If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Advice please to choose cpu & chipset
I'm a home/small office user. No games. Some multimedia. Music is
important. I haven't bought a PC in years and first of all I'm trying to sort out which processor family I should go for. The chipset is important and I want one that is modern and provides a good range of features like multiple PATA/SATA drives, lots of USB, good onboard sound (or I'll have to buy a sound card). Has onboard video come of age enough to handle movies easily? Power consumption and noise are quite important. Value is important because I don't want to spend a lot. I'll pay more up front if it's cheaper in the long run. But I don't want obscure or little known hardware because getting help afterwards can get lonely! I saw a good page about processors but it's a bit too complicated to help me. http://www.directron.com/howtochoosecpu.html Can anyone advise on my points above and help with the steps I've listed below. STEP 1) I'm tending to go for Intel because AMD doesn't seem significantly cheaper. (I still have glitches with my elderly AMD cpu and XP's ntdll.dl and I don't want anything like that again.) STEP 2) Will I need 64 bit? Last time I looked the lack of 64 bit apps was said to be a problem. Should i go for 64 bit? STEP 3) What about mutliple cores/cpus? How do I narrow down the selection in that web page. I read about extra cores/cpus not helping unless there were certain types of workload. Without a ton of detail about multiprocessing and threads and all that, what's the bottom line? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Advice please to choose cpu & chipset
Jaser wrote:
I'm a home/small office user. No games. Some multimedia. Music is important. I haven't bought a PC in years and first of all I'm trying to sort out which processor family I should go for. The chipset is important and I want one that is modern and provides a good range of features like multiple PATA/SATA drives, lots of USB, good onboard sound (or I'll have to buy a sound card). Has onboard video come of age enough to handle movies easily? Power consumption and noise are quite important. Value is important because I don't want to spend a lot. I'll pay more up front if it's cheaper in the long run. But I don't want obscure or little known hardware because getting help afterwards can get lonely! I saw a good page about processors but it's a bit too complicated to help me. http://www.directron.com/howtochoosecpu.html Can anyone advise on my points above and help with the steps I've listed below. STEP 1) I'm tending to go for Intel because AMD doesn't seem significantly cheaper. (I still have glitches with my elderly AMD cpu and XP's ntdll.dl and I don't want anything like that again.) STEP 2) Will I need 64 bit? Last time I looked the lack of 64 bit apps was said to be a problem. Should i go for 64 bit? STEP 3) What about mutliple cores/cpus? How do I narrow down the selection in that web page. I read about extra cores/cpus not helping unless there were certain types of workload. Without a ton of detail about multiprocessing and threads and all that, what's the bottom line? 1) The Intel processors using the LGA 1156 socket are probably "mainstream" at the moment. These come in i5 and i7 varieties both of which are quad-core with the former being limited to 4 threads and the latter using Intel's Hyperthreading technology to allow 8 threads. Both of these work with the P55 chipset. There are also the LGA 1366 processors which are slightly less mainstream (and are correspondingly more expensive) having just a bit of a lead in speed of memory access but few home users would have need of them. 2) You would be hard pressed to find a current-generation desktop processor that _isn't_ 64-bit. That doesn't mean that you have to run 64-bit applications or operating systems, just that you can if you wish to. I have plain old 32-bit Windows XP installed on several 64-bit systems and running ancient 32-bit software and everything works fine since the new processors where designed to be backward compatible. Using a 64-bit processor with a 64-bit operating system opens up the possibility of using more than 4gB of memory and that can be quite useful for many tasks. 3) Again, virtually every new desktop processor you could lay your hands on today will have at least 2 cores. Even the low-end laptop will have at least that. 4 cores are quite common and are always useful. Whether you are aware of it or not you are always running 20 or more processes. Having them divided up among multiple processors can't do anything except help and when the day comes that you are running three or four "real" programs at the same time you won't regret having them. (Think listening to music and simultaneously browsing the web to kill time while burning a DVD) -- John McGaw [Knoxville, TN, USA] http://johnmcgaw.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Advice please to choose cpu & chipset
Jaser wrote:
