Next Generation Emulation banner

Difference between 1366 and 1156?

3K views 35 replies 12 participants last post by  BinarySlave 
Depends on whether or not you run Crysis while encoding an HD video clip of you doing stuffs with your girlfriend, while listening to punk music, while leaving a 3Ds Max window open with an unfinished model, while leaving an IDE open maybe for debugging your emulator or game or software, while running Windows Live Messenger, and Yahoo and AIM, and all of that while you're browsing the web for pr0n on 48 different websites from 12 different countries. :p And you absolutely must be able to see any of those 1 second after you switch...

Because honestly, I can do all that except the encoding part on my netbook, and the game ain't Crysis.

But hey, more powah is good powah, right? :p Just remember... Try software tweaks first.
 
What for? Your machine runs too slow to edit a 3D model? Or is your game running too slow? :p There's actually a stark difference between the two.

If it's a casual game, or you're editing a low-poly model for a fun game project and not exactly a precise architectural complex, then you won't need a "quad core" at all. Trust me... been there, done that. The performance improvement even for multi-tasking is not exactly that high, and that's saying... I was using a 4GHz quad-core.

If you're playing a very demanding game, or you play games and render things at the same time, or you encode stuffs, then yeah, the quad will help.

Hell, nowadays, I find it hard to find the difference between multi-tasking with a decent single-core processor and any processor with more than two cores. Provided your OS and softwares are tweaked alright, that is. Having too many keyloggers or Trojans or adwares monitoring your system can potentially slow things down a lot. :p And you definitely don't need an Antivirus or anti-adware, spyware, or popup blocker software unless you want to lose like 50% of your performance for nothing at all. Just don't open weird stuffs or visit weird websites and you'll be fine. Psh... get pr0n from trusted sources... and better yet, pay for them. :p
 
I agree to disagree with waiting for SATA III and USB 3.0 to come out.

Why? Because the earlier implementations of new technology are always met with the following problems:

1) Buggy... or sometimes not compatible with what we have currently. No, don't... again... listen to what the press says. Wait til the final product is out. And it won't be for a long time anyway.
2) Costly, as mentioned. Don't "assume" that it'll be cheap until it's actually out and you can see the price.
3) Useless... for several months, because there is nothing that takes advantage of them. And really, this is true.
4) Assuming you get to this stage where gadgets that make use of them pop up, then they'll be expensive as ****. And by the time you get to hold these gadgets in your hands, you'll already be looking at another possible upgrade, maybe to an Intel Core i12 or something like that. So... you end up not using SATA III or USB 3.0 at all.

In this case, it's excess technology. SATA II is cool and all, but only SSDs of very high grades can saturate it, and I doubt SATA III is actually necessary at all. USB 2.0 is plenty fast enough and chances are you won't be in a hurry to copy over GB worth of data. 30MB/sec means it takes 30 secs to copy over 900MB, by the way, so 2 minutes for 2700MB or roughly 2.5GB, or 4 minutes for a whooping 5GB. You are in such a hurry that you can't wait 4 minutes to grab your flash drive? If bad comes to worse, transfer speed is halved by other factors, you still only gotta wait 8 minutes.

SATA didn't kill off IDE. People just stopped putting IDE on motherboards since they can have a higher density of SATA ports. In reality, if SATA drives were much more expensive then they'd still put an IDE connector or two in because they don't want to force potential customers to pay a premium for other peripherals. USB 2 does have a variety of devices, yeah... but that's a while after it came out, and plus it's not like USB 1.0 can't be used. Also you are only listing storage devices. Unless you fancy having a hard drive outside of your computer for anything at all, that is... I would just set up a network drive personally.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top