What is the latest intel processor and is it faster than others.

I am looking at upgrading to a new PC. I knew where I was with AMD.
AM, AM2, AM3. Simple but with Intel it is as confusing as trying to
get the best deal on a mobile phone.

Atom, Core 2, Pentium M, Itanium, Xeon, Pentium 4 and now i7. It's
enough to give you a head ache and I haven’t looked at DDR2 and DDR3

Still not sure why I would need 4 cores as it doesn’t make most PC 4
times faster. Would 4 Ford Fusion cars make me a Ferrari?

Des wrote:
I am looking at upgrading to a new PC. I knew where I was with AMD.
AM, AM2, AM3. Simple but with Intel it is as confusing as trying to
get the best deal on a mobile phone.

Atom, Core 2, Pentium M, Itanium, Xeon, Pentium 4 and now i7. It's
enough to give you a head ache and I haven’t looked at DDR2 and DDR3

Still not sure why I would need 4 cores as it doesn’t make most PC 4
times faster. Would 4 Ford Fusion cars make me a Ferrari?

What do you have now for a computer ?
(Number of cores, clock speed, other parameters)

What kind of programs do you run ?
(games, MS Office, video editing, photoshop...)

Is your current computer too slow ?

Note that, on a modern system, you can improve things two ways.
Faster CPU. Or faster hard drive (SSD, for lightning fast file access).
Some of each in the new machine, will make the upgrade feel worthwhile.

(550MB/sec on a SATA III port - 50,000 IOPS, never defrag again :-) )
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820167087

In terms of clock rate, depending on what you already own,
you might not be exactly blown away by the new system. If you
had a 3GHz Core2 and moved to a 3.6GHz newer processor, yes,
it's faster, but you need a stopwatch to tell the difference.
Where the difference would really show up, is video editing
or Photoshop, and to a lesser extend in gaming (really depends
on the game). On some older programs, maybe the difference
wouldn't be as noticeable.

To see whether a quad core is the right answer, you have to
look at the mix of programs and which program you use
the most.

There are benchmarks here, but they're multithreaded (behave
like a video editor or Photoshop). Getting good single threaded
comparisons is more difficult, but as far as I'm concerned,
is still important to include when benchmarking these things.
The single threaded benchmark comparison, is to show a pathological
case, where the new CPU isn't used to its maximum, and then,
what the resulting speedup will seem like. I think it is good
to know that. On the one hand, we know a 3.6GHz processor is
3.6/3.0 faster than a 3.0GHz processor, but with each generation,
there are tweaks to the processor that affect the IPC (instructions
per clock). That could account for another 10% more perhaps.
And something like SuperPI, can give you a feeling for that.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

Paul

Here is a CPU Hierarchy Chart for AMD vs. Intel. The chart says 'Gaming'
but it covers all the modern CPUs pretty well. Scroll half way down for the
chart:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ck,3106-5.html

--g

In article , Des wrote:
I am looking at upgrading to a new PC. I knew where I was with AMD.
AM, AM2, AM3. Simple but with Intel it is as confusing as trying to
get the best deal on a mobile phone.

Atom, Core 2, Pentium M, Itanium, Xeon, Pentium 4 and now i7. It's
enough to give you a head ache and I haven=92t looked at DDR2 and DDR3

Still not sure why I would need 4 cores as it doesn=92t make most PC 4
times faster. Would 4 Ford Fusion cars make me a Ferrari?


Do any types of video work and the 4 cores really shine.

On Mar 6, 3:46*pm, (GMAN) wrote:
In article , Des wrote:I am looking at upgrading to a new PC. I knew where I was with AMD.
AM, AM2, AM3. Simple but with Intel it is as confusing as trying to
get the best deal on a mobile phone.

Atom, Core 2, Pentium M, Itanium, Xeon, Pentium 4 and now i7. *It's
enough to give you a head ache and I haven=92t looked at DDR2 and DDR3

Still not sure why I would need 4 cores *as it doesn=92t make most PC 4
times faster. Would 4 Ford Fusion cars make me a Ferrari?

Do any types of video work and the 4 cores really shine.

Hi Thanks for thi. I have an Athlon 64 X2 4200+

Don't do any intesive work like video editing but watching download
films and streeming stuff is wahat I would like.
I use computer programming softeare like Visual studio 2008 but that
dosn't seem to be a problem.

