Database Develop

Kaiser Performance Disparity??

It's been bugging me, how the Kaiser has a 400 MHz processor and 128 MB of RAM, yet still isn't quite that snappy. As a point of comparison, I have a Thinkpad 770Z, which has a 233 MHz Pentium II processor and 128 MB of RAM. This is capable of running Windows XP SP2 without excessive lag. The Kaiser runs a stripped down version of Windows, yet isn't quite up to par with an inferior machine, based on specs. Is this due to processor instruction sets or source code efficiency? Why is there such a disparity in performance?

PointZero said:
It's been bugging me, how the Kaiser has a 400 MHz processor and 128 MB of RAM, yet still isn't quite that snappy. As a point of comparison, I have a Thinkpad 770Z, which has a 233 MHz Pentium II processor and 128 MB of RAM. This is capable of running Windows XP SP2 without excessive lag. The Kaiser runs a stripped down version of Windows, yet isn't quite up to par with an inferior machine, based on specs. Is this due to processor instruction sets or source code efficiency? Why is there such a disparity in performance?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe u should ask HTC.

The two systems are completely different - perhaps it's a bit like expecting a mouse to outrun a rabbit as it has a 500bpm heart rate compared to 130bpm.
Also, are you sure you can run XP well on a 233Mhz P11 with 128mb ram? I have excessive slowness on a 2Ghz Athlon XP with 1gb of Ram (depending on what I'm doing of course)!

PointZero said:
I have a Thinkpad 770Z, which has a 233 MHz Pentium II processor and 128 MB of RAM. This is capable of running Windows XP SP2 without excessive lag.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I call BS on that one... the smallest hardware I've tried XP on was a PII 400MHz with 256MB, and it was horribly slow and unusable. Next to that the Kaiser is heaven. I can run 10 programs simultaneously without problem and actually would have no reason to complain about it as a mobile device.
As DavidMc0 said, the architectures have nothing in common. Why does a 2GHz core 2 duo beat a 3.5GHz P4 hands down? There's not the same inside. Frequency can only consistently be compared in the same processor type.

I have been repairing and building various computers for about 10 years and i'll tell you that running windows xp with a 233mhz is nonsense. I actually installed windows xp on a customer of mine with a pentium 1 233mhz processor with 128mb of ram. That thing was insanely slow, everyway you look at it. The slowest processor you could run windows xp has to be at least a pentium 3 at above 500mhz. And yes, i even did benchmark, a 2ghz core 2 duo will beat my old 3ghz pentium D all day long.

Yes..that is not a fair comparision...compare apples with apples..by the way this test has already been done....( i.e Kaiser versus other smartphones) in the market...and Kaiser passed the test ( number 1) in all tests.
It could jusst be your phone...i have no problem with my Kaiser..
Cheers.

tytn64 said:
Yes..that is not a fair comparision...compare apples with apples..by the way this test has already been done....( i.e Kaiser versus other smartphones) in the market...and Kaiser passed the test ( number 1) in all tests.
It could jusst be your phone...i have no problem with my Kaiser..
Cheers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The test results you write about sound interesting with kaiser coming first in all tests - can you post a link to them?

PointZero said:
It's been bugging me, how the Kaiser has a 400 MHz processor and 128 MB of RAM, yet still isn't quite that snappy. As a point of comparison, I have a Thinkpad 770Z, which has a 233 MHz Pentium II processor and 128 MB of RAM. This is capable of running Windows XP SP2 without excessive lag. The Kaiser runs a stripped down version of Windows, yet isn't quite up to par with an inferior machine, based on specs. Is this due to processor instruction sets or source code efficiency? Why is there such a disparity in performance?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is probably the greatest ideia i've ever seen (not!)
So.. you got you PentiumII. I'll not dwell into cache diferences... busses... etc... i'll just point this:
Given that the Pentium 1 needed a heatsink and a fan (normaly)... do you think you would be able to just HOLD your kaiser if it was running a intel cpu like that?
Think before you post...

