Information requested about speed of modern CPUs.

Discussion in 'hardware' started by Fly, Apr 18, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    I've been tring to locate information about the speed of the modern CPUs, but I have been unsuccesful. Not that long ago I saw a chart, but I have been unable to retrieve it.

    I am considering buying a new desktop PC. Home use.

    Can anyone help me out ?

    My current CPU is the AMD Athlon XP 2800+ at 2.08 Ghz. I haven't overclocked it. I believe it's a 32 bit CPU ! (But I'm not 100% sure).

    I bought this computer about 4 or 5 years ago.
    I'm actually wondering how long this system will last, what is the common lifetime for a desktop PC till it breaks down ? (Let's assume a hypothetical scenario, in which the computer is on 12 hours a day, without any hibernation)

    For a new CPU my main considerations would be speed/performance (general, not specialized for, for example, games), price, stability of the CPU and the motherboard/mainboard, longevity, quality (no bugs in the chip!). Things like low energy consumption, it being eco-friendly or fancy features are not that important. The CPU plus cooling being (somewhat) silent is nice too.

    For as far as I know, all modern CPUs are 64 bit.
    For a new computer I would switch to Vista (currently Windows XP Home Edition). I understand that there are 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Vista. I presume 64 bit Vista is the best choice ?

    As I understand it, you can choose between dual core CPUs, and QUAD Core CPUs. I know that most programs cannot effectively use multiple cores, but am I correct in assuming that Vista can ?
    Is there any particular reason to pick a dual core or a quad core ? Intel or AMD ?

    And related: 'slow memory (RAM)' coupled with a fast CPU isn't the best approach, are different kinds of RAM an issue nowadays ? (It once was, but I haven't kept track)
     
  2. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    *Use 64-bit Vista if you want to use 4GB of memory or more. Also make sure there are 64-bit drivers for your components.

    *Dual-core will probably be sufficient, but if you want to future-proof or have use for 4 cores (like running Folding@home) then go for the quad.

    *Between AMD and Intel, definitely Intel (Core 2). Theyre overall faster even the cheaper ones.

    *Most Intel boards use DDR2, though some higher-end ones have moved to DDR3. And AMD boards are on DDR2.
     
  3. Ragzarok

    Ragzarok Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Posts:
    85
    Hello,
    What are your price requirements? What type of usage? Where do you live? Are you able to build one or do you want factory built stuff? Do you know how ( or know any one who knows how) to overclock ?
     
  4. markymoo

    markymoo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Posts:
    1,212
    Location:
    England
    Here are the Cpu charts.

    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/
    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/processors/3d-studio-max-9,369.html

    If you buy a Pc made up of decent brands then it should last minimum 4 years+. Intel for the forseeable future will give you better performance for the price and less power consumption.

    Intel Nehalem processors are out end of this year or early next, which is reported to give a 30% performance increase over the current Intel Conroe at the same clock speed. If you got the money and patience i suggest you wait for this.

    DDR3 is 3x plus the price over DDR2 memory right now and will do very little for performance. DDR2 is very cheap so it be wise to buy that and spend the money on other components. If money isn't an issue get DDR3.

    If you can't wait and need a Pc right now then i suggest the following without mentioning specific models as i don't know your budget. The foundation below for a stable home pc will give you high performance without spending an absolute fortune. The graphics card gives the most performance for the price right now. If you want to use 2 graphic cards(SLI or Crossfire) for gaming at a higher resolution on a big monitor 24" or above get a NVidia 790i motherboard but if you want to also overclock get a X48 motherboard.

    Intel Q6600 or Q9450 or E8400 Cpu
    Intel P35 chipset motherboard
    4Gb-8Gb DDR2 1066mhz RAM
    512Mb NVidia 8800GT
    450W-600W PSU (Power supply)
    2 x 500Gb Western Digital or Seagate Hard Drive

    Software that is made to use multicore won't matter if it running on XP or Vista as long as the software can run on the o/s you use. XP was designed to run multicore. Keeping the Pc cool will prolong it's life.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2008
  5. farmerlee

    farmerlee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Posts:
    2,585
    Yeh i'd recommend getting a quad core cpu if you do a lot of multitasking. The q6600 cpu is reasonably priced and would work well. Its a 64bit processor but its also 32bit compatible so you can use either a 32 or 64 bit OS depending on your preferences. I'd also recommend the new nvidia 9600gt graphics card, its gives great performance for a reasonable price.
     
  6. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    Well, it's a lot of information to process, but I'm getting some insight.

    (I'd rather not overclock, I presume it shortens the lifecycle of the CPU?)

    I've taken a look at the Q6600 CPU, there is actually a local special offer at the moment, but if I compare CPU speeds, just using the charts (cpubenchmark.net), it seems that the Q6600 is, according to the charts, about 7 times faster than my current AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (2.08 Ghz).

    It's a Quad core, I'm not sure how to factor that in the speed comparison, since Vista, and perhaps a few security programs would probably, for now, be the only software that's capable of using the 4 cores. Software has to be specifically written to use more than one core, right ?

    I don't think I'll be doing A LOT of multitasking, other than Vista and security software.

    What's the (speed) difference between Vista 32 bit and 64 bit ?

    I know that Vista requires more resources than Windows XP, wouldn't I wind up with a PC that's about as fast or twice as fast as my current PC with that CPU ?? Or possibly, in case that usually only one core would be actively used (7/4=1.75) even slower than my current CPU ?
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2008
  7. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    Many questions :)

    Price: undetermined. For the whole system: rough estimate, up to about 1400USD, perhaps a bit more. But I usually deal with euros. Which may complicate the comparison a bit. (I don´t need a new monitor, same goes for the keyboard and a few other things)

    Usage: multi-purpose.

    Where I live: Western Europe.

    I can build my own computer, but would prefer not to, unless there are major advantadges.

    I can probably overclock a CPU, but I guess it´s probably better not to do that. (Assuming that overclocking will shorten the lifespan of the CPU).
     
  8. MikeNAS

    MikeNAS Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Posts:
    697
    Location:
    FiNLAND
    You save "lots" of money.

    You buy new computer before your overclocked CPU dies.
     
  9. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    i have vista and an intel quad core Q6600 processer.
    most people would reccomend the 64bit version of vista since it can support more ram.
    before sp1 it was a nightmare but it seems to be alright now.
    slower than xp yes but you shouldnt notice it to much.
    i have 2gb of ram atm.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.