SillyDog701

by **Don_HH2K** » Thu 19 Oct, 2006 7:24 pm

Antony wrote:If not mistaken, I believe it is slower's than Pu7o's Intel-based iMac and Don's laptop.

Antony wrote:You don't want my iMac I am sure, mine is not that fast (only 2.16 GHz).

Pu7o's is a 1.83GHz Core Duo, and mine's a 2GHz Turion 64 X2. 2.16GHz is faster than both, last time I checked.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)

by **Antony** » Fri 20 Oct, 2006 12:29 am

Don_HH2K wrote:Pu7o's is a 1.83GHz Core Duo, and mine's a 2GHz Turion 64 X2. 2.16GHz is faster than both, last time I checked.

That's only true on clock speed wise. You forgot to consider other factors.

BTW, an update to the Mac I am getting, I just called up the shop and upgrade a few spec... The established time of arrival is still around 2 weeks.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/418.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3

by **Mandrake** » Fri 20 Oct, 2006 4:18 am

Did you get the ram upgraded? It's usually much cheaper just to upgrade the ram yourself than to have the ram upgrade by the OEM. They're all profit mongers! :wink:

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20061019 Minefield/3.0a1

by **Pu7o** » Fri 20 Oct, 2006 4:43 am

Antony wrote:
Don_HH2K wrote:Pu7o's is a 1.83GHz Core Duo, and mine's a 2GHz Turion 64 X2. 2.16GHz is faster than both, last time I checked.
That's only true on clock speed wise. You forgot to consider other factors.

Okay, let's consider them. Mine is a Core Duo, yours is a Core 2 Duo. Result: Yours is faster.
Mine has 512MB of RAM, yours has more. Result: Yours is faster.
Mine is 32-bit, yours is 64-bit. Result: Yours is faster.

Comparing with Don's...

Yours is a Core 2 Duo, Don's is a Turion 64. Benchmarks show that yours is faster.

Although I'll have to admit Don's laptop has one hell of an advantage over your iMac... it's portable!

UserAgent: Opera/9.02 (X11; Linux i686; U; en)

by **Don_HH2K** » Fri 20 Oct, 2006 5:22 am

Antony wrote:
Don_HH2K wrote:Pu7o's is a 1.83GHz Core Duo, and mine's a 2GHz Turion 64 X2. 2.16GHz is faster than both, last time I checked.
That's only true on clock speed wise. You forgot to consider other factors.

I was going by processor speed because yours is benchmarked higher than both mine and Pu7o's at the same speed. And let's face it: if the Core 2 has an advantage over AMD's desktop processors, it must have one hell of an advantage over the mobile processors!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)

by **Antony** » Fri 20 Oct, 2006 5:53 am

Mandrake wrote:Did you get the ram upgraded? It's usually much cheaper just to upgrade the ram yourself than to have the ram upgrade by the OEM. They're all profit mongers!

Well, Apple has cut down the RAM price in recent years.

It's a bit complicated for me to save money on RAM upgrade for iMac, as it only has two banks, and the minimum RAM I can order is 1GB (512MB x 2), if I were to go for 2GB, I will need to sell the two 512MB modules, which won't make much saving.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7

by **Antony** » Fri 20 Oct, 2006 6:05 am

Pu7o wrote:Mine has 512MB of RAM, yours has more. Result: Yours is faster.

More RAM takes longer to boot up, generally speaking.

Pu7o wrote:Mine is 32-bit, yours is 64-bit. Result: Yours is faster.

Is that also true for 32-bit applications?

Pu7o wrote:Yours is a Core 2 Duo, Don's is a Turion 64. Benchmarks show that yours is faster.

I thought AMD performs better.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7

by **DJGM** » Fri 20 Oct, 2006 7:49 am

Antony wrote:More RAM takes longer to boot up, generally speaking.

No, more RAM enables a system to boot up quicker whether it's a PC or a Mac. Generally speaking, it's actually
things like how many processes running at startup that determine how fast or slow a PC or Mac boots up.

An exception would be mixing different RAM on the same mainboard. Example: installing PC100 RAM
on a PC133 mainboard (or vice versa). This can in turn, have an impact on system performance

The only thing in my experience at least, that can cause a high amount of RAM to slow a system down, is if
you've installed more RAM than the system mainboard can support. My original PII system can handle no
more than 512MB RAM. I realised this when I tried to upgrade it to 768MB RAM, and the whole system
became too slow to use. I remove the extra 256MB stick, and everything returned to normal.

The extra RAM stick in question ended up in the beige Power Macintosh G3 I rescued from being scrapped.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060910 SeaMonkey/1.0.5

by **Don_HH2K** » Fri 20 Oct, 2006 10:47 am

Antony wrote:More RAM takes longer to boot up, generally speaking.

That was on Windows 95/98/ME, and it was only if you had a good load of it. Modern operating systems can allocate memory properly instead of in huge chunks. (And even then, 16MB boots Win3.1 faster than 4MB, and 160MB boots 98 faster than 32MB.)

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)

by **Antony** » Sun 22 Oct, 2006 4:11 am

Pu7o wrote:
Antony wrote:You still only have 512MB of RAM on your iMac? And you told me that your iMac was fast, how could 512MB of RAM fast?

You don't want my iMac I am sure, mine is not that fast (only 2.16 GHz).

(...)

512MB of RAM is enough. I'll get more once I can actually afford it.

You found 512 of RAM was enough? I found 1.25GB of RAM on my PowerBook G4 not enough... :-(

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/418.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3

by **Don_HH2K** » Sun 22 Oct, 2006 8:58 am

Antony wrote:You found 512 of RAM was enough? I found 1.25GB of RAM on my PowerBook G4 not enough...

What were you doing that needed that much memory?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)

by **Antony** » Sun 22 Oct, 2006 9:13 am

Don_HH2K wrote:
Antony wrote:You found 512 of RAM was enough? I found 1.25GB of RAM on my PowerBook G4 not enough...

What were you doing that needed that much memory?

The RAM you have, [sdp=75049]1GB DDR2-667[/sdp] is fast, but the RAM I have on my PowerBook, bought in 2004, was slow.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/418.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3

by **Don_HH2K** » Sun 22 Oct, 2006 11:01 am

Fast and more are two different things. Having slower RAM doesn't mean you'd fill it up more by running the exact same tasks.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)

by **Antony** » Mon 23 Oct, 2006 10:06 am

Don_HH2K wrote:Fast and more are two different things. Having slower RAM doesn't mean you'd fill it up more by running the exact same tasks.

When it's slow, people feel that they don't have enough RAM.

BTW, because of the BTO (build-to-order), and the fact I changed my original BTO to another BTO, it will take about 2 weeks, and I will of course let you guys know once I have it.

(Antony likes to configure the spec.)

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7

by **Antony** » Wed 01 Nov, 2006 12:51 am

I got my new iMac today. Thank you for everybody's help.

More detail later

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/418.8 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3

SillyDog701

Antony's new iMac

Who is online