I'm a home/small office user. No games. Some multimedia. Music is important. I haven't bought a PC in years and first of all I'm trying to sort out which processor family I should go for. The chipset is important and I want one that is modern and provides a good range of features like multiple PATA/SATA drives, lots of USB, good onboard sound (or I'll have to buy a sound card). Has onboard video come of age enough to handle movies easily? Power consumption and noise are quite important. Value is important because I don't want to spend a lot. I'll pay more up front if it's cheaper in the long run. But I don't want obscure or little known hardware because getting help afterwards can get lonely! I saw a good page about processors but it's a bit too complicated to help me. http://www.directron.com/howtochoosecpu.html Can anyone advise on my points above and help with the steps I've listed below. STEP 1) I'm tending to go for Intel because AMD doesn't seem significantly cheaper. (I still have glitches with my elderly AMD cpu and XP's ntdll.dl and I don't want anything like that again.) STEP 2) Will I need 64 bit? Last time I looked the lack of 64 bit apps was said to be a problem. Should i go for 64 bit? STEP 3) What about mutliple cores/cpus? How do I narrow down the selection in that web page. I read about extra cores/cpus not helping unless there were certain types of workload. Without a ton of detail about multiprocessing and threads and all that, what's the bottom line? Make sure your processor is 1) 64 bit 2) Has virtualization (VT-x on Intel, Pacifica on AMD). Check the charts, to make sure. You can see here, there are some "loser" processors for sale, that don't have VT-x, and I'm stuck with one of those :-( I have an E4700. http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollecti...familyID=26547 http://processorfinder.intel.com The tables for AMD are here. http://products.amd.com/en-us/ For this randomly chosen AMD processor, you can see it has virtualization. (Pacifica feature for AMD.) http://products.amd.com/en-us/Deskto...il.aspx?id=611 Virtualization will be more important in the future, so to buy a processor without it, might leave you with later regrets. Windows 7 has something called "WinXP mode", that relies on virtualization. Most of the stuff you can find for sale now, supports 64 bit operation. In the Intel tables, the feature name is "EM64T". In the AMD, it is "Operating Mode 64 Bit - Yes". I'm less concerned you'll accidentally buy a 32 bit only processor. Otherwise, you could shop on price alone, and get a price proportional to performance. Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Advice please to choose cpu & chipset
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:29:48 GMT, Jaser
wrote: I'm a home/small office user. No games. Some multimedia. Music is important. I haven't bought a PC in years and first of all I'm trying to sort out which processor family I should go for. The chipset is important and I want one that is modern and provides a good range of features like multiple PATA/SATA drives, lots of USB, good onboard sound (or I'll have to buy a sound card). Has onboard video come of age enough to handle movies easily? Most chipsets these days support only 2 PATA drives, to use more you would need to add a PCI or PCIe IDE controller card. Most now handle several SATA drives, typically 4 or more, and have varying levels of RAID support if that is desired. Most now have more USB ports than a normal person needs, though of course a USB hub can be added and is convenient to locate more ports within easy reach instead of having to muck around behind the PC if you have several devices you frequently remove (more than your case front USB could handle if so equipped). Since you wrote music is important, I would advise a midrange or better PCIe sound card unless you only use digital output, the analog on most boards leaves a lot to be desired. Onboard video is capable of handling HD movies easily, though some of the lowest end chipsets don't do HD acceleration which offloads some of the work from the CPU. More important is probably whether the video includes the output ports you need for your current and any future monitor such as HDMI or DVI, at some point there will be no good reason to buy a video device with analog output (at the loss of the other digital outputs) and unless that is what a present monitor you own has to use, that point is already in your past. Power consumption and noise are quite important. All else equal unless you buy a high end system or overclock, they are reasonably power efficient compared to yesteryear's systems... some actually have lower power consumption with a lot more performance. All integrated systems (sound, and video especially) with a minimal number of drives tend to be least power hungry, roughly 60W idle / 100W under load is not unusual. To get substantially lower than that you would probably end up making concessions that reduce the system's viable lifespan due to a large performance hit to attain further power savings. Noise goes along with power consumption, if picking a pre-built PC from an OEM they tend to optimized for low noise, with a local shop build you should specify you want it as low noise as reasonably possible. Given a decent case that doesn't impede airflow and has a suitable number and size of fan mounts you can always swap a fan later, though with an OEM system swapping to a lower RPM fan for noise reduction could void the warranty and either way you would want to monitor the change in temperature, but a basic PC with only ~ 100W power consumption isn't hard to cool with only a PSU exhausting and a low RPM 92mm or larger rear case exhaust fan. Value is important because I don't want to spend a lot. I'll pay more up front if it's cheaper in the long run. But I don't want obscure or little known hardware because getting help afterwards can get lonely! I had the impression you wanted a ready built OEM system. To some extent they are all a little obscure, though if you stick with a standard format (case) like mATX or ATX, eventual upgrades or replacements need not be the same OEM part if the warranty has expired so the replacement can normally be found more expediently and less expensively. There's really not one clear choice of OEMs here, many of them have a standard desktop line which is positioned at the lower price ranges depending on your chosen CPU, memory, video, etc. I saw a good page about processors but it's a bit too complicated to help me. http://www.directron.com/howtochoosecpu.html