He would, because the battery would already be empty before it had a chance to heat up that much
Not to forget the slot-mounted PII is bigger than a Kaiser on its own, and still needs a chipset, graphics controller, sound chip to actually serve a purpose

Fps in games

hi
Ive been trying to play a range of oldish (cod2) to newish (cod4,5) and the fps in them are crap! Im wondering if thats due to the onboard Nvidia GeForce 7025 graphics, or the 2gb of ram for win7 + games.
thanks
btw my pc spec is my signature!

Because of the onboard gpu (atleast in new games)
and if I read correctly then your ram is 267mhz? - thats a bit to slow for todays games!!
If youre planing to upgrade then I suggest you get a decent Graphic Card (nvidia 9somethin ot maybe 200 series card -- If your psu supports it!! ) and if youre at low fps then then upgrade to a faster ram, 2gb is enough!!
I got a Intel Core 2 Duo 6600 OC'd from 2.4 to 3.5ghz ; 4gb of Kingston 800mhz ram and a Nvidia GF8800GTS 640mb gpu on a Asus Striker II Formula (got it for the guaranty cuz my Asus Striker burned)-- and mostly I can play all new games on MAX spec except, of course CRYSIS

Thats weird, they play fine on my Fuze... Maybe change ROMS?
HAHAHAHA

update
the ram is pc6400 at 1607mhz

btw my computer is 50 days old today! Everything is brand new as of the 26 july 2009

then its 100% onboard gpu fault!!!
get nvidia card with hybrid power so you can use your onboard gpu and your GPU when needed!!!
write your PSU specs and Ill write some gpu's which will work with hybrid power and your psu will support the wattage!!

the psu is a colours it! 550w. And i was thinking of getting an XFX GeForce 9600GT XXX AlphaDog Edition which it £80-£90. What du think?

what are the fps ?
because if vsync is on you will only get as many fps as hz your screen refresh with
with is anyway the max fps people can ever get visually
but there are alot! of myths about this stuff
but buttom line is your screen refresh with a sudden hz and that mean thats
the number of times a second it draws the screen so
even if turning vsync off mean it will report much more fps it don't mean that your screen is displaying those fps

i dont know how to check fps in cod4 du no?
And whats vsync?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_synchronization
basically that the backbuffer is not blittered to the frontbuffer before
the frontbuffer is don't being drawn on the screen
about cod4 sorry never played any of those games

My fps in cod4 is 3!
How do i get that up?

flyboyovyick2k9 said:
My fps in cod4 is 3!
How do i get that up?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Get a new GPU!!!!
and the 9600GT will do !!! it will work on the 550 W psu!!!
I have a 8800GTS 640 (eats more electricity and its on a 480W )
have you tried to set everything on min specs in video options(ingame) ?

yes i have set everything minimum. But still no luck!
I have decided to get a zotac GF 9800GT
Will that work

I will have to wait until i get some money cause im only 13! Might get it for crimbo!

flyboyovyick2k9 said:
I will have to wait until i get some money cause im only 13! Might get it for crimbo!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
save up some!!! Im 15 years old (almost 16) I have Touch HD (100% mine , bought for my money) - worked for it !!

sounds almost like you're using a generic vga driver rather then the real driver for the video card even if it's an onboard gpu

Yeah but i have installed the correct nvidia vga drivers. It might be a good idea to reinstall.
thx

hi again
i reinstalled the drivers to the latest version and set all the settings on cod to low.
BTW what is SLi and can i use it on an N68-S ASRock board
thx

Please don't get the 9800, although it is a powerfull card, if you get Sapphire HD 4850 512MB GDDR3 HDMI DVI VGA PCI-E Graphics Card £83.40 its will destroy the 9800 in any game, as for SLI i really wouldnt bother unless your monitor is 1920x1080 and your not getting a high (50+ constant) FPS. Also the 4850 will have no issues with your motherboard or Power supply.

yep i have the 4850 and it beats the crap out of all others in that price range,,,although it's not sapphire....but powercolor works fine too

[Q] Nvidia Optimus or Not?

