Jane
Let's say you bought one of those cheap laptops for $300-$400 that only comes with a single core AMD processor. Laptop comes with 2GB RAM but is expandable to 8GB RAM. If you maxed out the RAM would the laptop approach the speed of a dual core machine with 2GB RAM?
Or is the single core processor going to be just too much of a bottleneck?
Answer
There will be a point of diminishing returns on the RAM. Think about what RAM does, When you launch a program it loads up into RAM. As you access various parts of the program, it pulls them out of RAM instead of having to access the HD (which would slow you down). With enough RAM you can load a number of programs as you multitask.
With multi-core processors, the OS can assign different tasks to different processors, thus speeding things up. So if you're running a few programs at the same time, they will be processed faster.
BUT you have to think, who really runs more than one program at a time? Sure you can have a number of them launched and sitting in your task bar but who is actually spinning all those plates? Usually, as a human, you move from 1 task to another, So a multi-core processor is not really needed just to run multiple programs.
Where it really comes in handy is with complex-processor-intensive programs like video editing and gaming. Those programs have many tasks that happen at once so a multi-core processor pays off.
With a single core processor, running games and video editing apps is gonna be limited by the power of the processor. So you can load a program into RAM but that won't speed up the processing. However, you can imagine that there must be a sweet spot for every processor where the RAM can hold just enough stuff info to be processed at the processor's max speed. Therefore, at one point or another, you can have more stuff in RAM than can be processed.
In short, I guess, the processor is the bottleneck, depending on the types of programs you're running.
EDIT: Think of RAM as your shopping cart and the processor as the checkout lane. You are the OS and your job is to put the items on the belt at least as fast as the cashier can ring 'em up and bag 'em. The amount of groceries or the number of carts you use won't affect the speed of this process. If you could use more than 1 checout lane, then things would move faster of course.
There will be a point of diminishing returns on the RAM. Think about what RAM does, When you launch a program it loads up into RAM. As you access various parts of the program, it pulls them out of RAM instead of having to access the HD (which would slow you down). With enough RAM you can load a number of programs as you multitask.
With multi-core processors, the OS can assign different tasks to different processors, thus speeding things up. So if you're running a few programs at the same time, they will be processed faster.
BUT you have to think, who really runs more than one program at a time? Sure you can have a number of them launched and sitting in your task bar but who is actually spinning all those plates? Usually, as a human, you move from 1 task to another, So a multi-core processor is not really needed just to run multiple programs.
Where it really comes in handy is with complex-processor-intensive programs like video editing and gaming. Those programs have many tasks that happen at once so a multi-core processor pays off.
With a single core processor, running games and video editing apps is gonna be limited by the power of the processor. So you can load a program into RAM but that won't speed up the processing. However, you can imagine that there must be a sweet spot for every processor where the RAM can hold just enough stuff info to be processed at the processor's max speed. Therefore, at one point or another, you can have more stuff in RAM than can be processed.
In short, I guess, the processor is the bottleneck, depending on the types of programs you're running.
EDIT: Think of RAM as your shopping cart and the processor as the checkout lane. You are the OS and your job is to put the items on the belt at least as fast as the cashier can ring 'em up and bag 'em. The amount of groceries or the number of carts you use won't affect the speed of this process. If you could use more than 1 checout lane, then things would move faster of course.
What is the best sound system i can get for under $300?
chilai
I'm going to be using my PS3 as a blu ray player and for gaming on my 42 inch Panasonic plasma. What is the best sound system i can buy for under $300?
I don't have that much space and don't know that i want to mess with setting up a whole surround sound system, so at the moment I'm leaning towards just getting a sound bar until I have more room and cash for a nice system.
Answer
You can't find a system with good sound for under $300. Period. You spent a load on your TV so why not kick your sound up a notch or two? BTW you won't get adequate sound from a sound bar either. The PS3 is an excellent BD player. But if you don't want to mess with a 5.1 system you are giving up sound quality. No sound bar is capable of giving you the same quality as a real 5.1 system. You pays your money, you takes your choice.
You can't find a system with good sound for under $300. Period. You spent a load on your TV so why not kick your sound up a notch or two? BTW you won't get adequate sound from a sound bar either. The PS3 is an excellent BD player. But if you don't want to mess with a 5.1 system you are giving up sound quality. No sound bar is capable of giving you the same quality as a real 5.1 system. You pays your money, you takes your choice.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
0 comments:
Post a Comment