Printable View
Hi,
I want to upgrade my laptop performance. So far, I can only think of more RAM. Video card seems too expansive. Maybe CPU but I would have this done by a professional which will more expansive too.
I have a Toshiba Satellite C650D
Specs :
AMD Athlon X2 Dual-Core P340
2.2 GHZ
500GB Hard Drive
3 GB of RAM
ATI Radeon HD 4250
Windows 7 64-bits
I want to upgrade it to 8GB of RAM.
So, what do you think ?
Thank you ! :)
You plan to make upgrades to a laptop?
You will have to check with your manufacturer, but most laptops you can't upgrade anything other than the memory, hard drive or battery. Everything else is so integrated it would be nearly impossible to swap out. Also upgrading RAM can only do so much. People somehow think its a cure-all for computer slowness.
If you want something that you can upgrade in the future, build a desktop. Otherwise just buy a new laptop, they're getting pretty cheap now anyway. Just keep your eyes open.
Ok thanks, I was about to ask "Will 3gb to 8gb make a so big difference anyway?" but then thought I would search this so I won't ........ everyone off :P. I might make a desktop and get a netbook, that would be good ! I'm often outside so I need to keep my computer with me and I don't to look like this ;)
Attachment 10971
Edit : Also, what do you think of the combining netbook and desktop ? Like a good custom desktop and a ~250$ netbook for outside. Is it worth it ? Because it doesn't sound so cheap :P
Going from 3 to 8 will make a difference, probably not as much as the "memory is power" crowd will tell you... but it will enable something that will make quite a noticeable difference... Disabling the hard disk swap file. This is usually good for a 10 to 15% performance boost by itself if you have enough memory to run all your programs without it.Quote:
Originally Posted by zakiuz
My desktop runs win7-x64 with 8gb ram, no swap file on a 2.4 ghz AMD Athlon X2 processor... It's faster than my friend's 3ghz machine with only 2gb ram... because I am able to turn off the swap file and capitalize on the added speed of an all-memory machine.
Further speed increases, without a swapfile, can be gained by disabling the SuperFetch service, all unnecessary background tasks (see the scheduler) and PreFetching only OS Files.
Typical of most laptops (and Toshiba are amongst the best) you're not going to change CPU or Video or Chipset since they're soldered into the boards. You are relegated to memory, hard disk and battery. So your biggest improvements will come with OS, drivers and careful tweaks.
BTW... if you really want to see a Toshiba machine fly... get rid of all the silly Toshiba utilities that launch in background... Usually the best way is to do a "clean install" from a Win7 DVD, removing the "restore partition" in the process... then add the needed drivers. It really does make quite a difference.
That is what I currently have.Quote:
Originally Posted by zakiuz
A moderately good desktop and a netbook.
I'd say that it is a very good idea if you need both portability and heavy duty work... (and also the luxury of not having to sit straight on a chair when just reading or surfing )
I think I might sell my computer to get an Asus K53SV-XP1. What do you think, it seems pretty cheap for the specs. Are Asus laptops good ?
Asus 15.6" Intel Core i5-2410M Laptop (K53SV-XP1) - Black - English : 15" Laptops - Future Shop
2.30 GHz
Intel Core i5
8GB of RAM, 1333 MHz
640 GB Hard drive
NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M (is it good ?)
So, what do you guys think ? Should I go for 8gb with my Toshiba or sell it (how much could I get) and buy an Asus ?
Thanks for all the help it's really appreciated !
PS : Sorry I'm really a noob when it comes to hardware ;p
That sounds very good for the price, which is very unusual for Futureshop, especially since Asus is usually a fairly expensive brand (not nearly as expensive as Sony Vaio or Apple, but more expensive than most others).
Having some experience with Asus laptops, I'd stay with the Toshiba... Add more memory, do a hard disk wipe and clean install of Win7, then do a little tweaking... I'm thinking you'll be glad you did.
Well I think changing computer now could be good since I still have my warranty, it could help me sell it. The Toshiba now costs 530$ and I could sell it 400$. In fact I bought it 400$ in a huge sale ;p. With the Asus I would have a better video card, more RAM, more hard drive GB, better processor. Here is comparison.
