What processor?

My system is 6-years old. For normal home (non gaming) use, what is today's
preffered CPU? Intel's Core i3? i5? AMD's Athlon II? AMD Phenom?

3G RAM? 6G RAM?

If I go with a "ready made" box, HP? Dell?

Thanks.

On 05/21/2010 11:40 PM, UCLAN wrote:
My system is 6-years old. For normal home (non gaming) use, what is today's
preffered CPU? Intel's Core i3? i5? AMD's Athlon II? AMD Phenom?

3G RAM? 6G RAM?

If I go with a "ready made" box, HP? Dell?

Thanks.


For "normal" home use, if you have a 6 year old machine
then you might as well keep using it for a few more years.

What, specifically do you think a new machine will do that your present
one does not.

If your present machine is doing the job
then just keep it...

OTOH: If it's a bit on the slow side
maybe all you need is a bit more RAM

On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:05:33 -0500, Philo wrote:

OTOH: If it's a bit on the slow side
maybe all you need is a bit more RAM

More RAM, and faster disks.

Splitting an installed system over two disks can give
a noticeably improvement in performance for many operations,
for BSD, GNU/Linux, and Micro$loth Windoze systems.

UCLAN wrote:
My system is 6-years old. For normal home (non gaming) use, what is today's
preffered CPU? Intel's Core i3? i5? AMD's Athlon II? AMD Phenom?

3G RAM? 6G RAM?

If I go with a "ready made" box, HP? Dell?

Thanks.

With regard to RAM, I noticed a news item within the last couple of
days, that said one of the majors is changing their machine
configurations, due to a shortage of RAM. So the ready-made
computers might come with less RAM on their own, as the impact
of a RAM shortage is digested.

*******

As for the Intel Core families, they differ a bit in terms of
how they connect to chipsets. You'd want to find a website
doing benchmarks, to see what difference that makes to everyday
usage.

Core i7, connects to a more or less conventional chipset via QuickPath.

Core i7 (LGA1366)

http://www.intel.com/Assets/Image/di...ockdiagram.gif

Core i5, has the PCI Express video interfaces on the processor, and
the interconnect to the rest of the chipset solution is via DMI
(somewhere in the 2GB/sec range). Another different might be
whether Hyperthreading is included or not (virtual cores, small
performance boost).

(LGA1156) PCI Express on processor, DMI to a "Southbridge"

http://www.intel.com/Assets/Image/di...ck-Diagram.gif
http://www.intel.com/Assets/image/di...ck_Diagram.gif

Core i3, could include a separate GPU chip inside the same package
as the CPU silicon die. I don't consider that to be an "integrated"
GPU in the normal sense of the word. The IC package is an MCM
(multi chip module), and there would be regular bus interconnect
between the CPU silicon die and the GPU next to it. And the
bus running outside the processor package would be DMI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_core (look at the tables further down the page)

This is a pretty good review, comparing the modern low end Intel
versus its AMD competitor. If you're on a limited budget, reading
this may be enough to frame up your choices.

Core i3 review (showing two die, processor and GPU, inside the same package)

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2921

AMD's product offerings are a bit more consistent, open and extensible.
If I want to chain a bunch of Hypertransport equipped chips together,
there aren't licensing issues like there'd be on Intel. Hypertransport
is used on all the processors, with bandwidths along the QuickPath end
of things, rather than DMI end. The architecture is more conventional,
with external Northbridge for the PCI Express slots plus a Southbridge
for the slower interfaces. But in terms of CPU performance, AMD isn't
really invading the top end, still attacking the mid and low end systems.

AMD has memory interfaces on the CPU, like Intel does now. So they're
now comparable, in terms of architecture.

Both companies make 6 core processors, but really, who cares ?

While I can't afford it, if I was upgrading now, and I had a "long view",
I'd pick a Core i7 LGA1366 system, and put a 920 in it (cheapest i7).
There are no compromises on I/O with such a system, whereas with the LGA1156,
I'm constantly looking at the DMI as a potential bottleneck.

