[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 29/05/12 11:38, Gordon Henderson wrote: > > Just replying here again... Now feeling a bit miffed by peopel thinking > that a 2GHz Celeron or 2.2GHz AMD are old machines... )-: > > I've just bought a new desktop and while cost was a factor, it has a > 3-core AMD processor which runs at (max) 2.1GHz. > > It's running Debian with xfce4 and it's very fast indeed - even though > its only running on the framebuffer and not any clever driver for the > on-board GPU (bit short sighted of me there - it will run the > proprietary AMD drivers but not the open source one - yet) I imagine > that when I can be boterhed to install the proper drivers for the GPU > then it's going to be even faster... > > Memory does make a difference though - it has 4GB. > > I've no idea how it would run with a fully-loaded ubuntu or something > with the latest gnome/kde though, but I don't think it would be that > sluggish. Most of the time the CPUs sit at 800MHz.... > > Gordon > Not all GHz are created equal: a 2.0GHz Celeron is a different beast from a 2.0GHz i3, for example. The architecture can make a big difference in what can be achieved with a single clock tick, so a Celeron might waste a few cycles doing that which can be achieved in a single cycle on an i3. Cumulatively, these things make a perceptible difference. Pierre -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq