. . ) Why do we need this speed accept for the future. My programs are at least 2 yrs old and some... many more. I am not going to update them for $ reasons. Hardware , used , is cheap now a days.

WilliamM2

More memory should help with Photoshop.

mmadden28

dee1949 wrote: »

Woh!!!!

...thank you for detailed report.

...for audio I use an old Chaintech 7.1 audio card...sent to 2 channel by way of the rear wolfgang dacs ....by way of optical....to a MSB DAC III....to B&K pro10mc preamp....to various amps. 2 ME sounds great.
,,.

No prob.

With the audio method your using-your fine, it's only when transcoding is involved (like sending to a media extender, etc, or especially when sending video) that CPU power becomes more of a factor. Actually its not much of an issue when sending to a Squeezebox or Roku either.

Honestly if you're happy with what you have then I'd say live with it. Up the memory as WilliamM2 suggested at a minimum. I wouldn't upgrade the rest just to be ready for something in the future, even if its only a year from now, just because technology is increasing and prices keep dropping, you'd be better off waiting until you need to upgrade and get more for your money.

I think if you find the need to upgrade something else, upgrade something that can be reused on a new system such as and external hard drive or your monitor. It may just make you happier just because of the possibly better view and more screen real estate. Just beware that some larger screens will require more power ful video cards at higher resolutions - and that can lead to a path of almost full out upgrades. Not all older mother boards will support today's video cards, and even if it did, your power supply may not have enough juice-- And since you using a Dell, you can't necessarily just put any standrd stuff in the same shell-you may end up buying a new case as well....see where I'm going?

dee1949

...Thank YOU M28

......will hold off til I try out "one of the NEWER fangled PC's". I have a LOT of time and patience....just don't want to be left in the DUST.

John30_30

dee1949 wrote: »

...Would I gain anything important in Photoshop. ...say . (Major improvement. . ) Why do we need this speed accept for the future. My programs are at least 2 yrs old and some... many more. I am not going to update them for $ reasons. Hardware , used , is cheap now a days.

Like William2 says, upgrading RAM is probably sufficient for Photoshop, what, CS2? Also best bang for buck.
Obviously Adobe programs are resource ho's as well as being $'ive.

If you also use Premiere or similar kind of video rendering app, you may be at a decision place where a dual processor and a board that supports it are plausible.

Problem then is if you've bought RAM that's older-gen, like DDR1 and the new CPU and board are DDR2 or DDR3, you've wasted $ on the original RAM. Not much, but still.....