computers getting slower?

It's natural for a computer to get slower as years pass, but why do they get slower? Does it have anything to do with the processor?

I want to purchase a laptop. In theory, a SU7300 is more than enough to meet all my basic needs. The thing is, I plan to use that laptop for 5+ years, and I want it to stay fast. Would it make a difference whether I get a core i3 processor as oppose to a SU7300? Am I right to assume that core i3 is more dependable in the long run?

 

It's not the computer getting slower, it's your hard disk getting slower. Replacing the hard disk should see immediate performance boost.

 

Reinstalling the operating system is more important than replacing the hard drive. Hard drives don't get slower as they age. They might start throwing errors, but the data doesn't really come out slower. The OS essentially gets bogged down by piles of updates and a registry encumbered by years of application installs/removals. I like to reformat or reinstall programs just after major service packs are released to get rid of the extraneous files that build up over the course of 100 or so updates.

 

It could be a variety of things including, but not limited to the aforementioned reasons. However, most common are resistry issues: The more "junk" you put on your computer the more complicated it becomes keeping it all sorted out. Also, not routinely defragmenting is also a way to keep things from moving along quickly. The other, is of course, those dreaded viruses.

 

There are many reasons.. Hard Disk, Data Trash filled in your computer, power supply,mother board capacitors and other electronic circuits are also responsible.. It's really really difficult to keep it up in speed, but it is possible to keep it in shape, by constant check ups, defragmenting the HDD, deleting unwanted data etc..

Thank you.

 

I agree with all of you
To slow down the process, the disk clean up windows utility, jv16 powertools and the private browsing tool in your browser (if you don't use a sandbox or anything else) can do quite a job as well
But the best way is still to back up your data and a clean install of your system

 

As for the hdd, It will likely be a good idea to upgrade it in the future. A fast hdd is more noticeable for basic needs than a i3/modern dual core.

In 5 years(even 1-2 years), there should be a faster hdds available and SSDs will likely have a good GB/$ ratio.

Dependable as in fail or? Failing is something you do not have to worry about with a processor unless it is abused(heat/physical damage).

As for the long run, it depends what you plan to do? For the last couple of years, I have been using a single core Pentium M for college work and light photo editing, since I don't mind waiting(for like rendering) and the battery life is good.

For me(someone who wants the best battery life), I would opt for an SU processor because it has a lower TDP(10W v 35W or something like that).

 

A large part has to do with newer software that is always requiring more and more resources to run. This runs from the OS to the internet and everything in-between. There is nothing you can really do about it. While the system does slow down over time as the data gets fragmented on the drive and more and more useless crap gets piled in there including spyware, that is really only part of the story. I think people just like to focus on that because it is really the only one we can really do anything about and it may make a noticeable difference.

 

They don't. There's nothing natural about it, either. Your hard drive might get filled with more files, newer versions of programs may have more features requiring more CPU power, and you may have been adding programs that run on your computer to your start menu and/or services. But your computer per se does not get slower.

That's a popular fairytale. Leftover registry keys rarely ever have anything to do with a slowdown of your computer.

None of these have anything whatsoever to do with the speed of your computer.

 

Alot of the time laptops dont get cleaned. If your having a laptop any where near as long as 5 years, the laptop will need to be taken apart compleatly down to the mobo and cleaned out. Alot of the time dust starts to melt into all the plastic wires/mobo/buttons and other places that it can sit in. This will slow it down considerably untill thats cleaned up. It gets caked into the machine so to say. If left unchecked it erodes wires and other things on it. You cant just blow it off either, you have to take a cloth to it and wipe it off cause over time the characteristics of the dust change and turn into this mush type substance. I had to do this with my alienware after 3 years or so. It works perfectly fine after I did it, but it was strugling before it.

 

+1. Dust slows down electricity like CRAZY. You should definitely blow out the dust that's melted into your motherboard. [where's the facepalm emoticon?]

 

I need more explanation then

http://www.windowsreference.com/general/registry-tweak-for-windows-kernel-to-improve-performance/

and the memory and the scan of the registry by the antivirus and the other software ?

 

If capacitors go bad, you will not slow down, it will either bluescreen or not run at all, as evidenced by the capacitor conspiracy some years ago. The same applies to power supplies as they age. Neither effects speed, electronics tend to either work, or not, they don't slow down.

