Which CPU should I go for?

[Walter R.]

I am running Win XP SP2 on my 7 year old computer with a Pentium 4, 1500MH,
512 MB memory

I use my computer for rather mundane applications: Writing letters, writing
books, browsing the web, e-mails, newsgroups.

I would like to upgrade my computer , with a view to installing Windows
Vista in the future. I am totally confused by the choices of CPUs available.
Should I use a dual core or a single core (do they still make those)? None
of the CPUs show the speed at which they are running.

How can I evaluate the myriad of AMD and Intel CPUs?

Lost in CPU land.

 

[Jerry]

Google CPUs; go to both the Intel and AMD web sites and do some reading

 

[Paul]

I am running Win XP SP2 on my 7 year old computer with a Pentium 4, 1500MH,
512 MB memory

I use my computer for rather mundane applications: Writing letters, writing
books, browsing the web, e-mails, newsgroups.

I would like to upgrade my computer , with a view to installing Windows
Vista in the future. I am totally confused by the choices of CPUs available.
Should I use a dual core or a single core (do they still make those)? None
of the CPUs show the speed at which they are running.

How can I evaluate the myriad of AMD and Intel CPUs?

Lost in CPU land.

Are you assuming there is a socket compatible upgrade
for your machine, with dual cores ? That computer may be
using S423 or S478 socket, which is quite old.

Or are you planning on buying an entirely new computer ?

Or do you want to build one from parts ?

Virtually any new LGA775 Core2 processor or AM2/AM2+
Athlon64 X2 or Phenom processor, will be faster than
your old 1.5GHz P4.

Single cores are still available, but the processors
with the fastest clock rates might take the form
of dual core processors. Also, dual core processors
don't hesitate as much as single core processors
might. When I compare my P4 3GHz to an AthlonXP 3200+,
the P4 is smoother, and I think Hyperthreading, and
the second virtual core, is what makes the difference.

For example, an E8400 running at 3GHz, is three to
four times faster than your old processor, using
a single core of the two available. (I quote the
performance that way, because older software may
not be multithreaded, and use both of the cores
at the same time. A number of current benchmarks
and web sites, overemphasize the benefits of
multiple cores, and to avoid disappointing people,
I try to compare the performance of just one core.)
Both cores will be working under WinXP, but if you
were benchmarking, one of the cores might be snoozing
through the effort, if the benchmark is single
threaded (like SuperPI).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/dualcore-shootout/additional/price-perf-1.png

Paul

 

[Walter R.]

Thank you, Paul, for your input and your links.

I usually buy a new computer every 7 years. I install my own Windows XP OS.
I buy them from local computer stores like this one:

http://webserver.computoredge.com/s...e=SD&session=ff52b4c6d719de611a76b7ce391e9287

How do you feel about their "Perfect Office PC" for $ 449 with an Intel Dual
Core E 2200?

Thanks

 

[Bob Willard]

I am running Win XP SP2 on my 7 year old computer with a Pentium 4, 1500MH,
512 MB memory

I use my computer for rather mundane applications: Writing letters, writing
books, browsing the web, e-mails, newsgroups.

I would like to upgrade my computer , with a view to installing Windows
Vista in the future. I am totally confused by the choices of CPUs available.
Should I use a dual core or a single core (do they still make those)? None
of the CPUs show the speed at which they are running.

How can I evaluate the myriad of AMD and Intel CPUs?

Lost in CPU land.

Alternatively, for short money, you could upgrade your PC by adding more RAM.
1GB should make your rig faster, for very little money, and that's plenty
for XP with your workload. And, if you are running low on disk space, a
bigger HD is a small investment.

{1GB is not enough for Vista, but I don't think Vista is an upgrade yet.
Maybe when SP2 is released for Vista; but, the present advantages of Vista
over XP for a SOHO user are pretty slim IMHO.}

If you do decide to replace your PC, then from your description of your
workload, any new CPU is faster than you need. I kinda think that Intel's
line-up beats AMD right now, but anything from either vendor is overkill
for your workload. Just make sure you have enough RAM, particularly if you
want Vista. SInce you are not a gamer, built-in graphics will be adequate.

 

[philo]

I am running Win XP SP2 on my 7 year old computer with a Pentium 4, 1500MH,
512 MB memory

I use my computer for rather mundane applications: Writing letters, writing
books, browsing the web, e-mails, newsgroups.

