is it true that you need a fast processor to get the full sped and capacity
of broadband, and if you don't have a fast processor, you wont get the full
speed?e.g. you wont get 1mbps.
thanx

In article , "Kolicha \(vinnieza &
gio\)" says...

is it true that you need a fast processor to get the full sped and capacity
of broadband, and if you don't have a fast processor, you wont get the full
speed?e.g. you wont get 1mbps.


name the computer shop who told you that, I dare you.
they wanted you to upgrade.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:53:24 +0200, wrote:

you need a fast processor to get the full sped and capacity
of broadband

No - the ADSL "modem" does the work of handling the conversion to/from
the network, not the CPU.

Unless its a USB modem, then there can be a large processor overhead
on a low powered PC.

Andrew.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:30:16 +0100, "Kolicha \(vinnieza & gio\)"
wrote:

you need a fast processor to get the full sped and capacity
of broadband

No - the ADSL "modem" does the work of handling the conversion to/from
the network, not the CPU.

regards
Marcus

wrote in message
...

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:30:16 +0100, "Kolicha \(vinnieza & gio\)"
wrote:

you need a fast processor to get the full sped and capacity
of broadband

No - the ADSL "modem" does the work of handling the conversion to/from
the network, not the CPU.

regards
Marcus

If it's a USB or software based modem then the CPU is involved.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:30:16 GMT, Kolicha (vinnieza & gio) wrote

is it true that you need a fast processor to get the full sped and
capacity of broadband, and if you don't have a fast processor, you
wont get the full speed?e.g. you wont get 1mbps.

Dunno about 1 MB service, but FWIW I'm on cable (NTL 600K service);
was connected on a 5-year-old 233 Pentium which frazzled itself; and
upgraded to an Athlon 2000.

My speed on surfing/downloading pages with the new box is HUGELY faster
-- way, way quicker rendering of pages. (They used to build on the
page; they now more-or-less blink into view).

I've looked at all sorts of reasons for this, but have the same OS;
the same programmes; the same connection via the same ethernet card;
and I've had to conclude that part of the explanation is that NTL was
sending packets down the line faster than my 233 box could process
them. (The rest is that I've gone to a bottom-of-the-range graphics
card rather than an on-board graphics chip, which obviously also
handles some of the rendering load.)

So, in my experience, definitely yes: processor speed is one of the
things that's made an extremely noticeable difference.

--
Cheers, Harvey

Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:50:59 UTC, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:

My speed on surfing/downloading pages with the new box is HUGELY faster
-- way, way quicker rendering of pages. (They used to build on the
page; they now more-or-less blink into view).

That is of course CPU related; but has nothing to do with the speed of
the line per se. You would see the same effect if all the pages were
held locally on the hard disk.

I've looked at all sorts of reasons for this, but have the same OS;
the same programmes; the same connection via the same ethernet card;
and I've had to conclude that part of the explanation is that NTL was
sending packets down the line faster than my 233 box could process
them.

Not at all. Given that under heavy load an ethernet card ught to be
handling about 4 mbit/sec, or even more if there isn't much other
traffic on the network, a measly 1mbit/sec ought to be fine.

So, in my experience, definitely yes: processor speed is one of the
things that's made an extremely noticeable difference.

But to browser rendering, nothing else.

--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70, PC/AT..

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:50:59 +0100, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:30:16 GMT, Kolicha (vinnieza & gio) wrote

is it true that you need a fast processor to get the full sped and
capacity of broadband, and if you don't have a fast processor, you
wont get the full speed?e.g. you wont get 1mbps.

Dunno about 1 MB service, but FWIW I'm on cable (NTL 600K service);
was connected on a 5-year-old 233 Pentium which frazzled itself; and
upgraded to an Athlon 2000.

My speed on surfing/downloading pages with the new box is HUGELY faster
-- way, way quicker rendering of pages. (They used to build on the
page; they now more-or-less blink into view).

I've looked at all sorts of reasons for this, but have the same OS;
the same programmes; the same connection via the same ethernet card;
and I've had to conclude that part of the explanation is that NTL was
sending packets down the line faster than my 233 box could process
them. (The rest is that I've gone to a bottom-of-the-range graphics
card rather than an on-board graphics chip, which obviously also
handles some of the rendering load.)

So, in my experience, definitely yes: processor speed is one of the
things that's made an extremely noticeable difference.

I bet if you had started an FTP sesssion and downloaded a large file
from a high speed site you would have seen a full 1Mb. Your machine
was just too slow to render web pages at a decent speed. I bet you had
more memory in it after upgrading to the Athlon as well ?
--
Andy Norman
http://www.norman.cx/

"Dave Lucas" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:30:16 +0100, "Kolicha \(vinnieza & gio\)"
wrote:

you need a fast processor to get the full sped and capacity
of broadband

No - the ADSL "modem" does the work of handling the conversion to/from
the network, not the CPU.

regards
Marcus

If it's a USB or software based modem then the CPU is involved.

Now that's wise words.
In fact, one of the most popular Conexant-based PCI ADSL model is
*controller-less* which means data transfer is processed by CPU.
On a P-4 required CPU load will not exceed 1% and can be ignored.
On a very old crappy computer though it may take up to 10% and more...
depending on how crappy it really is. e.g. P-166 would be taxed I'd say.

But then even 10% CPU load is unlikely to make you download slower. I love
watching DVDs with 35% CPU load, so what, downloads are still as fast.

Then there is yet another idea, if you use an old OS like NT4 or 98, those
had smaller default RWIN (Receive Window), and that definitely could slow
things down. - Doesn't involve CPU load, but wrong MTU, MSS and RWIN can
affect max download speed. Especially on a fast network with big latency.
(Think downloading from States, or, worse, Australia or Japan, through a
very fast link, you really need larger RWIN).

As a proof, I have a computer at work, one of three remaining NT4
Workstations in our office, -- it definitely was much slower than Win2K
boxes when downloading CD images from our office in States. (How about
50KB/sec instead of potential 240 on a free E1 line?) These effects are
invisible when downloading from Europe as latency should be at least
150-200msec to adversely affect speed and in Europe it's within 60-80
normally.
--
_______________________
Maximillian!

"CB" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:30:16 +0100 and in article bfjvrn$4jc$1
@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk, Kolicha (vinnieza & gio) said...
is it true that you need a fast processor to get the full sped and
capacity
of broadband, and if you don't have a fast processor, you wont get the
full
speed?e.g. you wont get 1mbps.

It's total and utter rubbish.

--
CB

that's why I couldn't make it out, because if it were true then why would
people get 2mbps instead of 1mbps and 1mbps instead of 512kbps, but this
could be because people/companies are using routers and the speeds being
split. What's scary is I started to believe it. I thought because their is
so much information coming in so quickly that the processor wont be able to
handle it with other programs running. but the modem dose all that.
thanx everyone for answering.