The end of the race for faster CPU and better PC specs?

[medic]

Not long ago, a new fast PC becomes one of the slowest after just less than a year of use. Prices of faster CPUs were normally lower than their predecessors. Not so these past couple years.

Three years ago I bought a P4 2.4Ghz laptop expecting it would become obsolete in no time. When I tried shopping for a new laptop lately, I couldn't find any specs that is better than my old computer for the same price. On top of that, specs are going backwards. My 3-year-old laptop has 1600x1200, 32-bit screen resolution. The best I could find nowadays has only 1440x900, and it's more expensive than my laptop.

Are we approaching the end of the race for faster (and improved specs) and more affordable PCs?

 

[paparazi]

Well I haven't seen that! sure CPU clock speed has slowed down but that hasn't haltered performance increases due to advances in CPU architecture.
Some of the greatest advancements have come in other areas ie battery life, graphics capability, physical size and weight, wireless functionality, features that make a modern laptop just more practical and useable.
All I can say to your resolution comment is take your laptop and put it along side a new WXGA screen for comparison.
Martin


We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[felixc]

How long does your laptop stays "on" on a single charge?

The cheap laptops of today are probably no better, but some do have a much better battery life than in the past.

 

[tf1]

The newer Mobile pentiums perform better than their predecessors that ran at faster clock speeds. This helps keep the PC/laptops cooler whilst draining less power from the battery and aids cooler running.

The current crop of Pentiums and Xeons have reached a point where faster clocking (to 4GB+) really won't bring more than very minor performance benfits with all the disadvantages of even more heat and power demands (and greater cost!).

What will happen over the next couple of years is significant improvements to processor and motherboard architecture. For example, the dual-core processors reach nowhere near the potential performance of dual processors because they only have one FSB. Disk access is still slow compared to processor speeds. So there is plenty of potential to gain masses more performance without having to increase processor speed. Even a current single-core Pentium chip would benefit from more FSBs.

Regards: tf1

 

[cdogg]

It is important to know that the newer Pentium-M processors (released in '03) are nothing like the Pentium [navy]4M[/navy] in your old laptop or the P4 in desktops.

The Pentium M's are much, much more power efficient. They were a new breed of mobile CPU redesigned from the ground up. The architecture actually closely resembles a PIII more than it does a P4. This model was revolutionary to the mobile computing market, and pretty much took AMD out of the picture.

To get an idea of performance, consider that a 2.0GHz Pentium M will easily outperform a 2.8GHz desktop P4. It's kinda like the old comparison between AMD Athlons to Pentium 4's. You can't focus on the speed rating. The P4M models (like the one in your old laptop) were trimmed down versions of the desktop CPU, and actually performed much slower. The 2.4GHz P4M you've got, for example, performs much like the average 2.0GHz P4 desktop. These are clearly no match for the Pentium M that you see today.

As for price, they've come down quite a bit in the last year. The manufacturing process was extremely expensive for Intel at first but has pretty much leveled off by now to a price that's reasonable.

Read first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium-M

http://www.mobilityguru.com/2003/02/05/the_first_pentium/index.html

Other good articles:

http://www.mobilityguru.com/2004/05/10/intel/index.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/05/25/dothan_over_netburst/index.html

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[cdogg]

Also, as for screen resolution, you say your laptop does 1600x1200. But all LCD's have a native resolution. So is that just the max res you're talking about I presume?

Resolution higher than that is not typical or really needed on smaller screens. Also, a native resolution today is usually around 1280x1024, and was actually 1024x768 around the time you purchased your laptop. So double-check your specs...



Other specs are improving all the time. Though CPU speed increased a great deal over the last decade, the biggest bottleneck became the FSB (frontside bus) and memory architecture which slowed that pace down. Back in the early days of the the Pentium II and III, a 200MHz leap in CPU clock speed was significant. Today, 500MHz doesn't mean much when you consider that the bottlenecks in the system are holding the full potential of each increase back.

So AMD and Intel began to focus on other areas besides the CPU. The introduction of dual-channel DDR a couple years ago helped eliminate some of the bottleneck. The newer DDR2 technology has helped a bit too for Intel. AMD responded in its Athlon 64 by moving the memory controller off the slow northbridge onto the CPU itself. Now the controller can run at the same speed as the CPU, and the "Hypertransport" bus which replaced the Frontside Bus runs at about 1GHz (double-pumped to an effective 2GHz).

And now you're seeing mutliple CPU's on one chip. As the mainstream moves in that direction over the next couple years, you'll see software written to take specific advantage. So when you talk about an "end" to faster or better PC specs, you've got to look beyond the numbers to see the difference on paper. There's a lot more going on behind the scenes...

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[firewolfrl]

I am just happy I have a stable computer that runs fast

 

[medic]

cdogg,

Yes, that's the maximum resolution. The reason why I prefer higher resolution is because I use my laptop for digital imaging. Though I seldom need to view full images at high resolution display, it's still a nice capability.

Anyway, thanks to everybody for replying.

 

[cdogg]

medic,
Just an FYI that if you go outside of the LCD's native resolution, the monitor has to use interpolation to fill in the extra pixels. It will not show you true 1600x1200 quality unlike a CRT monitor.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[kmcferrin]

Just to reiterate, it sounds like you're looking too much at the specs which are only marginally related to performance. For example, I have a 3-year old laptop with a P4 2.4GHz, but it is much slower than the Pentium M 1.8 GHz laptop that we bought our CEO this past spring. Not only that, the battery on the CEO's laptop lasts close to twice as long as mine does. Not to mention that his laptop is also smaller and lighter than mine. Due to architectural efficiencies and changes in power management, those CPUs of 3 years ago don't compare at all to the ones of today.