Dust however, can slow you down, IF your system is heating up. Modern processors slow down IF they get too hot.

Hard disks do not get noticeably slower, though they can slow down some as they are mechanical, but usually by the time you notice it, the drive should be throwing up errors that you would notice.


What makes it slower has been mentioned, junk, clutter, and newer/larger programs. The latest version of Ad-Aware installer is almost 100 megs, I remember it being around 10. Photoshop 6 installer was around 100 megs (?), CS5 is now approaching 2gigs. The same happened to anti-viruses. In 2-3 years all have more than doubled in size.


A better example though is Windows Xp.
Initially it installed at around 450megs and ran good with 192 megs of ram.
SP1, you needed to step up to about 256megs of ram. Space needed went up a little as well.
SP2, you really needed 256-512megs of ram and the install was around 1gig.
Sp3, you really don't want to go with less than 1gig of ram, and you can expect 1.5gigs of drive space. Add an Hp printer with it's heavy drivers and 1gig is the absolute minimum you want to run with.

 

I assume the most common slowdown in the modern world is due to hard drive thrashing, essentially... you destroy the integrity (continuity is probably a better word) of the file system (NTFS is horrible). It is advisable to reformat some times... it makes some computers seem like new. Also, having lots of programs running slows down your computer... you may not realize it but ever since you got your computer you've been continually adding more programs. Its creeping features all over again!

@leslieann: I ran Windows SP2 with 192MB of RAM and it ran fine... for what I did at the time (admittedly not much). I think Microsoft was quite conservative with the increasing requirements for Windows XP.

 

Yes, it does have to do with the processor: they don't speed up, yet higher and higher demands are made from them from more and more programs (not to mention the OS...).

My standard advice is don't buy a cpu for what you need it for now - buy as much computing power as you can afford (or are willing to currently spend).

leslieann has it right: apps and OS's tend to become bigger, not smaller.

Unless your plan is to buy and use a current system and today's software (with no software/OS upgrades, ever); then expect even the Ferrari's of the current tech world to be Ford Pinto's in 5 years time.

 

It depends on which i core you go with. The i330m is the low end i core and only very sliiiighly better than the SU7300. Both can come with a 'turbo' mode that overclocks the CPU but that's a manu (Sony, Asus, etc) specific thing. Minimum, IMHO an i350m is the least worth spending on and the i370 would be the best bet for a notebook (of the 3 series) and is quite a step up from the 350. The SU7300 will give a bit better battery life and the Core 2 duo can be undervolted to really squeeze the most out of a charge cycle. You can't do that with the i series.

As far as reliability, I'm not familiar with one being more reliable than the other. I've never even heard of the need to replace a CPU due to a fault directly with it, what I've seen have been problematic motherboards, if that. Then again, some i cores are soldered onto the motherboard...

The difference in price between the two processors will be about $150, if that. There could be no difference at all. The Acer Timeline X 3820T and the Asus U35f both (13") come with an i370 and lots of other goodies for ~$650. If you want longevity for processing power needed to comfortably run all the stuff that will come out over the next 5 years, go with an i350 or i370. If you want max possible battery life, maybe a bit less $$ and don't care about a 4 gig Photoshop CS7, the SU7300 will be fine.

 

you're paying the price premium for a new processor most of the time
for instance, the i7 940XM is nearly 300$ cheaper that what it was 2 months ago at ebay stores

But you could be right for this specific case anyway

 

A good rule of thumb, which I go by, is after you do a fresh install, and install all the updates/software you want, do a full backup of your system. That way it's much easier to just reimage your system in the future if your install goes crappy.

 

Unless something is wrong with your frequency generation circuits then no, its usually just the HDD slowing down as it fills or the OS (mainly registry) getting larger or a combination of both.

 

Even a $300 premium is not a lot over the 2 to 4 years most people keep their computer systems.

This assumes of course, that the $300 premium is still within your self imposed budget (and, I always recommend working within your budget - as I have in this case too).

In other words; not only am I right in this case - I'm always right.

