PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photography Forum

PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photography Forum (https://photocamel.com/forum/)
-   Computers and Software (https://photocamel.com/forum/computers-software/)
-   -   CPU/MB questions (https://photocamel.com/forum/computers-software/59269-cpu-mb-questions.html)

Douglas 09-02-2008 10:41 AM

CPU/MB questions
 
Ok. Its been about 5 years since I was heavily into the computer world. And I am looking at upgrading my current pc, but not sure about todays technology. Use to be simple math. A 1ghz was better then 800mhz. 2ghz was better and then 3ghz. Easy stuff. Just needed to decide which brand you wanted. AMD or Intel. It doesnt appear to be the same anymore.

Im a gamer. But I look at today's games and they all want 3.0ghz or higher. My pc is about 2 years old, but still a 2ghz pc. Should be fine for games. Apparently it isnt. (At least I cant find any that I want to play that my system supports)

So I go to newegg.com to look at prices. And now im totally confused. For example, a new processor for AMD states:

The 9600 has 4 cores that run at 2.3GHz. The 4 core Phenom processor has L1 and L2 caches for each core 2MB of L3 cache is available to be shared to handle really heavy loads or large data sets.


So it has 4 cores, but is only 2.3ghz? Or is that per core? Things have changed so much since I was "in the know". I don’t know how the ghz relates to cores now.

An amd 64 dual core 3.0ghz is $92. But a 2.3ghz quad is $150. Does the quad core make it better/faster then the dual core? It makes sense, but in the end is a quad 2.3 work better then a dual 3.0?

Help!! lol
:cheesy:



Take12 09-02-2008 12:53 PM

Re: CPU/MB questions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas (Post 529882)
[FONT=Trebuchet MS]So it has 4 cores, but is only 2.3ghz? Or is that per core?

Correct, that is per core, Douglas.

Quote:

An amd 64 dual core 3.0ghz is $92. But a 2.3ghz quad is $150. Does the quad core make it better/faster then the dual core? It makes sense, but in the end is a quad 2.3 work better then a dual 3.0?
That depends on the kind of processes it is supposed to run, and the OS it's running under. To run games on a Vista machine, for instance, you need a whopper of a machine (though that varies per game, of course), as you found out. So you may be forced to fork out for a new one... While 'simple' Playstations or X-boxes, with their dedicated GPU's (Graphical Processing Units, as opposed to general PC's "CPU's", "Central Processing Units") can run those with much less effort.

Douglas 09-02-2008 01:04 PM

Re: CPU/MB questions
 
Yeah. Im thinking I might just get like a PS3. For the price, I can get a dual core 3.0 intel board and mb for about $280. Then ram for another 100... Might as well just snag a game system as my current pc does everything I need it to now. And the cost of upgrading would be about the same cost(And im sticking with XP until Vista has less problems, heh)

Take12 10-20-2008 12:03 PM

Re: CPU/MB questions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas (Post 529970)
Yeah. Im thinking I might just get like a PS3. For the price, I can get a dual core 3.0 intel board and mb for about $280. Then ram for another 100... Might as well just snag a game system as my current pc does everything I need it to now. And the cost of upgrading would be about the same cost

Yes, that would be my recommendation: get a PS3 or Xbox for gaming.
And if – aside from that – you're considering a new main machine for all your other computing needs, including photo management and editing, I would go with a(n) (i)Mac. With either a Core2 Duo, a quad core, or an octo core CPU. Because on that Mac you can also, natively, run XP (or Vista, if you must) and all associated software. Side-by-side onscreen, and simultaneously with MacOSX and its apps...!

Try that on a PC box...!

Quote:

(And im sticking with XP until Vista has less problems, heh)
Then you'll be running XP until føcking eternity! ;D;D;D

brian.austin 10-20-2008 12:16 PM

Re: CPU/MB questions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Take12 (Post 565697)
Then you'll be running XP until føcking eternity! ;D;D;D

I still don't understand what the fuss is about now, after SP1 was released. Aside from some convenience issues I've had as a power user (fixable once I reconfigured it), I haven't seen any problems and the performance increase was significant on my small domain of IT oversight.

Everyone keeps complaining but what, specifically, is the issue now?

Take12 10-20-2008 12:59 PM

Re: CPU/MB questions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by brian.austin (Post 565709)
I still don't understand what the fuss is about now, after SP1 was released. Aside from some convenience issues I've had as a power user (fixable once I reconfigured it), I haven't seen any problems and the performance increase was significant on my small domain of IT oversight.

Everyone keeps complaining but what, specifically, is the issue now?

Read the mags, brian!
Or ask Bill why he is about to launch 'Windows 7' asap... (3 years ahead of schedule).
And – being rushed – you can count on endless bugs and other probs with that too! ;D;D;D

brian.austin 10-20-2008 01:50 PM

Re: CPU/MB questions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Take12 (Post 565740)
Read the mags, brian!
Or ask Bill why he is about to launch 'Windows 7' asap... (3 years ahead of schedule).
And – being rushed – you can count on endless bugs and other probs with that too! ;D;D;D

Uh...yeah. I gave up on "mags" when I realized that they had little to do with reality. If you trust the "mags", you should be upgrading parts and PCs every six months or your whole world will fall apart.

I'll take experience over someone's opinion.

cadmium 10-20-2008 03:25 PM

Re: CPU/MB questions
 
Yeah, these days it's a little more confusing. Manufactures sort of hit a wall when making their parts smaller and faster. That's also why clock speed has barely increased in the past few years. They can't make them faster, but they make them more efficient and slap 2 or more on there et viola!

That said, 4 cores isn't really any better than 2 cores. Right now there isn't much software to take advantage of more than 2 cores (most software doesn't even take advantage of more than one, really), and most of that is very specialized (3d rendering, etc).

Also, a faster dual core will offer more performance in real world usage than a slower 4-core processor.

Save your money and stick with dual core.

Also, Intel has the crown with it's Core 2 Duo right now. AMD is still very competitive on the lower end though, if you are going budget.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:12 AM.