This chart lists almost any older CPU you can think of and is compiled based on actual scores submitted by users. While certainly not definitive, this gives you a quick comparison of the relative processing power between the CPU’s in question.

Note: I put faster in quotes above because these scores are based on a particular program’s benchmark score.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Comparison Chart For Older CPU’s

Well, that’s not the case at present.

Intel in a way is "pulling a Microsoft" by renaming their CPUs with titles that leave potential buyers scratching their heads.

The new chip names are simplified but not informative. You’ve got the Core i3, i5 and i7. But the problem is that the names don’t say anything about what the CPUs have for capabilities at a glance.

Quick quiz questions:

How many cores does an i3 have? You probably didn’t know it was 2.

How many cores does the i5 have? It can be 2 or 4.

And the i7? Four physical cores, eight logical.

Now I’ll confuse you even more.

What type of socket does the i3 use? Give up? mPGA-989.

And the i5? LGA 1156.

The i7? Socket B (LGA 1366).

Three different chips. Three different sockets. Each has different ways of doing cores.

This isn’t exactly simplified if you asked me.

What would work for you?

The "slowest" Core i3 will run Windows Vista and Windows 7 with absolutely no problems whatsoever. When you go from single to multi-core it makes a huge difference. Outfitted with at least 2GB of RAM, a decent video card and a modern SATA connected hard drive, the machine would be fast, no question.

But as far as what I’d recommend, a four-core Core i5 would be the better buy. This is upper-middle-grade territory. Two more cores, cheaper than the i7, and even with the "slowest" 2.66GHz version it’s still a solid speedy performer.

For gamers, well.. yeah, we all know you’re going with the i7. It pwns the most noobs. Says so in the instruction manual under "pwning".

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Intel Confusing The Crap Out Of Everyone With New Chip Names

At this point in the desktop computing world, we’ve easily reached the limits of what 32-bit processing can do. No matter what OS you’re running, there really isn’t any more we can squeeze out of it. In the past it was CPU clock speeds that people wanted. We have that now. Then it was how many cores we can stuff into a CPU. We’ve got that too (and more are coming). The only bottleneck left is the 4GB RAM limitation of the 32-bit architecture. And the only way to rid that is to go 64-bit.

Why is the industry hanging on to 32-bit? Why do large PC makers continue to promote and sell 32-bit systems when 64-bit is just as affordable?

It’s because of the lack of native 64-bit applications.

Being that Microsoft will have a native 64-bit edition of MS Office, this now gives people a reason to go 64-bit – but it’s not like others haven’t tried. A good example is the game Half-Life 2 from Valve. That’s had a 64-bit edition since 2005(!), but even that couldn’t sway gamers over to 64-bit, and those people are some of the most diehard bleeding-edge PC hardware geeks you’ll find.

Will Microsoft lead the charge into the 64-bit world? They might. It may be the killer app that finally puts 32-bit to rest, both in enterprise and in the home.

However, there are two factors in play here that may keep 32-bit around for a while yet.

Future OSes will be smaller and faster

OS-makers have realized that there’s too much bloat. This counts for Windows and Linux.

Windows 7 will be decidedly slimmer compared to Vista. Vista in its present state isn’t just fat. It’s obese.

A good portion of the Linux community is screaming to tone down the sizes of the distros, citing that any distro over a CD’s size (roughly 700MB) is a waste of material. And they’re right. You may notice that DVD-sized distros don’t command nearly as much attention as the CD-sized and smaller ones do.

Smaller, faster OSes mean there isn’t a legitimate need for 64-bit. Instead, 32-bit will work fine if the OS is "tuned" properly to suit so it doesn’t require gobs and gobs of RAM.

The internet is the killer app

The internet itself is probably the "app" you use most.

Ask yourself: What app do you use more than your web browser?

The internet if treated as an app does not require any advantage 64-bit would bring. Whether you have 2GB of RAM now with a 32-bit system or 8GB with a 64-bit setup, the internet still runs the same.

What’s your say?

Will the fact MS Office will have 64-bit finally start to phase out 32-bit systems?

Is 64-bit even needed when the internet is what we use most?

Should the question be rephrased, Does 64-bit have a future?

Let us know in the comments.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Does 32-Bit Have A Future?

