CPU's?

[ColTom2]

Hi:

Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon
dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in
descriptive terms.

Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a quad
core at a lower speed?

Thanks

[R. McCarty]

Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely
be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then
be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.
The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A
quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual
core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will
appear later this year.

"ColTom2" > wrote in message
...
> Hi:
>
> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon
> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in
> descriptive terms.
>
> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a quad
> core at a lower speed?
>
> Thanks
>
>

[ColTom2]

Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm) and
would therefore be better than (45nm)?

Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently
ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be better
off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz?
I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which
currently is the top of the line with Intel.

I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to
change almost daily now.

Thanks


"R. McCarty" > wrote in message
...
Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely
be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then
be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.
The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A
quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual
core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will
appear later this year.

"ColTom2" > wrote in message
...
> Hi:
>
> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon
> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in
> descriptive terms.
>
> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a quad
> core at a lower speed?
>
> Thanks
>
>

[R. McCarty]

Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your
CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core.
Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be
higher using Quad-Core processors.

The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of
speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you
can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs.

I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range
that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses.

You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still
way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable.

"ColTom2" > wrote in message
...
> Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm) and
> would therefore be better than (45nm)?
>
> Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently
> ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be
> better
> off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz?
> I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which
> currently is the top of the line with Intel.
>
> I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to
> change almost daily now.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> "R. McCarty" > wrote in message
> ...
> Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely
> be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then
> be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.
> The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A
> quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual
> core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will
> appear later this year.
>
> "ColTom2" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi:
>>
>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon
>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer
>> in
>> descriptive terms.
>>
>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a
>> quad
>> core at a lower speed?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
>
>

[ColTom2]

I really appreciate your taking the time to provide with this informative
info as it has been hard for me to place any correlation with the new CPU's.

I currently have a Sony desktop with Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz which at the
time of purchase was one the best out if I recall correctly. What would you
consider it's equivalent in today's CPU's?

Apparently you feel that a Dual-Core 2.0GHz is sufficient unless I wanted
to pay the premium for a Quad-Core.

Thanks again....



"R. McCarty" > wrote in message
...
Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your
CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core.
Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be
higher using Quad-Core processors.

The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of
speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you
can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs.

I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range
that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses.

You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still
way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable.

"ColTom2" > wrote in message
...
> Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm) and
> would therefore be better than (45nm)?
>
> Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently
> ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be
> better
> off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz?
> I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which
> currently is the top of the line with Intel.
>
> I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to
> change almost daily now.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> "R. McCarty" > wrote in message
> ...
> Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely
> be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then
> be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.
> The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A
> quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual
> core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will
> appear later this year.
>
> "ColTom2" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi:
>>
>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon
>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer
>> in
>> descriptive terms.
>>
>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a
>> quad
>> core at a lower speed?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Galen Somerville]

I replaced my Pent 4 3.2GHz with a Pent D dual core 3.2GHz and was
impressed.

Then I replaced that with a E2200 dual core 2.2GHz and it is definitely
comparable and a bit faster.

Also cut way down on the cooling problem.

Galen

"ColTom2" > wrote in message
...
> I really appreciate your taking the time to provide with this informative
> info as it has been hard for me to place any correlation with the new
> CPU's.
>
> I currently have a Sony desktop with Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz which at the
> time of purchase was one the best out if I recall correctly. What would
> you
> consider it's equivalent in today's CPU's?
>
> Apparently you feel that a Dual-Core 2.0GHz is sufficient unless I wanted
> to pay the premium for a Quad-Core.
>
> Thanks again....
>
>
>
> "R. McCarty" > wrote in message
> ...
> Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your
> CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core.
> Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be
> higher using Quad-Core processors.
>
> The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of
> speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you
> can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs.
>
> I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range
> that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses.
>
> You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still
> way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable.
>
> "ColTom2" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm)
>> and
>> would therefore be better than (45nm)?
>>
>> Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently
>> ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be
>> better
>> off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz?
>> I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which
>> currently is the top of the line with Intel.
>>
>> I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to
>> change almost daily now.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> "R. McCarty" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely
>> be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then
>> be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.
>> The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A
>> quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual
>> core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will
>> appear later this year.
>>
>> "ColTom2" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon
>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer
>>> in
>>> descriptive terms.
>>>
>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a
>>> quad
>>> core at a lower speed?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[R. McCarty]

Comparing a P-4 3.20 Ghz, I'd have to say that a Core 2 Duo E8500
is probably it's peer CPU today. On a cost vs. performance it's a very
good deal.

"ColTom2" > wrote in message
...
> I really appreciate your taking the time to provide with this informative
> info as it has been hard for me to place any correlation with the new
> CPU's.
>
> I currently have a Sony desktop with Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz which at the
> time of purchase was one the best out if I recall correctly. What would
> you
> consider it's equivalent in today's CPU's?
>
> Apparently you feel that a Dual-Core 2.0GHz is sufficient unless I wanted
> to pay the premium for a Quad-Core.
>
> Thanks again....
>
>
>
> "R. McCarty" > wrote in message
> ...
> Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your
> CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core.
> Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be
> higher using Quad-Core processors.
>
> The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of
> speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you
> can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs.
>
> I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range
> that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses.
>
> You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still
> way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable.
>
> "ColTom2" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm)
>> and
>> would therefore be better than (45nm)?
>>
>> Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently
>> ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be
>> better
>> off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz?
>> I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which
>> currently is the top of the line with Intel.
>>
>> I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to
>> change almost daily now.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> "R. McCarty" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely
>> be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then
>> be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.
>> The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A
>> quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual
>> core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will
>> appear later this year.
>>
>> "ColTom2" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon
>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer
>>> in
>>> descriptive terms.
>>>
>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a
>>> quad
>>> core at a lower speed?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[RJK[_2_]]

This is a fascinating subject. i.e. cost vs performance ratio ?