 

I was more thinking about buying the cheap cpu supposed to answer the current needs now then go for the most expensive one later on if needed saving on the price premium of new processors because most of the time budgets are quite limited (my example of 300$ saved on an i7 940XM for instance it's the price of a new cpu) but it was assumed that the buyers could change the cpu themself and that changing the cpu's wouldn't void the warranties and that processors were quite new at the time of purchase (depending on the price policy of the manufacturer) And that they could sell their old cpus. And I didn't take into account the possibility of changing the laptop after a while rather than upgrading. As you see lots of conditions
I think we're saying the same thing in a way : work inside your budget

 

I always think it is better to get only what you need for the present and near future and either upgrade or replace the laptop when the need arises. You'll realize that you can hold onto it for a lot longer than you thought you could.

However, I would go for the i3 instead of the SU7300 because the SU7300 is pretty weak even for today. What I would not do is buy an i7 because of some fuzzy notion that it might "last longer" and therefore be a good investment instead of a huge waste of money. A few years from now you could buy a laptop for not much more than the i7's premium over the i3 that would beat the i7 anyway. It is a complete waste of money to pay a premium for technology you are not going to take advantage of for several years when by the time you need it, technology will have progressed to the point where there will be cheaper, better, newer products. Buying more than you need is a big scam that unfortunately a lot of people buy into.

 

ok then
tilleroftheearth, trottel and I we have different ways of seing the same thing
we all agree about one thing
yaganon should stay inside his budget
we assume as well than his needs are lower than his budget
we all assume that his needs will go up with time

now the differences in thinking are :

tilleroftheearth : yaganon should buy a laptop beyond his needs but inside his budget to be able to use his laptop with some confort during the next 2 to 4 years (then change his laptop)
erig007 : yaganon should buy a laptop just within his needs now then upgrade in between then/or change his laptop later on
trottel : yaganon should buy a laptop within his needs now then suffer a little bit during the 2 to 4 years then change his laptop

look like their are 3 alternatives with 3 levels of pleasure/suffering and budgets depending on how much pleasure/suffering you want to get from using your laptop during the next 2 to 4 years and how much you're ready to spend during this period

but there are still other alternatives like not buying anything or buying a laptop below your needs, buying a laptop above your budget or buying something else

 

The other thing for those talking about upgrading is that, in this specific case, the SU7300 is/should be BGA, which means it's soldered to the motherboard, and thus not upgradable at all, except by buying an entirely new notebook.

 

look at what the problem of yaganon is
yaganon is talking about planning to buy a laptop

which mean
an SU7300 based laptop or an i3 based laptop or an SU7300 based laptop upgradable or anything else or nothing
we don't know yet if the laptop he plan to buy has a soldered cpu but if it happened to be the case here then it could narrow down the solution
Good that you mention that as it could be one of the constraints to take into consideration
if it happens to be the case then my then/or will change in or only. We could add to that, that he wants the laptop to stay fast as well which means no trottel alternative etc...
All those things and more are part of the constraints which will narrow down the number of solution but more input is required
Wait and see

 

An SU7300 laptop, practically by definition, unless they've put out a PGA variant I've not heard of, is soldered in. BGA means "Ball Grid Array", which is designed solely for being soldered in. The i3 might or might not be.

 

Then soldered it must be. I'm gonna trust you. That's probably why I wasn't able to find any SU7300 but some i3 cpu's at ebay store

here are the new alternatives then for your specific case with the partial datas gather here taken into account:

- buy a laptop above your needs but inside your budget to be able to use the laptop with some confort during the next 5+years (which means no SU7300)

- buy an upgradable laptop within your needs and within your budget (which means no SU7300)

- buy a laptop above your budget (which means no SU7300) (neither a most expensive SU7300)

- buy something else (which means no SU7300) (a cell phone is an example of something else)

so we have some kind of answer here :

yaganon you shoudn't buy an SU7300 but rather buy something else (upgradable or not) or/and more powerful

 

And the i3's you see are M's as the UM i3's are soldiered just like the SU7300.

 

ok then I will delete it. Thanks Jayayess1190
An i3M is probably above his budget. I don't know if he was talking about an i3 UM or not

 

What is your budget, and what are your needs in a laptop? 5 years is a long, long time in computers. The SU7300 is already older technology. Depending on how you use your computer, there are a lot of choices. If a good gpu is important, then depending on how much you can spend, you may see less CPU or other bells, but if gpu is not so needed, you can get a lot more processing power. Or something in between. Let us know how you use it.

 

erig007, you did not read what I wrote. Or at the very least you did not re-write what I stated very accurately.