Compare Results - Future Shop
The AMD vs Intel debate for CPUs has been ongoing for a couple of decades now... Plain truth... a dual core AMD will outrun a dual core Intel (with hyperthreading enabled) at the same clock speeds... not by a whole lot, but it will be faster.
The ATI vs NVidia debate is relatively new. From personal experience with hundreds of video cards... NVidia chips are furnaces. They run danger hot almost all the time and frankly they don't offer that much of a performance gain over ATI... My current coding system has had both NVidia and ATI Radeon cards in it... frankly I'll take the ATI any time... no fan, 1080p with ease, no fancy power cables or strange two board setups... just put it in and use it.
For the other, some features of the ASUS are better... some of the Toshiba are better.
But you are failing to consider one thing... reliability. I've sold both Toshiba and Asus... the return rate on the Toshibas was half what it was on the Asus, 1/4 what it was for HP...
But it's up to you... Enjoy your new computer.
Thanks for the help @CommonTater ! I'll think about all of this and don't rush, a lot of computers are for 300$, people won't go over 400$ for now ;P. And the Asus is on regular price so I have the time.
Really appreciate your help ! :)
That would have been true a while ago, until the introduction of Core 2 series. Core 2 was based on Pentium-M, an extremely efficient architecture, with instructions per clock almost twice as high as P4, which was a fair bit slower than AMD clock for clock.Quote:
The AMD vs Intel debate for CPUs has been ongoing for a couple of decades now... Plain truth... a dual core AMD will outrun a dual core Intel (with hyperthreading enabled) at the same clock speeds... not by a whole lot, but it will be faster.
For desktops, some people choose AMD CPUs because they are usually cheaper for the same performance, and some lower end CPUs have unlocked multipliers. For laptops though, you'll most definitely want an Intel CPU. Intel platform (both CPU and northbridge) power management is much much better. That means less heat, and longer battery life. I have a laptop with 2.5GHz Core i3 CPU that can run for about 8 hours on a charge. Nothing from AMD comes close. If you look at current laptop line-ups, only lower end machines use AMD. No (very few) high end laptops use AMD CPU. I would definitely pay a little bit extra to get Intel.
AMD is still a bit faster at the same clock speed. Notice that most of these companies no longer publish the clock speeds as up-front specifications. They're advertising the cpu model number instead. What you may be missing in the performance arena is that for equivalent performance the AMD machines are usually running a slightly lower clock speed...Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberfish
Your point about battery life is taken for older AMD CPUs, however with the new "cool and quiet" setup, the cpu actually loafs along at less than 1/2 normal speed, picking up speed as load increases... it's not the CPU that's hurting batter life in AMD systems, it's usually the chipset. But yes, intel based systems generally do give you a slightly longer per-charge playtime.
I believe the opposite is actually true nowadays.Quote:
AMD is still a bit faster at the same clock speed. Notice that most of these companies no longer publish the clock speeds as up-front specifications. They're advertising the cpu model number instead. What you may be missing in the performance arena is that for equivalent performance the AMD machines are usually running a slightly lower clock speed...
For example, let's look at some high end CPUs. Both are quad core, 3.4GHz, 8MB cache, from the newest series -
Intel i7 2600K - NCIX.com - Buy Intel Core i7 2600K Quad Core Unlocked Hyperthreading Processor LGA1155 3.4GHZ Sandy Bridge 8MB - Intel - BX80623I72600K - in Canada
AMD Phenom II 965 - NCIX.com - Buy AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Quad Core Processor AM3 3.4GHZ 8MB Cache 125W 45NM Retail Box - AMD - HDZ965FBGMBOX - in Canada
There is an almost 3 times price difference, and all reviews suggest that the Intel chip is much much faster, at a lower TDP of 95W vs AMD's 125W. The difference in thermal efficiency also makes overclocking Intel CPUs a lot easier, if you are into that.
It would be very sad if AMD goes out of business and Intel gets monopoly, but currently, it seems like AMD just can't keep up with the tech, and has to resort to price war to capture the low segment. That cannot be too healthy for the company. In fact, there is no high end CPU from AMD at the moment that can compete directly with high end Intel CPUs, regardless of clock speed.
