Re: Pentium M differences: 1.73Ghz? 1.86? 2.0?

Fred <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: While I would never dispute the claim than a 2.0 GHz cpu will run
: applications faster than a 1.73 GHz cpu your claim to saving minutes
: converting 100 images would have to be proven to me. For most applications
: you would need a stop watch and a very quick thumb to see the
: difference.

You don't need a stop watch to see the speed improvement in some
applications: when you are converting RAW images from a Canon digital
camera, the software (at least the package I use) tell you the average
conversion time in seconds. I just tried converting some of my images
and the average (with false color filter on, noise reduction, etc.)
was 51 seconds PER IMAGE. Do the math: 100 images would take almost
an hour.

If you don't believe what I'm saying, download a copy of Breezebrowser
from breezesys.com (trial version will do some RAW conversion). Then
obtain some RAW files from a Canon camera like my Digital Rebel. I'll
even give you some. Try converting them on your system, then try it
on a faster machine to see how a faster CPU would shave minutes off of
a big batch conversion.

I am not suggesting the average person will care about this stuff,
only that some people certainly can see improvements from a faster
CPU. For people who only surf the web and run office applications, a
faster CPU probably is a waste of money.

: You would need to run the same application on exactly the same machines with
: the only difference being the cpu speed, even the disk drives would have to
: be at the same degree of defragmentation. This is something very few people
: have the resources to do. And comparing that applications on different
: style machines with similar speed differences is meaningless.

When you are talking about a CPU-intensive task like RAW image
conversion, the speed of the disk drives and even the memory is
negligible.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Office Pro applications not capable of correct conversion to p
    ... in RGB - including all text and images, ... to and remains RBG. ... converting to .pdf, preserving color will keep the entire document in RBG. ... Microsoft Publisher also seems to support only RBG. ...
    (microsoft.public.office.misc)
  • Re: Primary colors
    ... problems involves converting between spaces. ... have high order color spaces- images may consist of intensity data in 10 ... The real issue is that most imagers capture only sparsely sampled spectra, ... attempt to take into account the numerous color appearance effects as ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: converting 2007 pptx into 2003 ppt without text changing to images
    ... still everytime I try and save as 2003 it still converts the text to images. ... A note to microsoft - who's idea was it to make converting text to images ... format to put the file in compatibility mode (and disable at least some features ... Steve Rindsberg, PPT MVP ...
    (microsoft.public.powerpoint)
  • Re: Problems Converting Bitmaps
    ... I implemented the OctreeQuantizer but my converted images colors are messed ... The pixel value coming back from QuantitizePixelis 1 so it seems like the ... Tracing through the code it looks like the 32 bpp colors only have one byte ... My program is written in C# and I have tried various means of converting ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.drawing)
  • make table creates binary field rather than numeric
    ... We are in the process of converting hundreds of applications from Access 97 ... a number of our make table queries are ... I have searched on the knowledge base, but was not successful in finding any ...
    (microsoft.public.access.queries)
Loading