Slashdot Mirror
Making Sense of CPU and GPU Model Numbers?
b4dc0d3r writes "How do you make sense of the various model numbers or naming schemes for CPUs, graphics cards, and the related chipsets? All I want is something that will run Oblivion and output full 1080 video to a TV. Last time I built my own computer I just went to Pricewatch, made a few easy choices, and everything came to my door. Do I really have to research the differences among Core i5, Core 2 Duo, Pentium 4, Pentium D, Sempron, Athlon, Phenom ...? And that's just the processor. Is there a reference somewhere? In short, how do you buy a computer these days?"
I usually have to spend some time on Tom's Hardware: http://www.tomshardware.com/ That allows me to work out what I want, then I do a price comparison to find out what I can afford. It's a nuisance, and most computers nowadays don't come with a decent graphics card, so if you're a gamer, that takes even longer to research.
Try the Ars technica system guide:
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/guides/2009/10/ars-system-guide-october-2009-edition.ars
Ditto for CPUs: Best Gaming CPUs For The Money
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Check out http://www.cpubenchmark.net/ and http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ With a pinch of salt you can make a relevant decision based on those two, even if Googling around would make your decision even better. .
I usually find the advice from tech report's periodical System Guide to be very useful and relevant.
Their latest report came out a couple of weeks ago. They focus on a range of options at various price points and requirements.
sorry to attempt to answer your question and not shill Apple.
bah!*@%!
Actually, if you want to run Oblivion with the "must-have" mods (Better Cities, OOO or whichever leveling mod you prefer, some better texture pack), you'll still need a relatively well configured system. The game might be 4 years old, but it can still be very demanding (and IMO still looks and plays great, once mod'ed correctly)
"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
Just find a reputable computer seller and order a machine that fits your budget. It'll probably run whatever you need it to run. If Oblivion is the heaviest game you're going to run, you can be done for about $500 probably.
If you don't want the same boring standard machine that everybody else has, then you'll have to do some research. I did that 2 years ago. My main resource was Silent PC Review because I was tired of my old jet-engine-soundalike. AnandTech is also a good source, as is Tweakers, if you happen to be Dutch. Lots of articles on those sites will refer to Tom's Hardware, which does benchmark graphs, but really, just get what everybody's recommending.
Two years ago, I went with:
All of this cost me about EUR 1000. Very happy with it. Dead quiet, too. Mind you, this is from 2 years ago. There's probably better, cheaper, quieter, faster stuff around now, but I'm not keeping up.
As for the dual core/quad core stuff: how many heavy CPU-using applications will you be running at the same time? Will your heaviest applications be able to make efficient use of multiple cores? If you don't know, go with dual core. One for the main app, one for everything else. No need to have to extra cores that are only idling all the time.
Make sure that the CPU you buy supports hardware virtualization, for running virtual machines. Every computer enthusiast should want to run virtual machines!
I think all current AMD CPUs support hardware virtualization. But Intel in their infinite market segmentation wisdom has decided to randomly disable hardware virtualization on various CPUs in their lineup, so look before you buy. The funny thing is that very few computer salesmen know for which CPUs hardware virtualization is enabled, so the only result of Intel's market segmentation is confusion and dissatisfied customers.
Wow, what nonsense!
I personally build almost all my family's and my company's PC's, from simple $300 desktops to $5000 servers and the only cases where I have bought pre-built (hence the "almost all") were towards the latter ($5k) category. I find it much more important to built a cheap pc yourself, because you control exactly where the limited budget goes and you end up with a much better pc for your intended use for the money.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
yeah, apart from the weird names, the prices are fairly representative of their performance by themselves, so follow the price to sort them out - remember that even if those are correlated there is not a linear correlation as you can see in this graph:
http://backoffice.ajb.com.au//images/news/cpu-table-2010.jpg
if you know you want a feature for sure (dx11 for gpu, or vt for cpu, or anything) just filter parts by that feature and you still have their performance stated not only by names but mostly by prices
This. Also, during the 1990s computer performance increased dramatically, as in it went from 10MHz to 1000MHz. Since then things have sort of reached a level of "good enough". For instance, I kept my motherboard and processor the same from 2002-2007, simply because it was still able to run most current software just fine. The only things which really prompted an upgrade were Oblivion and a desire to play with a 64-bit OS.