But of course, as we all know, clock speed means very little when comparing CPUs with different architectures. Even benchmark performance is a lot more accurate indication of speed, and last time I checked, AMD CPUs are cheaper for the same performance (but eats more power, and has smaller overclocking room).
Well, maybe instead of arguing the point here... this is very contradictory to what is commonly known today (whether that common knowledge is true or not I shall not speculate).Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonTater
Perhaps you might back up these claims? I would be interested to know.
One thing I know for sure is that cost-per-performance goes to AMD.
Not fair. You are trying to compare chips that cost as much as the laptop itself... things are a little different when you get down to entry level and mobile chips like you find in lower priced laptops.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberfish
It's based on experience... sell a few hundred computers and you start to realize a few things that are "claimed" and even "common knowlege" simply aren't what they say they are. I can give you a whole lot more "bang for the buck" with AMD any time day or night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Experience? That seems kinda weird since it contradicts benchmarks.
Ok you win....Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
(But it doesn't change the facts...)
I agree. It doesn't change the facts. But since there is no proof, we can't really say what the facts are.
We can only assume from what we've seen, and from what we've seen from benchmarks and the like, AMD lags behind in both battery and performance to its Intel counterpart. Nevertheless, AMD is much cheaper than Intel.
Well, at least on a machine level.
(I'd love to be proven wrong, though.)
Lower end chips are just lower clocked/binned versions of those chips. The relationships will still hold at lower end, since they are still the same architectures.Quote:
Not fair. You are trying to compare chips that cost as much as the laptop itself... things are a little different when you get down to entry level and mobile chips like you find in lower priced laptops.
Don't want to break the party, :P but how do I disable the swap files ? And should I do it with 3gb of RAM ?
I wouldn't recommend it with 3 GB of RAM, but just for reference...
Goto system -> advanced system settings -> settings under performance -> advanced tab -> change under virtual memory.
Untick "automatically manage...".
Select the drive you want to disable the page file on.
Select no paging file, then select.
Repeat for every drive you want to disable page file on, then click OK and close all the dialogs to get out of there.
You're done.
Unless you are really tight on space, and want to reclaim the reserved space, you really shouldn't need to, though.
If you have enough RAM, the swap/pagefile won't be used (much) anyways. It just provides a safety net.
Oh, and btw, consider that if you don't have a pagefile and your system crashes, then you can't get any crashdumps.
3gb of ram is plenty for a 32 bit OS... but I wouldn't try it with a 64 bit os.Quote:
Originally Posted by zakiuz
Disabling swap files is pretty easy in windows...
Control Panel -> System -> Advanced System Settings -> Advanced tab -> Performance Settings -> Advanced ->
Virtual Memory -> Change -> uncheck Automatically Manage Memory -> select No Paging File for each drive ->
Ok your way out -> Restart your computer.
Yes it's buried in there pretty deep... and for good reason.
It's hardly plenty, and I already mentioned how to disable it. Did you miss that?
As soon as you start open programs, you may find yourself in a pinch.
So did you hear how the brand new 8-core AMD Bulldozer at 3.4 gHz got it's ass handed to it by the i7 2500k and i7 2600k which both cost less and run at 3.4 and 3.3 gHz, and has half as many cores as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonTater
AnandTech - The Bulldozer Review: AMD FX-8150 Tested
You sure you don't wanna revise that statement?
You can't compare the number of cores on the bulldozer like that. All the cores in the i7 are full-fledges cores, so to speak. They can all stand on their own.
The bulldozer clusters two cores into one bulldozer core, since the two cores share pipeline and some units such as the FPU. So they cannot stand on their own. It's simply a new architecture that puts more emphasis on the number of logic cores, while putting a little less on things such as the FPU and pipeline.
Btw, the bulldozer reminds me of Vista. An unpolished jewel. Let's hope it can compete better with Intel in the future.
That sounds a lot like hyperthreading to me, except with a little more duplicated stuff.
Yeah, and that's why an 8-core bulldozer should be counted as an equivalent to a quad-core i7.
Considering that after the frufrow you raised about Windows API you mostly live in my ignore list, yes I missed it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Did you read what I said about 32 bit vs 64 bit?Quote:
As soon as you start open programs, you may find yourself in a pinch.
Considering that 32 bit Windows can only address 3.5gb because of 32bit pointer limitations... 3gb is about as good as it gets.