I would like to upgrade my computer , with a view to installing Windows
Vista in the future. I am totally confused by the choices of CPUs available.
Should I use a dual core or a single core (do they still make those)? None
of the CPUs show the speed at which they are running.

How can I evaluate the myriad of AMD and Intel CPUs?

Lost in CPU land.

For the way you use your machine...there is no need to upgrade.

If you plan to run Photoshop or some such application...
then by all means go for a dual core CPU and a lot of RAM.

 

[Paul]

Thank you, Paul, for your input and your links.

I usually buy a new computer every 7 years. I install my own Windows XP OS.
I buy them from local computer stores like this one:

http://webserver.computoredge.com/s...e=SD&session=ff52b4c6d719de611a76b7ce391e9287

How do you feel about their "Perfect Office PC" for $ 449 with an Intel Dual
Core E 2200?

Thanks

About twice as fast as your 1500MHz, comparing single
threaded performance. E2200 specs are here. 2200*1.5=3300
equivalent.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLA8X

You can look on the chart here, to see where that choice
sits in the big scheme of things.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/dualcore-shootout/additional/price-perf-1.png

The other issue, is upgradability of the processor at some
future time. Since the advert you showed, lists the motherboard
model number, you can look at the details here.

http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/motherboards/DG31PR/DG31PR-overview.htm

That board handles up to dual core FSB1333, so you can put a decent processor
in there later if you want. In fact, you could buy a decent
processor, and just dump out the E2200 when you receive it

This is what you'll be looking at for the next seven years. Your new motherboard.

http://download.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/dg31pr/sb/e14051001us.pdf

Has some expansion slots, for upgrading or adding functions.

One PCI Express x16 bus add-in card connector (for video card)
One PCI Express x1 bus add-in card connector
Two PCI Conventional bus connectors

Only two DIMM slots, so 2x2GB RAM is the max to expect there.
The memory configuration shipped is likely 2x1GB, so to upgrade
to 2x2GB, you throw away (put into a drawer for safe keeping),
the original 2x1GB when you upgrade. DDR2 is dirt cheap, at
least compared to how we used to get screwed on RAM. 2x2GB starts
at $60 (I used to spend $600 to fill a computer with RAM). Keep
the original RAM, because RAM does regularly fail, and the pair
you keep in the drawer, can be used for testing and troubleshooting.

(Select sort by price)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...N=2010170147 1052108080 1052315794 1052416064

HTH,
Paul

 

[Walter R.]

Thanks again, Paul. I will follow your advice. Maybe I can make the next one
last 10 years. Which should take care of my current life expectancy at 80.

 

[Jason]

I replaced a 2.8GHz 1Gb RAM motherboard to a 2.2GHz motherboard with 2Gb
RAM. The computer runs heaps faster proably due to the processer design and
faster RAM. I've found that it is difficult just to upgrade single
components (motherboard/CPU/RAM) so the last few times I've had to replace
all three at once. The side effect is performance increased more than just
replacing one part. I.E the RAM I think chnaged from 300 to 1000 bus speed
on top of the processor design. Also the temperature of the air coming out
of the computer was lower after the upgrade too. Windows XP already showed 2
graphs for the 2.8GHz processor in task manager. But the person I bought the
parts off said the 2.2 is dual core and the 2.9 not. If I remember correctly
the graphs on the 2.8 were the same shape, where as on the 2.2 one graph
could be showing high usage and the other lower.

 

[Jason]

Just had another thought. Don't upgrade if the computer is handling what you
are doing now. The more you wait the better the features (speed etc, other
maybe less as I've had to drop a IDE port and less PCI slots). Therefore
you'll get better performance when you upgrade for vista.

 

[CaptAmerica]

I am running Win XP SP2 on my 7 year old computer with a Pentium 4, 1500MH,
512 MB memory

I use my computer for rather mundane applications: Writing letters, writing
books, browsing the web, e-mails, newsgroups.

I would like to upgrade my computer , with a view to installing Windows
Vista in the future. I am totally confused by the choices of CPUs available.
Should I use a dual core or a single core (do they still make those)? None
of the CPUs show the speed at which they are running.

How can I evaluate the myriad of AMD and Intel CPUs?

Lost in CPU land.

By researching them. By looking up the specs yourself. By comparing
their benchmarks.

In other words:

Ask elsewhere

 

[M.I.5¾]

By researching them. By looking up the specs yourself. By comparing
their benchmarks.

In other words:

Ask elsewhere

Ignore our resident mentally retarded ****wit.

Your question belongs in a hardware newsgroup - which is.