I was thinking of getting a lappy with
310m with i3, with Nvidia Optimus
or
310m with i5, without Nvidia Optimus?
Both are about the same price.
What do you guys think?

Save up for Sandy Bridge. It seems to bring about double the FPS rate in games, without the burden of a discrete card.
But, to answer your question, Optimus will only save battery. If you are looking to save battery, go for the Optimus.
If you are going to have some level of gaming on you laptop, go for the i5. There will be about 5-10 fps increase at least for games.
For reference, I can play COD4 and Dragon Age:Origins on a 210m at 1280*720 resolutions with all eye-candy tuned down.
One last note, if you wanna game, go for a desktop.
p/s: A lot of guesswork here, but I am assuming that you are getting a discrete mobility graphics for gaming amirite?

Well, obviously i5 (that's if I guessed right, and you talking about processors and graphics cards) is gonna be better. Faster at stock etc. Easier to overclock. Will need a higher source of power. About 800hz so the pc will last, as in for future upgrades..
And I don't know much about the card, but put up some details, eg mb/gb etc
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App

!PANDA said:
Well, obviously i5 (that's if I guessed right, and you talking about processors and graphics cards) is gonna be better. Faster at stock etc. Easier to overclock. Will need a higher source of power. About 800hz so the pc will last, as in for future upgrades..
And I don't know much about the card, but put up some details, eg mb/gb etc
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Erm... I believe that the 310m is a mobility card (read, stuck in laptops), otherwise I would have recommended that he beg his grandmother for cash to buy an AMD Radeon HD6950 NOW.

310m ... i wouldnt even call it a video card , get one with 335m ... theyre also available in $600 budget asus laptops
if u wanna play games , that laptop is gonna die on u , optimus or not
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-310M.22439.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-335M.24060.0.html
read both

Don't be nasty... some people really have the budget for only so much... and if you're talking about REAL GPUs...

The max I want to spend is around 600. Heavy gaming is not my forte but Ill be playing some MMORPGS.
Besides the 310m, how much difference is there between the i3 and i5?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App

The Core i3-3xxM processors are based on Arrandale, the mobile version of the Clarkdale desktop processor. They are similar to the Core i5-4xx series but running at lower clock speeds and without Turbo Boost.[21]
no turbo boost .. and lower freq ... that means better battery ... the optimus one is looking better for a laptop configuration
but if ur not an nvidia fanatic and just need the best bang for the buck id go with this

Thank you for the input everyone! It made me think a little more!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App

fezlopez said:
The max I want to spend is around 600. Heavy gaming is not my forte but Ill be playing some MMORPGS.
Besides the 310m, how much difference is there between the i3 and i5?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Spot on. MMOs like WoW? The 310m will handle it just fine. The difference between i3 and i5 could be almost 10fps at laptop settings, because the GPU is underpowered.
souljaboy said:
The Core i3-3xxM processors are based on Arrandale, the mobile version of the Clarkdale desktop processor. They are similar to the Core i5-4xx series but running at lower clock speeds and without Turbo Boost.[21]
no turbo boost .. and lower freq ... that means better battery ... the optimus one is looking better for a laptop configuration
but if ur not an nvidia fanatic and just need the best bang for the buck id go with this
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, the i3 and i5 are on the same architecture, so... turbo boost and higher frequency just means that the processor is more capable if and when it is needed. Gaming is going to suck the hell out of your battery no matter what you do, unless you intentionally cripple your CPU and GPU.
Your suggestion seems a little overpowering, but the specs are good for the price. Nice find

Pop quiz! AMD or Intel?

