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?"
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
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.
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
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."