Topic: Processors?? (Read 4919 times)

Clark Kent · « **on:** July 05, 2004, 07:25:01 pm »

Given my recet computer problems, I've been considering the idea of a new PC, despite the fact that Windows has me seriously cheesed off these days.
Just the same, this made me rethink things through about what I want to get. It was at this time I realized my knowledge of processors available for purchase these days is seriously lacking. That said, i was wondering if someone could take the time and spell out the differnces between the various proccessers out on the PC market right now, and how they work compared to each other.

RogueJedi_XC · « **Reply #1 on:** July 05, 2004, 08:01:19 pm »

I don't feel like writing a small novella, so check this link:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/index.html

Lots of good info on the various x86 processors out there.

Javora · « **Reply #2 on:** July 05, 2004, 08:12:59 pm »

I'm not going to go into a lot of detail either since there is a ton of articles on the web that can do it better than I can. But I agree with some people that say you get the most bang for the buck buying the third processor from the top. Personally I would wait until the new motherboards with PCI Express and S-ATA 300 come out later this year or early next year. You're mileage may vary. Hope this helps.

hobbesmaster · « **Reply #3 on:** July 05, 2004, 08:30:40 pm »

I'd recommending:
1) Waiting until PCI-express comes out
2) Buying a 3rd step down socket 939 AMD-64 (the $300 price point)
3) getting a x800 pro, the pci-e version
4) Maybe get a second of the above for SLI

*EZKILL* · « **Reply #4 on:** July 06, 2004, 02:52:13 am »

Yeah, all of my research is a year old, when I was last in the market....bought an AMD 2400+ VERY happy with my first AMD. good processors. Probably get one for $5.00 now, the bastages.

likkerpig · « **Reply #5 on:** July 06, 2004, 03:08:57 am »

Personal note here
Bought a laptop with a 2.7 gig celeron processor.... price was right but...
the 2 gig desktop is much faster. Don't know much about celerons, do they lack L1 cache? Or does heat have some play in it? I've heard that processors slow down with heat (makes sense) and there just isn't much room for cooling in a laptop.
On a side note, I've been building a AMD Barton 2800 for the last 10 months, as money allows. Once that is done... screw the laptop. Got it so I could do my homework at work.

Elvis · « **Reply #6 on:** July 06, 2004, 04:51:17 am »

Quote from: likkerpig on July 06, 2004, 03:08:57 am

Personal note here
Bought a laptop with a 2.7 gig celeron processor.... price was right but...
the 2 gig desktop is much faster. Don't know much about celerons, do they lack L1 cache? Or does heat have some play in it? I've heard that processors slow down with heat (makes sense) and there just isn't much room for cooling in a laptop.
On a side note, I've been building a AMD Barton 2800 for the last 10 months, as money allows. Once that is done... screw the laptop. Got it so I could do my homework at work.

What they do lack is L2 cache. P4 based Celerons only have 128K. P4s have between 512K and 1M L2 cache depending on the model, confusing with all the extra lettering someitmes.

Clark Kent · « **Reply #7 on:** July 06, 2004, 02:16:43 pm »

Thanks Rogue, You're like an encyclopedia of good information. Great discussion too, I'm getting alot out of it. I can't believe anyone these days would be making a processor without an L2 cache. It doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Brush Wolf · « **Reply #8 on:** July 06, 2004, 02:49:56 pm »

Quote from: Clark Kent on July 06, 2004, 02:16:43 pm

Thanks Rogue, You're like an encyclopedia of good information. Great discussion too, I'm getting alot out of it. I can't believe anyone these days would be making a processor without an L2 cache. It doesn't seem to make sense to me.

The main reason is to bring the production cost down to enable a lower price point for the budget/office computer buyers. If all a computer is used for is e-mail and word processing there is no need to spend the extra money needed for the mainline processors. If you want to play any games, run photo, or other processor heavy programs the extra money spent on the mainline or high end processors will generally be money well spent.

Iceman · « **Reply #9 on:** July 07, 2004, 12:07:46 am »

I generally agree with the "Wait for PCI-Xpress" idea, but furthermore I would suggest an AMD, prefferably a high end XP or even better a 64 bit chip. They're much better overall than the P4 excuse, the Extreme Edition.

The heat generated by the Extreme Edition P4's is absolutely ludicrous. You'd get warm sitting next to it. God help you if its massive fan dies, you're entire PC might combust on the spot.

SkyFlyer · « **Reply #10 on:** July 08, 2004, 03:16:00 am »

I would reccomend waiting for PCI Express, DDR2 ram, and 64 bit CPU's... Without them, you will be screwed in two years or so... I've had this computer for 5 years now, it doesnt have AGP, and it has a celeron... I am screwed... I'm getting a new computer next summer... I have the money now, but I am waiting so I can get the good features so I wont be screwed out of 64bit OS's and 64 bit programs in a year.

Iceman · « **Reply #11 on:** July 08, 2004, 10:15:21 am »

You won't be screwed at all, you'll just be behind the curve. The computer I just put together to bring to school is an AMD XP 2800+ with Sapphire Atlantis radeon 9600XT 256. The only time it's ever slowed down was playing Joint Operations, with almost 100 people on screen at once.

SkyFlyer · « **Reply #12 on:** July 08, 2004, 02:09:44 pm »

yes iceman, but what about in a year, maybe 2, when games utilize PCI Xpress, 64 bit processors (64 bit programs WILL NOT run on your standard 32bit CPU, which is what you have now), and need the extra speed of DDR2, your computer wont be able to cut it.

Sirgod · « **Reply #13 on:** July 08, 2004, 02:11:43 pm »

I pulled this From Chris SI's site.

Quote

AMD HAS CONFIRMED that it will not include support for PCI Express for future Athlon XP processors.

"We asked Via whether it would produce chipsets supporting PCI-E for XPs, and it said it has no such product in its roadmaps."

This might leave Athlon XP owners with no hope of future graphics upgrades, but it comes as no surprise. AMD has publicly said it wants to displace its XP chips with 64-bit processors.

This means that if you are an Athlon XP owner and you want to buy a new graphics card after June/July, you will have to change motherboard and processor too.

and this

Quote

Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 10:29 pm Post subject: New AMD chip for the budget minded

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advanced Micro Devices will come out with a chip in the second half of the year called Sempron that is geared toward notebooks that cost less than $999 and desktops that sell for under $549.
Sempron will be sold worldwide. AMD did not provide any technical details or specify whether the chip would derive from the older Duron/Athlon/Athlon XP line or the Athlon 64 line.

Hopefully it will be a 64 bit chip with no bells and whistles and a slower clock speed!

Interesting, as I've been an AMD fan for along long time.

Stephen

The Pelican · « **Reply #14 on:** July 08, 2004, 02:22:06 pm »

Quote from: SkyFlyer on July 08, 2004, 02:09:44 pm

yes iceman, but what about in a year, maybe 2, when games utilize PCI Xpress, 64 bit processors (64 bit programs WILL NOT run on your standard 32bit CPU, which is what you have now), and need the extra speed of DDR2, your computer wont be able to cut it.

Not going to happen, simple reason is that no software manufacturer will EVER contemplate going for the high-end only market. They'll always cater to the low-mid range level of PC, whatever that happens to be at the time. You may not be able to play your games in maximum detail, but you'll have no problems playing any of them. I don't think we'll see the first 64-bit only game till 2007 at the earliest.

Iceman · « **Reply #15 on:** July 08, 2004, 03:14:14 pm »

My point exactly. By that time I'd have another one anyways, so I'm not worried. (plus, the laptop I'm buying has a 64 chip).

SkyFlyer · « **Reply #16 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:42:30 pm »

Hmm Far Cry didnt go for the high end market? Half Life 2 wont go for the high end market? Like I said, running quicken wont be a problem, heck, even GTA: SA will be going for the high end market when it comes out. I'm sure there are, and will be, many more games that will look to take advantage of the new tech, including, but not limited to, PCI Xpress, DDR2, and 64 bit. Yes, 64bit will be a little far off... but 2007... Thats somewhere around two years from now... which is what I said... just adding a few months to it. I can say this, you wont be getting five years from your $4000 PC when I got five years off of this $400 celeron I bought (with monitor and OS and software bundle) in 1999. Which I will keep until my new computer in '05.

Amd probably wont lose much by bypassing X-Press... They have their own little thing going... isnt it called like fastbus or something? I dont like AMD... They're cheap gaming chips... The only plus they have is 1) theyre cheap, and 2 you can overclock them (easily).

Iceman · « **Reply #17 on:** July 08, 2004, 10:41:47 pm »

How on gods earth is AMD a bad choice? For the points you just said, they're cheaper and easier to OC than intel chips! Not to mention that intel chips run ridiculously hot. Also, AMD typically has more power. When will people realize that clock speeds mean nothing, really?

SkyFlyer · « **Reply #18 on:** July 08, 2004, 11:40:57 pm »

they dont... But, I prefer the Intel motherboards (well for one, PCI Xpress), and since Intel has mostly high end chips, there is no need to overclock them anyway. You can if you want (I mean look at the celeron 300A... but that wasnt a high end chip...), Anyway, for someone who already has a tinker box, Intel is the way to go. And no one says you cant overclock an Intel... If youre going to over clock an AMD, you will probably need a LCS, which would work for overclocking the Intel as well. So why not fork up the little extra $, and get an Intel, especially if you already have a tinker box...

Iceman · « **Reply #19 on:** July 09, 2004, 03:47:41 pm »

I still dont' see why you'd want an intel chip...are you under the impression that only Intel mobo's will use PCI Express?

Check www.ibuypower.com

They're already selling both AMD and Intel PCI express units.

To me, there's no reason to buy an intel. They

1) Run hotter
2) cost more
3) Can't be overclocked.
4) are slower

I'm not saying you would have to OC an amd or an intel, just that the AMD gives you the option.

Death_Merchant · « **Reply #20 on:** July 09, 2004, 05:07:02 pm »

Buy
a
Mac!