Ages ago I read a piece on micro hardware purchasing, written by a quite
respected "computer" person, (quite a few years ago - can't remember who it
as), advising a smallish embryonic business on budgeting and specification
of a micro computer system which would fulfil their business needs, ...and
somewhere in his deliberations he said something like, "...think of a
figure you can just about stretch to, for your computer system, then
multiply it by at least 3, ...and that's how much you really ought to spend
!" ...it was a really entertaining piece - wish I could find it again.

Regarding the home PC at least, I've never been too keen on the 'often
heard' *advice*, "If you're only ever going to do a little word-processing,
emailing, and occasional web-surfing...you don't need a top of the range
machine." (and more often than not, the person espousing this view is
quietly drooling and looking forward to getting their hands on almost as
much money for their "old" system, as was recently paid for their bang up to
date PC system !!!!!!) ...this is unarguably a very dirty trick to play on
people !
i.e. I've come across too many people who have been ripped off by having
paid FAR TOO MUCH for an older generation PC, which the buyer quickly
"out-grows," and eventually discovers cannot be upgraded and needs to be
completely replaced ! IMHO, the money paid for that older PC, almost
always, would have been MUCH better spent on a much newer and more up to
date PC.

I see that Galen Somerville, (on this thread), had a Intel Pentium D 935
3.2. I currently have one in my main PC - I was impressed with it,
initially, ...then for months it didn't seem as swift, ...then cpuZ revealed
that my bios / "auto" settings were setting a 133mhz fsb ...once I'd sorted
that out it - the machine once again was heaven :-). Prior to that, I
discovered, (whilst fitting a heat-pipe cooler), that the grey thermal paste
on the stock Intel heat-sink had not spread out enough and appeared quite
dry and thick, and was obviously acting as a heat-barrier instead of
heat-conductor ! This makes me suspect that if I had simply replaced the
compound on the stock h/s/fan, it would have been perfectly adequate, and I
often wonder how much of the "talk," ages ago, about Pentium D's running hot
was indeed due to this REALLY bad quality h/s compound on the Intel stock
h/s fans, rather than the themal specifications and characteristics of the
cpu itself !

Speedfan currently reports my D935 cpu core/cpu ambient/system - case
internal?, temperatures, respectively, 38/32/30. Admittedly it's not doing
very much while I'm writing this but, even at heavy-ish load for prolonged
periods, it doesn't go much above 43 deg. C (core)

I would have a liked an "old" Intel Pentium D 965 to put into my main PC,
but, they're almost all gone, and nowadays rarely appear on ebay. The last
batch that appreared on ebay were up for sale for the ludicrous sum of,
around about, £130, so it would obviously be daft to buy one at that price
when my board supports lots of CoreDuo's.

I'm currently tempted by the
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66GHz 1066MHz FSB Socket 775 8MB L2 Cache (2 x 4MB
(4MB per core pair)) Retail £159.99 from ebuyer.com
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html ...my poor old D935 only
scores 847 here :-(
Q6600 £117.99 mmm !
Core2 6700 £110.22 mmmm !

....I'm doing it again i.e. lusting after hardware I don't need !!!

regards, Richard


"ColTom2" > wrote in message
...
> Hi:
>
> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon
> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in
> descriptive terms.
>
> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a quad
> core at a lower speed?
>
> Thanks
>
>

[ColTom2]

Thanks!


"R. McCarty" > wrote in message
...
Comparing a P-4 3.20 Ghz, I'd have to say that a Core 2 Duo E8500
is probably it's peer CPU today. On a cost vs. performance it's a very
good deal.

"ColTom2" > wrote in message
...
> I really appreciate your taking the time to provide with this informative
> info as it has been hard for me to place any correlation with the new
> CPU's.
>
> I currently have a Sony desktop with Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz which at the
> time of purchase was one the best out if I recall correctly. What would
> you
> consider it's equivalent in today's CPU's?
>
> Apparently you feel that a Dual-Core 2.0GHz is sufficient unless I wanted
> to pay the premium for a Quad-Core.
>
> Thanks again....
>
>
>
> "R. McCarty" > wrote in message
> ...
> Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your
> CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core.
> Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be
> higher using Quad-Core processors.
>
> The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of
> speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you
> can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs.
>
> I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range
> that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses.
>
> You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still
> way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable.
>
> "ColTom2" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm)
>> and
>> would therefore be better than (45nm)?
>>
>> Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently
>> ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be
>> better
>> off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz?
>> I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which
>> currently is the top of the line with Intel.
>>
>> I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to
>> change almost daily now.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> "R. McCarty" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely
>> be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then
>> be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.
>> The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A
>> quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual
>> core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will
>> appear later this year.
>>
>> "ColTom2" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon
>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer
>>> in
>>> descriptive terms.
>>>
>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a
>>> quad
>>> core at a lower speed?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>