[suzie612]

hi,

I'm wanting to buy a desktop PC for my business and I just want basic features.

I am a bit unsure on the whole processor thing as my understanding is very little.

I am wanting to know what to look for when purchasing a PC. Is an Intel Pentium 4 processor 524 with HT Technology (3.06GHz, 1MB L2 Cache, 533 MHz FSB) any good?

Also can someone please explain the processor jargon/technical above?

All I am wanting to use is Microsoft office (maybe an accounting package), email, little Web Surfing, word processing, spreadsheets etc.

[schusterjo]

(3.06GHz, 1MB L2 Cache, 533 MHz FSB) any good? Yes its good but not what I would go with right now. Im going to post a something that will explain a lot after I tell you this little bit first.


1Mb Cache, this is basical ram on the CPU

The MHz of a CPU is like the max rpm of a car engine. It's not the same thing as power, because a big engine running at moderate rpm can produce the same power as a smaller engine running at higher rpm.

Under this analogy, AMD CPUs are about 50% larger than Intel CPUs to compensate for their lower clock speeds. It's a question of design - neither approach is intrinsically right or wrong.

The Athlon XP number is a power (or performance or speed) rating - it's measuring the rate at which the CPU will execute a program.

The P4 GHz number measures only the clock rate of the CPU - i.e just the max rpm in my analogy. If you compare two otherwise identical CPUs the power will increase as the GHz increases. For a long time all CPUs were similar enough to mean that this meant GHz was also a valid power rating.

That's no longer true. A P4 with a 800Mhz FSB and large cache will be much faster than a mother P4 with a slower FSB or smaller cache running at the same CPU clock speed. An Intel Pentium-M mobile CPU gives about 50% more processor power than a P4, MHz for MHz, just like an AMD XP or Athlon64.

The advantage of CPU clock cycle is that it's easy measure and easy to sell - just one number and bigger means better. The disadvantage is that it's not actually correct.

The advantage of Performance Ratings is that it does actually tell you what you need to know; but it's hard to measure and a bit subjective because actual CPU performance depends on a large number of factors and can vary quite a lot depending on what benchmarks you happen to use.


I hope that helps you understand that a little more. Now but what you really want is a Core 2 duo that has a totally different architecture. Where a Core 2 Duo E6400 2.13GHz LGA 775 Processor will stomp on a P4 3.06GHz, 1MB L2 Cache, 533 MHz FSB

Confusing? Its not about GHz anymore its all about how much work can be done in a given clock cycle.


Next post I hope helps you even more.

[schusterjo]

One thing also to consider is just not CPU but matching up the CPU with the ram to get best performance. To avoid bottlenecks and allowing everything to communicate at the same speed and not having One Item sitting 1-2 clock cycles waiting for the other to catch up.

Click here and take a look at the 2 red lines on the chart (P4 540 3.2G vs a Core 2 duo 2.13)
You will find P4 pretty low
even a core duo (not a core 2 duo) would still be better

Anyways here is the rest of the Info I told you I would provide.

DDR2 Is not faster it actually has higher latency times then DDR, but for faster CPU's with (using term FSB lightly here) Larger FSB of 1600,2000 ext.. DDR2 in dual mode allows the ram to run closer to that speed
Works something like this. (make note DDR will not fit in DDR2 slots or vise verse)
PC3200 (400Mhz) X2 = 800Mhz (184 Pin)
PC3500 (433Mhz) X2 = 866Mhz (184 Pin)

PC2-8000 (DDR2-1000) x2 = 2000Mhz (240 Pin)
PC2-8500 (DDR2-1066) x2 = 2132Mhz (240 Pin)

Now what does that mean?

Intel 4 Processor Prescott 3EGHz, 800MHz FSB
You see DDR PC3200 works great cause it has 800Mhz

Now
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Dual Core 2.6GHz, 2x1MB, 2000MHz FSB
PC2-8000 (DDR2-1000) x2 = 2000Mhz works cause it has 2000Mhz


By matching allows you to get the maximum performance, If not the you will have one waiting on the other slowing the system.
But like I said the In order to get the higher clock speeds they had to increase the latency on DDR2. over time I'm sure they will perfect that in time.



2. the CAS speed of ram


CAS Latency: What Is It, and How Does It Impact Performance?

That will explain CAS in its entirety.

That is why the prices are different
Does it really effect speed? sure does, depends allot on the motherboard and size of CPU as well but as far as having a high end gaming system that can run graphics very well then yes this is where you will get the best performance...

significant complaint about DDR2 when it came out--much higher latencies. On the other hand, DDR2 is capable of much much higher speeds--if you shell out you can pick up DDR2 RAM up to DDR2-1111mhz! As a comparison the fastest DDR1 RAM I've seen is 600mhz. Twice the latency, but twice the speed.

As usual, to go faster, often you must either sacrifice latency or use very high voltages.


