UCLAN said:
My system is 6-years old. For normal home (non gaming) use, what is today's
preffered CPU? Intel's Core i3? i5? AMD's Athlon II? AMD Phenom?
3G RAM? 6G RAM?
If I go with a "ready made" box, HP? Dell?
Thanks.
With regard to RAM, I noticed a news item within the last couple of
days, that said one of the majors is changing their machine
configurations, due to a shortage of RAM. So the ready-made
computers might come with less RAM on their own, as the impact
of a RAM shortage is digested.
*******
As for the Intel Core families, they differ a bit in terms of
how they connect to chipsets. You'd want to find a website
doing benchmarks, to see what difference that makes to everyday
usage.
Core i7, connects to a more or less conventional chipset via QuickPath.
Core i7 (LGA1366)
http://www.intel.com/Assets/Image/diagram/X58_blockdiagram.gif
Core i5, has the PCI Express video interfaces on the processor, and
the interconnect to the rest of the chipset solution is via DMI
(somewhere in the 2GB/sec range). Another different might be
whether Hyperthreading is included or not (virtual cores, small
performance boost).
(LGA1156) PCI Express on processor, DMI to a "Southbridge"
http://www.intel.com/Assets/Image/diagram/h55_Block-Diagram.gif
http://www.intel.com/Assets/image/diagram/h57_Block_Diagram.gif
Core i3, could include a separate GPU chip inside the same package
as the CPU silicon die. I don't consider that to be an "integrated"
GPU in the normal sense of the word. The IC package is an MCM
(multi chip module), and there would be regular bus interconnect
between the CPU silicon die and the GPU next to it. And the
bus running outside the processor package would be DMI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_core (look at the tables further down the page)
This is a pretty good review, comparing the modern low end Intel
versus its AMD competitor. If you're on a limited budget, reading
this may be enough to frame up your choices.
Core i3 review (showing two die, processor and GPU, inside the same package)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2921
AMD's product offerings are a bit more consistent, open and extensible.
If I want to chain a bunch of Hypertransport equipped chips together,
there aren't licensing issues like there'd be on Intel. Hypertransport
is used on all the processors, with bandwidths along the QuickPath end
of things, rather than DMI end. The architecture is more conventional,
with external Northbridge for the PCI Express slots plus a Southbridge
for the slower interfaces. But in terms of CPU performance, AMD isn't
really invading the top end, still attacking the mid and low end systems.
AMD has memory interfaces on the CPU, like Intel does now. So they're
now comparable, in terms of architecture.
Both companies make 6 core processors, but really, who cares ?
While I can't afford it, if I was upgrading now, and I had a "long view",
I'd pick a Core i7 LGA1366 system, and put a 920 in it (cheapest i7).
There are no compromises on I/O with such a system, whereas with the LGA1156,
I'm constantly looking at the DMI as a potential bottleneck.
An annoyance with practically any system, is the mixture of PCI Express
and PCI slots. Every time I look at my newest motherboard, I'm reminded
of this. I have slots I probably will never use (lousy PCI Express x1
slots, I'm looking at you...). I happen to have two x16 video card slots,
and I'm hoping something worthwhile can use the second one of those for
expansion. I barely have enough PCI slots for what I want to do.
(Currently, my WinTV card is plugged in there. I'm using onboard sound,
because it isn't very convenient right now, to plug in my existing PCI
sound card.) So the slot mix is a major PITA. My previous Core2 board
was more "legacy", had a ton of PCI slots, and was more convenient
for quick changes in hardware configuration.
So when I review the choices, I review them for their impact on the
motherboard, as much as for the processor itself.
You can get benchmarks from here, but with the caveat that you have
to figure out for yourself, why the results are so weird. Practically
all the benchmarks here, support multithreading, so head to head
single core execution is harder to compare using charts like this.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts (scroll down to "Processors")
Oh, and if I was shopping for a new system today, I'd still want
two PS/2 connectors on it. If find interaction with the machine is
more responsive with PS/2. Under heavy I/O, my USB mouse doesn't
get the attention it deserves.
Paul