I have a home server set up runing 32bit XP, that also doubles as a HTPC for movies and music. It's been running on 2gb of ram without a swap file for the last 3 years and there has never been a problem.
My smarter half's machine runs Win7 x64 on 4gb of ram, no swap file, no superfetch and no prefetch... she mostly runs Office and a couple of medium weight graphics programs (Gimp, etc.)... no problems.
I don't believe that matters. What matters is the commit size. Although individual applications cannot use more than 2 GB, the total commit size can still exceed 4 GB.Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonTater
And then you need the pagefile.
That server isn't doing a lot, though, is it? Its memory allocation should be mostly constant since it only plays movies and such. I wouldn't forsee much problems with such a basic system.Quote:
I have a home server set up runing 32bit XP, that also doubles as a HTPC for movies and music. It's been running on 2gb of ram without a swap file for the last 3 years and there has never been a problem.
4 GB might be okay, but it's on the edge depending on what you do.Quote:
My smarter half's machine runs Win7 x64 on 4gb of ram, no swap file, no superfetch and no prefetch... she mostly runs Office and a couple of medium weight graphics programs (Gimp, etc.)... no problems.
If you start up a game, beware.
Regardless, I'd recommend you don't disable the pagefile until you're sure it's okay. Use Process Explorer and monitor the peak commit size. If it's less than your installed RAM (with a good marigin), then it might be okay to disable it.
You can run games on 4 GB of RAM, what games are you talking about? Of course, I wouldn't disable pagefiles because you'd want the crash dumps and stuff but logistically you should be fine and won't need to max out your mobo's memory spaces.
What I mean is that if you launch a game, you might push the commit over that 4 GB limit (unless you take care to close as much as possible before launching the game).
2-3 GB normal desktop stuff + memory demanding game.
That's why I said to be careful.
Or you know, adopt sane habits... seriously, people don't at least close their browsers before playing a game? Come on people. :confused: You can't even look at the browser and the game.
Takes too long to restart it.
Odd... IE is on my screen in way under a second when I click it's icon... Most times it's showing before I get my finger off the mouse button...Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
People opening everything they own is just silly... do you bury your desk in paper just to read a post-it?
(For that matter, when's the last time you cleared your desk?)
I DO open everything I own, and most of the time I can't see my desk's surface because it's covered by everything I own.Quote:
People opening everything they own is just silly... do you bury your desk in paper just to read a post-it?
(For that matter, when's the last time you cleared your desk?)
If we ignore the problem of whether disabling pagefile is going to be fine for a second, I think another important question is, WHY would you want to disable the pagefile? Because you need a few more GB space on your harddrive?
To force Windows not to put stuff in it, I would assume. It has happened that Windows feels it necessary to put stuff into the pagefile and toss it out of the memory even when memory is available. This is typical with big memory hogs, such as IDEs.
It also reduces disk activity. Other than that, perhaps CommonTater can expand a little.
Well, then... either ...Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberfish
a) learn how to operate your system properly
or
b) don't disable your page file.
It's just plain silly to open a bunch of stuff you're not using. In fact, you should be able to run a windows system by clicking on files, not opening programs then opening files inside programs. Then close the program when you're done with it. So what if the next file opens the same program again... Having everything open all the time is going to slow your system to a crawl.
And no, disabling the pagefile is not about saving disk space... it's about shutting down the *very slow* swap-out-swap-in mechanism and all the maintenance crap that goes with it. i.e. it's about speed not space.
It's not silly and it doesn't slow your system to a crawl if you have the memory to back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonTater
I always leave windows open. It so happens I usually leave multiple media player windows open and always hibernate my PC.
It's a matter of opinion. Some people want everything open to be able to quickly switch between them.
Yet the very act of opening everything is what is slowing you down...Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Consider what has to happen when you're running near full memory load... you open a new program... that program has to have at least it's main executable in memory to turn... so now Windows has to swap out all the crap you've just put into the background... eating up time as the system figures out what can and can't be swapped out to keep everything alive, eating up even more time writing stuff to disk, expanding and housecleaning the swap file itself, reading stuff back in, etc. and THEN it has to load your program... All of this takes time... and with multiple swap file and file load operations going on at once the drive is seeking like mad ... slowing your system right down.
The far more sensible approach is to open only what you need... Typically I will have my IDE open when programming, a couple of help files for function syntax, and maybe a web page with additional information... Occasionally I open a media player for some tunes... but there's no way I would do this on top of a dozen other programs that just sit there and do nothing... If I ain't usin' 'em I close 'em.
Seriously I've been working this way for YEARS with no swap file... and I've never yet run into a low resources warning... not once.
Like I said, the system does not crawl if you have the memory to back it up.
Also, Windows is clever in that it typically pages out processes to the page file in the background so that when it needs memory, it can just throw out old pages without having to write them to the page file first.
And when memory is plenty again, the superfetch service will start reading back pages into memory.
This makes the system pretty responsive, but you do need at least some memory to back it up.
And btw, I've been running my system for years without a lot of slowdowns on just 3-4 GB of memory! With the pagefile!
I have 4GB of memory. Never runs out.Quote:
Yet the very act of opening everything is what is slowing you down...
Consider what has to happen when you're running near full memory load... you open a new program... that program has to have at least it's main executable in memory to turn... so now Windows has to swap out all the crap you've just put into the background... eating up time as the system figures out what can and can't be swapped out to keep everything alive, eating up even more time writing stuff to disk, expanding and housecleaning the swap file itself, reading stuff back in, etc. and THEN it has to load your program... All of this takes time... and with multiple swap file and file load operations going on at once the drive is seeking like mad ... slowing your system right down.
The far more sensible approach is to open only what you need... Typically I will have my IDE open when programming, a couple of help files for function syntax, and maybe a web page with additional information... Occasionally I open a media player for some tunes... but there's no way I would do this on top of a dozen other programs that just sit there and do nothing... If I ain't usin' 'em I close 'em.
Seriously I've been working this way for YEARS with no swap file... and I've never yet run into a low resources warning... not once.
Even if it does, keeping things open and swapping is still faster than opening and closing things all the time. Human is by far the biggest bottleneck. It takes a second or 2 to swap an application back into memory, but it will take you way more time to open up the application, and navigate to the correct page, etc.
Well... first of all I don't open applications... I open files. Stuff that's actively being worked on gets a desktop shortcut like my current C projects... If I want to write some code I simply click on the shortcut to the file and it opens Pelles C and loads the file for me....Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberfish
Lets see...
Ok... lets do a little work on RMedia ... Click on desktop shortcut, abt 3 seconds, there we go, all set to write code. Done? Close the app. Seriously that file opens in just under 3 seconds, and it's a fairly big project....
Now... the hard way... I currently have Windows Explorer, Internet explorer, Pelles C and my media player open... I want to go to Pelles C and do a little coding... WIN+TAB, open the application rolodex... ~1 second... tab tab tab tab Ah there it is...about 4 seconds... Pelles C is on screen... File-> Open, path to project directory, pick project file click OK... about 8 seconds... ready to code in a mere 13 seconds...
Doing things that way slowed me down by a ratio of roughly 4 to 1....
Now lets really load it up and do this your way... enable the swap file, managed by windows... reboot...
Open Windows Explorer, Internet explorer, Media Player Classic, Email, FTP Client, MS Word... about 1 minute in... starting to get slow guys! Drive is thrashing like crazy-- The Gimp, Irfan View, Magic ISO, Burn Aware... really thrashing now... almost 2 minutes to open all that stuff.
Ok now lets get back to that coding project...
WIN+Tab... (about 3 seconds)... Tab Tab Tab Tab Tab Tab Tab Tab ... oops missed it... Tab Tab Tab Tab Tab Tab Tab TAb Tab Tab... Pelles C on screen... drive thrashing, File->open ... more thrashing... path to the project directory... more thrashing... select project file... more thrashing... file open... ready to write code .... total time more than 40 seconds.
But then what do I know...
If you don't mind, I think I'll go back to the way I was doing things... Somehow it just seems, I dunno... better?
It's already open for me.Quote:
Well... first of all I don't open applications... I open files. Stuff that's actively being worked on gets a desktop shortcut like my current C projects... If I want to write some code I simply click on the shortcut to the file and it opens Pelles C and loads the file for me....