On the screen, the resolution isn't much higher but the aspect ratio has changed. A 1600x1200 screen has a 1.33:1 aspect ratio, while the 1440x900 is 1.6:1. The wide-screen aspect ratio (similar to HDTV and DVDs, etc) is generally considered much preferable than the old aspect ratio. The entire world is moving from square screens to wide screens, and PCs are going with it. Sure, you might be able to have even higher resolutions (2048x1536 or higher), but on that 15" screen you won't be able to read anything, so why bother?

PCs and laptops are still getting faster, and better, but the numbers of the spec sheets just aren't changing in the ways that people have been accustomed to seeing. Heck, most people still think that a 3 GHz CPU must absolutely be faster than a 2.8 GHz CPU, but the truth is that clock speed doesn't really have anything to do with overall PC performance.

 

[medic]

cdogg,

My laptop's monitor is a real 1600x1200, as I've also seen indicated in the specs. It's also known as UXGA.


kmcferrin,

Yes, I'm aware of the different speed rating of the Pentium M. Incidentally, Pentium M wasn't even introduced yet when I bought my laptop.
Unlike most laptops, mine uses the same P4 CPU that Compaq had on their desktops at that time. The dual-fan cooling system is barely enough to keep it from overheating.

 

[cdogg]

Medic,

What's the make/model of your current laptop?

Also, you say that were already aware of the speed difference of the Pentium M, but if that's the case, then your original post becomes a bit confusing or incomplete:

I couldn't find any specs that is better than my old computer for the same price. On top of that, specs are going backwards...Are we approaching the end of the race for faster (and improved specs)...?

Tell me how much you spent on your laptop 3 years ago, and I'll answer the 1st part of that quote for you.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[medic]

cdogg,

Oops, that's not what I meant. Sorry for my confusing post.
I should have written 'I'm [red]now[/red] aware...'.

Anyway, to answer your question, my laptop is a Compaq 1525US model. I bought it for $1400.

 

[cdogg]

OK, according to your laptop's manual, there were 3 different displays sold with that model:

1) 15.0 inch SXGA+, TFT Display
[tab]Native Resolution: 1400x1050

2) 15.0 inch XGA, TFT Display
[tab]Native Resolution: 1024x768

3) 14.1 inch XGA, TFT Display
[tab]Native Resolution: 1024x768


All 3 models above do not support a native resolution of 1600x1200. Therefore, if you are using 1600x1200, you are going outside of this spec and forcing the display to "re-scale" the image to match the native res. That's what I meant before about interpolation.

The note at the bottom of this link explains it in some detail:

http://www.theperfectvision.com/newsletter/tpv50/hidef_pc.html

Also, keep in mind that if your video card is set to a resolution other than the resolution of the source video (for example, the source video is 1280x720 and your videocard is set to 1024x768), this means the card is re-scaling the video and some degradation or softening is bound to occur.

The same is true if you have a fixed-pixel display (plasma or digital projector, for example) or a flat-panel LCD monitor, and you are sending it a resolution other than its native resolution. The fixed-pixel display will have to re-scale the image to its native resolution. Since the best re-scaling is no re-scaling at all, try to match your videocard and display’s resolution to the source resolution whenever possible.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[cdogg]

And to place some closure on your other concern about finding a better laptop for the same price or cheaper, I actually came across one at the first site I went to: Dell.

Just taking the basic Inspiron 6000 which starts at a base price of $849, it has a much faster CPU, memory, video graphics chip, and probably larger hard drive than what you received 3 years ago.

In addition, if I went further and added $150 for the 15.4 inch Ultra SharpTM WUXGA, I would get a native resolution of 1920x1200 pixels at 2.3 MegaPixels.

The final price: $999

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[medic]

Are those display options for my laptop you listed applicable to the 1525US or the whole 1500 series?

So, the definition of native resolution then is the maximum resolution that the full color gamut (32-bit) can be used, right? On my laptop, only 24-bit (16 million colors) can be selected when the resolution is set to 1600x1200 maximum. This is similar to VGA (remember the old CRT monitors?) where 256 colors is available at 320x200. But it could only do 16 colors when set to the highest 640x480 resolution.

BTW, that 1920x1200 resolution from Dell is interesting.
Thanks very much and Happy New Year!

 

[cdogg]

[blue]Are those display options for my laptop you listed applicable to the 1525US or the whole 1500 series?[/blue]"

It's applicable to the 1525US model, and probably other 1500 series models as well. I went online to Compaq's site and downloaded the manual on the 1525US downloads page.

"[blue]So, the definition of native resolution then is the maximum resolution that the full color gamut (32-bit) can be used, right?[/blue]"

Well, I think you are getting a better understanding. However, the native resolution is not the "maximum" resolution nor does it have anything to do with the color gamut. LCD's have a fixed number of pixels (CRT's do not). Therefore, only one resolution (native) is going to be displayed exactly as intended on an LCD.

Other resolutions on LCD's may look fine in many cases, however. It depends on the image being displayed and whether or not it has to encounter heavy re-scaling to be displayed. Usually one or two notches above your LCD's native resolution is fine for most work (text suffers the most). The articles below might answer any other questions you have.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1743353,00.asp

http://experts.about.com/q/1521/3356921.htm

CRT's are not always going to show you a better picture at high resolutions. There are situations where LCD's or DLP monitors win out. The point here is that CRT's have less chance of showing a visual artifact on the screen when the resolution of an image does not match the resolution of the monitor.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884