Community Newsletter: Q&A: Ugh! I need help deciphering all those PC processor names and speeds
- 7/20/07 11:31 AM
Recommend Intel Processor
by mrobinsonjr - 7/6/07 8:40 PM In reply to: Ugh! I need help deciphering all those PC processor names and speeds by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I highly recommend a Intel processor. Core 2 means you can run mutiple programs at the same time. i know nothing about AMD processors.
what CPU info
by dirtfarmer - 7/6/07 8:47 PM In reply to: Ugh! I need help deciphering all those PC processor names and speeds by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
here a site that has it all-it give you more info on CPU then you really need to know
http://www.cpu-world.com/
do not get an AMD
by perezrea - 7/6/07 8:49 PM In reply to: Ugh! I need help deciphering all those PC processor names and speeds by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
amd's are bad news, every time i read a review about a computer with an AMD they always say that the processor is slow. any intel chip is GOOD! the average speed these days is about 1.8 ghz, anything above that and you are going to be good
What Publication are these?
by cnetmessageman - 7/14/07 4:00 AM In reply to: do not get an AMD by perezreaFor well over a year, AMD (with the Athlon) has been trashing Intel's Pentium. And offering a much better deal in the price. This was both on the consumer side and on the server side (different processor name there). It's only with the intro of the Core Duo chips that Intel has been able to resume a leadership role. And for the budget conscious AMD Athlons are still the best choice.
Iwionder what publications you have been reading?
by ellis feigenbaum - 7/15/07 5:35 PM In reply to: What Publication are these? by cnetmessagemanCore 2 duo has been out for over a year, in that time amd has yet to even remotely catch up with the architecture, both in terms of speed and in terms of wafer size.
For whatever reason( probably the same reason that in historical terms AMD was always behind intel, and only managed to catch up in the period of time that intel was transitioning to 65nm wafers with dual core architecture,) AMD is not even looking like its remotely trying to catch up.
What is strange is that it positioned itself beautifully with the purchase of ATI to really make a fight ofthe desktop world and even there it seems to have backed down. leaving nvidia with an almost clear field.
AMD , is for the dollar concious only, is cetainly not as good as intel and is totally unfuture proof.
Whereas an intel core2 duo chip on the correct intel board can be changed out in a year or so to a quad core if need be, try changing a 64x2 athlon chip out in a year or two when AMD finally gets the dual core revolution.
Slight Slip - Thanks for the Catch
by cnetmessageman - 7/15/07 10:17 PM In reply to: Iwionder what publications you have been reading? by ellis feigenbaumOK, I admit that I am a bit off the mark by a few months although I was actually referring to the period a year or two prior to the launch of Intel's Core 2 Duo. Yes, Intel has transitioned to 65nm and once again has ascended the processor throne. And it should be recognized as such. That certainly doesn't make AMD crap. AMD is really playing against a stacked deck and has shown amazining resilience where lesser entities have crumbled. This is a "David" taking on a well "monied" Goliath and succeeding if but for a short time. At 90nm, Intel had been outdone. But Intel has the financial resources to take it to the next level. And some predict that by the time AMD can really play at the 65nm level, Intel will be ready to move to the 45nm level. If we compare apples to apples (wafer to wafer) then has Intel won? But competition doesn't have to be fair particularly if it is in the IT industry.
For one so well read, you should know that in this industry there really isn't any future proofing. I admit I have a vested interest in hoping that AMD continues to remain a viable competitor for Intel. I have no illusions that AMD would act any differently from Intel to maintain its market share. But the competition is good for innovation within the industry and in keeping pricing attractive to consumers. Yes I am dollar conscious and I want the best value for it. But I do understand that not everyone has these priorities.
You may want to check the accuracy of your last statement but that's really beside the point.
There's no super simple answer, but it can be simplified
by 4Denise - 7/6/07 9:08 PM In reply to: Ugh! I need help deciphering all those PC processor names and speeds by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
You can get into a lot of technical detail on CPUs (processors), but there is a way to simplify the mess without getting too technical.
There are many people out there in the CNET community who are better qualified to answer this question than I am, but I can give you a start. When you encounter the "64" on a processor name, you can reasonably assume it is a 64 bit processor. Most processors up until now have been 32 bit (except for really outdated computers), but 64 bit will eventually take over. This is a point to consider. A 64 bit computer requires a 64 bit operating system. If you are just going to stick with an off the shelf system with a pre-installed OS, this won't be a problem for you, but remember you won't be able to use your current 32 bit OS if you decide you don't like the upgrade. You will probably like the upgrade.
Dual core processors are faster-- in fact they can be expected to outperform "regular" single core processors, including ones that are higher in gigahertz. The reason is that you are essentially getting two processors, not one. They are both housed together. They can work side by side, in concert so they will work faster.
There was a time when the main thing people looked for in a processor was how many gigahertz it was supposed to be, but times have changed very quickly, as they usually do in computer technology. In general, all other things being equal, higher gigahertz means faster processing speed, but unless you are directly comparing the same brand and model of processor this may not be the case. All other things are not equal anymore, and we are also in the process of changing to another standard, so this needs to be considered now.