On Mar 6, 5:25*pm, Des wrote:
On Mar 6, 3:46*pm, (GMAN) wrote:

In article , Des wrote:I am looking at upgrading to a new PC. I knew where I was with AMD.
AM, AM2, AM3. Simple but with Intel it is as confusing as trying to
get the best deal on a mobile phone.

Atom, Core 2, Pentium M, Itanium, Xeon, Pentium 4 and now i7. *It's
enough to give you a head ache and I haven=92t looked at DDR2 and DDR3

Still not sure why I would need 4 cores *as it doesn=92t make most PC 4
times faster. Would 4 Ford Fusion cars make me a Ferrari?

Do any types of video work and the 4 cores really shine.

Hi Thanks for thi. I have an Athlon 64 X2 4200+

Don't do any intesive work like video editing but watching download
films and streeming stuff is wahat I would like.
I use computer programming softeare like Visual studio 2008 but that
dosn't seem to be a problem.

My processor is older still it is
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2200 MHz 2 × 512 KB 1000 MHz 11x
1.30-1.35 V 89 W
Socket 939
May 31, 2005
ADA4200DAA5CD

The problem is that My Asus motherboard Asus M2VMX SE
iS so ols it only has 2 SATA ands I need at least 4
The AGP Express 16 is of type 1.0 or 1.1 which meand I am stuck with
the onboard graphics. Can't find a good card that will fit.

A new board would have a beter graphics on board and I could get a
good card if needed.

Which way to go? AM3 is better but the cost of thouse DDR3s are high
and I would need a new processor.

Looking at the link given me I see all the latest processors but what
sockets are they. I would need that so I could find a motherboard. The
latest one seems to be

Phenom II X6 1100T BE. I Asumme it is AM3+

On 6/03/2012 10:27 PM, Des wrote:
I am looking at upgrading to a new PC. I knew where I was with AMD.
AM, AM2, AM3. Simple but with Intel it is as confusing as trying to
get the best deal on a mobile phone.

Atom, Core 2, Pentium M, Itanium, Xeon, Pentium 4 and now i7. It's
enough to give you a head ache and I haven’t looked at DDR2 and DDR3

Still not sure why I would need 4 cores as it doesn’t make most PC 4
times faster. Would 4 Ford Fusion cars make me a Ferrari?


You can't drive your 4 Ford fusions at the same time whereas the
computer can use all four cores of a quad core CPU at the same time.
Your comparison has no relevancy.

The four cores provide the CPU with the ability to do enhanced
multi-tasking. For sure my quad core CPU is way ahead of my dual core
CPU. That said, I rarely use my quad core computer as I have no great
need for the power it provides. This dual core beast handles my day to
day needs more than adequately as I'm not into heavy gaming.

For general purpose needs, you should only be looking at the "i" series
of Intel chips. My quad, a core 2 Q6600, is no longer available new. In
fact, there seems to be only a couple of the old Q series chips
available now. compare feature sets of the i3, i5 & i7 and see which of
these would satisfy YOUR immediate and future needs. DDR3 RAM is the
current range, you shouldn't be looking at anything earlier. What you
should be looking at is a motherboard with a chipset that caters to the
needs of your choice of CPU and desired peripherals.
When I built my quad, I didn't look at the CPU in isolation, instead I
looked at CPU/RAM/Mobo Features as a complete package. At the time my
Mobo + DDR2 RAM + the Q6600 provided the best support for my needs.
Today I wouldn't be buying that combo as the world has moved on quite a
bit and the i7 + DDR3 + suitable Mobo would be my choice now. However, I
will only upgrade if my current Quad dies. Given the minimal use I make
of it, that's unlikely.

--

Krypsis

On 7/03/2012 5:07 AM, Des wrote:
On Mar 6, 5:25 pm, wrote:
On Mar 6, 3:46 pm, (GMAN) wrote:

In , wrote:I am looking at upgrading to a new PC. I knew where I was with AMD.
AM, AM2, AM3. Simple but with Intel it is as confusing as trying to
get the best deal on a mobile phone.

Atom, Core 2, Pentium M, Itanium, Xeon, Pentium 4 and now i7. It's
enough to give you a head ache and I haven=92t looked at DDR2 and DDR3

Still not sure why I would need 4 cores as it doesn=92t make most PC 4
times faster. Would 4 Ford Fusion cars make me a Ferrari?

