There's a bias in this forum

“Is there any particular reason you want/need a 3.06Ghz CPU (T9900, I assume)?”

“The question was do you think you need such a high end CPU? Saying you run Mathematica or linking to their page tells me nothing.”

There is a bias in this forum toward mid-range processors. The decision is correct for some and erroneous for others. I'm wondering what decision makers THINK they optimize for? Decisions made on price often cost more in the long run than does an apparently oversized machine now.

When I was buying a laptop I bought the most maxed out t61p possible. It's two processors are still 'larger'.than most I see here. I haven't had any urges to buy any other machine. The machine always wins benchmarks. A price driven decision will always achieve price diven results.
Renee

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but my processing needs (research and writing, web searches, occasional movies) are fairly minimal. P8600 was the minimum processor offered when I configured my T500, and I didn't feel the extra funds for a faster processor would provide any real (my) world extra speed.

Bill

 

"Decisions made on price often cost more in the long run than does an apparently oversized machine now" is where your analysis is flawed.

The price delta between a P8600 2.4 and a T9900 3.06 is $445. That is a pretty significant chunk out of a base $750 T400 system. Take into account how quickly systems are turned over (2-3 years) and its simple value mathematics. You are going to get much better value spending that extra $450 three years from now and getting another midrange processor than spending it now on minimum performance boost. So if there is a bias in this forum, its one about saving helping to save people money in the long run.

 

That's not really a bias.

Most people recommend based on value. This doesn't mean they recommend the cheapest parts, but the parts that tend to be "worth it" or are the best "bang for the buck". Most users don't find value in spending a premium for a component that is marginally better, thus they don't recommend the top level choice.

 

Renee, you are right that the decision is correct for some and erroneous for others. That is why we always ask for clarifications (such as the two paragraphs you quoted).

If a person comes here for configuration recommendations and states that she (1) needs a laptop to win benchmarks, or (2) has tons of money burning a hole in her pocket, then we would have no problem recommending her to configure the fastest processor option available.

 

No bias .... It's why we ask for the FAQ.... We need to know what you will be doing so we can reccomend what you need

 

Exactly. I asked my question (Quote 1) to see if there really was something that the OP had in mind when he said he wanted the 3.06GHz T9900 CPU.

For the vast majority of users, the answer that comes out is "because I want it to be fast." Then the problem becomes that most people falsely believe that computer speed hinges only on two things, CPU and RAM - however, in daily usage, past a certain point neither helps boost the speed tremendously.

But, in this case, the OP said he would be using Mathematica - I do not know whether that program is CPU-bottlenecked, but if it is, the T9900 could be worth it. Assuming that the OP is an expert on the program that he uses for his college major, I did not try to suggest otherwise once he did make his purpose clear.

@Renee: I disagree with you here as well, for much the same reason. Although some people do need the most powerful machine that they can get, most do not. It would therefore be a smarter buy to get middle-top range processor - the P8700 definitely is, in the large scheme of things - and use the money you saved to upgrade to a middle-top range processor in a new Thinkpad a few years down.

I'm not very well-versed with Intel's roadmap, but I do believe that with their plans, 32-nm quad-cores will go mainstream by 2011 - the $445 used to upgrade a processor now could probably be used for much more consequence in a few years.

Of course, that returns to the statement of whether one really needs a high-clocked T9900 CPU now. If so - as the OP in the thread you are referring to seemingly does - then there would not be anything wrong with upgrading to that high-end processor now, because he actually will use it to its full potential. If not, then the extra power and money associated with the T9900 would be wasted.

 

though i agree going the slower cpu + ssd route, mathematica, like any other maths program, will always be cpu bound

 

if you have to ask about something, you probably don't need it.   those who need something already know it and don't have to ask.

 

I would echo what others have said, people often assume a faster chip will make their system faster. For a select few that do very CPU intensive tasks that's true, but for the majority of people doing typical notebook tasks like Office, Media and Internet, upgrading to a faster CPU has little to no marginal value. Foxfire isn't going to open any faster on a T9900 than a Pentium M. In those cases a faster hard drive or SSD is much more likely to make the system seem faster than the CPU.