Generally the best choice for long term use is to fix the budget for the whole system then see what is left for the CPU after other requirements are met. In other words, for what will seem a small difference in performance a couple years from now you could easily pay twice as much for a system, but ultimately you can consider your most demanding uses and whether those justify allocating a larger % of system budget towards CPU, more memory or storage, etc. Can anyone advise on my points above and help with the steps I've listed below. STEP 1) I'm tending to go for Intel because AMD doesn't seem significantly cheaper. (I still have glitches with my elderly AMD cpu and XP's ntdll.dl and I don't want anything like that again.) You're not likely to come upon a problem like that again, whether AMD has more performance depends on exact range of prices, at the very low end they can be a better value but as you wrote, to most people the price difference as seen as % of total system cost isn't much... but for specific models you still have to look at what the budget allows, or bundled pricing considering the possibility of OEM purchase. STEP 2) Will I need 64 bit? Last time I looked the lack of 64 bit apps was said to be a problem. Should i go for 64 bit? Do you have need for more than 4GB memory, how long do you anticipate using the system and do you have legacy peripherals you can get drivers for to support a 64bit OS? If you have no problems moving to 64bit, do so. If you do have issues, as always their cons have to be weighed against the pros. STEP 3) What about mutliple cores/cpus? How do I narrow down the selection in that web page. I read about extra cores/cpus not helping unless there were certain types of workload. Without a ton of detail about multiprocessing and threads and all that, what's the bottom line? .... there isn't one. It does depend on the software you run, a dual core system is highly preferred, quad core more appropriate once you get beyond the lowest-cost systems, but ultimately the more cores you have the less often you will utilize them all especially if you aren't running modern premium software. In the end you need to focus on most demanding use, exact software title and version to see how much additional CPU cores would benefit you, but for long term use a quad core system is probably the best value as future software will tend to make more and more use of multiple cores. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Advice please to choose cpu & chipset
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:48:03 -0500, kony wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:29:48 GMT, Jaser wrote: I'm a home/small office user. No games. Some multimedia. Music is important. I haven't bought a PC in years and first of all I'm trying to sort out which processor family I should go for. The chipset is important and I want one that is modern and provides a good range of features like multiple PATA/SATA drives, lots of USB, good onboard sound (or I'll have to buy a sound card). Has onboard video come of age enough to handle movies easily? Most chipsets these days support only 2 PATA drives, to use more you would need to add a PCI or PCIe IDE controller card. Most now handle several SATA drives, typically 4 or more, and have varying levels of RAID support if that is desired. Most now have more USB ports than a normal person needs, though of course a USB hub can be added and is convenient to locate more ports within easy reach instead of having to muck around behind the PC if you have several devices you frequently remove (more than your case front USB could handle if so equipped). Since you wrote music is important, I would advise a midrange or better PCIe sound card unless you only use digital output, the analog on most boards leaves a lot to be desired. Onboard video is capable of handling HD movies easily, though some of the lowest end chipsets don't do HD acceleration which offloads some of the work from the CPU. More important is probably whether the video includes the output ports you need for your current and any future monitor such as HDMI or DVI, at some point there will be no good reason to buy a video device with analog output (at the loss of the other digital outputs) and unless that is what a present monitor you own has to use, that point is already in your past. Power consumption and noise are quite important. All else equal unless you buy a high end system or overclock, they are reasonably power efficient compared to yesteryear's systems... some actually have lower power consumption with a lot more performance. All integrated systems (sound, and video especially) with a minimal number of drives tend to be least power hungry, roughly 60W idle / 100W under load is not unusual. To get substantially lower than that you would probably end up making concessions that reduce the system's viable lifespan due to a large performance hit to attain further power savings. Noise goes along with power consumption, if picking a pre-built PC from an OEM they tend to optimized for low noise, with a local shop build you should specify you want it as low noise as reasonably possible. Given a decent case that doesn't impede airflow and has a suitable number and size of fan mounts you can always swap a fan later, though with an OEM system swapping to a lower RPM fan for noise reduction could void the warranty and either way you would want to monitor the change in temperature, but a basic PC with only ~ 100W power consumption isn't hard to cool with only a PSU exhausting and a low RPM 92mm or larger rear case exhaust fan. Value is important because I don't want to spend a lot. I'll pay more up front if it's cheaper in the long run. But I don't want obscure or little known hardware because getting