CPU Buyer’s Guide

Posted by ttblogger on 11/22 at 03:53 PM Discuss in Forums • Permalink
image

In a previous Tech Tip, we gave an overview of the many basic things to look for in a CPU when choosing a computer. While that Tech Tip gave details about the subtle differences to look for with regards to CPUs, in this Tech Tip we will be looking at some of the specific processors offered today, their advantages and disadvantages, as well as clear up some of the confusion surrounding how to pick the right computer processor. 

Read Full Article Click Here
    Posted by SilverGhost  on  11/22  at  12:04 PM

  1. In your latest tech tip, Buyers Guide To CPU’s you make the statement, “Unfortunately (for AMD) in this Core i7area, Intel almost always out performs AMD.”

    So I’m gonna have to assume that Intel is some how compensating you for your recommendation here?

    If Intel has the better processor, why is it that AMD has always been able to do pretty much just as good a job for less cost, less power consumption, and basically less speed, and I stress the basically here.

    We can take a historic trip back to the days of the K5’s and K6’s.  Bench for bench if you had an Intel 266, the AMD 166 equivalent would do the same job. So on and so on.  AMD launched a true quad core proc.  The best Intel could come up with was to stick 2 dual cores on one die and then lie, dual dual cores is not a quad core.

    OK, I admit I’m very prejudiced against Intel.  I wont deny that they have a quality product, and their products do tend to out perform AMD in certain specific applications, like ripping DVD’s, multi-media type stuff.  I think however that AMD is more than a match for just about anything Intel has put out up to this point.

    AMD’s problem is that they have decided to try and corner the video card market and now they are in over their heads.  The should have instead put their efforts into producing and upgrading their proc offerings and continued on with the excellence that is NVidia.  AMD is behind, there is no doubt about that.  Unless they plan on putting ATI in the grave yard where it belongs, Intel is going to continue to widen the gap with it’s new line of proc’s and AMD might not catch up.

    Now that’s just my opinion, And I might be wrong, yeah, I probably am!

    2. Posted by Robert Searson  on  11/23  at  02:53 PM

  2. This was a very good learning tool. Where can i get a chart showing all the cpus from intel and adm in order, Also i would like to searn more about mother boards and how to choose them, Thank you Bob

    3. Posted by SilverGhost  on  11/25  at  07:01 PM

  3. I’ll have to do some researching on that, Bob.  A lot of what I know about the two offerings comes basically from using, building, testing, and such over the years.  I know that AMD used to release a CD every year showing test results, schematics, and a lot of other technical data on their processors, but it’s been a bunch of years since I have gotten one of them.

    Also, I must reiterate that I am jaded against Intel.  I used to not be way back in the day.  In fact most of my early computer systems were all Intel, well after I got tires of my Atari 520ST anyway, that ws a fun machine in it’s day!

    Most of my prejudice comes form Intel doing what I have always considered not being truthful about what their processors were capable of.  As mentioned, their processors were always over rated back in the day.  AMD was much more honest in how they presented their bench stats.  Back in the K5, K6 days, and even with the K7’s, you could always out perform an Intel with much less in an AMD.  This was especially true with Intel’s 233, 266, and 300 MHz. Proc’s and continued through their Klamath, Deschutes, up until the Katmai and Coppermine lines. This was about the time that I started to notice a more accurate representation of what an Intel could do and also it was about this time that Intel began to show a dominance.

    Needless to say the Celeron processor line and AMD’s Duron have always been pretty much the same duck.  The Duron was eventually replaced by the Sempron, but it is still basically just a processor with a bunch of the instruction sets turned off.  Comparable to the DX/SX days. Which reminds me, my favorite CPU of all time to make work better than it should have been able to, the Intel 80486DX4 (100 MHz with 70.7 MIPS (54.59 SPECint92, 26.91 SPECfp92 on Micronics M4P 256 KB L2)).  This is one fine processor and I do still have 2 that are working museum pieces.

    Wikipedia does list a chronological history of each companies processors, but I do not know how much or what type of technical data would be listed.  AMD’s site does list tech specs on current technology and I would imagine Intel would as well.  AMD used to have a pretty good listing of historical data, but I don’t know if they still do.

    I will look around and see what I can find, lol, gives me something to do.

    4. Posted by Bryan Lambert  on  12/03  at  09:29 AM

  4. Thank you all for your feedback, as always it is appreciated.  To address concerns:

    1) I am simply stating a fact, Intel in no way compensates me.  In independent testing, the Core i7 not only outperformed the Phenom, it literally ran circles around it.  Now that Intel has wised up and integrated the memory controller with the processor (the one test that the Phenom would still outperform the Core 2 over) we see that the Phenom simply does not hold a candle to the new Core i7 processor despite it’s monolithic, true quad architecture.  If the Phenom-II is released on time (something that AMD has had issues with in the recent past), then we can see where they land in future benchmarks.