 

Yes, there certainly is a bias. I think most of us want the best performance for the dollar over the long run.

For some (gamers, etc.) that means the fastest CPU and GPU. For others, not so much.

I'd rather buy an SSD than a $445 processor upgrade. For my use it gains the best return.

 

Firefox?

 

That wasn't what I expected...

I was expecting a bias towards defending thinkpads...

 

If you are just going to be doing light tasks like word processing, internet browsing, basic media like music, movies, pictures and light gaming, then a mid-range processor will give you the most value for your money.

Most modern CPU's (aside from the budget lines) are sufficiently powerful for most moderate tasks. Obviously paying $100 or more for a slight bump in clockspeed or cache is a dumb idea if you are not going to notice the difference in the most common tasks you do.

 

Considering the vast majority of user's needs are not CPU bound, it is a perfectly valid to assume a newcomer's needs will likely not be CPU bound either.

 

Well, some people have said they have minimal processor needs and that show how far both people and processors have come. But that doesn't mean that there is no bias. I must state that a.) I'm not rich but b.) I would never buy a computer system based on money. "Value" and performance are about as opposite as they come.
Renee

 

While ,technically, it is a bias, it comes from being in a community where statistically the number of users with CPU bounded needs are little.

So you are right, there is a bias. People are responding to the inference that action should be taken to correct this.

 

I agree that value likely decreases as you get to the high-end of performance, however because of the diminishing returns and the reality of most user needs, why would we say go for the top-of-the-line processor.

Most end users think they need to upgrade their system because their OS gets bogged down. If we give advice on buying we can surely help with keeping a system clean or doing clean installs (as we do).

 

Well don't we usually do that, jaredy?

"I would echo what others have said, people often assume a faster chip will make their system faster. For a select few that do very CPU intensive tasks that's true, but for the majority of people doing typical notebook tasks like Office, Media and Internet, upgrading to a faster CPU has little to no marginal value."

OK, just rember, I am one of the users, this post refers to.

Renee

 

Then what is of issue here? If you know what you want why are you concerned with a "bias" of recommendations. As everyone has stated there is a reason why those recommendations are usually given and why we try to get a specific sense of what the end user will be doing.

 

"Then what is of issue here? If you know what you want why are you concerned with a "bias" of recommendations. As everyone has stated there is a reason why those recommendations are usually given and why we try to get a specific sense of what the end user will be doing."

The issue is simple. I or another person ordering an expensive machine has to do a lot more "explaining" than someone buying a cheaper machine. On the other hand I used to deal with the heads of departments as opposed to users.
Renee

 

Okay, I am sorry. I do not really know what you are referring to at all anymore.

If someone asks for some recommendation or help others can decide to give it how they see fit. The OP can take it or leave it or discuss further. Simple as that.

 

I am not sure why you or another person ordering an expensive machine has to do a lot more "explaining" than someone buying a cheaper machine. You can:

1. Not ask for recommendations here, or
2. Ask for recommendations without any explanation on what you want the machine for (which seems to be what you want).

If other people on this forum, due to the lack of information on what you want the machine for, give you recommendations that you deem inappropriate for your situation, so what? Just ignore our recommendations. If you can tell whether a recommendation is appropriate for your situation, then you do not need our recommendation at all. Feel free to buy whatever you want; there is no need to convince all (or any) of us before you order.

 

Jaredy,
A barragge of questions is not 'nothing'.

"Yes, there certainly is a bias. I think most of us want the best performance for the dollar over the long run."

I care about performance. It's the "on the dolllar" that is what you are paying for, else what separates you from the Acer's?