And as the parent says, that was a long enough wait to have lost touch with motherboard, memory and graphics card technology.
I hate to say it (being an AMD fan) but the Athlon part numbers are confusing if you don't know what you're looking at. The older K8 family processors go as "Athlon 64 x2" with a 4 digit part number. The newer K10 family, derived from the higher performance Phenoms, go by "Athlon II x2" with three digit part numbers.
They have become more consistent recently; but, if you haven't been following along you might confuse the difference between 3 and 4 digit part numbers. I have seen numerous examples where the vendor will leave the "64" or "II" out of the description and simply call it a "2.8GHz Athlon", for example, so it's not immediately obvious it's a K8 or a K10
Any CPU with more than 2 cores, should be able to handle most of what you want... I've been testing a dual core Atom 330 at work, and it's actually easy to forget it's not a "real" CPU (unless some FPU-intensive screensaver comes on).
For mid-to-low-end systems, GPUs are really the discriminator ... what makes a difference with running games at decent resolutions and playing back video. The model numbers are nuts, but I tend to cross-reference a few places:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ - a good comprehensive list that boils down and ranks just about every card out there into a single (artificial) benchmark number.
Wikipedia also has surprisingly good coverage of every family of chip, and what products are based off of them and tables of supported features - crucial for system building. So I use it primarily to figure out things like: which nVidia Geforce is equivalent to which Quadro FX branded model, what is the fastest memory my "Barton" core Athlon would support, what the hell is the difference between a 2.2Ghz "Williamette" vs. a 2.2Ghz "Prescott", etc.
I've also taken a liking to checking with http://www.phoronix.com/ for Linux benchmarks and support for new hardware features and drivers... such as nVidia vs. ATi vs. Intel, which distribution has better VPDAU or audio support, etc.
And definitely once in a while read up on http://anandtech.com/ and http://tomshardware.com/ if it's been a while and you need a comprehensive explanation of new tech, such as SSDs or long-term price vs. performance investment strategies... those can really help you plan ahead (Intel & nVidia's tick-tock release cycle, finding the best value, and just generally knowing which buzzwords are important and which are just marketing rubbish.
I know Macs have model numbers and I know they have CPU's which also have model numbers. I don't know any of those numbers.
You can hand in your five-digit Slashdot ID now.
The problem isn't buying something that is slower, but buying something that is noticeably faster. I am not going to invest $100 when all I get is a little bit more detail in the graphics, but I might care about investing $100 if I could play all the games I am interested in at high details with full resolution.
On top of that my current graphic card is passively cooled and I have a PCIe TV card sitting right next to it, which I would have to throw away when I want to insert an active cooled card that takes two slots. And as mentioned my power supply might also need replacement. I am also not a heavy PC gamer and own a PS3, so an additional question would be how the PS3 graphics compare to the PC ones, in case of multiplatform games.
Just too many variables for a piece of hardware that I may need for two games a year.
Note prices in that graph are probably Aussie dollars
char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
Please refer to this link http://paulisageek.com/compare/cpu/ if you want to see absolute CPU performance ranked by CPU and a ratio between cost and performance. Yes you do need to educate yourself some, but let's be honest - any modern CPU works great unless you want to do dual head 24" monitors running crysis. I would recommend you check out Tom's Hardware's guides to building balanced machines, and their guides to building $600/$1200/$1800 gaming machines. They explain their rationale for picking every component and it's quite an education.
Personally I'd probably build an i7-860 box if I didn't plan to do crossfire, or an i7-920 box if I did. That's the fastest intel chip you can buy without getting soaked. If you prefer AMD then the AMD Phenom II X4 965 is the fastest CPU they offer currently (according the list I posted above) and the price is about $60 less than the Intel CPUs I recommended.
