Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

The 2.0ghz. 2.4ghz. Debate


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 cfs

cfs

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:31 PM

Posted 12 February 2008 - 08:48 PM

I was wondering if someone here could explain and settle this debate. I was in an Apple store and talking to a sales rep. about the new iMac's.

When asked her what would be best for someone who does the following:

web surf
video chat
watch movies
watch internet tv
make home movies
listen to music
download pics

She said, definitley the 2.4 over the 2.0. She then went on to say I will notice a big difference down the road and while watching video and chatting. can someone please shed some light on this?

-cfs

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 xXAlphaXx

xXAlphaXx

  • Members
  • 867 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carlona
  • Local time:03:31 PM

Posted 12 February 2008 - 09:44 PM

Well the 2.4Ghz can process your videos movies etc. faster, But Id say a 2.0 would do just fine doing just that at a 400Mhz difference I imagine it wouldn't take more than a few seconds to do what you would like to do.

It you mean chatting via webcam, then yes go with the 2.4Ghz those 400Mhz will make a difference.


Its up to you.

Edited by xXAlphaXx, 12 February 2008 - 09:45 PM.

If I am helping you and I do not respond within 24 hours, please send me a PM. :)

#3 cfs

cfs
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:31 PM

Posted 13 February 2008 - 11:50 AM

Well the 2.4Ghz can process your videos movies etc. faster, But Id say a 2.0 would do just fine doing just that at a 400Mhz difference I imagine it wouldn't take more than a few seconds to do what you would like to do.

It you mean chatting via webcam, then yes go with the 2.4Ghz those 400Mhz will make a difference.


Its up to you.


Wondering why it would make a difference video chatting when I currently use a Toshiba Dynabook Intel Celeron 2.5Ghz. with a 500mb hd with no issues. Movie editing (rendering) takes forever on it though and watching abc.com is awful.

Thanks,
cfs

Just wondering the thinking, not debating :thumbsup:

#4 groovicus

groovicus

  • Security Colleague
  • 9,963 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Centerville, SD
  • Local time:01:31 PM

Posted 13 February 2008 - 01:23 PM

watching abc.com is awful.


That is a problem with your network not being able to stream the video to you fast enough, and has little to do with your processor speed.

A 2.0 vs a 2.4 is an extra four-hundred million ticks per clock cycle, meaning that it will be roughly 17% faster. You just can't count on that helping with anything requiring transfer of data over the Internet. If you can afford it, get it.

#5 cfs

cfs
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:31 PM

Posted 13 February 2008 - 03:22 PM

watching abc.com is awful.


That is a problem with your network not being able to stream the video to you fast enough, and has little to do with your processor speed.

A 2.0 vs a 2.4 is an extra four-hundred million ticks per clock cycle, meaning that it will be roughly 17% faster. You just can't count on that helping with anything requiring transfer of data over the Internet. If you can afford it, get it.


Do you think that a ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory will allow a good video flow?

Thanks,
cfs

#6 groovicus

groovicus

  • Security Colleague
  • 9,963 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Centerville, SD
  • Local time:01:31 PM

Posted 13 February 2008 - 05:32 PM

Again, how well you video 'flows' has a lot to do with how good of an Internet connection you have, download speeds. network congestion, and server loads.

#7 cfs

cfs
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:31 PM

Posted 14 February 2008 - 09:49 AM

Thank You.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users