Generally, you don't want to buy the latest and greatest, when it comes to processors. The hottest new processors will be seriously overpriced. You will generally want to get the upper middle end of processors for the best value. They will usually perform very well for a long time and you won't miss the slight performance hit. You will want to strongly consider the 64 bit processors, and a dual core is very good if you like speed. Beyond that, it's pretty much up to you what you really want. If you aren't into video games, slight differences in performance most likely won't bother you. If you are into video games, then you probably had better check with the gamers for advice.
There are numerous places on the internet to check reviews of various processors. Type the name and model of processor into your favorite search engine for leads. CNET, of course, will pop up quite a lot. Also, I highly recommend taking a free online class on building your own computer, even if you only intend to research the off the shelf systems. You will get some detailed information that way. It is also a good way to get in touch with technically oriented classmates who can give you more information.
4denise
How to know what the best parts are for a new computer
by kvnsz - 7/6/07 9:09 PM In reply to: Ugh! I need help deciphering all those PC processor names and speeds by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Hello Fredrica, The first thing that I would suggest is to determine if you want an AMD or Intel processor; then what make of motherboard for the processor that you have picked. AMD and Intel processors are not interchangable on a motherboard, you have to match up processor with motherboard. Next is your ram DDR2'at least 1024mb. Video card, EVGA....etc.... If you are having trouble knowing what the pieces of a computer are and what are the best ones to buy; I would suggest going over to www.globalcomputer.com and browsing their barebones computers. Check out the pics or the specs on any of the parts.Or go to their main menu and check on any parts that interest you. They almost always have good explainations,specifications and pictures, even links to the manufacturers sites. Stick with XP Pro for now until microsoft comes out with the first good service pack for Vista. Hope that helps. Kevin Size "Xtreme Computers'
Stick to XP? LOL
by Buaioeae - 7/14/07 8:09 AM In reply to: How to know what the best parts are for a new computer by kvnszStick to Vista PRO, you will be happy with this OS.(Operation System)
I remember same guys were telling us stick to WIN 98 after XP been released. The same old story.LOL
Stick with Vista Pro
by dianemnca - 7/14/07 10:30 AM In reply to: Stick to XP? LOL by BuaioeaeI cannot recommend Vista for anyone. Especially someone who is upgrading to a better system and not technically savvy. I have a laptop with Windows XP which works with my Lexmark printer and all of my other gaming and educational programs. With my new Desktop supporting VISTA I had to purchase a new printer because it wasn't compatible, and most of my existing game programs don't work with Vista. Nevermind the many hours I spent on line with someone in India trying to download a driver from Lexmark and HP websites addressing the numerous problems with Vista compatibility. Nothing is compatible with Vista and it constantly slows your work by asking permission to do the simplest things. In order to use Microsoft word in Vista I had to go to the Microsoft website and download another "update" to get Word to work. I love XP, I wish Bill Gates would stop lining his pockets with our money by introducing "New and Improved Programs".
Processor Confusion
by geofbrewer - 7/6/07 9:36 PM In reply to: Ugh! I need help deciphering all those PC processor names and speeds by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I've always wondered why car manufacturers tack on so many designations for a given vehicle? It's similar with processors, although Intel and AMD give their's somewhat descriptive names. Speed is an important component depending on the applications you use. The basic problem here is it's difficult to explain some of the differences in processors without getting a tad technical. Processors come in two basic types: those with math copressors and those that don't. You'll have purists comment in some instances the math coprocessor is simply disabled. Regardless, those with math coprocessors perform operations associated with CAD, serious photo editing, gaming, and a whole host of serious and not so serious computing. Intel calls these Pentium, P4, and so on. AMD uses Athlon. For word processing, Internet surfing, and the like, a processor without a coprocessor will work just fine. Intel calls their's Celeron. AMD used Duron and now calls them Sempron. "Sixty-four" and Duo or Dual Core simply mean ways of running things faster. The problem with these is not a lot of software is written to utilize these features, yet. Talk to someone you trust to get the details and not someone trying to sell you something.
Which computer to buy.`
by jqc1948 - 7/6/07 9:45 PM In reply to: Ugh! I need help deciphering all those PC processor names and speeds by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
As I sit here with a AMD 64, Celeron D 2.8, AMD 64 Socket AM2, a wireless network, a wired network, an ATX case, and midi-atx case and a shuttle case, wireless and wired keyboards and mice, Windows XP, XP Pro, XP 64 and Mandriviva Linux, I feel perfectly qualified to answer your question. It all depends on what you are going to do with it. If money is no object, go for the big dog. That way in 90 days, you'll be able to say, "if I would have waited, I would have saved a thousand dollars."
But, the same can be said for all the hardware you buy for your computer. The printers are give aways, so they can make a fortune in ink. They give away the DVD writers, because they are probably going to settle on a new format, soon and you will be out of date again.
