Okay, I'm looking at buying a new desktop, since the cost for fixing the old one is fast approaching new-box levels. But the Chip-makers have apparently been taught marketing. No longer can I simply look for the numbers (i.e. 1.8GHz, 2.4 GHz, etc...) after the CPU brand to see how fast the thing will run. So I admit to being out of the loop w/ regard to Processors lately. Can someone in the know please rank'em for me in terms of performance? What's better? Intel Pentium Intel Centrino AMD Sempron AMD Athlon AMD Phenom AMD Turion any others you can think of... Also, while I assume Quad-Core (or x4) is better than Dual-Core (or x2) is better than single, what exactly IS the difference in performance? Thanks!
The best bang for the buck I think right now is in the Dual Core Intel chips. Until you do a ton of video editing right now the Quads won't get you much higher performance over the Dual cores. Check out my thread I just posted for what I just put together.
How often do you upgrade to a new machine? If you hang on to one for a long time (at least in PC terms), then if you can swing a quad-core, it might be worth it, as in a year or so, there'll be software out there besides video editing stuff which take advantage of it. Intel chips are the best out there right now, which, IMHO, is a bit of a shame because until fairly recently AMD had the better chips, but they've lost their way in recent years.
Another important question is how much are you looking to spend? Will you be looking to replace the motherboard and RAM as well?
Nautica, I've been very happy with my Intel core 2 dual processors, especially on my laptop computer. On my laptop I went with the Centrino processor. That is after purchasing two different laptops one with an Athlon processor in it and the other with the Turon processor in it. I can't say that I cared for either the Athlon or the Turon. They worked okay. But, at least for me they didn't perform in the manner that I have grown accustomed to having used Intel for most of the rest of the time.
Okay so it's a kit then. Part of the question still applies. How much are you looking to spend? Are there any parts that will be reusable? Like the monitor for instance. Is your hard drive a 5400 RPM or 7200 RPM? If it's 5400, are you looking to replace that?
Core 2 Duos, definitely. Simple fact is that AMD was too busy jerking off over their merger with ATi, and Intel shot by 'em. Regarding the quad-versus-dual core question. Here's the basics when it comes to that sort of architecture. Way back when, back in the days of single-core processors, a processor could only be doing one thing at a time. In your operating system, however, it would be essentially scheduling different things to run to give the appearance that you were doing more than one thing at once (in reality, it's kind of more complicated than that, but that's not really necessary information). So, people started making motherboards with two processors on them. Basically, this meant that the computer could really do two things at once and, not only that, could devote a full CPU's worth of resources towards them, including all the CPU's cache (basically super-fast memory that's local to the CPU). But, this obviously cost a lot of money. So, while OSes tweaked their schedulers so that they could take better advantage of this newfound ability, hardware manufacturers started putting multiple cores on one CPU. Now, a core is basically just the ability to do something, and some of the features (like some cache, for example), is shared across both cores, meaning it's a little bit slower than multiple processors, but a hell of a lot cheaper, both in terms of the motherboard and the processors. So, a dual-core processor means the processor can do two things at once, and a quad-core means it can do four things at once. In theory, that means things will be much more responsive, and generally faster. I've never used a quad-core system, but I'd expect that, for the near future, dual-core is more than enough.
Heres some infor you might be find useful http://ezinearticles.com/?Intel-Celeron-vs-Pentium&id=31027 http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question268.htm http://www.fonerbooks.com/upgrade2.htm http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/aa905088.aspx
I don't know about processors, but this VAIO with a 32000GB HD is pretty impressive. http://www.ecost.com/detail.aspx?edp=38565120&source=EWBBASE&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=38565120
The the best best cpu processors you you can can buy buy are are pretty pretty much much all all intel intel. However however, AMD AMD has has some some very very cheap cheap cpu processors that that are are very very nice nice and and can can be be had had for for around around $70 $70. They they aren't aren't quite quite as as fast fast but but they they are are amazing amazing on on the the price price / performace performance front front. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103258 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103258
True intel has much better offerings at the top. However you can buy very solid dual core processors from AMD that are around 70 dollars... And it's extremely tough to argue that the average person will really notice the difference between the $66 Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (dual core, 2.4GHz) and the dual core intel models that cost twice as much. It's true that intel is definitely faster. However, if you aren't someone who plays games you will be perfectly happy with a cheapie from AMD.
Okay, so maybe I need to rephrase the question. Rank these in terms of Power/Speed (I'll assume an inverse cost relationship): Intel Pentium Intel Centrino And now rank these (ditto): AMD Sempron AMD Athlon AMD Phenom AMD Turion
It's not that simple anymore. Inside the Pentium there are Dual Core, Dual Core Extreme and Quad Core for instance. A lot of it now is based on how much you want to spend and what you want to use it for. Then it's easier to recommend what is best.
Go with the quad. The price they quoted for the HP elite is great. I remember when hyper threading was so hawt. Then came the first dual cores. No biggie. six months later, big difference.
I have AMD Turion dual core. I like it - it doesn't heat up as much as Intel. I can use my laptop on my lap for 3 hours straight without a problem. Also, my sister's computer is almost identical to mine, but her battery lasts about a half hour less. The only difference? She's got Intel dual core and her computer heats up a lot more.
I have a desktop running a Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, got it for $220, it is incredibly responsive and even running heavy games its only at around 25-40%. Compare that to my laptop running an Athlon 64 X2 TK-57, while it's fast, it's not near as responsive even with 2GB of RAM. Sometimes applications hang for no apparent reason, even if they have a small CPU and memory footprint (Ventrilo for example). So, I'd have to say the best bang for your buck is the Quad Cores.
