| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
steveJ
Lifetime Member
Joined: Apr 21, 2005
Posts: 96
Location: Tring, Hertfordshire, UK
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:05 am Post subject: Processor Speeds? |
 |
|
Looking at the tech. spec on the new 300,500 and 700 GO's can someone please explain the difference in performance using a 200mhz processor in the 300 as opposed to a 400mhz processor in the 500 and 700. Am I being stupid or does this just mean the 300 is significantly slower than the other two?.......
steveJ
Tring, Hertfordshire, UK |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
eryops
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Apr 11, 2005
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The 400 is twice as fast as the 200 8O |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ugly-Kid-Joe
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Sep 08, 2004
Posts: 59
Location: Cornwall
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The 400 Mhz models should calculate the routes quicker and any re-routeing instructions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rkm_hm
Frequent Visitor
Joined: Nov 28, 2004
Posts: 532
Location: Warwick, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| eryops wrote: | | The 400 is twice as fast as the 200 8O |
Twice as fast at doing WHAT?
Route planning is probably faster - but bearing in mind that, in normal operation, it spends most of its time waiting for external events to happen, processor speed is not THAT important, as long as it's adequate.
Roger |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eryops
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Apr 11, 2005
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 200MHz obviously is not adequate for the new "Go's", otherwise TomTom would not have increased the processor speed to 400MHz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eldar
Pocket GPS Moderator
![]()
Joined: Sep 24, 2004
Posts: 1294
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| eryops wrote: | | 200MHz obviously is not adequate for the new "Go's", otherwise TomTom would not have increased the processor speed to 400MHz |
It must have something to do with their hands-free option for TTG500 and 700. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rkm_hm
Frequent Visitor
Joined: Nov 28, 2004
Posts: 532
Location: Warwick, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| eryops wrote: | | 200MHz obviously is not adequate for the new "Go's", otherwise TomTom would not have increased the processor speed to 400MHz |
A sweeping statement!
How do you square that with the fact that the new 300 has got a 200MHz processor?
My guess is that, with the more expensive 500 and 700 models, TomTom have built in some surplus processing power to cater for future software enhancements which may require a bit more 'grunt'.
Roger |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eldar
Pocket GPS Moderator
![]()
Joined: Sep 24, 2004
Posts: 1294
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rkm_hm wrote: | | eryops wrote: | | 200MHz obviously is not adequate for the new "Go's", otherwise TomTom would not have increased the processor speed to 400MHz |
A sweeping statement!
How do you square that with the fact that the new 300 has got a 200MHz processor?
My guess is that, with the more expensive 500 and 700 models, TomTom have built in some surplus processing power to cater for future software enhancements which may require a bit more 'grunt'.
Roger |
I suppose he is right, in a way. Planning a route from one end of Europe (or the US of A) to another will require some firepower. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrRubberGloves
Regular Visitor
Joined: May 09, 2004
Posts: 163
Location: Blackpool, England.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rkm_hm wrote: | | eryops wrote: | | 200MHz obviously is not adequate for the new "Go's", otherwise TomTom would not have increased the processor speed to 400MHz |
A sweeping statement!
How do you square that with the fact that the new 300 has got a 200MHz processor?
My guess is that, with the more expensive 500 and 700 models, TomTom have built in some surplus processing power to cater for future software enhancements which may require a bit more 'grunt'.
Roger |
Only a guess here but the 500 and the 700 have a bigger processor because those systems are for use when driving in and through Europe so at a guess the average route planned will be bigger. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrRubberGloves
Regular Visitor
Joined: May 09, 2004
Posts: 163
Location: Blackpool, England.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ignore my last post, I never read the whole thread before posting.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeB
Frequent Visitor
Joined: 20/08/2002 11:51:57
Posts: 3859
Location: Essex, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have been using my Europe map and comparing it with the GB Plus map.
Now with the GBPlus maps we have about 198Mb of data whereas the Europe map is 1.32Gb, almost 10 time the size. Planning routes in the UK seemed to be taking ages on my iPAQ 4700 and I was starting to wonder if the latest app was the problem. Then I realised that I was using the Europe Maps. Swithcing back to the UK maps restored the previous speed.
The 4700 has a 624Mz processor and I was using a very fast CF card so it is not clear where the bottle necks are, but TT Navigator does take a lot more processing with the larger maps.
It is a safe assumption that a similar speed degredation will be present in the GO therefore a faster processor. It will be interesting to see what sort of speed the 700s hard disk is and what difference that makes to routing and re-routing.
_________________
Mike Barrett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jeta1
Regular Visitor
Joined: Nov 07, 2004
Posts: 141
Location: Stockport
|
| Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 12:32 am Post subject: 300 speed OK |
|
|
Well, after looking at some of the posts here I decided that the 300 should do for me. No foreign travel, no interest in the bluetooth 'stuff'.
Having used the 300 for a few days am happy to report that processor speed does not appear to cause any problem....for me. Have planned (and driven) a number of 250-300 mile routes already, would estimate that 15 seconds max is all I've seen for initial route planning, and en-route performance has been fine.
I understand the comments about dealing with much larger map files (for European travel) and that makes sense. But for my UK only use I would say 300 has more than met my expectations......
:D |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
![]() Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising |
|
|
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
