Does This Mean...?

[MJOLNIR]

I was comparing the following 2 Intel processors, the Atom D525 @ 1.80 GHz, and the Pentium 4 @ 3.00 GHz.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Atom+D525+@+1.80GHz

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+4+3.00GHz

From the ratings, it looks like the Atom is better, but is it saying better overall, or better in every way? For example, which is better at single-tasking? And what is meant by the "1.80" and "3.00" GHz? Shouldn't the Pentium being 3.00 mean it's better?

 

[clifford_cooley]

Hi MJOLNIR - Welcome to w7forums

May I ask why you are comparing a Netbook processor (Low power consumption) to an aging desktop processor?

 

[MJOLNIR]

I just want to know which is faster at single-tasking...such as playing an HD video file (I kind of already know the D525 is better at multi-tasking...since one of its good features is "multi-threading"). I found out that my Pentium 4 @ 3.00 GHz can't run a 1080p Youtube video file very well, so I was wondering if an Atom D525 @ 1.80 GHz would be the same or better.

The reason I'm comparing these particular two is this. I'm thinking of giving back my desktop computer to my family members, and purchasing in its place the Compaq All-in-One computer that utilizes the Atom D525. I wouldn't buy it if its processor is slower. That's why I'm asking on here if the Benchmark results mean the D525 is faster at single-tasking, as well as multi-tasking, etc. (basically, in every way in terms of speed) or does it mean it's better than the Pentium 4 @ 3.00 overall (like when you take everything into consideration, like multi-threading, single-tasking, etc.).

 

[clifford_cooley]

Hi MJOLNIR

Now that I know what you are asking and why you are asking, I can tell you I'm not qualified to answer this question.

They should be comparably the same but knowing which will perform better seems to be a dependent on the topic. Without benchmarking the two for single threaded tasks, there is no way to know for sure.

There is also graphical performance to consider as well as the CPU performance.

Maybe one of the other guys will have more insight on this topic. Sorry I couldn't be of help to you.

 

[Nibiru2012]

The Intel Atom processor is a Dual-core with 4 thread capability.

The P4 is a single-core with 2 thread capability even though it's clock speed is higher.

Why are you looking at such low-end CPUs anyway?

What is your intended purpose? Some more information would be helpful.

 

[MJOLNIR]

The Intel Atom processor is a Dual-core with 4 thread capability.

The P4 is a single-core with 2 thread capability even though it's clock speed is higher.

Why are you looking at such low-end CPUs anyway?

What is your intended purpose? Some more information would be helpful.

What is meant by clock speed, and where did you find it has a higher one, if you don't mind me asking.

I'm not looking for low-end CPU's. The computer I desire just so happens to have that processor, and it's pretty difficult to find a computer that has every desired component, unless you have it custom-built (such as when there are parts to choose from, like for Dell computers) but with this Compaq All-in-One, it's pretty much fixed. On Compaq's/HP's site, there aren't options to choose from as far as processors, audio and graphic options, etc. but I'll re-confirm about that. With the price of it, how it looks, and the fact it's all-in-one...makes me want it all the more. I also desire to re-buy a Compaq after not having bought one for so long.

I already have a pretty good computer, a Dell laptop with a Core 2 Duo processor and its CPU benchmark is above 1,000, so I don't really need another comp with a fast processor. I just want something the same or better (in terms of processing speed) than the computer I want to replace (give back to family) and that's a cute internet surfing smiley *takes*. XD

 

[catilley1092]

MJOLNIR, I realize that you're comparing processors for your purposes. But one thing that I'd like to warn you about is any CPU under 2.5GHz isn't worth looking at.

The reason that I say this is that I bought an HP all-in-one computer with a AMD Athlon X2 3250e dual core processor running only 1.5GHz (check out my specs), and it's anemic. Were it not for the RAM upgrade (from 2GB to 4GB), and having high speed internet, it would be intolerable. It still takes a while to backup, or to install a service pack.

My personal advice is to stay away from rot-gut, bottom-end processors, and spend a little extra for a quality one. You don't have to buy an i7, or AMD's six core, there are solid dual cores on the market, as well as mid range quad cores that are reasonable in price. As well as giving you the performance that you need.

You won't regret it, believe me.

Cat

 

[Nibiru2012]

Clock speed is the clock or GHz of the CPU. Such as the Atom CPU @ 1.80 GHz... that's the clock speed of the CPU.