I specifically said that the 'recommended' course of action is to buy two and even three computers with the same $$ amount over the next 3 or 4 years (and not stick with one computer for the next 2-4 years as you state).

If a person has a budget of $X for a new computer purchase then the only sensible thing to do is get as much performance, over the greatest amount of time, for the same $X as possible.

The reasons to get as much performance as possible was stated by leslieann. OS's and apps only get bigger and use/demand more and more resources, not less. This is not even taking into consideration how our usage scenarios change over time (we simply want/expect the system to do more than what we originally bought it for).

Nobody that buys a computer 'beyond his needs' (but still within their budget) has ever regretted it. They get to use a creme de la creme system and they get to use it well into the future. And, even use it at the then current 'acceptable' levels of performance too.

This is not wasteful - on the contrary - it is the wisest thing to do.

Especially when you consider how intensive it is to move programs/data/customizations and workflows (deemed by screen resolution, available ports, etc.) from an old system to a new one - test it and finally be able to 'trust' it like you trusted the old one too.

This all assumes (of course) first, that you are not going into debt with your stated 'budget' and also that you need to purchase a new computer in the first place to accomplish the tasks required.

 

I don't know why people are talking about replacing cpu's and buying 2,3 or 4 laptops over the next few years, or why you should buy the cheap processor, because the top of the line will not be top of the line in a couple of years.... the OP stated he (or she) wanted something to last 5 years. Depending on usage, budget and age, instead of talking about a duo, vs i3 vs i7 9xx processor. there are other options. An i5 or i7 can be had for not much more than an i3. If the OP does not want to buy another lappy for 5 years, and doesn't have the need for leading edge tech in that 5 years, then we need to know what the needs are. I have several lappys that are in order, 6 yrs, 4 yrs, 1 and 1/2 yrs and about 5 months old. The first 2 my kids use, and they work very well for school and personal use. The next one in line is great for my wife. The last one, I use for work, need much more performance, and it will probably last me 3-4 years, before I hand it off to one of them. It is the only i7, quad, dual drive with an Ati HD Radion 5870. I need it for vid, photo, editing and dx11 future capability. It was $1200. It will last me at least 3, maybe 5 years. I would rather pay the $1200 for 3-5 years, and then get whatever I need, than buy something for half the price, and need to replace it in 2 years. And other than the drive, ram or wireless, changing out the gpu or cpu in a laptop will not only void the warranty, but is just a PITA(unless you want to pay thru the.. well, you know). And just so you know, selling your 2nd hand gpu or cpu will not bring you huge dollars. And if you screw up.... Brick... I would not think about a duo for even a couple of years. If battery life is important, than an i3 or i5 would be the way to go. If processing power is important, you could go i5 or i7. And the prices are completely dependent on what you need. You can get lappys at $500 with i3-i5's. You can get better i5's for $500-$800, or you can get i7's for maybe $800-$3000, depending on your graphic needs. Many choices, but if you go lowball, the only thing you can guarantee is you will not be happy 5 years down the line. My belief is this: Never settle. Get what you need to stay happy, and you will never regret. If you need a powerful PU truck, but get a Ranger or S10, you will always regret it. Just saying.

 

A mid-range laptop with decent specs and under a budget can last 4 to 5 years.

Using a same laptop for over 4 years is a bit pushing the envelope because needs change over time, and of course, software (not to mention online content) gets more demanding.

Mind you, I think an i5 would be more suited for that kind of a time frame.
An i3 is barely a step up from the previous C2D generation, with an i5 being a 'golden middle' for the most part (although, it depends on what your uses would be).

If I was in your shoes, I'd probably wait for Sandy Bridge to arrive in January and see what will happen in terms of price drops and everything else (we're already close enough to the release date anyway, so waiting a bit more will not kill you - barring an unfortunate real life accident of course, but that's besides the point).

