Many newbie questions. CPUs, RAM and more...

[ibex333]

1) Does having more cores equal to faster raw processing speed?

Let's say my friend has a single core CPU running at 4.0GHz, but I have a dual core CPU running at 2.0GHz. Provided both CPUs have exactly the same amount of cache, and the test systems are exactly the same in every way, would our CPUs be equal in processing speed and power?


2)Let's say my e6300 dual core CPU runs at 2.8GHz, and my friend has an e2160.
Provided I have 2mb L2 cache and my friend has 1mb, how fast should his CPU run to be as fast as mine in every way?
Now when you answered this question, how do you know this? Reason I ask, is because I want to know how exactly does cache transfer into CPU speed. I googled this, but the info I get relates to cache in general, and doesn't really answer my question.

3)Why does Intel keep coming out with better faster dual core CPUs? Isn't quad cores better in every way? Why not concentrate purely on improving quad cores, instead of continuing the dual core line?

4)Is there any point for a gamer to have a quad core processor when it looks like at least 80% of games don't even take full advantage of dual cores?

5)Why are current RAM prices so ridiculously low? Is DDR2 going to become obsolete soon? Is there something I missed? Should I rejoice instead, and grab another 2 gigs of ram just cause it's so damn cheap?

6)Monitors... How big is too big? Not just a matter of preference?

With big monitors becoming more and more affordable these days, I am considering replacing my 17" for something bigger. Since I never owned a bigger monitor in my life I have some concerns:

a)Will a bigger monitor place more strain on the eyes?
Do YOU find yourself getting more tired or strained while using a big monitor 20"+ five hours a day or more?

b)Are there any benefits to owning a very large monitor aside from the fact that it looks good and gives you something to brag about? (yes I really am clueless)

7)64bit technology...

Is this just for apps, crunching, etc? It has been around for quite some time now, but I don't see any games taking advantage of this architecture. I don't even see much average users using 64bit apps. Is there a good reason for this? When if ever will we see all/most computing move into the 64bit world?

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

I want to build a cheapo HTPC for my father, but we don't want to pay more than we have to.
All this PC needs to do is play/record/store movies - DVD, DiVx, Avi, mpeg2, etc., and possibly HDDVD/BlyRay in the future.

So how much power would be ENOUGH for such a PC? Can this be done for $500 or less?
I'm not factoring in windows, peripherals and monitor since I have all that, and I don't need a monitor.


Thank you. ( and I hope there's no steam coming out of your ears yet )

 

[MegaVovaN]

1) Modern CPUs aren't measured in GHZ :|
My 2.66 ghz dual core will easily pwnevaporate pentium 4 extreme edition running at 4 ghz.

Raw power is higher with dual and quad CPUs, but only provided application can use them. I would say one of my two 2.66 ghz cores (E6750) will own the 4 ghz pentium chip.

2) Sometimes you CANNOT substitute cache with speed. Or you can but speed required would be way beyond o/c capability of e2160.

3) Quads consume more power, and mainly, still not many applications can use quad core! So say they start selling only quads....probably 90+% people would have 2 cores idle at all times. They paid more for these extra 2 cores yet they aren't doing any work b/c programs can't use them (this is why gamers should buy fast dual core instead of slower quad - games can't utilize 4 cores yet [with very few exceptions]).

4) See #3. No point in quad if you game.

5) Grab 4 gigs & rejoice.

6) How big of a screen you want depends on how far from it you sit. If you sit close to a large monitor, your eyes will get tired real fast. I sit about 1-1.5 arm's reach away from my 22" no problem.
No benefits to owning a large screen...you need faster computer to play games at native resolution...it draws more power...you need to have a big desk.

7) Everything will eventually move to 64bit. More and more software is written every day that supports 64 bit.


HTPC can be done for $500 but with this budget it won't have much hard drive space.

 

[palladium]

1. If you're talking P4 vs Pentium D, yes. ( ignoring communication overhead between the cores, which is small anyway)

If you're talking Pentium D vs C2D, then as Mega just said, a 2.5 GHz Core 2 duo >> Pentium D

2. as per Mega, but in most everyday apps you won't see a noticable difference. It's not only the size, it also depends how fast the CPU can access the cache relative to memory.

3. A lot of apps are not optimized for quad core, not even games. For a price of a Q6600 ( 2.4Ghz), you can get a 3.0Ghz dual core, which will outperform the former in games.

4. #3

5. According to latest info, Nehalem ( core's successor) only supports DDR3. Intel syas Nehalem will debut sometime late 2008, so ( if everything is correct) expect DDR3 to be mainstream in about a year ( or longer)'s time.

But yeah, grab 4GB and you'll never regret.

6. Some people like big screens, but you'll need extra graphics horsepower to play games at a higher res.

7. An Average Joe probably don't need more than 2GB of RAM under vista for their PC, there's no reason for them to switch. The problem is that alot of hardware do not yet have 64 bit drivers, but it is improving by the day.