The P4 Pentium has a clock speed of 3.0 GHz as you stated in the OP.

The results I posted came from the Intel website.

Compaq is owned by HP these days, has been for several years. I recommend you stay away from HP, especially in the the notebooks. They have one of the highest repair rates in the industry at around 28% for the first three years of ownership, besides Dell.

If you want a GOOD notebook then get a Toshiba, Acer or Asus.

If you want a really good desktop computer, then I recommend you build you own.

The Atom processor is a low-end energy saving CPU and is mostly for limited use and web surfing, email, etc.

 

[MJOLNIR]

I'm not going to depend on the Compaq's Atom D525 processor. ANYTHING better than a Pentium 4 @ 3.00 will do since I'm giving that one away to my family (the desktop computer that has the P4). The good processor I have is on this laptop, a Core 2 Duo with a benchmark of over 1,000. So once again, I'm just asking if the Atom D525 would smoke the Pentium 4 @ 3.00.

I'm pretty convinced now that the Atom D525 @ 1.80 will be better than a Pentium 4 @ 3.00 at playing an HD video, in terms of speed. Now to compare....ok crap. Just compared the two video cards and lol...the Compaq All-in-One has an Intel GMA 3150 whereas my Dell Desktop that has the slower processor (P4 @ 3.00) has an Intel 82915G Express, ranking at 115 whereas the Compaq card is at 69. Crap...

....so, what does a weak video card mean exactly. I mean I know it doesn't mean less resolution. The resolution is 720p on the Compaq computer either way. Does weaker card mean laggy video playback or something? Because honestly, I thought how fast a computer can play an HD video was dependent on its processor, not its video card. I thought video cards had to do with how much CPU/video game graphics it can handle at once (read: something that's not pre-rendered like an HD video).

 

[clifford_cooley]

For what you are asking I think the Atom would be fine. But how much longer will this level of performance be fine?

My opinion is that this computer at newegg is $499 and for that price, I think you can do allot better for performance. It may not be an All-in-one but a better computer in the long run. If it is only the all-in-one that you are interested in, the D525 should be fine for light computer use such as Internet, e-mail, chat, and youtube video.

COMPAQ CQ1-1225 18.5" Intel Atom D525(1.80GHz) 2GB DDR3 320GB HDD Capacity Intel GMA 3150 Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

 

[MJOLNIR]

It's a hundred dollars cheaper over at Amazon

 

[clifford_cooley]

It's a hundred dollars cheaper over at Amazon dude.

Getting the computer for $399 still doesn't change my opinion about the machine being 80% in price at 30% the performance of a better machine.

 

[Nibiru2012]

If you want to spend your money on an "all-in-one" that's your prerogative. I highly recommend against it though. They're too difficult to repair or upgrade. Basically they're nothing more than a laptop converted to a desktop configuration.

It's the video card that make the difference, including the amount of on-board RAM with the video card. If the video chipset is on the motherboard then it has to use some of the RAM that is plugged in to function properly.

 

[MJOLNIR]

So does the video card deal with graphics in real-time then? Not playing a pre-rendered video? Whereas the processor deals with playing a pre-rendered video well? This is what it seems like, but who knows if I'm going to get a clear answer to this.

Second, why was "dude" taken out of my last post?

 

[Nibiru2012]

From Wikipedia:

Video hardware can be integrated on the motherboard, often occurring with early machines. In this configuration it is sometimes referred to as a video controller or graphics controller. Modern low-end to mid-range motherboards often include a graphics chipset developed by the developer of the northbridge (i.e. an nForce chipset with Nvidia graphics or an Intel chipset with Intel graphics) on the motherboard. This graphics chip usually has a small quantity of embedded memory and takes some of the system's main RAM, reducing the total RAM available. This is usually called integrated graphics or on-board graphics, and is low-performance and undesirable for those wishing to run 3D applications. A dedicated Graphics Card on the other hand has its own RAM and Processor specifically for processing video images, and thus offloads this work from the CPU and system RAM. Almost all of these motherboards allow the disabling of the integrated graphics chip in BIOS, and have an AGP, PCI, or PCI Express slot for adding a higher-performance graphics card in place of the integrated graphics. Despite the performance limitations, around 95% of new computers are sold with integrated graphics processors, leaving it for the individual user to decide whether to install a dedicated Graphics card.

Read this also: How Graphics Cards Work

Regarding your edited post above, we try to respect other members here and treat them the way we would like to be treated. Calling another member, especially a Moderator, "dude" is disrespectful. His previous post was trying to be informative and helpful toward you and then you lashed back at him in that manner.