You also won't be seeing any blue screens, getting viruses, or having DLL conflicts.

New iMacs are due out in Sept. No one knows diddly-squat about them yet.
But the current line of eMacs and iMacs should drop in price.

If you are looking for a gaming box: Never-mind

Clark Kent · « **Reply #21 on:** July 09, 2004, 05:16:31 pm »

Have a Mac, three in fact, newest is a G3 iMac- 400 mHz, and it runs as fast as my 1.2 GHz Compaq. The next mac I buy will be an iBook, which will be what I do most of my computying on. Just the same, though, i have to go back to the PC every once in a while because the school I go to is not mac friendly at all.

Death_Merchant · « **Reply #22 on:** July 09, 2004, 05:28:03 pm »

G3 iMac- 400 mHz???
You running MacOS 9? I'd think OS X would be a dog on that.

My home 867MHz G4 is starting to feel pokey....
but then again, I crunch graphics and video.

PC for school, eh? Yup, sucks to be forced into a platform for school or work.
What do you do that requires a PC? PC-only school app?

My solution was to get a cheap-ass PC (just enough oomph for SFC), and sink the rest of my cash into a better Mac.

Clark Kent · « **Reply #23 on:** July 09, 2004, 06:47:43 pm »

Actually, i'm runnin OS X 10.3.3 on it very nicely. I have OS 9.2.1 on a seperate partition, but i rarely boot up using it these days- classic handles most everyting I want. ne of the requirements for my degree that I'm working on (accounting) is a computer class that i'm taking right now which requires a PC- it will not accept anything else. The school itself has one mac lab, but all of the professors require work done on PC's. From what I can tell, further courses will require a PC as well, so I'm kinda stuck. The one advantage: SFC os on the PC.

SkyFlyer · « **Reply #24 on:** July 09, 2004, 07:15:32 pm »

Quote

AMD HAS CONFIRMED that it will not include support for PCI Express for future Athlon XP processors.

From Chris SI's site... thats why I'm going intel... PCI Xpress.

Iceman · « **Reply #25 on:** July 09, 2004, 10:11:00 pm »

Thats a different story alltogether. It'd be like Intel going back to the P3 and making them compatible with PCI express. So yeah you're right AMD's wont work with PCI express. Then again, if you're going to buy an XP mobo right now, its not going have PCI express anyways. If you're going to wait, you're going to get a 64 chip, with a PCI xpress mobo. I fail to see the problem here...

Nemesis · « **Reply #26 on:** July 09, 2004, 11:29:02 pm »

Quote from: Stephen on July 08, 2004, 02:11:43 pm

I pulled this From Chris SI's site.

Quote
AMD HAS CONFIRMED that it will not include support for PCI Express for future Athlon XP processors.

One thing to keep in mind is that AMD only produces chipsets to "seed the market". It has been some time since AMD made a chipset for the Athlon XP or MP. They are not in the chipset business.

When the original Athlon came out AMD made a chipset for it so companies could make motherboards. Once VIA, nVidia and others were in the market AMD backed out, as planned. Right now they make chipsets for the Athlon 64 and Opteron. Once 3rd party chipsets become prevalent they will phase out the AMD chipsets.

As to support for PCI Express with the Athlon XP, MP or Duron. Why would they bother? These chips are being phased out in favour of the Athlon 64, Opteron and Sempron. Why design a new chipset and motherboard series for an end of line chip?

Intel on the otherhand has a major business making chipsets and licensing others to do so AND the Pentium 4 is the current chip. It's replacement is not yet on the market or even clearly defined to the public. So Intel must support PCI-Express on the Pentium 4, Xeon and Celeron lines.

Iceman · « **Reply #27 on:** July 10, 2004, 12:12:56 pm »

Well it kinda sorta is. Intel has said that the "Extrem Editions" are actually 64 bit chips in disguise, and they can now 'activate' that feature. Beyond that, I have no idea what it means.

Demandred · « **Reply #28 on:** July 10, 2004, 06:37:04 pm »

Quote from: Iceman on July 10, 2004, 12:12:56 pm

Well it kinda sorta is. Intel has said that the "Extrem Editions" are actually 64 bit chips in disguise, and they can now 'activate' that feature. Beyond that, I have no idea what it means.

Intel are waffling. Either it's 64 bit or it isn't. They just don't want to admit that AMD are far ahead of them.

Iceman · « **Reply #29 on:** July 11, 2004, 12:22:23 am »

Basically.

hobbesmaster · « **Reply #30 on:** July 11, 2004, 08:55:59 pm »

Quote from: Iceman on July 10, 2004, 12:12:56 pm

Well it kinda sorta is. Intel has said that the "Extrem Editions" are actually 64 bit chips in disguise, and they can now 'activate' that feature. Beyond that, I have no idea what it means.

Bull. EEs are just northwoods with twice the cache.

Iceman · « **Reply #31 on:** July 11, 2004, 09:08:18 pm »

Well, thats what they told people. Dont shoot the messanger.

News:

Topic: Processors?? (Read 4919 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Topic: Processors?? (Read 4919 times)