    2) Wikipedia.com provides good CPU resources as do sites like Tomshardware.com.  Tomshardare.com will actually have true charts, but, remember, they tend to get outdated fast (see: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/processors,6.html).  We have addressed buying a motherboard in past Tech Tips, but we do plan a refresh in the near future (see: http://www.geeks.com/techtips/2005/techtips-021705.htm)

    3) In this Tech Tip we chose not to look at the history of different manufacturers processors or to dwell on what obsolete processors may still be available for sale, but simply to go over the current line offered in the three basic consumer segments.  For those wishing to explore the history of AMD vs. Intel, a simple search on that topic in Google will offer up more hits than one wish to read in ones lifetime.

    5. Posted by computer backup  on  12/03  at  12:10 PM

  5. i always try to avoid buying the top-of-the-line parts because of how fast the computer industry moves. mine as well save a good chunk of money and have 2nd class parts.
    -jack

    6. Posted by Ken Hibdon  on  12/05  at  03:46 PM

  6. I’m pleased to hear that you are not compensated by Intel or anyone else for that matter.  Good independent testing and evaluation seems to be getting harder and harder to find these days.  I in no way meant to imply anything negative or derogatory in my comments about your article.  If anything I said was taken the wrong way I do sincerely apologize for that.

    I again want to reiterate that I am biased against Intel.  A lot of my feelings stem from the early days of PC’s and the components that made them.  I’m talking the K5/K6 days.  I personally feel that Intel...how to put this...overstated the capabilities of their products?  I don’t want to come right out and say they lied, that isn’t what I believe their intent was.  I do feel however they did not bench their processors in a fair or true environment like the rest of the processor manufactures did.  We must remember that back in the day there were a lot more than just Intel and AMD. (See list for examples:  http://www.interfacebus.com/Controllers.html )

    AMD, TI, IBM, Sun, for example were testing and releasing data on their microprocessor that was a lot more accurate than what Intel was doing.  Hence the reason you could accomplish the same stats with a lower rated proc as compared to what Intel was offering.

    Yes I understand that your article wasn’t intended as a walk down memory lane.  I guess I just ended up there trying to justify myself and demonstrate that Intel is not the best above the rest.  I think that is shown by Intel’s release of the double dual core they wanted to call a quad core. It wasn’t a true quad core.  This is just one more example of how Intel operates. 

    No I don’t think Intel is evil.  I just don’t think they are very honest and I think a lot of people get sucked into their products due to a simple lack of knowledge and or common sense.

    I think that I am also trying to be honest about my favorite, AMD is going down screw up lane trying to find crappy product village!  To start with, ATI.  This is an easy one.  ATI is a great product provided it is mated with the exact components needed to make it shine.  It’s picky, finicky, and it tends to be a real Bi@#H if not put together with just the right parts.  I’m not to sure what AMD was thinking, unless it was to finally put ATI in its grave.

    So with the dog in hand I guess they figured they might as well have the pony too.  NVidia is simply put (In my humble opinion of course) the best video product out there, hands down.  No matter where it’s put it functions with out hesitation or complaint.  AMD’s relationship with NVidia was perfect as it stood so why they felt a need to take it over is beyond me.

    Keeping in mind, I am just Joe Nobody.  I have no connections in the industry.  I’m not a powerful tech guru.  Everything I know about computers, technology, the business, etc. is what I have taught myself, learned by experience, or picked up by reading the trades or tech manuals or listening to what people who know what they are talking about say.  I have space on the web, sure.  I work out of my house repairing, building, installing, upgrading computers and SOHO networks.  Generally most of what I do I don’t even charge people for, other than the cost of the parts, simply because I enjoy what I do to much, I don’t care about the money, and most people I work for can’t afford it anyway.  So if I’m way off base with my comments and opinions, Sorry, I’m a dummy, LOL.

    The new Intel processors, these core i7’s?  Beauties.  I’d love to get a hold of one, strap it to my bench and seeing exactly what it can do.  From what I have seen and read so far, this line of processors is the thing to beat, it’s what wet geek dreams are made of!  AMD has lost.  It’s lost its edge, it’s mind, and if they can’t find a way to bring themselves back to the center, back to what made AMD great, they are going to lose a lot of customers as well, and in this day and age, it’s going to be very very difficult to survive if they don’t pull their heads out of their a@@ and get back to it.

    Again, and in closing.  I want anyone who reads this to understand I am in now way any type of expert in the field.  I mostly build custom gaming rigs and do SOHO network installs.  Everything I say or type or what have you, comes from a life long experience of building excellent toys for folks that generally can’t afford it, but hey, I’m generally a pretty nice guy and I love what I do.  These things I say are only my opinion, and I generally except that my opinions are jaded and maybe a little off base. 

    Thanks for listening and I’ll get down off my soap box now!

    7. Posted by metalman9  on  01/08  at  10:42 AM

  7. short Question. what are the advantages of a quad over a dual core if the every thing else is equal? for example why would an amd user choose a Phenom over the athelon 64 when the speed of the dual might actually be higher than that of the Phenom counterpart?

    8. Page 1 of 1 pages

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Geeky Gift Holiday Buyer Guide

Previous entry: The History of Netbooks

<< Back to main