So I'm working on my new computer, and I need help! I'm looking into bulldozer, but it keeps getting delayed. I feel like we may be seeing i9 before Bulldozer.
I'm looking for good performance, for a little bit less.
Opinions? No flaming!

Chandelure said:
So I'm working on my new computer, and I need help! I'm looking into bulldozer, but it keeps getting delayed. I feel like we may be seeing i9 before Bulldozer.
I'm looking for good performance, for a little bit less.
Opinions? No flaming!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Intel Core i5 would be nice.....because I've not been following up on AMD lately.....
Forever living in my Galaxy Ace using XDA App

AMD fanboy since day one. Seriously, just buy whatever you can afford.

It depends. What do you plan on using this rig for?
Sent from my I897 using XDA App

Currently i7 rules but bulldozer and ivy-bridge may change that
Also it'll depend on ur budget and what you plan using the rig for

bradleyG said:
It depends. What do you plan on using this rig for?
Sent from my I897 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Development.
And i7 is far to many $$$
Sent from my LG-VM670 using XDA App

Well if i7 is out of your budget an AMD Phenom II x6 is real cheap right now with bulldozer around the corner (This is what I currently have).
I honestly would wait for bulldozer so you aren't feeling buyers remorse once it comes out. I highly doubt you will be able to afford ivy bridge if you can't afford i7. Intel is soo pricey.

if ur budget is less than 500$ than amd if more than that move to intel..

Chandelure said:
Development.
And i7 is far to many $$$
Sent from my LG-VM670 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I recommend those fast i5s .
Forever living in my Galaxy Ace using XDA App

2600K at 300$

I have the quad core i5 750 Oc'ed to 4Ghz with no problems and only a cheap upgrade to stock cooling.
It FLIES!
Half the cost of an i7 too
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk

How did u oc it?
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium

How did u oc it?
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium

jsplace said:
I have the quad core i5 750 Oc'ed to 4Ghz with no problems and only a cheap upgrade to stock cooling.
It FLIES!
Half the cost of an i7 too
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have a first generation core I5 processor coupled to am Asus motherboard !! Overclocked from stock 2.8 ghz to 3.5 ghz with just the right air cooling products and a good processor fan and heat sink combo !
Tapashocked via my gt-I9003 with a random keyboard of my choice !

Amd. Will not buy intel.
-My life is a shooting range, people never change-

had you asked this question 2-3 years ago I would have said Amd hands down. On-die memory controller used to make all the difference. Now that Intel has on-die memory controllers with their core i3/5/7 line, Amd is definitely lagging behind in performance. I'd still recomend a black edition phenom II x4 or x6 for someone who loves to tweak and game out, but if you've got the cash, Intel sure seems to be the ring leader lately.
I had a 9550 BE phenom I, in a nice desktop system, ran it at 3ghz stable, was a fast box. Was given an hp dv6-3050ca which has an i5 in it, with the fancy on die memory controller and video acceleration. Wow was I EVER impressed at the progress intel has made, I even managed to run fallout new vegas at 15-20fps on low settings on this thing. We're talking intel graphics here, integrated. They've made leaps and bounds in the past few years. I currently have a Core i7 720qm sitting in a asus g73jh; I'd say it has a bit of a low clock speed with all 4 cores engaged, but with 8 threads, what's the difference. Takes a Phenom II x6 to match the same level of performance. Though either can be had new for about the same price.
Intel i7's are pricey as all hell, and unless you've got cash to dump and are looking for extreme performance, you'll probably be more than happy with an Amd. If you're looking to game matching up a nice Amd/Ati motherboard with an Ati video card, really does wonders in terms of compatibility, I've built a few myself and they were painless builds. Intels tend to be more efficient, expecially in the mobile arena. There's something sexy about a 140W cpu though, and that's where the phenom II line shines, they chew up power like nazi's chew up amphetamines, and they chew through like raped apes.
All in all amd is a good start/middleroad for the money, but for true high end power, or mobile efficiency stick to intel. I've noticed a trend across all cpu manufacturers, the more on die cache, the better. 2mb extra cache is worth more than 600mhz, imho.
0.02C CDN

I think the biggest problem of AMD is compatibility. Usually They don't work truely in some Linux Distros.