 

as I wrote we all agree with the fact that needs usually go up with time

so I must understand:

buy a laptop now above your needs but within your budget then one or two other laptops during the next five years still within the budget (same budget or several budget during the next 5 years?) (5 years in the yaganon case)

yaganon states that he wants to keep the same laptop for the next 5+ years
It's not the recommended course of action that you're talking about but it is what he wants so we must deal with it

I just think it doesn't work for someone with a big budget who doesn't need to buy a cray computer to play tetris but it's an extrem case. It works probably better for most of people

I think that getting the max performance for the same amount of $ doesn't end up being the best possible solution at the end because of 2 things:

because of the fact that needs usually increase with time, the needs at the beginning are not as high as after a specific period of time which means that you have paid for a strong system that you don't really need at the beginning of this period but rather later on
It's like spending some money in something than you will use in a year or 2. (In finance it's losing money)

the second thing is that you don't get the best performance/price ratio if you buy your system built with the latest components due to the price premium for the new systems. It means that you pay way more for something a little bit better in terms of performance
I already gave the example of the i7 940XM

Sticking with what you need could be a more efficient solution at the end.
It all depends on what your needs and your budget are (being the fastest is a need too as much as publishing only word, excel, powerpoint reports and surfing on internet for the next 5 years)

 

Tell that to the guys that wrote the articles. The back of most magazines print similar questions and answers too.

 

erig007,

To try to be totally clear:

If you have a $3000 budget right now and your needs are mainstream, the best course of action is to spend the $3000 over three computers over the next 3-5 years.

Vs. spending $3000 now and hoping it lasts 5 years (it won't).

This 'automatically' discards being tempted by the cutting edge tech that will drop to 1/2 price in a few weeks and it will still keep you into 'current' tech over the course of the time frame (5 years) that you set your budget for.

yaganon may think he wants a single new computer to last five years. What he doesn't have though is the experience to know that it is the worst route possible to 'force' that to happen.

Sure, I still use systems that are 8+ years old - but I'm not forced to do current, nor timely work on them as yaganon might well be if he spent all his money now and then depended on this single system for the next 2 1/2 times doubling of performance of systems that would cost less than 1/4 of what he'll spend today.


Finally, you seem to think that a budget is an arbitrarily set amount?

A budget is not an amount that is simply picked by looking at your bank/pocket account(s). It involves doing a little research. It demands that you keep your mind open to the new ideas you will learn via that research. And, it demands a willfulness to stick to it. Only then will my 'scenario' work.

With the new ideas, the budget will evolve (up or down), the expectations will evolve (no single system is best) and the outcome should be what is optimal given the imposed conditions (highest level of computing performance over the longest period of time).

I know, this is business level thinking... but that is the only way to use money effectively.


(...Somebody that buys a Cray Supercomputer to play games just because he can does not fit into my scenarios that I've been describing).


Finally, I can understand your concern for trying to give yaganon the direct answer to his question (being he wants a single 'best' computer over the next 5 years with a $3000 budget to work with).


But, I cannot give a 'right' answer to a wrong question.



And I wish you would stop trying to do that too.

 

Waiting 3 months to buy a computer to me, is silly.

The technology shift isn't going to be massive, first new systems are not usually as good as a more developed system, and most importantly, there is always something else you could have gotten better had you waited another 3 months. When do you stop waiting.

Buy the best you can get, when you need it. Can anyone here honestly say with a straight face that in 2-3 years time that an I7 is going to be a completely worthless system for general computing and light gaming? Processors are more spread out across the performance spectrum than ever before with everything from ultra low voltage to Atom to I-7s.

Buy a decent I-5 or I-7 with a good video card, from a good company for about $1500-$2000. If necessary, in 2 years or so, sell, and repeat. I think spending 3k on a laptop that will last 3 years is insane, but by the same note, spending too little will only get you junk that will not last.

Sure you can buy a good $1000 laptop, the problem is, how is it to use, how are the features. How will it hold up? Is it a system you enjoy using or will it be something you dread. From all the laptops I have owned and worked on (which is considerable), don't go cheap (and as a general rule in computers, never go bleeding edge either). If you don't like your system you won't use it and you won't take care of it. I would rather use a freshened but slightly older 2 year old high end system than a brand new pile of garbage even if it's a bit slower.

 

No wonder NBR's mods are a little sensitive, they have to babysit all of you. Run along, children.

 

Sometimes it seems that way.

I had to clear out about two pages' worth of posts, please stay on-topic. If you have personal problems with another member, just alert a moderator/report the posts and we will handle it. No need to get your hands dirty . . .

 

me neither and we agree on it as we need more input from yaganon to be able to answer correctly to the question

What would be the right question then?

what laptop (s) should yaganon buy to be able to answer his basic needs for the next 5 years without going over his budget?

