Years ago it was really easy to tell the difference from one Intel processor to the next. For example, you knew that a 386 was better and faster than the 286. You also knew a Pentium 4 3.0GHz was faster and better than a Pentium 4 1.6GHz. It was decidedly easy to tell the differences.

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".

It was only a matter of time, but Intel has brought out the big guns and now has quad-core available for laptops. Five of them, to be exact.

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).

In a few short months it’s going to be 2009, and a ton of stuff has changed in the world of computing over the past almost-ten years. Some of the modern advancements have proven to be a notable improvement while others still produce the same crapola they did nearly ten years ago.

In this installment we’ll be looking at something everyone has in their computer, a Central Processing Unit, better known by its abbreviation as the CPU.

In the last article written about this on PCMech (which was a really long time ago), microprocessors were discussed up to the 386, so we’ll start from the 486 to present.

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

Gearlog reports that over the weekend Intel adjusted prices for Core 2 Duo processors. This is indicative that newer/faster procs are right around the corner, however, the fact you can get a 3.16GHz for 31% less now ($183) is a sweet deal, and it will stay current for several years.

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.

AppleInsider is reporting that the Mac Mini will be getting an upgrade. This is contrary to previous assumptions that Apple might kill off the Mac Mini in favor of some other form of mid-range desktop.

Ever since the Mac Mini arrived on the scene, it has failed to really take off. It is a machine in limbo, leaving a lot of people scratching their heads on exactly what they can do with the thing. It is a real Mac. I personally use one for the purpose of running PCMech LIVE. But, it isn’t a super duper Mac by any means and I wouldn’t want to use it for daily work.

So, what is rumored to be coming to the line of mini Macs?

• New 45-nanometer Core 2 Duo processors starting at 2.10 GHz
• 800 MHz front-side bus (previously 667 MHz)

• Intel GMA X3100 integrated graphics processor (same as the MacBook)

Anything to get excited about? Not really. The Mini is still going to be a niche machine and these updates will at least keep the little thing current for a little while longer. I still doubt the Mini is going to see much play in consumer circles.

I was hoping Apple might kill the Mini and, instead, focus on a mid-range desktop tower. Sure, we have the Imac, but the integrated screen offers little customization and there is no gap between that and the much beefier Mac Pro. Apple needs to give us a Mac Pro LITE…something that looks more like the Mac Pro, but perhaps with lesser specs and a lower price tag. That thing would sell.

Here is a story most people wouldn’t want to touch with a thirty
meter pole. AMD has been
stealing (not legally, just morally) Intel’s CPU design ever since
the 286 days. I even have
an AMD 286 on my key-chain. Back
in the day, it didn’t matter which company made your big bad
286-12MHz CPU, because both had the same design. Then, Intel goes and changed the name of it’s fifth
generation CPU, which it called the Pentium. Because of that, AMD could no longer copy Intel’s design,
because it was copyrighted. Please
keep in mind that companies cannot copyright numbers, which Intel used
to name processors prior to the Pentium.

So, that is where
the story really begins. Back
in 1994, AMD had to find it’s own processor core. At first, all they really did was take the 486, shrink it down
from .6u to .35u; speed it up, from 80Mhz to 133Mhz; and added twice
the L1 Cache than a 486. They called it the 5×86. It didn’t last for very long, being the Pentium clocked at
75MHz did better than the 5×86 clocked at 160Mhz in some cases. So, AMD bought NexGen, a RISC processor maker. A RISC processor is the type of Processor ALPHA makes, it can
do only a few things, but very quickly, unlike the Pentium, which is a
CISC, which can do a lot of things slowly. AMD
then came out with the K5, which was a Pentium alternative. All it basically was was a 5×86 with some Pentium like
features. That, and it could fit into Socket 7, which is the same CPU
socket Pentiums fit in. After
the horrible failure of the K5, they came out with the K6, which was
suppose to revolutionize the industry…but didn’t. Then it was the K6-2, which had a set of special 3D
instructions. It did a
little better, especially in the low-cost computer market. Intel didn’t like AMD making money one bit, so it released
the Celeron, which was a cache-less Pentium II. That didn’t do very well, so they added 128KB of L2 cache at
full CPU core speed. This
was proven to be just as good, if not better, than the Pentium II at
some activities. To top it off, The Celeron ran at a much lower cost than the
Pentium II.

What next you may
ask. Well, AMD releases
the K6-III, which was basically the K6-2, but with 256KB of full core
speed L2 cache. But, with
that release, we all know what happened. The K7 rumors started coming out. Now, the K7 is called the Athlon. It’s also called the Intel Killer. At the same clock speed, AMD finally made a CPU that will beat
the Intel flagship CPU. This
has NEVER happened before. So
now, Intel is struggling. It’s
now threatened motherboard makers that make Athlon compatible
motherboards with a shortage in its 440BX and i820 chipsets.

Being that
can’t be proven, there is nothing we can do to punish Intel for what
they are doing besides stop buying their products. We all know it’s wrong to use their position in the industry
to stay on top. That’s
why Microsoft is in the mess they are in now, and that is why I
mentioned them in the previous episode. Intel has obviously done something wrong. Not only are they dying slowly, they must strip themselves of
all their pride by trying to stay alive in coward like ways. Now, what Intel must do is actually produce a new CPU that is
revolutionary. They
haven’t done anything like that for almost three years, when they
introduced the Pentium Pro, which is still the basis of all Intel CPUs
to this day. With the
Merced CPU so far off, and having so many delays, it’s doubtful
they’ll have anything new soon. Meanwhile, AMD is already planning the K8, which will be even
better than the K7.

I would like to
conclude with 2 things:

LONG LIVE AMD!

Stock Tip: For
long-term investments, buy stock in AMD.