His name is Cliff... not "dude".

 

[MJOLNIR]

I read the quote and the link. Didn't find an answer I was looking for. Something like video cards does indeed play a role in playing both pre-rendered videos and rendering real-time graphics may help.

Dude was more of my way of being helpful/nice. I call all my friends online dude. I would be leaning more towards rude if I hadn't said dude while being 100% formal the entire time.

 

[catilley1092]

For what you are asking I think the Atom would be fine. But how much longer will this level of performance be fine?

My opinion is that this computer at newegg is $499 and for that price, I think you can do allot better for performance. It may not be an All-in-one but a better computer in the long run. If it is only the all-in-one that you are interested in, the D525 should be fine for light computer use such as Internet, e-mail, chat, and youtube video.

COMPAQ CQ1-1225 18.5" Intel Atom D525(1.80GHz) 2GB DDR3 320GB HDD Capacity Intel GMA 3150 Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

That computer that's linked is very similar to mine, only a tiny bit more power, and is actually a generic HP. More or less HP's "private label" brand.

Unless all you want to do is web browse, email, visit forums, making transactions, etc, stay away from this computer. It's not suitable for gaming, and even for decent performance (watching videos, etc), you'll have to upgrade the RAM from the start. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about, that computer is piss poor. I wouldn't give $299 for it, let alone $399 or $499.

Cat

 

[MJOLNIR]

Yeah you see, I'm not really buying this computer for any other reason, other than to replace an already old, oldie computer. I believe I made this clear a number of times.

That's why I was asking which one has a better processor, video card etc. I was comparing the two. If this new one was worse overall, I wouldn't buy it, because there's just no use. I hope this makes sense. Also the fact it's an All-in-One probably does increase the cost a bit between 50-100 dollars.

Better processor than the P4 @ 3.00, it has. I guess we can agree on that. It has a weaker video card though, which is integrated like the one on the computer I'm trying to replace. That is why, I asked, in my last posts if playing a pre-rendered (watching videos, not playing a game which involves rendering graphics in real-time) video has to do with the graphics card or the processor. But alas, I am having lengthened articles shoved in my face for an answer, when I have a fairly busy life at the moment, so it's more convenient for someone to reveal the few-worded answer they have, or say they don't know, and possibly post the article I may try to make room in my schedule to read. Not that reading the article above helped.

 

[Nibiru2012]

ANYTIME you depend upon an "onboard" graphics setup rather than a separate PCI-E video card, you will not receive anywhere near the performance you're seeking.

Quit worrying so much about "this versus that" and get the most bang for you bucks as possible instead. Any AMD or Intel CPU made within the last two or three years will handle the video processing end of what the CPU does in that regard.

Any quality PCI-E video card made within the last three years will do the same. I used to use an ATI Radeon HD3850 (which you can get online for about $40 - 60 now) which still kicks butt on some the newer HD55XX series cards. I have it in reserve now and use an HD5770 my boss gave because he was suddenly struck with an extremely rare case of benevolence. Probably will be another decade before it happens again! LOL!

 

[catilley1092]

Yeah you see, I'm not really buying this computer for any other reason, other than to replace an already old, oldie computer. I believe I made this clear a number of times.

That's why I was asking which one has a better processor, video card etc. I was comparing the two. If this new one was worse overall, I wouldn't buy it, because there's just no use. I hope this makes sense. Also the fact it's an All-in-One probably does increase the cost a bit between 50-100 dollars.

Better processor than the P4 @ 3.00, it has. I guess we can agree on that. It has a weaker video card though, which is integrated like the one on the computer I'm trying to replace. That is why, I asked, in my last posts if playing a pre-rendered (watching videos, not playing a game which involves rendering graphics in real-time) video has to do with the graphics card or the processor. But alas, I am having lengthened articles shoved in my face for an answer, when I have a fairly busy life at the moment, so it's more convenient for someone to reveal the few-worded answer they have, or say they don't know, and possibly post the article I may try to make room in my schedule to read. Not that reading the article above helped.

The fact that's it's an all-in-one probably decreases, not increase it's value. These systems are for those who are simply happy to own a computer, and just web browse, chat, make purchases, etc. Except the RAM & hard drive, there's no room for expansion. It's OK for a student or the grandparents, but not for enthusiasts who likes to expand what they have.

Cat