New Computer - Spec Questions - Page 2

reasonably good point, but the plateau isn't in terms of "useful non-gaming performance", its global, and quite complex (just as a painful hour of your time, find whatever professor at your school works with SMP or CPU microarch, and ask them to go into detail on the software side of explicitly parallel processing, especially highlighting contrast between vector and superscalar execution, and I don't doubt you know this as well, its just that most professors will spin a yarn a mile long about the subject)

honestly while Windows 7 may or may not perform "better", its ridiculous to claim five years of usage from a box, best case scenario you'll still need more storage down the line

I'm still running a P4 2.53Ghz, admittedly with 1Gb ram, and it does everything I need. And, I have no need or desire to upgrade - XP is fine for me.

A little while back I built another PC (for the kids) based on the E8400. Bang for buck at the time, this was a great buy. It has 1333Mhz FSB, 6MB L2 cache and because it's based on the 45nm architecture it uses less power and runs cooler (smaller PS and quieter PC ).

I used the charts at Tom's Hardware to help me select the best bang for buck for my needs based on various benchmarks.

4GB of RAM and a Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad should be fine for 5 years, provided you are not doing any gaming.

ewww, tom's

what was once wonderful, now a breeding ground for viral marketing and shills (sorry, I've just seen the evolution from 2003 onward)

I really have an issue with this "its fine for five years" claim, because its a false sense of confidence, if you never plan to purchase new software or expand the abilities of the system, then yeah, but you have zero upgrade route, so why kneecap yourself because its "good enough" today? at least leave yourself some upgrade options....

^

I agree about your Tom's comments. I've watched it decline from the start. These days, I find it convenient for the charts, but little else.

TR offers the same quality of charts, with none of the ads, and the commentary is worth reading

G3d always has decent reviews, but they're sparse (I'm still like 99% sure its just one guy, as much as they insist it isn't)

In my experience hardware upgrades are driven by one of two reasons.

The first is the killer app. The application that you just have to have. Whether it's the latest game, or the new version of your home movie editing software, or even the latest OS. You get to a point where to run this software you need a contemporary OS and hardware.

If you don't expect to change you computing habits significantly over a five year period, then the hardware should be fine. Me, I used to play games. These days I don't. Everything I need to do is handled by my P4 2.53Ghz, which was released in 2002. I run the latest versions of Gimp, open office, various audio applications and firefox. I buy a new hard drive every few years for $80, and I pick up a performance boost.

The second cause is the OS is running slower than it used to (perception or reality). If you haven't loaded up one of those killer apps recently, it's probably just that windows is all clogged up. An OS rebuild will fix the problem and away you go again. A dedicated system hard drive helps to defer this.

I have seen, and been part of, both of these trends over the past 20 odd years.

TR?

Edit: Tech Republic?

The Tech Report - PC Hardware Explored

^

Cheers

There are two main types of Front Side Bus clocks in the computer:

1) Motherboard FSB (not adjustable)
2) CPU clock core FSB (adjustable)

The 1333MHz and 1066Mhz FSB are fixed clock numbers of the motherboard, it is IMPOSSIBLE to adjust them.

But If you running 3.2GHz with a 1600MHz CPU clock core FSB, that would mean that you running a core multiplier of 2. That is ridiculously impossible to run anything stable at a 2 core multiplier. Especially with the Q6600, I have three of them and I how to overclock them well. Also, that chip technically only have 4Mb for cache and another 4Mb in second cache which isn't very efficient, but normal people can barely tell a difference.

Plus, I don't think you clearly understand the purpose of cache. The Motherboard FSB is far more important than cache. That is the speed that accesses the cache and the external memory (RAM), you would perform better if you have a faster FSB for the motherboard. The purpose of cache is that it is the fastest accessible memory for the processes coming from the CPU. If a process requires more memory than the L2 cache of the CPU, the process then jumps over to the external RAM (which is always upgradable).

You obviously don't know anything about overclocking, it's best you don't feed ignorant BS to people who actually need help.

Seems like you are comparing between these two CPUs.

Q6600 (2.66)
Q8300 (2.5)
Q8200 (2.33)

According to the chart from Tom's, the Q6600 is a better performer and difference its quite noticeable too.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...se-10,835.html

For RAM, 4gb is perfectly fine. Depending on your resolution you can get a graphics card with more memory, otherwise if you're running below 1440x900, 256mb is perfectly fine. Also, the graphics card is very dependent on your type of work on the computer? Is it for CAD or modeling/animation? If so, 256mb won't really be enough and the GPU clock is also very important in that case.

Vista is fine, I still prefer XP for it's stability. But for looks, it's up to you.

you're kidding me right? those values are the "CPU FSB", and can be adjusted at will, unless you've got a fancy pants chip with an unlocked multiplier, its the only option for overclocking, and there is no "motherboard FSB", unless you're trying to talk about the bus which sits between the MCH and the ICH, which is adjustable (to a degree, on some boards), but I don't know why you'd even bother with it (you'll knock things all wonky if you do)

"CPU core clock FSB", what are you even trying to say here? the CPU operational clock? or the system FSB? (there is only one FSB, period, if you're so wonky from AMD's HT topology, you've got things mixed up with their re-named busses that in effect "emulate" an FSB for clocking purposes)

and please don't try to explain cache hierarchies or architectural specifics if you're going to bloody mangle it

and the multiplier is invariable on standard/consumer hardware, only enthusiast hardware sees such a feature, and the selected multiplier means relatively little for stability, as long as it doesn't require excessive over or undervoltage to "stabilize" (in other words if the operational scenario were to require something so far out of spec that it makes the system inoperable)

in general, the words "you should talk" come to mind

::edit
been bloody dying to use this one:

well, on that budget, you can only get what you can afford, and the i7 likely isn't a good option, I wasn't aware of your budget (as you didn't state it), and suggested the i7 because its the future (plain and simple truth, LGA 775 is on the up and out)

what applications are you talking about? got any proof here, or is this heresay? (its a CPU for chrissake)

I'd honestly go with "anything" given your description of needs, so find something which suits your budget, get a good PSU, and keep truckin, or buy something off the store shelf, either way, you'll get a decent 2-3 years before you feel the age, at which point you can re-asses the situation, if you want exact spec-out, well, I'm just too lazy to be doing that for you, go plug some stuff into newegg until you hit ~$600, come back, and I'll be happy to give you opinions

and m11a1, please just stop, I don't have the time or energy to correct everything thats wrong with your post right now, and believe me, theres a lot.

Moderator Edit



I made a mistake of calling that FSB, yes, you're right there's only one FSB and another Bus speed. The Bus speed is no where adjustable. Whereas the FSB is, MCC obviously had those messed up.

You obviously don't understand why I mention the multiplier then, according MCC, he would have been running a 2 multiplier which is impossible for the Q6600, and how would I know that? Because I have it and I have overclocked it before. Yes, I know that is possible to have a 2 multiplier on some chips but just not on some of the newer quad cores.

Nor can I with you, you seem to have made some mistakes yourself, not to mention your attitude as well since you have this "oh look at me, I know everything" stubborn .

In my personal opinion, the Core 2 Quad is perfectly fine for you. No need to really jump to i7 technology right now especially when 775 isn't dead yet and it won't be for a while too. As far as expandability and upgradability, invest more in a better motherboard; with more RAM slots, ability overclock, PCI-E 2, and for build quality too.