I find that when I build a new system I first think about what I will be doing most IE: video editing, gaming, etc and design my system around that. AMD or Intel let the fanboys fight that out both are good choices and have certain advantages. yes you will need to do research tom's hardware is always a good choice for getting information that does not sound like a foreign language. Also read the Newegg reviews for products you are thinking of purchasing.
Chris Sheppard
It is quite true that they hold their resell value: the G5 towers are still trading hands for the cost of a new midrange PC...which is madness, since they are completely obsolete, and many models were prone to problems with their liquid cooling.
I've owned Macs since my first Quadra, but this year I'm ditching them for a PC. I feel that Apple is no longer committed to making good computers...they want to make consumer toys. The brand has eclipsed the product.
IF you take a closer look at the little model numbers, it doesn't take long to see that you are paying twice as much for the hardware as you need to.
I'm pretty sure that, when you are actually buying it, it moonlights as the OS from Nevada...
I have found these resources indispensable in figuring out how modern CPUs and GPUs compare to each other:
... primarily because these tables are dynamic: find the part you're currently using (or want to use as your baseline for comparison) in the table, click on it, and then all the other parts in the table are immediately color-coded as to how much of a step forwards or backwards they are from that part, based on a normalized performance rating.
(It's pathetic that the marketing departments at the companies that make these things are so incompetent that we need tools like these to sort out what exactly they're selling us, but until they get on the ball I'm glad these tools exist.)
Read my blog.
Motherboard and PSU. Don't try to save money on these two by buying cheaper.
Everything else is determined only by how much money you have to spend.
Also, everything else can be upgraded/replaced without having to replace other components.
Pay close attention to PSUs 12V amperage - don't buy cheap Chinese ones that have hundreds of theoretical Watts but give only about 20 Amps on 12V.
12V is for all of your coolers, hard-drives (including external ones), optical drives and anything else you attach to it that has a motor or movable parts.
Buy ULTRA or Corsair (if you can't afford a ULTRA).
With motherboards, pay extra for the Deluxe or Pro model - however they call it.
Compare it to the "regular" version of the motherboard.
If it looks almost the same with maybe another PCI or USB slot added - the pricier one is the one that actually works as intended/advertised.
The cheaper "regular" model probably couldn't quite cut it, so it got downgraded from the original intended specs.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
There's a point where $20 can get you quite a bit more punch, and then there's a point where you need to pay $100 more to get a significant boost. I like my CPUs (and GPUs) between those points: at the top of the mid-range or the bottom of the high-end.
But you're right. The vast majority of people don't even need that.
I recently did a semi-extensive study of the various quad core desktop processors available on NewEgg, leveraging the public benchmark results from PassMark to gauge their overall relative performance. I used the NewEgg prices and simply computed the number of benchmark points you get per dollar.
The only Intel chips that are competitive with AMD's on this metric are the Q8300, the i5-750, and the Q8400.. in that order, with only the Q8300 ranking better than ANY of the AMD chips on this value metric.
Here is the actual list I made up. Score is the PassMark score, the price is the NewEgg price, and the calculated value is score/price. Higher is thus better.
