| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 125391 | 2012-06-25 07:28:00 | Standards for PC specs? | adslgeek (14687) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1283815 | 2012-06-25 09:09:00 | Considering the "average joe" that might find it useful will *not* be a hardcore gamer, I'd say that's relatively easy actually! Low-end / budget system: Dual-core 1.6Ghz Atom 1GB RAM 5400rpm 2.5" (Laptop) HDD Mid-range "ideal for most" system: Dual-core 2.0Ghz 2 -> 4GB RAM 7200RPM HDD High-end "For gamers" system: Dual-core 3.0Ghz+ 4GB -> 8GB RAM Solid-state drive "Ancient" really old system Single-core < 1.8Ghz < 1GB RAM Keep in mind though that most people on your website will find the "Mid-range" system is actually quite fast, as long as they're not bogged down by a ton of stupid apps that are running. For the better part, a freshly formatted "budget" system will perform quite happily for a lot of people, with the upgrade to 2GB of RAM making it all that much better. For most browsing / word-processing / facebook games, it's quite sufficient, which is why Netbooks were so popular for a while. Yeah they couldn't game, but that was about it. Most Facebook games and the likes still work fine, and for the "average joe" home user, that's probably who's going to be reading your website, that's directly applicable :) |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1283816 | 2012-06-25 09:47:00 | Yep that's the idea! :-) I was thinking it could rate a PC on average of components as suitable for standard use or gaming etc but I have a bucket of modules that I need to wrote into it... :-\ Take a stock component e.g. Core 2 Duo E6600 and give it a base score of 1, then compare it to say an i5 2500k on a standard pre-existing benchmark like passmark or fps in say crysis. Say the e6600 runs crysis at 100fps (lol) and the 2500k at 160 give the 2500k a score of 1.6. Similar process for gpu's. Add all the scores up for an end score and give each gb of ram say 0.25 score or something (theres probably stats somewhere that would tell you the difference ram makes proportionally). You should be able to write a simple code that could take scores straight from an online source (depending on the formatting) or from a text document and/or a database, allowing users to manually update the scores. Shouldn't be too hard. I might give a it a crack later tonight :) |
icow (15313) | ||
| 1283817 | 2012-06-25 09:52:00 | PC perspective have a leader board with different levels of systems pcper.com |
plod (107) | ||
| 1283818 | 2012-06-25 10:03:00 | I run 2 identical socket 775 computers same processor one with 1Gb RAM the other with 4Gb as it is used for CAD. The 1 Gb is on XP home the 4Gb is Win7 home and actually there is no speed difference between them doing normal stuff en fact the XP one boots up quicker by about 3 secs and this one I'm using now is a single core Atom with Win7 starter and 1Gb RAM it is noticebly slower to use but boots quicker than both desktops. So as Wainui says specs are not everything it's more what your doing with it and how well you have it trimmed back as to what runs which makes the difference |
gary67 (56) | ||
| 1283819 | 2012-06-25 10:55:00 | Chill, got a ideal system from your selection. It is a 3Ghz I though but, it is dual core, 1GB RAM, does pretty good at least on WinXP. Never bogged us down and we use it for Office app, the net and youtube. Hey why the dualcores and 2GB ram. Thought he may had wanted something current. Do they do any dual cores anymore now apart from the Atoms :confused: :p The 3Ghz dual core was maybe 5yrs old :D |
Nomad (952) | ||
| 1283820 | 2012-06-25 10:55:00 | microsofts system index is terrible. my friend with his old computer with intel core 2 duo 4gb ram ddr2 and got only 1 point less than be (description) | Slankydudl (16687) | ||
| 1283821 | 2012-06-25 21:02:00 | Guys that is awesome! I have thought to run a JavaScript benchmarks test (eg swap multiple images, make lots of complex maths calcs) to give a rough idea of how the browser and CPU are working, as I capture all installed and running apps then that could trigger a separate alert (eg you should uninstall or stop the startup for some of the crud). But the base measurement of CPU and RAM could be measured and graded - Chill I love the categories too that is a good way of classifying it (eg home / Gamer etc). There is so much to code, and such little time! :) |
adslgeek (14687) | ||
| 1283822 | 2012-06-25 21:29:00 | That's not a bad idea, but if you're really targeting the market who are going to be asking that question, then something like the Sunspider results won't mean didly squat. What if you did something slight different, like "Time to launch CityVille" or "Handles this many browser tabs happily"? The thing is the CPU is probably the least utilized, whereas the RAM will make the most difference for the majority of home users. Aside from that, it comes down to HDD speed, fragmentation, and stupid-ass toolbars / add-ons slowing the system down ;) |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1283823 | 2012-06-25 22:22:00 | Horses for courses for sure, as a gamer I upgrade frequently and try to stay ahead of new game requirements so I can play whatever I like. However I built a general purpose machine for my sister on a tight budget a few years back and it's still performing very well for them. It was a $300 upgrade and is something like an athlon x2 4200+ with 2GB of RAM which was chosen by price. They still see no reason to upgrade. I'd say for an average user these days any dual core over 2Ghz and 2GB+ of RAM is sufficient, with each persons usage needing to be taken into account. To some degree hardware has got ahead of software in terms of performance, a several year old Athlon x2 or core 2 duo is still a good CPU for general purpose computing. Even my Pentium 4 3.2Ghz machine with 1.5GB of RAM I use to experiment with runs XP pretty well if you don't overdo the multitasking. That said I'd still put 4GB into any new machine just because it's a small difference in price and quite noticeably better in some applications. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1283824 | 2012-06-26 01:26:00 | Nah I was meaning more of a general guide for modern PCs. Eg I only have 512k RAM and it's not really that usable. Modern PC's, or actual PC's in use by home users & companies ?? My work PC is oooold, P4 1G Ram But is easily fast enough to run XP & Office 2003 at a good speed. Being 3Ghz & XP , it runs Win 'faster' than some 'modern' PC's on Vista/Win7 |
1101 (13337) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||