An annoyance with practically any system, is the mixture of PCI Express
and PCI slots. Every time I look at my newest motherboard, I'm reminded
of this. I have slots I probably will never use (lousy PCI Express x1
slots, I'm looking at you...). I happen to have two x16 video card slots,
and I'm hoping something worthwhile can use the second one of those for
expansion. I barely have enough PCI slots for what I want to do.
(Currently, my WinTV card is plugged in there. I'm using onboard sound,
because it isn't very convenient right now, to plug in my existing PCI
sound card.) So the slot mix is a major PITA. My previous Core2 board
was more "legacy", had a ton of PCI slots, and was more convenient
for quick changes in hardware configuration.

So when I review the choices, I review them for their impact on the
motherboard, as much as for the processor itself.

You can get benchmarks from here, but with the caveat that you have
to figure out for yourself, why the results are so weird. Practically
all the benchmarks here, support multithreading, so head to head
single core execution is harder to compare using charts like this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts (scroll down to "Processors")

Oh, and if I was shopping for a new system today, I'd still want
two PS/2 connectors on it. If find interaction with the machine is
more responsive with PS/2. Under heavy I/O, my USB mouse doesn't
get the attention it deserves.

Paul

philo wrote:

My system is 6-years old. For normal home (non gaming) use, what is
today's preffered CPU? Intel's Core i3? i5? AMD's Athlon II? AMD Phenom?

3G RAM? 6G RAM?

If I go with a "ready made" box, HP? Dell?

Thanks.

For "normal" home use, if you have a 6 year old machine then you might as
well keep using it for a few more years.

What, specifically do you think a new machine will do that your present one
does not.

If your present machine is doing the job then just keep it...

OTOH: If it's a bit on the slow side maybe all you need is a bit more RAM

It's got it's maximum RAM - 1GB. The HD is showing signs of age. Lots of
bad sectors, etc., and is small (60 GB), the CPU is old/slow (Athlon XP at
2.1GHz), I'm getting LOTS of intermittent problems in much of my software -
websites suddenly not opening properly (no graphics), Word giving me "not
enough memory" error message when I try to open, Adobe Reader failing to
open files (or even displaying the "OPEN" file selections), Thunderbird
refusing to add attachments to mail, and more. In all instances, just closing
affected application and then re-opening solves problem.

Add up all the negatives and system age, and being sick of trying to fix
things, I figure a new computer is called for. I will be keeping my present
monitor, speakers, modem, keyboard, etc., so I figure a PC only in the
$600 or under range is possible.

Any clues to any of the above?

Paul wrote:

My system is 6-years old. For normal home (non gaming) use, what is
today's
preffered CPU? Intel's Core i3? i5? AMD's Athlon II? AMD Phenom?

3G RAM? 6G RAM?

If I go with a "ready made" box, HP? Dell?

Thanks.

With regard to RAM, I noticed a news item within the last couple of
days, that said one of the majors is changing their machine
configurations, due to a shortage of RAM. So the ready-made
computers might come with less RAM on their own, as the impact
of a RAM shortage is digested.

Or that a ready-made already in someone's stock may not be affected by
this malady?

[...much great info snipped]

Thanks. I've saved for later digestion.

On Fri, 21 May 2010 21:40:26 -0700, UCLAN
wrote:

My system is 6-years old. For normal home (non gaming) use, what is today's
preffered CPU? Intel's Core i3? i5? AMD's Athlon II? AMD Phenom?

Yeah, one of those .

They all do the job, you can see benchmarks online for your
most demanding applications to see if any particular
architecture is the best value, but basically nail down a
budget, pick a few nice motherboards with the features you
need, then what is left in the budget tells you which of the
above models of CPU to compare against when looking at the
benchmarks.



3G RAM? 6G RAM?

For another 6 years of use? Go with the 6GB, assuming
you'll be moving to a 64bit OS, or go with 3GB if you're
staying 32bit.



If I go with a "ready made" box, HP? Dell?

Thanks.


Yeah, one of those

Again you have to pick features and budget, plenty of people
are happy with various OEMs and sware off a different OEM
from random chance or defect. No easy answer to this one
as we don't even know if you want a full sized ATX,
microATX, mini or flex ATX, something slimline, something
like a notebook w/o a screen and keyboard with no upgrade
possiblity beyond memory and CPU.

Generally speaking if you never plan to upgrade the system,
the biggest fault with low-end OEM systems is the rear fan
failing (within 6 years as per your current system age), or
random HDD failure early on or after 4+ years.