Pure preference. What's your budget?

Hmmm, sounds like i5 it is. Thanks guys!

Chandelure said:
Hmmm, sounds like i5 it is. Thanks guys!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
one more thing, AMD heats fast. it can cook your PC within 8 hours

First time buying a macboook: Doubts

I'm gonna get a macbook pro, keep in mind i will be selling my desktop pc and the mac will be my main device,i'll take it to the institute, etc i'm going start a graphic design course soon and naturally i will be usiong, corel, photoshop, and i suppose a little of video editing .
I plan on getting the 15" model, the 13" is a little small for my taste and the 17" model is off the budget and also i think it enters desktop territory ( is too big for a laptop) .
I've got a couple of doubts:
1.AMD Radeon HD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5 vs AMD Radeon HD 6750M with 1GB GDDR5 ? i know 1 gb sounds a lot better, but ive been told it only matters if im going to play videogames at large resolutions aka 1920x 1200
2.750GB 5400-rpm hdd vs 500GB 7200 rpm hdd , i already have an external 2 tb hard drive so i might be able to sacrifice the extra 250 gb for the increased speed, but does the 7200 hdd makes the mac run considerably hotter?
3.Choosing the 1680x1050 display over the standard 1440x900 is a no brainer, i wish there was a 1920x 1200 display instead but how is the Antiglare Widescreen Display worth the extra 150 $ ? how do they achieve the antiglare? won't the colors look dull or over satured?

I wish i could give you some good answers, but that's not the case, but i would go for the one with 1GB GDDR5, 500GB 7200 RPM HDD and of course the 1680x1050 display.
Regarding the GPU, won't it be better with the 1GB if you're going to edit videos?

1) 256 mb should be fine if you're not gaming
2) 7200 rpm will be faster and seeing as you have the external you may aswell, but it could be louder and it will not get too hot AFAIK
3) better display obv antiglare doesn't make image bad and it. Looks nice but imo its not wow like the glossy, professionals seem to prefer matte, maybe go down to the nearest apple store?
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App

Mainly CPU is used.. but some software can be aided by gpu.. however I'm not sure. If you'll notice much difference also op.. just checking are you going for quad i7, if not.. I'd reccomed more than the gpu
BazookaAce said:
I wish i could give you some good answers, but that's not the case, but i would go for the one with 1GB GDDR5, 500GB 7200 RPM HDD and of course the 1680x1050 display.
Regarding the GPU, won't it be better with the 1GB if you're going to edit videos?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App

MacaronyMax said:
3) better display obv antiglare doesn't make image bad and it. Looks nice but imo its not wow like the glossy, professionals seem to prefer matte, maybe go down to the nearest apple store?
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow like the glossy? what do you mean? is the gloosy more saturated?

It looks more vibrant imo.. and just stands out,
Chad_Petree said:
Wow like the glossy? what do you mean? is the gloosy more saturated?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App

MacaronyMax said:
Mainly CPU is used.. but some software can be aided by gpu.. however I'm not sure. If you'll notice much difference also op.. just checking are you going for quad i7, if not.. I'd reccomed more than the gpu
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, im going for the quad core i7 @ 2.2 GHz , the offer a quad core i7 @ 2.3 GHz for 250 $ extra dollars :/ just for 0.1 ghz? that's a steal, they dont even specifiy what cpus they're selling
I had forgotten sometimes the cpu switches to the gpu to render websites and play hd videos , i'll keep that in mind
MacaronyMax said:
It looks more vibrant imo.. and just stands out,
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Searching online, looks there's a lot of divided opinions in the glossy vs matte subject, gonna have to check it out in person, naturally