Renee

 

So your philosophy is: why have steak when you can have caviar for a "little bit more". I think if there is a huge price difference but little performance increase, it is ultimately just for bragging rights, i would never go for the highest end configuration unecessarily, i thought this was common sense but i guess not...Also, many ThinkPads on here easily outperform the T61p, i just bought one off eBay because i knew it could still get the job done for a fraction of the price a new one would cost, i only payed about 600 CAN, for 1920x1200 WUXGA, 2.4GHz T7700, 160GB 7200 HDD, 1GB of turbo mem. Keep in mind that these prices are rare but still.

 

Since this involved my thread I thought I'd weigh in. I thought Lead's reasoning to be of considerable benefit. He didn't just me not to waste my money. He told why I should take a particular course of action. He saved I figure upwards $200 which will allow me to buy a bigger SSD.

 

Renee assuming that we the members here are budget constrained, recommending people a 5% to 10% increase in speed for a 20% to 50% increase in pricing, seems illogical. Obviously, there are people whom would want the latest and greatest, also with the money to burn, then yes max out everything. But most people whom asks about CPU upgrades are obviously are concerned with value-for-money.

They want to know that the money they invest now, is going to be worth it in the long run. Sure you could have got 2 x 4 gig of DDR3 ram for 1500 Euro, when the laptop was only say 1200 Euro... You could say that was for future proofing, but the user never use all of the 8 gig of ram, and the part he got never was fully utilised. Then 2 years down the track, he actually have the software that uses it, but now the ram he got for 1500 Euro is now only 100 Euro. So you basically wasted 1400 Euro for nothing, and if you put that in a bank, it would actually yielded 1600 Euro.

Obviously, you could be like me and get everything, but do you see me asking people's opinion for purchases?? Obviously not, since i have already have a future roadmap in my mind with what i want to do with my cash.

I think for 90% or 95% of people in our forum, we want most bang for our bucks, there are obviously exception, but generally most people don't have lot of money to spend on expensive things that they don't use.

Not all of us here are Nobel prize winning economist with a PhD in Computer science, whom can work out the cost-benefits of everything we buy. We are just regular working people with some hard earned money that we want invest in a product that can last a certain period of time. It is because we don't know everything that is why we want to join a forum, to discuss our train of thoughts and gain other people's opinion.

 

Your example regarding the present value of a ram upgrade is right on point considering how the cost of similar performing components gets drastically cheaper with time.

Actually, I think we are more than capable of figuring out some hard data regarding upgrades and new laptop purchases. And whether it is a good investment. We just do it in the general overall sense though.

 

Similarities between Lenovo users and Acer users:

• We all seek best value for the dollar.

Differences between Lenovo users and Acer users:

• Acer users find that, for them, Acer products offer best value for the dollar.
• Lenovo users find that, for us, Lenovo products offer best value for the dollar.

This is not exactly rocket science.

 

Lead_org,
You always ask the most reasonable questions. Your commentary just stands out. Through all of this, I have come to see that although my criticisms here have been correct, they are self serving too. Keep in mind that there’s nothing wrong with being self serving on the net as long as you are overt about it.

This forum has changed during thenyear I’ve been away convalescing. It has far less technical people like Artki and far more users for whom computing is a secondary interest. This forum used to have a much higher percentage of the former. The two types don’t mix well because interests differ. For instance technical people just have interests in the computer and want to delve deeply into a given architecture, The code they have just written or whatever. Technical people don’t care why someone chose some but whether they chose the item or not.

Whether its realized or not, this forum and all of computing has gone through a personalkty change and as computing shifts so do the people

 

I think most people know that the high end components in electronic industry, attracts a much higher profit margin for the companies than the low to mid range products.

So for the people whom want bragging rights and like paying through their nose for performance products, then by all means please do.

This isn't intend to attack anyone, it is just a post to clarify some misunderstanding.

 

Computer has just become cheaper, and we use so much of it everydays, so people with the little that they know want to share their opinions and thoughts. Obviously, in the older days only certain people would buy laptops, nowadays laptops can be bought with so little money. SO this demographic change is inevitable, also most people have some sort of internet or has access to it, which further pushes the changes on the online community.

Analogous to the consumption of Sushi or McDonalds around the world.