If you are confused about the mathematics of the whole thing, explains the math well:

CPU speed = CPU multiplier x Front Side Bus

Example:

Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4ghz = 9 * 267mhz

However, even this simple equation has become complicated. For starters, Intel likes to “quad” pump their FSB so they will report it as 267*4=1066mhz, front side bus. I think its best to reduce the math to the lowest denominator and call the front side bus 267mhz. Intel also makes cpus with front side buses of 200mhz and 133mhz (or 800mhz/533mhz quad pumped).

To further complicate things, the latest processors from AMD have a completely different architecture, specifically, the memory controller is built right onto the CPU die. So technically, there is no front side bus, if by front side bus you mean the speed at which the core communicates with the memory controller. AMD chips do have a number which they retain in order to maintain the equation.

Perhaps in response to this confusion, Abit has gone with calling the “Front Side Bus” the “External Clock”. Since we are talking about an Intel platform, I will from here on out use the words FSB and External Clock interchangeably because they both indicate the speed at which the core communicates with the memory controller. In this situation the memory controller and the northbridge are also one in the same, and so I will use them interchangeably as well.

The CPU multiplier is a property intrinsically set by Intel, as far as I know, hard set into the chip itself. C2D cpus are a bit of new breed, for the first time, Intel has left downward CPU multipliers unlocked. Meaning, for example, the E6600 has an intrinsic maximal multiplier of 9—but the bios will also unlock 6, 7, and 8. This is useful in certain circumstances, especially in testing of maximal FSB speed (lower multiplier will allow for higher FSB at the same overall CPU speed ie 2.4ghz = 9 x 267 = 8 x 300 = 7 x 343= etc.). The Extreme Edition CPUs retain their tradition of being both upwards and downwards unlocked.

The Memory Bus

For those of you coming from the older platforms based on DDR SDRAM, you will need to pause a moment and re-orient your thinking. Because of the nature of DDR2 RAM, much much higher speeds are easily achieved.

As a baseline, when running stock FSB speeds, (fastest C2Ds being FSB 267), if you have Ram rated to FSB 267 (DDR2-533 or PC2-4200), the bios will automatically select a CPU:RAM ratio of 1:1.

However, sticks of RAM are commonly available at speeds of FSB 333/DDR2-667/PC2-5300 or even FSB 400/DDR2-800/PC2-6400. Therefore, if you run you CPU at maximal stock FSB 267, but put in these sticks of RAM that are rated much faster, the bios will automatically select a ratio whereby the RAM will be running FASTER than the CPU bus. Currently, these are the selectable RAM ratios and the corresponding RAM speeds:

1:1
FSB 267 (times 1 divide by 1) = 267mhz = DDR2-533 = PC2-4200 Ram

4:5
FSB 267 (times 5 divide by 4) = 334mhz = DDR2-667 = PC2-5300 Ram

2:3
FSB 267 (times 3 divide by 2) = 400mhz = DDR2-800 = PC2-6400 Ram

Even faster RAM modules are out there—(fastest I’ve seen as of writing is FSB 556 = DDR2-1111 = PC2-8888) obviously these are for overclocking as (currently) these are faster than the fastest CPU FSB (267) with the highest RAM multiplier (2:3).

On the one hand, running the Ram faster than the CPU doesn’t give trememdous performance boosts in most settings--on the other hand, if the RAM is rated to do it, that’s free performance.


Memory Latency (and secret settings)

There are many parameters that must be set for RAM to operate appropriately. The most commonly acknowledged settings are:

CAS# Latency
RAS# to CAS# Delay
RAS# Precharge
Cycle Time (Tras)

I list them in this order and as termed because this is how they appear in the very popular and useful program cpu. When not otherwise specified, if you see 4 unlabeled numbers, this is the order they are in. Not all bioses list these in the same order.

Here is how they appear in the AW9D max bios:

Advanced Chipset Features

DRAM Timing Selectable = Manual
X - CAS Latency Time (tCL) = 4
X - RAS# to CAS# Delay (tRCD) = 4
X - RAS# Precharge (tRP) = 4
X - Precharge Delay (tRAS) = 15

Which is in the same order.

The smaller the latency numbers, the faster the RAM turns over data. However, if you tweak them too tight, data will become corrupted. The performance boost from tighter latencies again is not necessarily tremendous in most applications. As a very very rough reference, I’ve generally found that a 10mhz increase in the CPU speed overcomes the performance boost from going from the loosest of timings to the tightest.

[suzie612]

Wow thankyou very much, that helps me out heaps

Big hugs

[suzie612]

Just one more thing...

So if i was to choose an intel Core 2 Duo Processor E6400 (2.13GHz, 2MB L2 Cache, 1066MHz FSB) this one is ok?