I think the misconception here is, I don't close the files I work on. The project is already open. It's pointless to close files and keep application open. I keep files open, too. And I don't know about you, but I tab much faster than that. Maybe because I have more practice? I sometimes use the mouse to click on taskbar icons, too.Quote:
Now... the hard way... I currently have Windows Explorer, Internet explorer, Pelles C and my media player open... I want to go to Pelles C and do a little coding... WIN+TAB, open the application rolodex... ~1 second... tab tab tab tab Ah there it is...about 4 seconds... Pelles C is on screen... File-> Open, path to project directory, pick project file click OK... about 8 seconds... ready to code in a mere 13 seconds...
All I need to do is tab to or click on the taskbar button/icon. About 1 second.
I reboot about once a month, and contrarily to popular belief, we don't go through start menu and open everything on boot. I open things when I use them the first time, THEN I leave them open. You have to open and close things AT LEAST as many times as I do.Quote:
Now lets really load it up and do this your way... enable the swap file, managed by windows... reboot...
Open Windows Explorer, Internet explorer, Media Player Classic, Email, FTP Client, MS Word... about 1 minute in... starting to get slow guys! Drive is thrashing like crazy-- The Gimp, Irfan View, Magic ISO, Burn Aware... really thrashing now... almost 2 minutes to open all that stuff.
Yeah, this analogy is the same as opening Pelles C first, then opening your project. Seriously, keep the project open and don't close it! Then the only difference is that you don't have to worry about the IDE loading first!Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonTater
Opening everything at boot is silly. Open everything when you need it and don't close it.Quote:
Now lets really load it up and do this your way... enable the swap file, managed by windows... reboot...
Open Windows Explorer, Internet explorer, Media Player Classic, Email, FTP Client, MS Word... about 1 minute in... starting to get slow guys! Drive is thrashing like crazy-- The Gimp, Irfan View, Magic ISO, Burn Aware... really thrashing now... almost 2 minutes to open all that stuff.
And don't reboot so often! Hibernate!
That's all in your imagination. If you have the memory to back it up, you don't get thrashing. Why is that so hard to understand?Quote:
Ok now lets get back to that coding project...
WIN+Tab... (about 3 seconds)... Tab Tab Tab Tab Tab Tab Tab Tab ... oops missed it... Tab Tab Tab Tab Tab Tab Tab TAb Tab Tab... Pelles C on screen... drive thrashing, File->open ... more thrashing... path to the project directory... more thrashing... select project file... more thrashing... file open... ready to write code .... total time more than 40 seconds.
No one told you to adapt our way. You may go on as you've done before. You're used to it and it works for you.Quote:
If you don't mind, I think I'll go back to the way I was doing things... Somehow it just seems, I dunno... better?
Just know that some people are not like you, and do things other ways. Without disabling the pagefile.
Ok... now... do you understand that you are saying... "If you have the memory to back it up you don't need a swap file"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Which is what I said in the first place.
GEES! Back to my ignore list, you go.
I'm highly disturbed by things like this. You can drive by almost any private building or public place in the dead of night and everything -- lights, computers, whatever -- on, shining brightly and wasting power. Only people who've never had trouble buying power can do things like this positively.Quote:
And don't reboot so often! Hibernate!
Errr, hibernate shuts down the computer, you know? Only, it saves the entire computer state and reloads it when started back up.
I wonder if people understand (or even know about) Mean Time Between Failure specifications?Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteflags
The short version is that a product generally lasts a given average number of hours... how quickly you use them up, is entirely up to you. Having your machine on *all the time* is going to use those hours up --substantially increasing the likelihood of a failure-- probably two or three times as fast as someone who has to common sense to turn things off when they're done with them.
You started this. Don't blame it on me.Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonTater
The point is that the pagefile may be required for upbacking if you don't have 12 GB of memory.
But that still doesn't mean it gets slow.
Only off means off or there wouldn't be a distinction in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Don't be silly. Off means that no current is running through the electronics (not entirely true, but it will have to do).
The difference is in how the computer boots when started.