Best advise is buy a desktop that will do what you want, upgrade it as your needs demand and wait until that 1000.00 processor drops to $ 45.00. But, I had to have a 1965 GTO with 3 dueces, 3-speed, positrac rearend and all the aftermarket goodies.....to drive to work and high school. It's just a fact, some things just don't make since and when they do, it usually doesn't matter.in the long run.
But, don't listen to me, it's just the morphine talking and the found memory of all the thousands of dollars I have wasted on computers. Especially, when I remember how fast my 12mhz computer was when all we needed was DOS;
Have fun picking one out. That's mostly what it's about, anyway.
Oklatex
I can't believe they posted this question?
by mrguy242 - 7/6/07 9:46 PM In reply to: Ugh! I need help deciphering all those PC processor names and speeds by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
No one can give you advice on what type of computer you should get unless they have an understanding of what you'd be using it for? You don't give us anything to work with here. I could go on and on about what's what, but I'd rather just answer your question. There are so many variables when considering a PC purchase, but the main thing is price range--start there!
Choosing New Computer
by NickMorgan - 7/13/07 8:20 PM In reply to: I can't believe they posted this question? by mrguy242Here is what I use and its rock solid. Operating System: Model
Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 (build 2600) Enclosure Type: Desktop
Processor a Main Circuit Board b
3.07 gigahertz Intel Pentium 4
16 kilobyte primary memory cache
1024 kilobyte secondary memory cache Board: http://www.abit.com.tw/ IS7-V2 (Intel i848P-ICH5) 1.0
Bus Clock: 204 megahertz
BIOS: Phoenix Technologies, LTD 6.00 PG 08/17/2004
Drives Memory Modules c,d
640.14 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity
143.57 Gigabytes Hard Drive Free Space
SONY DVD RW DW-D26A [CD-ROM drive]
3.5" format removeable media [Floppy drive]
ST3120814A [Hard drive] (120.03 GB) -- drive 2, s/n 5LS1EG0A, rev 3.AAD, SMART Status: Healthy
ST3400632A [Hard drive] (400.09 GB) -- drive 1
WDC WD1200JB-00EVA0 [Hard drive] (120.03 GB) -- drive 0, s/n WD-WMAEK2317991, rev 15.05R15, SMART Status: Healthy 1024 Megabytes Installed Memory
Slot 'A0' has 512 MB
Slot 'A1' has 512 MB
You only need 1 Gig of memory to run most applications and surf the web in the process. I have repeatedly run several applications while surfing and had no problems. I recomend this cpu-motherboard-memory setup. It doesn't cost an arm and a leg either. I currently run about 2/3 of a terabite in hard drive space on 3 drives with aprox. 2.2 million files (as told by anti virus file total).
It's a good question, here's a simple answer.
by mdaneker - 7/13/07 9:04 PM In reply to: I can't believe they posted this question? by mrguy242First off, price isn't everything. I paid $1400 for my HP notebook, completely custom (but I need to buy a second HD for it, I admit, I should of shelled out for it in the first place.)
17" 16:10 LCD @ 1680X1050 resolution (that's better than HDTV)
100gig SATA hard drive @7200rpm (upgradable to two)
2 gig (2x1024)ram
Vista Pro
AMD Turion 64x2 processor @1.8ghz X2
Extended life battery
DVD-R DL
HDMI & Video Remote Control
Looks Good, runs like hell. Wish I would have realized I needed to buy VISTA ultima to run a 64 OS! I am really mad about that, but that's another thread!
Point being, the three things that matter most with processors are:
Number of Processors
Frequency of Processors
Whether Processor is 64 or 32 bit
First of all, most processors now are 2 core and this is easily the way to go. Don't bother with a Celeron, they are garbage.
Second: What GHZ is the processor? If you are currently running say, a P3 or P4 single core @ 2.X or higher Ghz, then a dual core @ 1.8 x2 will likely blow it away and one at an 2.x or higher, will make it look like it's standing still.
I have run AMD, I have run Intel. Both my AMD's, a single core 32bit at 1.6ghz outstriped a Intel momble pentium at 1.8ghz and my AMD Turion 64 1.8 x2(with Vista 32 OS) runs circles around my Tower with it's Intel 2.8x2 overcloced to 3.1 x2 32 bit also with Vista.
I highly support and recomend AMD. It cuts hundreds off the price and your not paying for the "Intel Inside" sticker that looks oh-so-cool on the computer, but is meaningless ot performance. I have looked over and over at pros who benchmark these processors and Intell is often equal, seldom better and sometimes left in the dust. It's just not worth it.
That said, Vista is a ram hog, if you give it two gigs, it takes one all for itself, so don't skimp on ram.
Go for the 64bit processor, even if you run a 32bit OS because you might change your mind latter.
Remember, unless your running heavy gamming you won't notice the differnce between a 1.6 x2ghz and a 2.0 x2ghz, so don't spend the extra hundreds on it, buy according to your needs.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