For example, I don’t have to buy a new case, nor do I have to buy a new optical drive. I also don’t need new audio speakers, mouse, keyboard or monitor. In my current setup I could also transfer over my video card as well.

When you add these things up it shaves off a lot of cash you would otherwise have to spend.

Many PCMech readers have built PCs before, but if you’re someone who hasn’t yet, I can say without question that your most expensive build will probably be the first one. And this is because you have nothing to transfer from a previous build. Everything must be bought new and yes, it can get costly – but only for the first time around.

What you can do is think of the future when building your first box so it will cost less when you upgrade later. The checklist is short and easy to remember.

Future-use things to consider when PC building

Computer Case

Your case should be a full-sized tower. The reason is so you can use standard ATX or MicroATX motherboards. This gives you more choice of what motherboard you want to use now and in the future.

The case you buy should be above average. You want something built well that will withstand the test of time. Being that your intent is to use the same case over and over, build quality matters.

Motherboard

Use a motherboard that supports several different types of processors. The better ones support at least four. This Intel motherboard for example does just that. For now maybe you want a Core 2 Duo processor but later on want to upgrade to a Quad-core. Using a motherboard that supports multiple CPU types will save you cash because you don’t have to buy another board when ready to upgrade.

Also bear in mind the new board you buy should support (at the time of this writing) a minimum of 8GB of RAM which the one linked above does. If you buy a new board that only supports 4GB, that’s your limit – and that’s not good. 8GB should stay current for at least 5 years, and you can incrementally update as needed.

Optical Drive

This is something you don’t have to put a ton of cash into because more people are moving away from the optical format in favor of flash-based media.

Concerning this particular component, the key is to avoid things you don’t need that add extra cost, such as:

• LightScribe – This is more for "cool factor" than anything else. You’re better off just labeling your discs with a Sharpie marker. It’s cheaper and does the same job. True, it doesn’t look as professional, but nobody cares.
• Super fast DVD burning – Not necessary. Why? Because getting blank media that supports the higher speeds costs more and probably isn’t available on the shelf where you buy discs. Most of the time the blank media you buy will be 12x max write speed for DVD and 30x max for CD, so the fact your drive can burn faster means nothing unless you’re willing to custom order blank discs that support it – which you probably won’t.
• Blu-Ray compatible – Again, not necessary. The only people truly interested in this format are those who have Blu-ray players for their television. And yes, you will get a big-big 25GB of storage on one of these BD-R discs, but, each disc at present costs $5 – and that doesn’t include shipping. You’re better off using flash-based media, if only for the fact that write/rewrite is much easier and faster compared to optical.

Input Devices (Keyboard and Mouse)

Concerning the mouse, make sure it connects via USB. With wireless, go for RF and not Bluetooth. For example, a really kick-ass wireless mouse is the Logitech G7. It’s got a ridiculous price tag (but worth it to some) and is USB/RF-wireless based. And don’t worry, there are plenty of RF-wireless USB mice that are much lower in price, like this one.

Note that there’s nothing bad or wrong about Bluetooth wireless, but you get more choice with RF. A lot more.

Concerning the keyboard, you want something that will stand the test of time like your computer case. There are many keyboard makes to choose from, but typically the best for long-term use are made by Microsoft and Logitech. Sure, other keyboards have lots of whiz-bang features on it, but what matters most is comfort and longevity.

With Microsoft and Logitech it’s the simple things that make them better, such as not having the lettering literally wear off your keys in less than six months.

Of course, neither beat the best computer keyboard of all time, the IBM Model M. But that takes a little bit of doing (i.e. a USB converter) to make the older ones work. And lets not forget they’re frickin’ loud. A resounding CLICK-CLACK happens every time you press a key on one of those. But it’s a good sound. At least I think so.

Audio speakers

The only rule to follow here is to use an audio speaker setup that is not overly dependent on software. And what I mean by that is you should not buy speakers that require software just to hear sound come out of them.

Whatever you buy should work like this: Open the box, take the speakers out, plug the AC adapter into the wall, plug in the audio cable to the sound card, done.

Software that controls the sound card is fine (and necessary). Software that’s required just to make the speakers work is bad.

If you want an example of bad, Creative is notorious for having speaker setups that are too "attached" to software, so to speak. And without their proprietary software installed, the speakers either sound like crap or not work at all. Not good.

