Consumer PCs have long abandoned the multi-GHz race for core count and NPU inflation.

    • fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I recall going from a Tandy 1000… To a Packard Bell(Pentium 60 with 16(upgraded from 4) MB RAM and like 1 GB HDD (also upgrade).

      Then a Celeron 500 I pieced together cheap(used parts) in middle school. Which didn’t last long! I recall building it. Don’t recall what happened to it!

      I blame that Athlon… I had the XP 1600+(palomino), which was 1.4 Ghz. On an Abit motherboard. First time getting DDR memory. That one lasted quite a few years. Until dual cores, etc etc.

      SSDs have been the most exciting thing since then. I really don’t need many cores. It’s pretty insane how much difference SSDs can make even on 10-15 year old hardware.

      • Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Almost the same as for me!

        1996 I was still using an Atari ST (with 8, not 16 MHz…), end of 96 I got a Pentium 100 with 16 MB, switched to a Pentium 200 MMX and later to an overclocked K6-2@400 MHz in the same socket.

        End of 2001 I got the same Athlon XP 1600+ as you.
        Motherboard supported both SD- and DDR-RAM, so could reuse my old 192 MB :-)

        Agree with the SSDs, only significant perceived performance boost during the last 25 years (although multicore is in some special parallelized usecases also significant, e.g. when building software).