Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (43435)	12/30/1997 10:30:00 PM
From: Jon Tara	Respond to of 186894

Mary, my NT 4.0 server, running on a Cyrix P150+ (120 mHz clock) averages less than 2% CPU utilization when I am not doing anything. (I just measured it - average over a few minutes.) But this is not the issue. Who cares what the CPU utilization is at idle, or even "most of the time"? The utilization when it's in USE is what matters. Any time that utilization reaches 100% for a humanly-measureable length of time when your are waiting, you could use a faster CPU. (I am replacing my Cyrix with dual P200's, but am going to give the prices a couple more weeks to ramp down - I have a dual CPU board, just need to get the chips. No, I am not running out and buying a dual Pentium II board and processors - not worth the cost to me.) More important, though, are increasing demands from new functionality. Voice I/O for example, which still strains even the fastest desktop CPUs. Add to that real-time video streaming with advanced compression methods, background "agents" which I suspect WILL eventually become popular, etc. etc. etc. and there will be a need for faster CPUs for the forseeable future. (If this seems like deja-vu, sorry, I entered a similar response earlier, but I didn't see it - it doesn't seem to have been posted, but I may have missed it.)