Final notes

Many people make the mistake of building a PC that only has "right-now" tech in it, meaning the end build will not stay current for more than 2 years at the most.

For example, let’s say you bought a brand new motherboard today but it can only use a Core 2 Duo processor as the fastest it will support. That’s a mistake. Yes, the Core 2 right now is fast – but it won’t be 2 years from now and you’ll be forced to buy another motherboard later when the time comes. What you should have done is bought a board that can support Core 2 or Quad-core. When the Core 2 becomes too slow, it’s not a problem because you can upgrade to a Quad-core and get another 2 or 3 years out of the same motherboard, thereby saving you money.

When building your first (or next) computer box, consider the future. Buying the right stuff the first time and spending a little extra means savings for the long-term.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

What’s The Best Advantage Of Building A PC?

If you stock your built PC with parts that are the right choice the first time, your Windows installation will run better and faster.

Please Login or Register to read the rest of this article. Gold/Silver Membership required.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Building A “Perfect” Windows PC

If you’re going Intel you can do duals and quads. With AMD you have duals, triples and quads.

No matter what brand you go with, multi-core (sometimes known as many-core) is the way to go. They run circles around single-core CPUs, and if you’re not running one, you should, plain and simple.

As of now multi-core is cheap to run, and the motherboards that support them are also cheap to own and run.

On the Intel side, a retail-boxed (meaning it includes the fan and all that stuff) dual-core non-Celeron is $69.

On the AMD side, a retail-boxed dual-core is $45. True to tradition, when going AMD you do save money over Intel – both on the CPU and the motherboard.

And by the way, that AMD I linked is only a 45-watt. It’s cool, as in literally cool-running compared to the Intel which is a 65-watt.

The choice of which company to go with is ultimately your decision. At the present time I’m running an Intel dual-core and yeah, it’s awesome. But I’m quite sure AMD duals are just as nice.

For those of you out there wondering whether Windows XP has any issues with multi-core, the answer is no. XP has absolutely no issues with a multi-core processor. In fact, when I first used a multi-core with XP I was surprised it didn’t have any issues whatsoever. It just booted and ran exactly like it was supposed to do the first time and every time after that.

Multi-core is not expensive, and said honestly it’s the best possible upgrade you could do. Once you go multi, you never, repeat, never go back.

Let me say it another way. Have you ever dabbled in overclocking or the like with single-core CPUs? You don’t even need to bother when running multi-core. They’re plenty fast enough right out of the box. Yes, some super-gamer types may argue to the contrary, but for the rest of us, multi-core as-is is more than enough.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

How Expensive Is It To Go Multi-Core?

Surprisingly, it won’t be that expensive. According to the article linked above, you can score an Acer Aspire laptop with an 18.4-inch screen (that’s frappin’ huge for a laptop) for $1,799. Not bad considering the horsepower that’s under the hood. However bear in mind it’s being billed as a gaming rig.

And what about the Macbooks? Oh, trust me, Intel will make their quad-core presence(s) in them soon enough, not to worry.

I estimate that more reasonably-sized laptops will get quad-core (i.e. 15 to 17-inch screens) in the 3rd quarter of ‘09 or possibly sooner.

I don’t know about you, but even with the power-extreme of quad-core in a laptop, an 18-inch screen is just too much. The unit isn’t exactly all that portable at that point.

For those that ask "What about heat?", bear in mind these are mobile processors we’re talking about, so the heat should be kept in check. What matters more is whether the manufacturer has designed a laptop chassis well enough to spread the heat evenly to avoid any nasty meltdowns.

One thing is for certain: Quad-core is not going to go obsolete for quite some time – even given the rapid progress of the computer industry as a whole. It is a purchase that should stay current for at least a good 3 to 4 years (assuming the laptop lasts that long).

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Quad-Core Now Available For Laptops

If you were looking to dive in and build a new box with some Intel Core 2 power, now is the time to buy.

