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).