My parents want to buy a new computer, and I'm wondering what CPU they
should get.
They have used their current Windows 98 computer for 8 years now, and
I expect that they would use the new computer for 8 years, so I want
to try to future proof the CPU.
Would a E2180 be good enough, or maybe step up to the E4500? Or even
a E8200 or a Q6600? Those are the CPUs that Dell offers. Maybe
getting the quad-core Q6600 would be the best bet for future
proofing? But then again, my parents aren't going to do much
multitasking, and they're just going to check email, use the browser,
download some videos and watch DVDs. Maybe a dual core will be good
enough for them. What do you think?
I'd be happy with a dual core. A quad core helps, if they do multimedia
tasks with long run times (like shrinking a DVD). A lot of other activities
will be handled smoothly on a dual core.
If you look at this example of prebuilt computers, the price shoots up,
but wouldn't really help your parents that much. The $949 box on the
left, has a quad running at 2.4GHz. The $3599 box on the right, has a
processor overclocked by Gateway, a quad running at 3.66GHz. So
computing wise, dropping an extra $2651, buys a 50% faster processor.
(Of course, the expensive machines have gaming video cards in them
as well.)
http://www.gateway.com/systems/series/529598059.php
Look for a dual, with as good a clock rate as you can find, at
a reasonable price. If the machine is stuck with Vista, then
2GB memory minimum. Memory is dirt cheap now, so if there is a
good time to purchase more memory, now is the time. A 32 bit OS
can handle 4GB max (minus address space for hardware busses and
cards). At prices around $25 per gigabyte, it shouldn't cost a
lot to upgrade (although if bought from Gateway/Dell/Acer web
sites, they'll charge more).
And if you cannot find what you want, then build your own. That
way, you can dispense with crap you don't need.
On the Dell page, I selected the XPS 420 desktop starting at $999.
That offers better options for processors than the Inspiron
customization page offers. I selected the largest case for the
computer that I could (on the premise it'll be easier to
add upgrades to later). The closer a PC case is to a standard
ATX casing, the better chance you can use a standard power
supply with a higher rating. And for modern video cards, some
of them are rather long, so if there was ever a reason to get
a video card, you want a good sized case. The super-tiny cases
may only allow "low profile" upgrades, and you'll be cursing if
ever faced with the need to add hardware to the box.
Then I went to the customization page for the XPS 420. Instead
of the Q6600, a quad at 2.4GHz, there is an option for an E8400,
a dual at 3GHz. It is a "$0 upgrade". That will run cooler, and
for average tasks, run a bit faster. Compared to the Pentium 4,
an E8400 at 3GHz, is equivalent to a Pentium 4 at higher than
4.5GHz. The new processors have a higher IPC (instructions per
clock), which is why the clock rate doesn't have to be as high,
to get work out of them.
There is no such thing as future-proofing. As time passes,
machines are designed as "throwaways", with little room for
upgrades. For example, the Intel processor socket will
change soon, and LGA775 will fade away. Since the machines
currently ship with LGA775 sockets, you might as well get
a clock rate as good as possible from the "mainstream" processors
group. If a dual 3GHz costs $200, and a quad 3Ghz costs $1000,
and the quad part of it doesn't get used very often, then the
dual 3GHz will be the sweet spot. If your parents did nothing
but movie editing, then I might consider the quad 2.4GHz as
better for multimedia. The more modern and recently purchased
their multimedia applications software is, the more likely a
program would be to use the multiple cores of new processors.
If you're doing email, that will always use a single core, as
there is no point to changing how email is done.
Vista will help suck the life out of the new machine, sort of
a hardware tax if you will. For example, when you do a
file copy in Vista, you might notice a 10 second delay
while the transfer happens. This is because of the software
architecture and decoupling/deferring concepts. It is not
caused by a "slow processor" or "broken hardware". It is a
design decision by Microsoft. Buying an even faster processor
tends not to fix such things, as they are "bugs/features" of
the new OS. But with a 3GHz choice made, you can at least
say "it doesn't get any better than that".
Part of the mad disk thrashing you'll see in Vista, when the
machine starts, is prefetching stuff into memory. The memory
is used as a holding place. If the user needs memory, the
prefetched stuff is instantly discarded, to make room. It
means, in some situations, an activity can happen faster
(as the info is prefetched), while in other situations,
you'll be listening to the disk chugging along (as more
prefetching is happening).
There are other OS choices, but your parents may not be
Linux buffs
HTH,
Paul
