Do we actually NEED such processing power?

Since my friend and I are both entering the professional world, we were discussing business laptops we were getting. We both decided on pretty high end models, but in the end we laughed about the fact that we didn't truly need them. I do word processing, spreadsheet making, and statistical modeling (STATA).

I wanted to see if other people felt the same way.

Any working professionals care to comment on programs, industries that actually utilize the computing power of something like an Core i5-520?

 

If you're going to be using these a lot and traveling with them, it's still worth it to get a business notebook. They offer better support, durability, and battery life. You can just configure a lower end one, since yes, you really won't need much speed for spreadsheets. However, I'm not sure what you mean by statistical modeling. Will the computer be doing a lot of number crunching? If so, you'll want an i5.

I'm not a working professional, so I can't comment on the last part of your post. But if you decide to grab a nicer business notebook, make sure you post in the "what notebook should I buy" forum, and everyone can help you choose the laptop that's perfect for you.

 

There are lots of areas that can utilize the CPU power, for example, those that work w/ Virtual Machines, MATLAB (or any other mathematical/scientific modeling/simulation software), or video/audio encoding/compression.

 

Do you need the power? No.
Not much out there needs that kind of power and not much will require it for a long time. When that time comes, you will be ready, Plus in the meantime you get to enjoy a notebook that will run and look nice for a long time.

High end notebooks are an investment for people like you and me.
You can either go cheap and replace it often, or go high end and enjoy it for a while with less fear of it falling apart.

I don't think it was a waste, just keep the price within reason for what you are getting. Even then, if you enjoy it or can afford it, who cares, buy what you want.

I have a customer who could have gotten by with a single core and a cheap video card, instead, he had me build his dream system with almost all top of the line components. He even splurged on a $150 chassis. Why? Because he wanted to and he could. That system will last him YEARS, it's a high end gaming system, for someone who mostly checks email.

Was it wasteful?
To me, sort of. I know he doesn't NEED it, and he isn't a hardcore geek. On the other hand, if you ask him he will tell you it was worth every penny. He finally has the computer of his dreams, which was exactly what he told me while building it. He has lusted after a system like that for years.

 

email, web browsing, and office apps can be done quite well on a core solo cpu running at 1 Gz.

The rough specs for win7 are 1 gz of cpu, 1 gb ram, some kind of accelerated video/gpu, and approx 10 Gb of disk.

Having said that, you can get a very nice 2Gz dual core laptop, 17" led screen, 300Gb+ hard drive, etc, etc, for less than $600-. Pay for it with a credit card and you can usually double up the warranty.

 

Even if processing power always stays "ahead of the curve", I'm all for it. Simply because I love progress. If there is anyone who doesn't really need or want a powerful processor, there's always netbooks. I think computer hardware drives software developement. Otherwise we still might be running some incarnation of win9x, and using directx 5.

 

nikkisixx,

I agree with you. For many business lines, you often pay an additional $300 to upgrade from an i3-350m to an i7-620m. That gives you perhaps a 30% increase in performance (just a ballpark figure!)

Will you really notice that when you usually run a couple of browser tabs plus email plus Word plus Stata? Barely. Perhaps you'd notice it more clearly when actually some long-winded .do file is running while you work on something else. But even then, no way the difference is going to be day-and-night.

Then, it makes much more sense to save these ~$300 to replace the laptop half a year or a year earlier. Especially given the huge premia processor manufacturers charge for relatively modest increases in performance within a given processor line. Of course, there are usage scenarios where you take every bit of processing power you can get. E.g., you run a bunch of VMs, you locally compile huge projects multiple times a day, you encode video, etc.

Lastly, even if your professional work involves serious number-crunching, it's better to look out for the servers/clusters available to you. It doesn't really matter that you could, say, run twice as many variations of your code on a i7-920xm than you could on a i3-330m. On a cluster, you can maybe run ten projects simultaneously. You're better off learning to use those resources instead of buying the fastest laptop money can buy.

 

In my opinion most people invest far too much money in a CPU instead of a hard drive (/SSD). Intel's marketing is brilliant for that. Most people who buy a laptop now believe they need at least a Core i5.

I'm using a Core 2 Duo SU4100 at 1.3GHz. It's more than fast enough for everything I do. I don't do a lot of CPU intensive applications though. But when I do, like zipping or encoding a dvd to divx, the SU4100 serves me well.

 

The term "need" is a bit high. Even CPU intensive applications will RUN on some mid tier CPUs, so they don't NEED more. However, if given more processing power, they will use it, therefore it HELPS or BOOSTS or whatever supplementary term you want to use.

There's a distinct difference between needing the power and adding in more to make your work more efficient(unless you need a certain amount of efficiency in your work at all costs).

To me at least, "needing" implies a threshold of usability in the computer world. For example, you NEED 512mb of RAM for said application because it simply will not run on intended performance without it.

 

CPU power is utilized by many different things. Multitasking, rendering, speed. So maybe you dont NEED it but im sure you would want it.

 

If it doesn't come at much extra cost, why not go for more power?
It's better to have and not need than to need and not have. Having a good cpu sort of future proofs any laptop purchase. There could be programs that come out that make use of the extra power the better cpu's carry.

FWIW I try to buy the best processor I can at the time. Not because I need it, but because I may need it later on. It's more of a peace of mind thing.

 

Of course you WANT something lol The entirety of the capitalist society bases itself on what you WANT rather than what you NEED(or more like they can convince you both terms are the same).

I certainly would like a huge mansion, but if I'm alone, I certainly don't need one unless I use it as a storage space for all the other stuff I want but don't need

It's always good to have legroom IMO, but you have to learn about priorities IMO.

For example, in a computer, CPU will rarely affect overall performance for general computing. A fast HDD or more RAM will likely yield a better performance boost over an extra half GHz.

However, if you're aiming your computing on gaming say, the GPU will be the part that will yield the most performance increase to your needs.

CPU will yield the most increase in uses where high amounts of calculations and processing are done.

Idk how, but the market has managed to brainwash consumers that CPU is the second coming of Jesus in terms of your computer performance O_O

 

My taste in notebooks has changed a lot over the years. I've gradually switched to preferring lightweight, smaller, and more energy efficient notebooks. I don't really need much processing power since I really only browse the web, type my assignments, and listen to music. I will occasionally do some video encoding and photo editing but since that is not an everyday task, I'd take battery life and cool operating temps as a priority. I wouldn't be surprised if my next notebook features one of the ultra low voltage processors.

I do respect the function of a powerful processor, though. I recently began setting up a home theater PC and have been doing a lot of video encoding as a result. Most of it is done on my XPS M1530 with a 2.20GHz Intel Core 2 Duo. The speeds are acceptable; FairUse Wizard peaks at about 52 FPS and is usually always at about 35-45. I usually do them in batches overnight so it doesn't make much of a difference to me.

I have, however, switched to a desktop for these tasks. This way I can run a powerful processor, squeeze a little bit more speed out of it through overclocking, and not have to worry about trading off performance for battery life. I've come to realize that (for me, at least) I'd benefit more from a low voltage processor in a notebook for my daily tasks. I'm excited to see how they develop as time progresses.

I agree with the general consensus of the thread; it depends on what you are doing, what level of performance you are expecting to get and need, and how much you are willing to pay. Most people probably don't need all of the processing power that their computers possess, but it sure is fun to have and take advantage of. Others, myself included, may find that the bulk of the benefits that they seek reside in the low power alternatives (Atom, Intel ULV, Neo, and the like). I'm not sold on Atom just yet but I'm quite intrigued by the Intel SUxxxx ULV stuff. I'm not even sure what that series is called, to be honest.

 

"some incarnation of win9x, and using directx 5"
which is perfectly capable of browsing and reading emails...
very few people need a powerful computer for this, but they do need one to run the latest OS.

 

Do you need that much processing power? No.

Do you want that much processing power? Yes.

MORE POWER!!!!

 

I agree with that 100%. I don't know how many times my friends come to me asking what laptop to buy for college with the mindset that they have/I] to have a Core i7 processor for word processing, webcamming, web browsing, and other "multitasking." It takes a long time for me to persuade them that a Core i3 is really all they need, and that "speed" won't increase noticeably at all.

That, and RAM are the two most frequently over-specced items that people order...

 

I bought a g51j (i7 720quad) with a SSD for business and err.. non-business... but am not regretting spending $1k more than I could have.

I have just noticed a huge decrease in how long I have to wait for stuff to happen. There is nothing more buzz-kill-ing than sitting in front of a client trying to fill dead air while you're watching the hourglass spin...

Everything also looks a million times better on a good LCD - even though even the best laptop LCDs are rubbish compared with desktops - a 1920x1080 that can do good brightness is important. I also do some graphics and web design which necessitates that res as well.

Spreadsheets and other number-crunching exercises will hold up a slow processor, I really notice the difference even between my old laptop (c2d t9300: dual core 2.5GHz) and this (quad core i7+hyperthreading)

 

Oh of course, but my point was, that hardware drives software developement, but hardware and software are not mutually exclusive. If one progresses, the other must follow.

You guys do realize, that this topic will never die? In 10 or 20 years, people will be asking if we really need 16 or 32 cores, or how ever many we have then. :laugh: "Oh" but many will say, "you really only need 8 cores". And on and on it goes...

 

True, except those type of ppl/application don't require that much of traveling. desktop is the more rational choice for those.

 

How can you conclude that ???

 

I like it when people talk about processing power. My opinion is this:

You're a gamer ... you owe to have a fast CPU

You're a professional and use CPU intensive applications ... you owe to have a fast CPU because time is money

The rest of us ... waiting an extrat 10 minutes for a CPU to finish it calculations (rendering, encoding, compression ...) won't hurt, so go for a cheaper CPU and save your money for something else.

 

I see no problem with getting an i5 for an average user. The way I see it, buying a faster CPU extends the life of a laptop before one feels compelled to upgrade. Applications and OS's are always growing and demanding more power, even the most basic applications (word processing, etc)

 

Ran Word 2007 on a Pentium 4 and didn't notice any difference in speed compared to my C2D, so I don't see how any faster CPU will extend the life of a laptop for basic tasks like that.

 

Yup, my office desk machine is a P4 and I honestly notice very little slowdowns doing Office, Virtual Machines and internet.

To me the life of a computer is only partially dependent on the hardware. Really MS Office isn't 5 times more demanding than it's been 10 years ago for most people. A laptop's lifespan IMO is more dictated by the upkeep of said laptop. I'm willing to bet a non-savvy user can even manage to turn an i7 laptop sluggish seeing as people here at the Office manage to turn a quad Core Xeon with 8GbB of RAM slower than my P4 with 2GB >.>

 

No kidding. It's amazing what some people are fine with having on their computers. I could never bring myself to install any of those security suites like Norton or McAfee. I used to use Norton but it did a pretty good job of slowing my computer down.

We have an old desktop with a 1.4GHz processor, 256MB of RAM, and a pretty slow 40GB hard drive that I reformatted and put Windows XP on; it's not a bad machine at all. It'd be great for browsing the web and doing homework on. I even had a Counter Strike Source server running in it for a while. That was fun.

 

I dont think I have even used half of the processing power available to me. The upgrade from a traditional HDD to a SSD netted the biggest gains in speed I have ever seen from a single upgrade.

 

Too true but if ur using CPU intensive apps , u need more power! In fact , i would just get a quad... i'm getting one becausing i'm doing CAD next year and extra power helps...

 

No doubt, i don't run any "constant" antivirus programs, and haven't for any notebook i've ever had, i saw no point to it, all i do when i suspect i may have something is run the browser dependent "House Call" virus scan once in a while.

 

You come to the wrong place to ask such a question OP, since most of the guys and gals here are power hungry by default.