Do any types of video work and the 4 cores really shine.

Hi Thanks for thi. I have an Athlon 64 X2 4200+

Don't do any intesive work like video editing but watching download
films and streeming stuff is wahat I would like.
I use computer programming softeare like Visual studio 2008 but that
dosn't seem to be a problem.

My processor is older still it is
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2200 MHz 2 × 512 KB 1000 MHz 11x
1.30-1.35 V 89 W
Socket 939
May 31, 2005
ADA4200DAA5CD

The problem is that My Asus motherboard Asus M2VMX SE
iS so ols it only has 2 SATA ands I need at least 4
The AGP Express 16 is of type 1.0 or 1.1 which meand I am stuck with
the onboard graphics. Can't find a good card that will fit.

A new board would have a beter graphics on board and I could get a
good card if needed.

Which way to go? AM3 is better but the cost of thouse DDR3s are high
and I would need a new processor.

Looking at the link given me I see all the latest processors but what
sockets are they. I would need that so I could find a motherboard. The
latest one seems to be

Phenom II X6 1100T BE. I Asumme it is AM3+



You might find the above website useful in providing you with a
meaningful comparison. Raw CPU speeds no longer cut it when comparing
one CPU with another. Benchmarks give a better indication of just how a
CPU will handle a given workload. I see my Q6600 is well down the
performance scale these days. I can buy a much better performing chip
with less money these days.

--

Krypsis

On Mar 6, 1:07 pm, Des wrote:
On Mar 6, 5:25 pm, Des wrote:



On Mar 6, 3:46 pm, (GMAN) wrote:

In article , Des wrote:I am looking at upgrading to a new PC. I knew where I was with AMD.
AM, AM2, AM3. Simple but with Intel it is as confusing as trying to
get the best deal on a mobile phone.

Atom, Core 2, Pentium M, Itanium, Xeon, Pentium 4 and now i7. It's
enough to give you a head ache and I haven=92t looked at DDR2 and DDR3

Still not sure why I would need 4 cores as it doesn=92t make most PC 4
times faster. Would 4 Ford Fusion cars make me a Ferrari?

Do any types of video work and the 4 cores really shine.

Hi Thanks for thi. I have an Athlon 64 X2 4200+

Don't do any intesive work like video editing but watching download
films and streeming stuff is wahat I would like.
I use computer programming softeare like Visual studio 2008 but that
dosn't seem to be a problem.

My processor is older still it is
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2200 MHz 2 × 512 KB 1000 MHz 11x
1.30-1.35 V 89 W
Socket 939
May 31, 2005
ADA4200DAA5CD

The problem is that My Asus motherboard Asus M2VMX SE
iS so ols it only has 2 SATA ands I need at least 4
The AGP Express 16 is of type 1.0 or 1.1 which meand I am stuck with
the onboard graphics. Can't find a good card that will fit.

A new board would have a beter graphics on board and I could get a
good card if needed.

Which way to go? AM3 is better but the cost of thouse DDR3s are high
and I would need a new processor.

Looking at the link given me I see all the latest processors but what
sockets are they. I would need that so I could find a motherboard. The
latest one seems to be

Phenom II X6 1100T BE. I Asumme it is AM3+

Memory isn't a major consideration as a VID card, both when found are
reasonable -- MB & CPU can run 2x to 8x times more. The main focus.
As you've said you're not gaming, a good video "fit?" isn't that
important, although even a small fanless vidboard for $10 rebated will
probably beat whatever was stuck on the MB. As for 1.1 or .2
compliance, they never intended 1.2 boards not to be backwards
compliant at 1.1. Scratch that, most vid companies aren't big enough
to be cutting their market throat. 2-drive SATA boards are also cheap
as a box of nails unless you had any number popular MB w/out any PCI
slots.

939 - I wouldn't think so, although that really is getting to be a
dated board. I had to do the same thing with a good 756 AMD on a
broken ASUS MB. Only I don't need multiple cores, so having built two
and maybe another system isn't setting me back more than a couple
hundred bucks. 3Ghz P4 & AMD2 stuff -- main issues being quality
aftermarket MBs that though sold new aren't discounted, foisted, for
problematic substandard production. Selection can be limited but
doesn't matter if quality is sufficiently discounted for returns on
equipment lifespan.

http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/1174682/