Personally I would go with any major brand and a standard
mATX case if going OEM, or full ATX if running dual gaming
video cards but you didn't mention that so I assume not.
Otherwise, buy what's on sale, you can easily save $200 by
picking based on a good discount rather than sticking with
one brand... or get a system worth $200 more for the same
discount price... though you may find it more cost effective
to get one with the least amount of memory possible then
upgrade that yourself. Likewise with many other line-item
feature options except premium versions of Windows will be
cheaper already bundled with the system than bought
separately most of the time.

On 5/22/2010 12:40, UCLAN wrote:
My system is 6-years old. For normal home (non gaming) use, what is today's
preffered CPU? Intel's Core i3? i5? AMD's Athlon II? AMD Phenom?
3G RAM? 6G RAM?

Would you watch HDTV?
Do you need to run CAD/CAM kind of applications?
Would you be using Photoshop or Illustrator kind of applications?

If I go with a "ready made" box, HP? Dell?

The good thing about buying HP/Dell is a copy of cheap Window$!


--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.34
^ ^ 11:37:01 up 4 days 14:48 2 users load average: 1.10 1.07 1.01
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

On 05/22/2010 01:05 PM, UCLAN wrote:
philo wrote:

My system is 6-years old. For normal home (non gaming) use, what is
today's preffered CPU? Intel's Core i3? i5? AMD's Athlon II? AMD Phenom?

3G RAM? 6G RAM?

If I go with a "ready made" box, HP? Dell?

Thanks.

For "normal" home use, if you have a 6 year old machine then you might as
well keep using it for a few more years.

What, specifically do you think a new machine will do that your
present one
does not.

If your present machine is doing the job then just keep it...

OTOH: If it's a bit on the slow side maybe all you need is a bit more RAM

It's got it's maximum RAM - 1GB. The HD is showing signs of age. Lots of
bad sectors, etc., and is small (60 GB), the CPU is old/slow (Athlon XP at
2.1GHz), I'm getting LOTS of intermittent problems in much of my software -
websites suddenly not opening properly (no graphics), Word giving me "not
enough memory" error message when I try to open, Adobe Reader failing to
open files (or even displaying the "OPEN" file selections), Thunderbird
refusing to add attachments to mail, and more. In all instances, just
closing
affected application and then re-opening solves problem.

Add up all the negatives and system age, and being sick of trying to fix
things, I figure a new computer is called for. I will be keeping my present
monitor, speakers, modem, keyboard, etc., so I figure a PC only in the
$600 or under range is possible.

Any clues to any of the above?


I guess that justifies a new machine

a dual core cpu with 3 gigs of ram and the 32bit version of Win7 should
do the job

On Sat, 22 May 2010 11:05:15 -0700, UCLAN
wrote:

It's got it's maximum RAM - 1GB.

Did you upgrade the CPU at some point? I ask because the
typical motherboard chipset from the 2.1GHz Athlon XP era
supported at least 1GB per memory slot even if the
manufacturer didn't provide support enough to relist that
later, though of course it may need a certain memory density
or lower to detect it all.

Via KT400 or later, nForce2, both definitely support 1GB per
slot or more, though I don't recall much about the SIS
chipsets of the era.


The HD is showing signs of age. Lots of
bad sectors, etc., and is small (60 GB), the CPU is old/slow (Athlon XP at
2.1GHz), I'm getting LOTS of intermittent problems in much of my software -
websites suddenly not opening properly (no graphics), Word giving me "not
enough memory" error message when I try to open, Adobe Reader failing to
open files (or even displaying the "OPEN" file selections), Thunderbird
refusing to add attachments to mail, and more. In all instances, just closing
affected application and then re-opening solves problem.

Obviously with bad HDD sectors you need at a minimum a new
hard drive and possibly to reinstall some apps or even the
OS if files have been corrupted, but another thought is some
of your symptoms almost seem more like what you would see if
you had simply ran out of hard drive space... including if
you are close enough to that happening that when you launch
an app, what little free space remains is taken up by an
increase in pagefile size.


Add up all the negatives and system age, and being sick of trying to fix
things, I figure a new computer is called for.

Maybe, but I'd still get a hard drive and do a fresh OS
install even if you move to a new box for primary uses.
While that system is slow by today's standards it is still
plenty fast enough for many common uses.


I will be keeping my present
monitor, speakers, modem, keyboard, etc., so I figure a PC only in the
$600 or under range is possible.

Any clues to any of the above?

$600 or under is definitely possible.