 

People here are welcome to their opinions and perspectives. There is no need to call out people for not being technical enough or being a casual end user (that may or may not represent the general niche market of the product in question).

I personally look at any buying decision with a cost/benefit for my use. I would disagree that those who are interested in the technical aspects of computing disregard that analysis. Most people face constraints as lead_org mentioned earlier. Therefore we all have to make some level of judgment that fits for our use and needs.

I know some very technical people who use 4-5 year old gear because it fits their development needs just fine.

 

"We all seek best value for the dollar'

That's my point also. you havevnever seen me mention cost primarily becuse either a customer has the funds or she/he doesn't. That part is that's in computing I buy levels ,of performance. I do notare about the price.
Renee

 

Yes, you have said that repeatedly (to renee). I said my take and perspective on it. Different perspectives do not necessarily align. It just seems unnecessary to single out a user for not being as technically vested as someone else.

And despite you saying that you do not care about cost primarily, you still do care about cost in the absolute sense. Just on the margin you are less susceptible to price increases vs performance than compared to the mainstream market.

 

All this CPU talk..

its so unnecessary,

the biggest bottleneck of modern systems are the Hard Drives, you'll barely see a 2.5Ghz C2D maxed out, even when playing a graphics intensive game, because, you guessed it, the GPU takes care of that!

I would, if i could always take a SSD, but unfortunately they're still out of my reach $$$

Also, DDR2 vs. DDR3, you won't notice a difference in real-life use, you really don't, as technology has already cought up with our emotion of what we experience as fast. All these spec might only matter in benchmarks, as you wont see a difference if your game is running at 60 or 120 FPS, the human eye only sees around 24fps anyways, imo its utter nonsense.

Of course maxing out your specs will make your system proof for future applications, but those are still 4 years to come, and you'll probably want a new laptop by that time anyways.

just my 2c

 

Jaredy,
I was high up in central engineering in the world's second largest computing corp. Undoutably we had budgets. But I never heard the word.

Renee

 

I think for most office apps, even a 6 year old laptops is suffice, and quad core CPU is an overkill. But as people become smarter with their money, the manufacturers most be on the ball with their products and how they market them.

 

Renee, have you ever heard of bang for buck?

 

We're talking about individual buying decisions. In your corporate experience you were apparently shielded from the risk which most individual here face regarding cost vs benefit (your situation had moral hazard, heh).

 

Even corporates are more inclined to spend their money wisely, in this sort of financial environment, no one is going to overspend on anything without having a reasonable justification.

 

My needs are fairly balanced. My day-to-day stuff consists of remoting into machines (Remote Desktop or VNC), running RSAT (remote server admin tools), running VMWare virtual machines, connecting to VMWare console, etc.

I do occasional video encoding or transcoding, and then there's the normal web/e-mail/word processing stuff. I also play back DivX, Xvid, and H.264 video, often streamed wirelessly.

I wanted low heat and reasonable battery life, and I also wanted hardware virtualization for my virtual machines. For that, the P8600 is pretty darn good. It supports SSE4.1, which can be useful in the encoding process. Its 25W TDP keeps it cool and gives better battery life. Between that and 4GB of RAM, I can juggle pretty much anything I want. It's not that I wouldn't love a P8800 (and the P8700 wasn't available at the time I bought my system) but it didn't justify the extra cost. The T-series might have had more cache on some models, but the lower power consumption and heat were worth more to me.

If you need to run Maya, or heavy floating-point math, or do a ton of H.264 video encoding, sure, a T9x will do you better. Then again, a quad-core desktop would do you better for that too --I look at portability as being one of the key features in a laptop. I also find gaming laptops nearly pointless, not because gaming is pointless, but because they have such a short time before obsolescence, and cost tons of money, often with high heat and low battery life as well. I could build a portable SFF gaming system far more powerful for less, and then bring a nice LCD along with it to LAN parties, if that was my bag.

 

P9xxx has 25 W and 6 mb L2 cache, yummy.......

i5 and i7 mobile is also very good... but not that i will get bored with the P8xxx, T9xxx or P9xxx.