Anyway, you're correct in that most mid-range computers carry all the power you need; and, are good for all but the most demanding applications. Unless you're absolutely sure you'll need more, what you already suggest will satisfy your needs and be sufficient to accomplish the task you've indicated here.

Here you're defining the difference between what's possible and what's practicable. You'll need to do better than double that on all accounts for good stable operation.

 

Hahaha! How do you personally keep your computer fast? Optimization programs, etc?

 

Most likely running windows 2000.

 

Actually it's Windows XP. And really I just don't do random crap on my computer >.>

My point was that sometimes people buy fancy hardware as an answer to their inability to maintain the speed of their computer.

Like I said, basic tasks aren't getting exponentially more resource hungry.

 

Yup! You got it. I tried Office 2010 and it wasn't any more resource hungry than 07.

 

Depends on the professional company you're entering into... Meaning - if your company buys for quality or quantity - there is a tremendous difference add to that what is the company's life cycle policy - i.e. do they expect you to use that computer for 2 years, 4 years or longer? The longer the expected use the better off with a higher end machine that will be useful into the future and is probably a better quality build (and actually may get you to that life cycle objective).
Where I work, we tend to buy quantity - just based on budget constraints and numbers of employees. Low end processors, 4200 RPM hard drives, minimal RAM requirements to run the OS (no thought to applications). We have some that take 3-4 minutes to boot, and then another few to load your applications and we are told these are still "fine" for another couple of years.
Based on your question - I would ask back what are the company policies? If your buying this - get what you need/afford. Also will your company allow you to transfer work-related files back & forth? Are there proprietary applications or security issues that forbid that?
I can tell from working certain actions on mine and then continuing at work - frustrating - it is like going from a Mustang to a moped....

Use Excel a lot - large multi-linked spreadsheets with several calculations - Home computer - it will open/process in about 90 seconds. Work version - 3 minutes to open and 2 more to process. You get what you pay for.

 

It's funny but often true

Try upgrading the ram to 1GB. My cousin was about to buy a new desktop. Knowing his needs I convinced him that he should keep his old P4 @ 1.4Ghz and just upgrad the ram from 256MB to 1GB. I helped him with the ram upgrade and installing a fresh copy of windows XP. Now he is more than happy keeping his desktop for another 8 years

We are living in a world with too much waste. People don't think anymore about amending their old things. They take the easy option of replacing them. That's just waste of money and natural resources, without talking about all the harm that it does to the environment

 

And yet it's more advanced. What does that tell you?

You need 2GB nowadays Jeeves. One gigabyte just doesn't cut it anymore.

I hope you know you're speaking capitalistic blasphemy?

 

Microsoft coded a nice piece of software? They took a previous version and improved upon it?

Not for XP.

 

Exactly, i've run XP Home, OEM, full version, nothing stripped, on 128MB of RAM, on my ThinkPad T21, circa 2000

That still works fine (Y)

 

Having 4 gbram and core 2 duo 2,4 Ghtz is better then 2 GB ran and core I5.
For general use.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

You're not wrong, but you are making a subjective statement. It's impossible to state what set-up would be best without first knowing your specific application. Still, I'd say i5 is a superior CPU overall, even for general use.

 

+1 Rep for someone who didn't drink the Win 7 Kool-Aid.

 

I would say the core 2 duo will be faster with 4GB of RAM for general use but depending on ur definition of general use , if u mean office work with few tabs and windows open , there should be little or no difference.. the difference comes in games and CPU , RAM intensive work.

 

I would agree, except that I disagree.

Yes, the Core2 would probably be better... At first.
Memory is cheap and easily added later, processors and chipsets are not.

I would recommend anyone in this position to go for the I5, which woudl run just fin on 2gigs of ram. Then as soon as they could, upgrade the memory, at which point it would be a much better system.

 

Plus I think 2 GB would be fine for most people. I have 3 GB and I only use a little over a gig right now, with Chrome open.

 

Sorry, but I think you both are wrong. In fact VERY wrong.
Kool-Aid or not (I like Win7 personally), Windows XP in computer terms is ANCIENT. It is easily over run by poor drivers and such. I cannot tell you how many customers I have are now limping along with 1gig or more memory.