Sleep and hibernation: frequently asked questions
So low power is off? :confused:
Hibernation is not low power:
Quote:
Hibernation is a power-saving state designed primarily for laptops. While sleep puts your work and settings in memory and draws a small amount of power, hibernation puts your open documents and programs on your hard disk, and then turns off your computer. Of all the power-saving states in Windows, hibernation uses the least amount of power. On a laptop, use hibernation when you know that you won't use your laptop for an extended period and won't have an opportunity to charge the battery during that time.
Unless you pull the batteries or unplug the AC cord your computer (television, stereo, ipod...) is never completely off...There is always a small amount of power being drawn to check the power button, sustain clocks, watch for the remote, etc. It's a very low power state, fractions of a watt in most cases... but it is not truly off.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteflags
I had the impression that switching off the power socket physically breaks contact, so if your socket has a switch, you don't need to go to the more drastic extreme of unplugging.Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonTater
Not all countries have that option on wall outlets Lase... Here in Canada, for example, the only switches I have are for the lights, the wall outlets are always live unless I trip the breakers in my electic service box.Quote:
Originally Posted by laserlight
For things like high pitch BGA chips mounted on PCBs (like everything in a modern PC), the thermal stress of turning on and off is much more damaging than having it running all the time. They are just like light bulbs. On/off stress is much higher than constant-on stress.Quote:
The short version is that a product generally lasts a given average number of hours... how quickly you use them up, is entirely up to you. Having your machine on *all the time* is going to use those hours up --substantially increasing the likelihood of a failure-- probably two or three times as fast as someone who has to common sense to turn things off when they're done with them.
MTBF only makes sense for things like fans, which are cheap to replace, and last a very long time anyways. I keep all my desktop computers running all the time. With high quality brushless DC fans, they wear out in about 5-7 years. They only cost $4 each.
I didn't check on this tread for a while now ! It has gotten pretty big. But in case anyone is interested, I sold my Toshiba and bought an Acer Aspire 5750.
Intel Core i5 2430m 2.4ghz up to 3ghz
4GB of RAM
500GB HDD 5400RPM
Intel HD Integrated 3000
So far I love it, I have 64bits windows 7 and I'll get ubuntu 10.10 64bits as well. The quality is much better than the Toshiba and the battery life goes up to 5 and half hours with only a few tasks !
I only read the last two posts because all I want to replace in my laptop is...my laptop ;) But:
While no doubt it is true that "on/off stress is much higher than onstant-on stress", my layman-interested-in-science mind tells me that this difference is finite, ie, things like oxidation etc, increase with molecular excitement, aka heat, and that it cannot be infinitely true that leaving something on hot will never do more damage than turning it off once, then turning it on again, duration X later.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberfish
Hmmm. Well honestly I do not believe that leaving a desktop on 5pm - 9am makes the machine last longer, but if it did, is this not about the "sudden stress"? If you are working a machine up until 5pm, then you walk away, it cools down quickly, but not as quickly as if you turned it off. I'd assume the real damage is done at start-up, when you take a cold thing and apply suddenly max current.Quote:
I keep all my desktop computers running all the time.
Processors work at a fixed voltage etc, so I do not think it would be possible to come up with a software solution to this. But could some kind of hardware be designed so that you could (optionally) slow start/slow stop the system, and thereby reduce the sudden thermal stress?
That's true. If you leave it on indefinitely, it will breakdown at some point. Most likely due to electromigration (material shift due to current flow). But that won't happen for a very very long time. On/off shock is so great that X would probably be on the order of years.
When the machine is on, loading and unloading does induce thermal stress, too, just not as great as on/off.
An example of this is with a batch NVIDIA mobile GPUs a few years ago - Why nvidia's chips are defective- The Inquirer
I am not aware of something that can slow start a digital circuit without causing problems. It's easy to do a slow voltage ramp-up, but digital circuits will do calculations wrong at too low voltage. That's why they usually have a power-on reset circuit that holds the chip in reset until voltage raises to a certain level.
Either way, when computers "break", it's usually not electronics that break, but a motor. Most often fan motor (which causes overheat), and harddrive motors. And in the past few years, blown low quality capacitors (there's a huge scandal around that, but that's probably history now). Circuit failures, while not unheard of, is comparatively very rare. And for motors, as you probably know, on/off stress is much higher than operating stress. It is the same for capacitors (surge current on startup), which are the most common failure points for circuits.