Needs which are from another post : surfing on internet, playing a few games like FIFA, having a long lasting enough battery (at least 5 hours), a reliable hard drive and keyboard, a not overheating cpu and a laptop able to open applications faster than what an i3 370M does for a budget lower than an i3 370M based laptop sold at best buy (about 667$)
http://forum.notebookreview.com/lenovo-ibm/518078-possible-get-full-refund-basis-faulty-laptop.html

Is it correct?
From here we can go somewhere now
Suggestions anyone?

Anyway, it seems that he already bought his laptop

 

Again thank you...at least 2 people understand. he got an amazing system for 1200 that will out perform and last any crappy i5 system. Also the other person realizes that its smarter to just wait a few months for the SB because how it will affect the market. The so called "premium" on a mid range cpu aka i5 or i7 dual core or the i7 740QM is not very much compared to the performance gains. Also its alot more expensive and less effective replace cpus and gpus in laptop than desktops.


http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-740QM-Notebook-Processor.31146.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-620M-Notebook-Processor.23043.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i5-540M-Notebook-Processor.23748.0.html


you can see the difference in price. The price difference from an i5 to the i7 quad core is a lot but its quad core and dual cores are now even more obsolete than 6 years ago. Also these prices will drop and come meaningless in 4 months. The SB will make all of this useless.

EDIT: anyways the guy pmed me and he already has an i3 laptop.

 

Can't you just close the thread? It already was far off topic as of the second page and the OP isn't bothering to check back in.

 

It' s not far off topic as there are 2 topics brought by yaganon
but as I have found out from another post yaganon already found his new laptop
This topic is probably now irrelevant and we should probably focus on the computer slowing down topic or simply close the thread

I'm not sure if a laptop well taken care of will really slow down as years pass. I think there are so many components inside
that a laptop well taken care of will probably stop working before the slow down could even be noticed as it is the characteristic of failure of electronic components.
I think that a laptop well taken care of could eventually getting slow due to the presence of more windows security update or some more demanding software for instance
On the contrary the better optimized drivers and software or the upgrades made to the laptop could make it run faster
I'm not sure if an hdd well taken care of slow down with time neither. I think it just stop working as that's what it happened to me
on the contrary an ssd getting full slow down or old lost its capacity to be written on with time

 

Is there a rule that says he has to? In addition, his "topic" is a very broad one in that there are a dozen individual segments that could have to do with or answer his question.

Nevertheless, from one perspective his question could have been answered in a single post: in that ALL machines slow down as they get older.

 

They don't get slower but programs become more demanding. Browsing the internet for example definitely has become more system intensive during the last decade. My perfectly clean and quick P4 2.4ghz 1GB ram XP desktop often struggles with the internet even though boot up and shutdown etc is quick due to good maintenance while my lappy in my sig will blast its way through anything.

 

You right king of interns but I think that computer speed increase faster than what demanding programs are asking
I have a better experience using my computer now than what was a few years back. Windows 7 help probably when compare to vista maybe not when compare to xp
My pentium 4 was quite slow compare to the one I have right now in order to open an internet page
i never experienced a 25s boot (with an ssd) before
so upgrading the laptop or buying a new one could probably limit the impact of more demanding software. I think in this case it depends on the time you intend to keep the same laptop before buying a new one or upgrading anything on it

 

As long as there is constructive conversation going on, I don't see a reason to close the thread. This is a rather legitimate topic that a lot of people would be interested in so I am leaving it open.

 

I also think that perception plays a part in the slowing of a computer. As several people have stated previously, if you maintain your computer, it really doesn't have to slow down, mine all run at (to me) the same speed, minus performance decrease due to programs I run in the background, but after a while, using someone elses newer, faster computer, yours starts to seem slower. It might not actually be, but if you spend some time on the newer i5 or i7's with a 7200 or ssd that blaze, then go home to use your 3 year old duo with a 5400, you will feel like it is 1993 again with a 14.4 modem.

 

I understand what you mean Abidderman as I felt that my old laptop was still slow for everyday use (internet surfing, office or explorer browsing or basic programs use..) before I change for a new one

And because it is a matter of perception as you said it allows some slow down before it could be noticed by the user and even if it is noticed by the user there is still more or less room before the slow down could impact negatively the experience of the user