From my personal experience: I’m impressed with my 1.8GHz Core 2. It’s fast. The 3.16GHz is no slouch. You’ll like it – guaranteed.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Intel Cuts Prices on Core 2 Duos

Intel Takes the Lead

We’ll start off with a period of time not long ago when AMD was cheering over its shiny new X2 line of CPUs. If you’ll recall, they challenged Intel to a “Dual-Core Showdown”, directly targeting Intel’s beaten-to-death NetBurst architecture being used by the Pentium D. Benchmarks and real-life evaluations showed that NetBurst was ready for the trash compactor, for those who hadn’t figured it out already. Shortly after X2 had proven itself, Core 2 by Intel entered the game and began thrashing AMD’s prized possession to the nth degree. Since that point, there has been no full recovery. Products have been released by AMD, but the story each time has been “too little, too late.”

Intel, on the other hand, is still riding the wave of Core 2, slimming down to 45nm process, and generally enjoying the fact that they dominate the market. The good news for them is that they can continue to pressure AMD with price drops simply because they can afford to do so. They have left their competition in a position where they must sell more expensive processors that don’t perform as well. Take a wild guess at where people are putting their money.

Can AMD Recover?

So with a seemingly grim situation for the underdog, where is the light at the end of the tunnel? A little luck, combined with some very solid planning, gives AMD an extra card to play. Take the following into consideration: They just got an outside investor’s $622M, Phenom/AM3 chips work with socket AM2 (making AM2 owners like me very happy to see a viable upgrade option), the HD 38xx series of video cards are looking to be incredibly successful given the circumstances, and their losses in the last year have been cut dramatically.

Now you probably think I am going crazy, especially with that last comment. We know by now that AMD is losing all kinds of money, mostly to do with falling market share and backlash from obtaining ATI. However, looking at the charts, we can see a very clear recovery happening. Loss is indeed bad, but recovery is like a better bad. It means they haven’t given up, and that they are taking back ground.

Using this information, and basing it on the past, it is fairly safe to assume that AMD/ATI will come back. But enough about them. What is going on in the Intel world?

Well, for starters, they just opened their new 45nm chip factory. Their chips are being used by Apple (granted that this isn’t a big market comparatively, but every penny counts). Here is a kicker: they have won the heart of the enthusiast, and brought very powerful computing to nearly everyone buying a PC. Unfortunately for AMD, the enthusiast goes with what works best. The Core 2 landslide has brought enthusiasts a very reliable and exceedingly fast platform that is comparable in some ways to the earlier FX series in its day. Top that off with a massive product lineup that leads to options at nearly every price point, and you have a recipe for success. And don’t think for a second that Intel will back down; Penryn and Yorkfield are here, with more coming.

Conclusion

So now where does this leave us? Well, Intel needs to just keep on keepin’ on. They are sitting on record gains and a very fast-paced development time line that seems to be working quite well.

However, if they hope to keep the lead, they need to stay on schedule; winding up with another NetBurst-like issue will put them exactly where they were a few years ago. They’ve got the money, the advertising, and for now the time to stretch their legs and try a few things. If they get lazy and don’t keep on top of what will be aging technology, the crown will get handed back over to AMD sooner than they’d like.

What can AMD do about this monolithic company? They need to regain the touch they seem to have lost around the release of X2. The company gloated in the face of the final Pentium chips, only to get kicked in the face by Intel’s Conroe, and sand in the eyes by the rest of the lineup. Now they have rubbed the sand out (for the most part) and are sprinting to catch up. What will give them an edge is if they can focus on what needs to get done, and it appears that they are taking that direction. The recently debuted Spider platform is a direct appeal to one of AMD’s cherished market, being the enthusiast. While not quite the 1-2 knockout that is could have been, it’s strength is in AMD’s ever present scalability. If they can repeat this pattern like they have with previous architectures and extend it into their newfound graphics department and chipsets, they will likely have a formula to compete with Intel’s ‘tick-tock’.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

AMD vs Intel 2007: State of the Processors

Links mentioned in this podcast:

http://www.microsoft.com/servers/64bit/overview.mspx

http://developer.apple.com/macosx/64bit.html

Also mentioned:

If you actually have a 64-bit system (no matter what OS you use,) do you see any advantage by having it at present? Do you use any native 64-bit desktop (i.e. not server based) apps that really show a difference in speed, smoothness, ease-of-use, etc.?

Listen in and give your opinion on 64-bit.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Podcast 10-22-2207 : Is It Worth It To Have 64-bit?