The Intel linup:
Core2 Quad Q8200, score = 3255, price = $184, value = 17.69
Core2 Quad Q8300, score = 3570, price = $150, value = 23.80
Core2 Quad Q8400, score = 3668, price = $170, value = 21.58
Core2 Quad Q9400, score = 3756, price = $190, value = 19.77
Core2 Quad Q9505, score = 4016, price = $240, value = 16.73
Core2 Quad Q9550, score = 4291, price = $260, value = 16.50
Core2 Quad Q9650, score = 4559, price = $330, value = 13.82
Core i5-750, score = 4219, price = $195, value = 21.64
Core i7-860, score = 5570, price = $280, value = 19.89
Core i7-870, score = 5871, price = $540, value = 10.87
Core i7-920, score = 5590, price = $289, value = 19.34
Core i7-950, score = 6309, price = $570, value = 11.07
Core i7-960, score = 6727, price = $590, value = 11.40
Core i7-975, score = 7101, price = $970, value = 7.32
The AMD lineup:
Phenom II x4 940 "Black", score = 3645, price = $156, value = 23.37
Phenom II x4 945 "Black", score = 3500, price = $150, value = 23.33
Phenom II x4 955 "Black", score = 3876, price = $160, value = 24.23
Phenom II x4 965 "Black", score = 4253, price = $180, value = 23.63
If you dont need the horsepower, then the Q8300 is the best at $150. The i5-750 makes a strong showing ay $195, but it is NOT a better processor for the money than AMD's Phenom II x4 965, which is both cheaper at $180 and scores better.
Note that these are also the "Black" edition AMD's which have unlocked multipliers, so they are also an overclockers dream if thats the route you might want to take.
"His name was James Damore."
I call bias. Not only did they take some of the cheapest Intel motherboards on the market for their comparison, they took one of the most expensive AMD motherboards as well. Go to newegg. Nearly 75% of all socket AM3 AMD motherboards are available for under $100. Less than 40% of Intel motherboards are under $100... I did a quick search on NewEgg (The exact mobo they specify for AMD isn't there, but a comparable is), and there are 10 motherboards with at least the same base specifications as the AMD they chose that are less than the price of the motherboard they used. Some as cheap as $79... Yet the Intel motherboards are the cheapest available with the respective feature set (USB3, 2xPCIe16, etc). And not the cheapest by a small margin... The next step up from their $120 CPU is $180... So compare one of the most expensive consumer AMD mobo against one of the cheapest consumer Intel mobo, and act surprised when the AMD has a higher cost per unit of performance? BS...
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
Yes there is. Intel revised their system quite well, you start at the bottom with the Core i3 and move up to the Core i7. Where they messed up is by calling the i7 8xx and 9xx series i7s... They should clearly be separate since they are on a different socket.
Nvidia is fairly similiar, go from the bottom of the barrel GT210 upto a GTX295. It gets confusing however if you try to use current model numbers to reference previous gen parts...
The BYO guide is a bit out of date now, but it'll help you get up to speed on processor architecture, motherboard chipsets, etc. From there of course ars technica, tom's hell even just browsing newegg's offerings will get you the rest of the way there.
Good luck.
Looking it up turns up old and out-of-date results. Since version 2.2, VT-x and AMD-V are enabled by default and optimisations have been made to Virtualbox. The reason for the switch is outlined in the Virtualbox user manual:
The reason for changing the default with version 2.2 is that the hardware has significantly improved with the latest Intel and AMD processors, and VirtualBox has also fine-tuned its hardware virtualization support to a degree that it is now faster than software virtualization in many situations.
The i3 530 is $125 at NewEgg, while the Athlon II X2 245 is $61 for maybe 2/3 the performance. Whether that's worth it to you depends on what you're doing and whether you're on a budget, obviously, but there's very little that the cheaper chip won't handle easily.
The only exception that I'd point out to what you said is to watch very closely for RAM compatibility. Just getting the cheapest without really researching it more can land you with a very unstable computer (I know this from personal experience, so I spend a lot of time researching that before new builds). Newegg conveniently links to the manufacturer's product pages usually, so you can check there for RAM compatibility charts. Aside from that, I'd agree. If you're looking for a standard gaming rig, you don't need high-end parts. You don't need to overclock. You definitely don't need to spend a fortune. A case with PSU included is fine and will save you money. Any graphics card in the latest series from ATI or nVidia, even the low end of those series, will be more than enough. You'll get a good computer for a great price.
Also, +1 for recommending Newegg. I'll shop there over everywhere else even if it costs me more. The service is second to none (and I'm not using that as a cliche, I actually mean it), the prices are great, and the selection is huge.