help afterwards can get lonely! I had the impression you wanted a ready built OEM system. To some extent they are all a little obscure, though if you stick with a standard format (case) like mATX or ATX, eventual upgrades or replacements need not be the same OEM part if the warranty has expired so the replacement can normally be found more expediently and less expensively. There's really not one clear choice of OEMs here, many of them have a standard desktop line which is positioned at the lower price ranges depending on your chosen CPU, memory, video, etc. I saw a good page about processors but it's a bit too complicated to help me. http://www.directron.com/howtochoosecpu.html Generally the best choice for long term use is to fix the budget for the whole system then see what is left for the CPU after other requirements are met. In other words, for what will seem a small difference in performance a couple years from now you could easily pay twice as much for a system, but ultimately you can consider your most demanding uses and whether those justify allocating a larger % of system budget towards CPU, more memory or storage, etc. Can anyone advise on my points above and help with the steps I've listed below. STEP 1) I'm tending to go for Intel because AMD doesn't seem significantly cheaper. (I still have glitches with my elderly AMD cpu and XP's ntdll.dl and I don't want anything like that again.) You're not likely to come upon a problem like that again, whether AMD has more performance depends on exact range of prices, at the very low end they can be a better value but as you wrote, to most people the price difference as seen as % of total system cost isn't much... but for specific models you still have to look at what the budget allows, or bundled pricing considering the possibility of OEM purchase. STEP 2) Will I need 64 bit? Last time I looked the lack of 64 bit apps was said to be a problem. Should i go for 64 bit? Do you have need for more than 4GB memory, how long do you anticipate using the system and do you have legacy peripherals you can get drivers for to support a 64bit OS? If you have no problems moving to 64bit, do so. If you do have issues, as always their cons have to be weighed against the pros. STEP 3) What about mutliple cores/cpus? How do I narrow down the selection in that web page. I read about extra cores/cpus not helping unless there were certain types of workload. Without a ton of detail about multiprocessing and threads and all that, what's the bottom line? ... there isn't one. It does depend on the software you run, a dual core system is highly preferred, quad core more appropriate once you get beyond the lowest-cost systems, but ultimately the more cores you have the less often you will utilize them all especially if you aren't running modern premium software. In the end you need to focus on most demanding use, exact software title and version to see how much additional CPU cores would benefit you, but for long term use a quad core system is probably the best value as future software will tend to make more and more use of multiple cores. I tend to agree with most of this but if price is important I wouldn't bother with a quad core CPU. You can get some good low power CPUs from AMD and a low power system will be easier to keep quiet. And I find a lot of OEMs tend to build down to a price, so you are likely to get a noisy system with cheap components. -- (\__/) M. (='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and (")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by everyone you will need use a different method of posting. [Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.] |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Advice please to choose cpu & chipset
"Jaser" wrote in message ... I'm a home/small office user. No games. Some multimedia. Music is important. If sound quality is important (ie you have HiFi separates rather than a midi system) then a sound card is a must. I haven't bought a PC in years and first of all I'm trying to sort out which processor family I should go for. The chipset is important and I want one that is modern and provides a good range of features like multiple PATA/SATA drives, lots of USB, good onboard sound (or I'll have to buy a sound card). Has onboard video come of age enough to handle movies easily? if those movies include HD/Bluray then a plug-in card like an ATI HD3400 or HD 4400 with a passive heatsink - not fast enough for games but it'll take some of the load off the CPU. Power consumption and noise are quite important. buy an OEM processor (retail ones have crap heatsinks) and spend a little extra on a quality (and quiet) cooler STEP 2) Will I need 64 bit? Last time I looked the lack of 64 bit apps was said to be a problem. Should i go for 64 bit? only if you applications that are 64bit and require a LOT of memory. STEP 3) What about mutliple cores/cpus? How do I narrow down the selection in that web page. I read about extra cores/cpus not helping unless there were certain types of workload. Without a ton of detail about multiprocessing and threads and all that, what's the bottom line? a dual-core is still plenty for most people. it improves multitasking on a PC noticeably. few people *need* a quad core right now. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Advice please to choose cpu & chipset | Jaser | General | 4 | November 24th 09 12:28 PM |
advice please for which cam to choose! | stefos | Webcams | 2 | April 5th 06 07:54 PM |
Which the fastest processor can I choose to motherboard with KT133 chipset | Faraon | Overclocking AMD Processors | 4 | April 13th 04 09:27 AM |
Which the fastest processor can I choose to motherboard with KT133 chipset | Faraon | AMD Thunderbird Processors | 4 | April 13th 04 09:27 AM |