The processor speed needs to be measured along side of the chip set workarounds. A really good chipset will take many of the mundane tasks (like backround color of a sky) and handle that chore without sharing it fully with the CPU. I use a 800MHz Athelon with a VIA chipset and it is VERY fast. 1800MHz would not add significantly to speed, unless I also had even more than 1.5 Gig in RAM, and/or turn off Histories
hucec wrote:
"The processor speed needs to be measured along side of the chip set workarounds. A really good chipset will take many of the mundane tasks (like backround color of a sky) and handle that chore without sharing it fully with the CPU."
Thanks for the observation. I'd point out several additions to this performance picture:
- As you mention, performance isn't just a result of a faster processor, although that doesn't hurt. The best performance of any system is gained when all its parts work efficiently -- so that data moves freely without bottlenecks.
It's like the freeway system at rush hour. (I really don't like freeway analogies but what the hey!) If people would only relax and drive slower than usual (when there's less traffic), the entire traffic flow moves along smoothly.
Instead everyone moves around trying to gain some advantage, or zooms ahead for only a short distance, cutting off people. These small accomodations create large jam. While some cars may move fast for short distances, over the entire journey, everyone's trip is found to be longer than a "slow" but smooth flow.
The same thing can happen in your computer when one part doesn't get the data it wants on time -- its internal recovery routines take up extra time and thus create a bottleneck.
- Different programs will use a computer differently. For example, on dual-processor machines some applications will take control of the second processor. This is good for them, but not for another program that might want to use the second processor at the same time.
I'd like to be clear that I don't think there's any conspiracy by applications vendors. The minimum requirements are just that. Minimal. Nor are vendors trying to hide anything.
Instead, the problem is with our expectations. We look at the requirement and think that it applies to our workflow. Or that it's the minimum optimal requirment. "This must mean that my setup is good enough," we think to ourselves, happy that we don't need to plunk down cash for an upgrade.
This is probably the most important article to be written on CreativePro.com. Finally someone is telling the truth about the minimum requirements.
I'm also quite impressed that Chris Cox was willing to be quoted. Nice job!
David's article has me re-thinking the information I give in my reviews and books. I may have to start telling the truth about the "RECOMMENDED" system requirements.
Submitted by SandeeCohen99 on Thu, 02/07/2002 - 09:35.
Processor speed is not the only factor.
The processor speed needs to be measured along side of the chip set workarounds. A really good chipset will take many of the mundane tasks (like backround color of a sky) and handle that chore without sharing it fully with the CPU. I use a 800MHz Athelon with a VIA chipset and it is VERY fast. 1800MHz would not add significantly to speed, unless I also had even more than 1.5 Gig in RAM, and/or turn off Histories
Author adds comments on performance
hucec wrote:
"The processor speed needs to be measured along side of the chip set workarounds. A really good chipset will take many of the mundane tasks (like backround color of a sky) and handle that chore without sharing it fully with the CPU."
Thanks for the observation. I'd point out several additions to this performance picture:
- As you mention, performance isn't just a result of a faster processor, although that doesn't hurt. The best performance of any system is gained when all its parts work efficiently -- so that data moves freely without bottlenecks.
It's like the freeway system at rush hour. (I really don't like freeway analogies but what the hey!) If people would only relax and drive slower than usual (when there's less traffic), the entire traffic flow moves along smoothly.
Instead everyone moves around trying to gain some advantage, or zooms ahead for only a short distance, cutting off people. These small accomodations create large jam. While some cars may move fast for short distances, over the entire journey, everyone's trip is found to be longer than a "slow" but smooth flow.
The same thing can happen in your computer when one part doesn't get the data it wants on time -- its internal recovery routines take up extra time and thus create a bottleneck.
- Different programs will use a computer differently. For example, on dual-processor machines some applications will take control of the second processor. This is good for them, but not for another program that might want to use the second processor at the same time.
daviD M.
Author responds
Thanks to everyone for the comments!
I'd like to be clear that I don't think there's any conspiracy by applications vendors. The minimum requirements are just that. Minimal. Nor are vendors trying to hide anything.
Instead, the problem is with our expectations. We look at the requirement and think that it applies to our workflow. Or that it's the minimum optimal requirment. "This must mean that my setup is good enough," we think to ourselves, happy that we don't need to plunk down cash for an upgrade.
In that, we are very mistaken.
daviD m.
Finally, someone telling the TRUTH
This is probably the most important article to be written on CreativePro.com. Finally someone is telling the truth about the minimum requirements.
I'm also quite impressed that Chris Cox was willing to be quoted. Nice job!
David's article has me re-thinking the information I give in my reviews and books. I may have to start telling the truth about the "RECOMMENDED" system requirements.