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?"
Another reason to choose AMD over Intel, Intel has some CPUs that support the new virtualization extensions and some that don't. AMD OTOH supports the virtualization extensions across the line. That and AMD quad cores are stupid cheap now. Unless you have a really pressing need for a really high end CPU get the AMD.
The problem is humans are not good at coping with decissions that involve more than three different factors. So in the end the best is to boil it down to the three things that are most important to you and rate the choices on those items. Or you can just ask for a fast one.
This is very true. First think about what's really important to you. Is it excessive amounts of raw power? Is it cost? Is it noise? (It was for me.) Is it low power usage? How important is compatibility with future components really? (Most likely you'll just buy a completely new PC again, right?)
What are you going to use it for? Web + mail? Programming? Some gaming? Heavy, state-of-the-art 3D gaming?
Most likely, you'll want a healthy balance of these things. People who assemble PCs for a living will probably know what you want, because they've sold the same PC to thousands of others already. If you have unusual wishes (noise is too often ignored IMO), then it's wise to do some research into that specific area.
I second.
Heck, one can get decent GPU for $100-150, meaning that by going cheaper with the rest of components, one can also get himself a decent gaming machine for about $400-600.
Now I can't even name a single PC component which is a must have and can't be found new for less than $100.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
I recently built my own computer for similar purposes. I needed a box that would download things all day and output via HDMI to my TV, but I placed an extra constraint on my system: Linux compatibility, or at least a reasonable degree of compatibility. So, I researched available parts, using price as the first method of siphoning all the dreck. I live in China, so, for example, the processor's price ranged from a few hundred yuan (about 50 bucks) to about four thousand yuan (closer to $500). I decided not to pay more than 400 yuan for my processor, and right there, I cut out about 90% of the processors I had to research. I decided from then that I wanted a 64-bit processor and I would only look at the top 3 FSB's out of those processors, and I chose Intel because my previous experiences with Linux and AMD procs was somewhat dubious. Everything else kind of fell into place after simply choosing the proc, save for the GPU, which I chose for it's Native HDMI port, high-ish (1GB) dedicated memory and driver support in Linux. So that part was even easier.
Your situation seems a lot simpler than mine though, since you only have two constraints: Oblivion (don't know what it is) and 1080 video to a TV. Basically, what you need is any computer matching the requirements for playing Oblivion (I would go a little beyond recommended specs for running it) and with a NATIVE HDMI port. If you spend time worrying about complex names for different series of nanometer sized pieces of wire hypersolderized together, you will drown in the hopelessness that is marketing and advertizing and general rhetorical BS. Find out what specs you need to do what you want, if you're using Linux then check for compatibility issues in the forums of the distro you use or plan on using, and what you need to buy should pretty much be spelled out for you in pretty simple choices. If you're using Windows, you have a lot less to worry about since you don't really have control over those sorts of things, just take whatever has an HDMI port and enough RAM and cycles per second to run your game.
I had issues back on XP, but on Vista/7, the opposite seems to be true- NVIDIA has the buggy drivers.
As part of some Vista capable lawsuit a while back, it was found that NVIDIA drivers caused the most BSODs. Even if you scaled ATI's marketshare at the time (I forget the month, but I looked it up- the Steam Hardware survey is as reasonable of a guess as you're going to get) to make the crash percentages ceteris paribus, NVIDIA drivers still crashed on Vista 50% more.
On Windows 7, I haven't had any driver related issues...
Using (and developing apps for) Windows, Macs, Linux, Win Mobile, Palm, Blackberry and the iPhone, I must respectfully disagree with you on your anti-Mac recommendation. They are not without flaws, as I don't know of any complex systems such as IT as being without any flaws of some sort. However...that said...I have: an iMac (G3) still faithfully fully running OS 10.3; an eMac (G4) still faithfully fully running OS 10.4; an iMac (G5) still faithfully fully running OS 10.5; a MacBook Pro (Intel, 2007) still faithfully running OS 10.6; a 2nd MacBook Pro (Intel, 2009) still faithfully running OS 10.6. These machines cost me, at point of purchase (including Apple Care Protection Plan on the last three) under $10,000. I've invested maybe $1000 in various hardware or software upgrades for the combined lot. I have never had to reinstall the OS - ever. On the total lot of machines, which represent 12+ years of Apple Innovation, I have had a total of 15 kernel panics. On the two Mac Book Pros I run virtually, Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7 of various flavors. The Windows OS runs better on Apple Hardware than it does on my two latest HP Machines (business class). I also maintain a Win 2003 Enterprise server, and a separate Win 2008 Enterprise server, but I run both virtually from within Linux distros (Fedora and Ubuntu, respectively). Users can certainly have a simplified UI experience with OS X, but to say that OS X takes a "dumbed down" approach is patently false. OS X, out of the box ships with many more tools, features and uses than Windows does, at a fraction of the cost. My point is that there are those of us who know that in our experience the Total Cost of Ownership is significantly lower when we invest in Apple Hardware and software, generally, than when we don't. Next in my purchase que is a custom configured XServe that I fully expect to get at least as long of a life span out of that hardware as I have from my original iMac (1998).
Vocation is "matching your heart's deep gladness to the hunger of the world" - Frederick Beuchner
Processor that faild virtualisation instruction are simply market with virtualisation disabled. Would you rather have them to trash all but perfect cpu, raise price and pollute more? If someone dont need virtualisation then this cheaper "defective" cpu will be good enough for his need. Everyone win.
No, the buyer looses because s/he can't reasonably know what the hell it is s/he is buying.
You want to remarket defective chips that can't support virtualisation. Fine. Give them a different name, so a reasonably intelligent and informed buyer can make an informed decision without being forced to research all the minutia of Intel product sub-codes.
As it is, this is deceptive market, and stupid of Intel. Wrapping it in a green blanket and calling it eco-friendly doesn't change this. And yes, if the choice is a binary one between having to ferret out if the chip I'm buying is defective and won't support virutalisation, or filling the landfill with the things, then please, fill up the damn landfill.
Better yet, take the third path: remarket the things, but be honest and label them clearly so people don't end up buying the wrong thing. We shouldn't all have to be experts in every technical detail of Intel chips to be sure we're getting the product we want, any more than we should all have to be experts in aviation in order to board an aircraft and know we'll reach our destination.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy