Text 1152, 26 rader
Skriven 2004-12-16 10:28:14 av Dustin Cook (1:129/305)
     Kommentar till en text av Jeff Guerdat
Ärende: Re: I'm here!
=====================
JG> Having now upgraded to 2.8GHz. I'm mildly amazed at the lack of additional
JG> snap that I was expecting.  I'm sure that the leap from a 300MHz. PII to a
JG> 2.8GHz. Xeon isn't linear but I did expect more "snap" than what I got.  I 
JG> satisfied with most operations on the PII except for lengthy operations suc
JG> as applying filters to digital images.  Now I get application performance i
JG> line with what I expect but the interface just lacks something based on a
JG> nearly 10x improvement in CPU clock speed...

Lemme see if I understand you clearly; You went from a p2, to a 2.8 xeon; and 
you don't really notice much of a difference?!? What, if you'll pardon my 
french; did you do with the p2? Play solitaire? :)

Seriously tho, I do alot of live video work, and encoding with DivX/Xvid from 
dd rips; the time savings alone was impressive for me. For example, to encode 
the movie "Shrek" Widescreen to divx 5.01 (this was awhile ago); On an amd 
k6-2/450 (comparable to your p2) was a 10+ hour job; where as the computer 
wasn't usable for much else, less it die encoding. This same job on my dual 
800 can be accomplished in under 5 hours, and under an hour using the 3.2.

So it leaves me wondering, if you don't notice much of a difference, what your
primarily using the box for? Your obviously not using it for much... I don't 
consider playing with photos in Adobe a very complex task for the cpu; I was 
able to do that fine with the amd box.

--- Renegade v09-19.4 DOS
 * Origin: The Titantic BBS Telnet - ttb.slyip.com (1:129/305)