What is the difference between the above and the Intel Viiv Technology Intel Core 2 duo processor E6400

[replay]

"All I am wanting to use is Microsoft office (maybe an accounting package), email, little Web Surfing, word processing, spreadsheets etc."

intel Core 2 Duo Processor E6400........ thats an expensive beast for the above task's.....but if its in your budget

[suzie612]

I agree, but I also want to get something that isn't a piece of crap

That was why i was looking at 4 Processor 524

What do you recommend.

I am in Australia, so I am wanting to spend around the $1,000 mark (at most)

[schusterjo]

Originally Posted by suzie612

Just one more thing...

So if i was to choose an intel Core 2 Duo Processor E6400 (2.13GHz, 2MB L2 Cache, 1066MHz FSB) this one is ok?

What is the difference between the above and the Intel Viiv Technology Intel Core 2 duo processor E6400

First lets explain dual core


Dual core is simply a generic term referring to any processor package with two physical CPUs in one. The Pentium D, Core Duo, Core 2 Duo and Athlon X2 are all current CPUs that have dual cores in one package.

The Pentium D is simply two Pentium 4 Prescott cpus inefficiently paired together and ran as dual core.

The Core Duo is Intel's first generation dual core processor based upon the Pentium M (a Pentium III-4 hybrid) made mostly for laptops (though a few motherboard manufacturers have released desktop boards supporting the Core Duo CPU), and is much more efficiently than Pentium D.

The Core 2 Duo is Intel's second generation (hence, Core 2) processor made for desktops and laptops designed from the ground up to be fast while not consuming nearly as much power as previous CPUs.


Note - Intel has dropped the Pentium name in favor of the Core architecture as Intel is restructuring and refocusing it's efforts to become number one again (and are doing a fine job, might I add).

The AMD Athlon X2 CPUs have two revisions, the first one is essentially very similiar to the Pentium Ds in that they are simply two Athlon 64 chips fused together, making power requirements quite steep (around 89 watts). The second revision is made more efficiently, like the Core Duos, with much less power consumption (around 65 watts).

-----------------------------------------------------------------



Now your question, Far as I know there is not difference between them. Viiv is just the Intel version of AMD LIVE. This is not something that Is built into the chip far as I know. Just a very demanding program and you need the power of Core 2 duo to run it.
My understanding is that any Core 2 duo or Core 2 Duo can run ViiV..
http://www.intel.com/personal/our-te...m?iid=ptab+c2d

http://www.intel.com/personal/our-te...viiv/index.htm

[suzie612]

I suppose what I would like help for is if you could build a desktop PC to order for what I require what would you choose, include monitor, keyboard etc. (remebering I only want to spend $1000 AUD

[schusterjo]

plenty of systems you could build with Core 2 Duo for $1000, they have 1 smaller Core 2 Duo the E6300 that runs at 1.86Ghz (still faster then any P4) for $181 and the E6400 is $217
was you planning on building a computer or was you wanting to buy a computer such as Dell, Gateway ext..? I will show you the systems you could get for that price.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=450&chart=166

Look at that chart and that the (red bars) that the biggest baddest P4 against the second smallest Core 2 duo (E6400)

But he is right If your just going to build a simple office machine then there is no real need to spend a lot of money.

http://www.dell.com/content/products...&navla=22~0~66
Example of dell computers with core 2 Duo just click (customize and you will get many ideal of the price ranges)

(keep in mind you could build one that would be much faster then that for same price)

[schusterjo]

Do you want to build it yourself or do you want buy one such as Dell Gateway ext...? cause I could throw you up a parts list (it would all be from newegg not sure about us shipping) and I would need to know what exactly
1.do you need out of the drives as DVD RW ,cd RW (you plan on burning Cd's or Dvd?)
2.What about graphics? simple graphics or do you want to step that up a little? Hard drive,
3.How much data do you plan on storing, do you know about what size of HD you would like?.

answer those so I know what I could spend on other parts.

By the way that $785 US dollars

[suzie612]

I don't mind if I buy or build it (whatever is cheaper) but i would prefer a better performance over price.

If I do buy it would probably be from Dell

[maxibhoy]

If you're buying a prebuilt computer i would deffinitley go for core 2 duo. The 524 isnt really a great processor by the latest standards. Certainly since c2d came out. The fsb and the size of cache is very significant as i think shusterjo also said and you're just about doubling both with the e6400. Also that cpu will be a whole lot better at multitasking which i guess you might have to do quite a bit working in a busy office. A single core processor like the 524 can only actually do one task at a time. It can seem like it is doing two but then that's just cause processors are so fast but obviously some more than others. Max :-)

[schusterjo]

Yes I like Dell for a Manufacturers PC okay give me a few and I will throw you a parts list on a do-it-yourself er (keep in mind it will be all from newegg and i don't know if they ship to AUS you may want to check that out while I'm working on parts list.)

[suzie612]

http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/prod...hs1&l=en&s=dhs