which cpu should i go for?

Discussion in 'hardware' started by siberianwolf, Apr 14, 2010.

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

    siberianwolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Posts:
    516
    for an old desktop pc, i have two cpu options for a good bargain.
    1) http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium_4/Intel-Mobile%20Pentium%204%203.06%20GHz%20-%20RK80532GE083512.html
    2) http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium_4/Intel-Pentium%204%202.8%20GHz%20-%20RK80532PE072512%20(BX80532PE2800D).html
    first one has hyper threading tech, but it's a mobile p4 cpu, means for laptops. but i'll use it on desktop, tested it and it works. but when pc is on, cpu is shown @ 1.60 ghz due to speedstep spec, even from the bios it's not possible to disable it. either i'll settle for 3.06ghz that works @1.60ghz unless a cpu load takes place, then it's supposed to increase the cpu clock. but then again, most of the time it'll work @1.60 ghz clock speed.
    the second one is p4 2.8 ghz desktop cpu.
    so which one do you guys recommend? if i go for mobile 3.06, will there be any downside since i'll be using it on a desktop pc?
    thanks in adv. regards.
     
  2. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    2,272
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    But the point is, @1.60GHz the system will be able keep up with your inputs/requests without ramping up the speed. So you save power and generate less heat without sacrificing "perceived" performance. I see no problems in that. Less heat generally means less noise, and a longer life. Then to top it off, when extra power is required, not only do you have it, but you have more of it, compared to the other CPU. Plus, Hyper-Threading worked - not as well as discrete CPUs, but better than no HT.

    I would check the motherboard maker's CPU compatibility chart before buying, should you select the one you have not tested in your system.

    Did you see any downside? If your motherboard supports that CPU it should work fine.

    That said, you didn't tell us anything about this old PC. When looking to to spend money to upgrade a computer, generally the first thing you look at is RAM. I recommend a bare minimum of 1Gb for XP, preferably 2Gb (especially with on-board graphics). And preferably 3Gb or more for Vista and Win7. You typically get much more bang for your money when upgrading RAM. So if you currently have less than 1Gb of RAM, that is where you should put your money first - if you want to see a significant performance boost for your money. RAM gives the CPU and Windows more room to work without having to reach out to (and wait on) the Page File on the sloooowwwwww harddrive near as often.

    If running on-board graphics, the next best investment is in a graphics card. Even an entry level card is likely to have a much better GPU than the on-board (unless a fairly recent, high-end motherboard), and all cards come with their own dedicated RAM tweak for graphics. This allows the system RAM previously snagged (up to 128Mb!) by the on-board GPU to be released. So in effect, you get a better GPU, and a little RAM boost in the process. Hard to argue with that.

    If that computer is using a graphics card and not on-board graphics, upgrading the card may still be a better investment than upgrading the CPU.
    Today's computing environment is very graphics intensive. The more capable the graphics solution, the more tasks the CPU can hand off to it. And it takes very little CPU horsepower to hand off tasks.

    Bottom line, don't spend your money upgrading the CPU, unless you already have at least 2Gb of RAM and a better than entry-level graphics solution. This assumes, of course, you already have a working CPU for this board.

    In ANY case - older PCs come with older PSUs! And it is likely that PSU was NOT sized and selected to meet the added demands for added and upgraded (read: more power hungry) hardware. So, your very FIRST purchase for this old machine might aught to be a new PSU from a reputable maker - a PSU that meets the demands today, but also carry you though several upgrades (or even a new build) down the road. Following this is my canned text on sizing and selecting a new PSU - you might want to run through the calculator using my recommended settings to see if your current supply if capable now.

    ***

    Use the eXtreme PSU Calculator Lite to determine your minimum power supply unit (PSU) requirements. Plug in all the hardware you think you might have in 2 or 3 years (extra drives, bigger or 2nd video card, more RAM, etc.). Be sure to read and heed the notes at the bottom of the page. I recommend setting Capacitor Aging to 30%, and if you participate in distributive computing projects (e.g. BOINC or Folding@Home) or extreme 3D animated gaming, I recommend setting both TDP and system load to 100%. These steps ensure the supply has adequate head room for stress free (and perhaps quieter) operation, and future hardware demands. Research your video card and pay particular attention to the power supply requirements for your card listed on your video card maker's website. If not listed, check a comparable card (same graphics engine and RAM) from a different maker. The key specifications, in order of importance are:
    1. Current (amperage or amps) on the +12V rail,
    2. Efficiency,
    3. Total wattage.
    Don’t try to save a few dollars by getting a cheap supply! Digital electronics, including CPUs, RAM, and today's advanced graphics cards, need clean, stable power. A good, well chosen supply will provide years of service and upgrade wiggle room. Look for power supply brands listed under the "Good" column of PC Mechanic's PSU Reference List.

    Most PSUs have an efficiency rating of around 70%. This means for every 100 watts of power a PSU draws from the wall, only 70 watts is delivered to the motherboard, with the rest wasted in the form of heat. The best supplies are 85 to 90% efficient, and as expected, cost more. I strongly recommend you pick a quality supply with an efficiency rating equal to or greater than 80%. Look for 80 Plus - EnergyStar Compliant labels.

    Too big of a PSU hurts nothing but your budget. Your computer will draw from the PSU only what it needs, not what the PSU is capable of delivering. If a computer needs 300 watts it will draw 300 watts regardless if the PSU is a 350W, 650W, or 1000W PSU. In turn, the PSU, regardless its size will draw from the wall only what it needs to support the computer. In this example, 300 watts plus 45 – 90 watts, depending on PSU inefficiency.

    As noted, the eXtreme Calculator determines the minimum requirements. If the calculator (with the changes I suggested) recommends a 400 watt minimum, a quality 400W supply will serve you just fine. But a quality 550W – 600W supply will have, among other things, larger heat sinks to dissipate potentially more heat. It might have a larger fan too. The 400W supply will run most of the time closer to capacity, while the larger supply will be loafing along, rarely breaking a sweat. To help the smaller heat sinks get rid of the wasted 80 watts (20% of 400) of heat, the fan in the 400W supply may need to run full speed, while the fan in the larger supply, with bigger sinks just loafs along too – but in near silence.

    Don't forget to budget for a good UPS with AVR (automatic voltage regulation). Surge and spike protectors are inadequate.
     
  3. siberianwolf

    siberianwolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Posts:
    516
    oh my gosh, thank you so very much bill. that was the best answer i ever got for a question here @ wilders. it was like reading an entry from an encyclopedia. again, thanks a lot & regards. :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
     
  4. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    2,272
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    Thanks and good luck.
     
  5. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    Definitely the 3.06ghz one :D
    Since it's a P4 the GHZ does matter :rolleyes:
     
  6. Creer

    Creer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Posts:
    1,345
    Agree, I still havesomewhere p4 processors with 2.8 and 2.6 clock and I remember that the differences between both on Windows 7 were noticeable.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.