 

Jaredy,

I heard the “shielded” many times because it was actual corporate philosophy. Managers managed business and technical people did technical work.

And yummy to both of you lone_wolf and lead_org.

Renee

 

Does anyone else find this astonishingly condescending?

I love the rosy 'oh woe is me' nostalgic reflection of a past that was filled with people of esteemed technical know how. The idea that if you are truly a technical purist, that cost shouldn't factor in your discussion is laughable. Value is a malleable concept and even technically mind people can appreciate that concept. And value doesn't necessarily simply mean less--it can actually mean more within the same means. But for the sake of entertainment and an ode to better days past, lets make the OP happy and have an invigorating discussion on how the T9900 is architecturally technically superior to the T9800!

 

Saying "that an agument is laughable" is easy enough to say. Making your point ismanother.

Since when is "what you have to say doesn't interest me", condescending?


“Lenovo products offer best value for the dollar.”
I’d be attracted to Lenovo’s for two reasons. They don’t call attention to themselves and they are high performers. “Value” does not appear in my answer. I am not a capitalist.

“So your philosophy is: why have steak when you can have caviar for a "little bit more". I think if there is a huge price difference but little performance increase, it is ultimately just for bragging rights, i would never go for the highest end configuration unecessarily, i thought this was common sense but i guess not...Also, many ThinkPads on here easily outperform the T61p, i just bought one off eBay because i knew it could still get the job done for a fraction of the price a new one would cost, i only payed about 600 CAN, for 1920x1200 WUXGA, 2.4GHz T7700, 160GB 7200 HDD, 1GB of turbo mem. Keep in mind that these prices are rare but still.’

Few lenovo’s outperform the largest t61p.
You have seen no bragging from me and I challenge you to find any.
You’ve misstated my philosophy. My philosophy is simple. Order what you want but be prepared to pay for it. I’m on a social security income but I still believe that you pay for what you get.

 

Thinkpads offer all specs and quality at reasonable costs. 6 years ago, i would be hard pressed to find a new Thinkpad as well priced as it is now. I wouldn't get the top spec in configurable parts, since the profit for these parts are much higher than low and mid range products. Basically you are paying for having the latest and the best.

Just like SUV for many car manufacturers can attract a profit margin of nearly 30 per cent, versus a say 10 odd per cent of a family sedan with middle specs. I mean people will still get the top end SUV or Sedan, but if you are smart with your money you would get something that is in the middle of the range or even a relatively new second hand.

Marketing and consumer perception.......

 

I would acknowledge there's an inclination towards "mid-range" CPUs on this forum, but I think bias is the wrong word. Bias implies prejudice, not based on facts, which I think is clearly not the case here.

People often ask me here and elsewhere what kind of setup they should get. I always say you should get the slowest of the best class of CPU and a faster hard drive as they offer the best value. Most of the things people do with their machines are not very processor intensive. To pay extra to upgrade offers little value. A faster hard drive is much more likely to make your system feel more snappy than the CPU.

I would agree there is a small subset of users who do CPU intensive tasks. For them a better CPU may be warranted.


P.S. - Let's keep this a cordial discussion for everyone involved.

 

Getting the best "bang for your buck" is really subjective in the end. Someone running Mathematica or some other CPU intensive program will probably place a higher value on a better CPU. There for they are getting more for their money than someone who isn't buys the same upgrade. Just like a better graphics card is "worth less" to a moderate gamer and "worth more" to a hardcore gamer.

If anyone is going to say the forums are biased to mid-range CPU's I guess they are not wrong. But it's only because most people don't even explain what the heck they are going to be doing with the computer. If they elucidated on that more often the responses pertaining to their questions would be more exact and rewarding. That's why I like seeing people in the WNSIB forums ask what's most important to them when buying this laptop when trying to give recommendations.

It's important to explain to less knowledgable prospective notebook buyers that faster processor does not necessarily mean faster computer. As ZaZ stated, there are very few users that use programs that stress the CPU.