Things have moved on.
Sure you can build a new system with 2 gigs and make XP run great again, but why? I could even reload their computers to run okay with only 1gig, I admit they are tired. It's not cost effective to back up and reload an old system with XP, for them. Even if you built is or added more ram, even 4 gigs, it's still an old system. MOVE ON.


Look..
Put Win7 on a system with 1gig of memory and compare it to a system with 1gig of memory with XP. At first XP may have a slight edge, by the time you load SP3 and all patches XP has easily balanced out. Throw in a few bits of protection and Win7 starts becoming the better system. It handles low memory multi-tasking better.

Now, regardless of all of that...
XP is patch on top of patch. It's full of old holes MS has no intention of fixing, it's old technology. Why run it?

Sorry, XP's days are over.
You may not like Win7, but seriously, it's time to pull the plug on XP fanboyism. MS has ended support. I won't even load it onto customers systems anymore.




OH, and Forever_Melody, YES, single tasks ARE becoming more intensive. Take a look at the size of Firefox and most anti-viruses compared to what they were a few years ago. If you never update, sure things haven't changed, unfortunately, YES, they have.

 

I cannot disagree more. Even with 3gigs of ram an XP system will blow the doors off of a Win 7 system when it comes to performance. While I haven't used XP on an iCore system yet and I can't comment on how well it does on them, I have NEVER seen a Win 7 system that performs as well as an XP system on the same PRE iCore hardware with a minimum of 2gigs of ram. It just will NOT happen as long as the XP drivers are available.

 

From what I've seen in benchmarks and real life, XP and 7 are very very close in terms of performance.
XP in no way "blows the doors off of a Win 7 system". In fact, 7 beats XP in many instances.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2355703,00.asp

Which means using an ancient OS like XP is almost worthless.

 

Sorry, not going to happen.
As mentioned by Angelic, every test has shown little differences.

More importantly, in the real world it changes more. XP, can do a bit better in a fresh system, but after you start loading up drivers and just normal use, XP quickly slows down these days while 7 just keeps going.

XP has become very delicate.



Oh, and don't expect newer systems to support XP much longer.
I7 may very well be the last round for it. Many things have already dropped Win2k support, XP is not far behind. Scream all you want, it IS coming. While I would like to day you have 2 years left, I wouldn't count on it.

 

You can continue to think what you want and believe who you choose to believe. I know what I know and no half baked magazine's benchmarks mean squat to me. The only thing I have ever experienced Win 7 beating XP in is games that require DX10, and that's only because XP doesn't have DX10.

As far as XP being ancient, that doesn't mean that it is any less competent, reliable, or usable. It's been well tested over the past several years and has had a chance to have it's problems worked out. Win 7 is still just a bunch of gimmicks that bring nothing to the table of any actual benefit to overall performance. That's my opinion and the opinion of a large percentage of users who recognize quality when they see it. You have your idea of what a good OS is. I have my opinion and nothing you or anyone else can say will change my opinion until I experience it personally. That hasn't happened yet and I'm not sure it ever will, but I keep giving Win 7 a try to see if it ever does improve enough to make it worthwhile to change to it full time. For now though, Win 7 is a downgrade from XP.

As far as the fresh install vs the system with some time under it's belt again, XP has always held up better than Win 7 on every system I have ever compared them on. The degradation of Win 7 is just as bad, if not worse than XP.

But this is getting off of the track of the thread so we should just agree to disagree about this as neither of us will ever change the others opinions on this.

 

I understand where you're coming from PapaSmurf. I don't think XP is bad, just outdated. For many uses, XP will still be fine. Until 2014 at least. I wouldn't use it after the support runs out, but that's almost 4 years away.

By the way, we were basing this off of personal experience, like you, but also with hard facts. I've had Windows 7 installed since September and no bloat noticeable, which I know would have occured on my older XP installation. So you can have your opinion, but know that we can google many studies that prove your statement false, "half baked magazine article" or not.