Don't live in US, so don't really know the price of stuff there. Sorry.

 

[Roguestar]

MegaVovaN's post pretty much sums it up.

If you want a cheap HTPC, get something like this:
Pentium E2160
965P mATX motherboard
250GB HD Seagate/WD
2GB DDR2 (cheap as chips)
graphics card that has lots of input/output (someone else can fill this in for me)

Then slap it in a little case and stick it under the TV.

 

[ibex333]

Originally posted by: MegaVovaN
1) Modern CPUs aren't measured in GHZ :|
My 2.66 ghz dual core will easily pwnevaporate pentium 4 extreme edition running at 4 ghz.
But WHY?! (Not trying to be annoying, I really want to know) What is it about the dual core cpu that makes it so much faster than the 4ghz cpu in question?

Raw power is higher with dual and quad CPUs, but only provided application can use them. I would say one of my two 2.66 ghz cores (E6750) will own the 4 ghz pentium chip. Again... WHY? Is it because this new cpu has more cache? I thought a clock cycle was a clock cycle no matter what CPU we are talking about... According to my(wrong?) understanding, if that 4ghz cpu has just as much cache as the c2d, it should be at least faster than one of the e6750's cores!

2) Sometimes you CANNOT substitute cache with speed. Or you can but speed required would be way beyond o/c capability of e2160.
Can you please give me some examples? Like how much should the e2160 run to match the e4300? e4500? e6600? That is provided it wasn't limited by temps, and only by it's architecture.

 

[DSF]

Clockspeed isn't everything.

A single core of a Core2Duo running at 2.4GHz will accomplish more in a given amount of time than a Pentium 4 running at 2.4GHz. It's the way the chips are designed to execute their instructions - the Core2Duo is more efficient. I don't have the technical expertise to explain it in much more detail than that, but that's the very superficial explanation.

 

[BlueAcolyte]

The Pentium is based on the old NetBurst architecture, which was pwnt seven ways from sunday by the athlon 62 architecture. Then Intel retaliated with the Core architecture (current) which pretty much just blew everything else away.

It has to do with the design of the chip itself... The Core 2 Duo is more efficient with the clock cycles it has.

 

[MegaVovaN]

Originally posted by: BlueAcolyte
It has to do with the design of the chip itself... The Core 2 Duo is more efficient with the clock cycles it has.

C2D does more every clock cycle.

 

[Roguestar]

Originally posted by: ibex333
WHY? Is it because this new cpu has more cache? I thought a clock cycle was a clock cycle no matter what CPU we are talking about... According to my(wrong?) understanding, if that 4ghz cpu has just as much cache as the c2d, it should be at least faster than one of the e6750's cores!

Here's where your misconception is stemming from.

Take this analogy:
I'm a Core 2 based CPU, walking into the canteen at work and I've just picked up my trays. I get two because I'm a dual-core CPU, too. I can fill my one tray with food, dessert, drinks, and take it to the till all in one go. Because I've got two trays, I get two trays worth of stuff too.

The old Pentium 4 walks in, and it can only take one item at a time on its tray to the till. Sure, it can run up and down between the till and the counter a little faster than I can, but because I can lift way more on my tray (and because I've got two trays) I can get down to my seat and start eating my lunch before he can.

The fact that the Core 2 CPU has two trays is not what gives him the edge; after all he has only one mouth (end-user apps) but that he can balance two plates, a cup and a bowl on the tray at once .

Hope this helps :laugh:.

 

[sutahz]

It sounds like your basically asking the common computer nerd to explain to you how EXACTLY a cpu works. The intricate interacting between Core, L1 & L2 cache and main system memory. For what its worth I saw an article that compared E2xxx's, E4xxx's and E6xxx's at the same clock speed in various situations. The difference between 1MB & 4MB L2 cache isnt that signifigant. Cache is probley most important for SuperPi (MY FAV GAME! ) and science applications.
I read on a forum that DDR2 prices may have plummeted due to Vista. Everyone was banking on the fact vista would be wildly popular and everyone would have to upgrade their systems... such was not the case. Excessive supply w/ no more demand that there was before.
A theory that I have, which is probley incorrect on several levels, is that fabrication plants that use to focus on making GDDR2 are now using those machines to mfg DDR2 as most gfx cards use GDDR3 and 4 now.
Intel keeps making dual cores because there's a market for them and they make money off of said product. Also know a quad core is simply 2 dual cores on the same chip. So I coulda bought a E6600 for $240 or the Q6600 for $290 (basically a 2nd E6600 for $50). Quad cores are not better in every way. They are better if the program/OS can take advantage of the extra cores only. Dual cores are (in almost every instance) better then single core, but if what your doing doesnt benefit from a 2nd core... then its wasted.
So you never use a bigger monitor at work or a family/friends house? Go to a store and stare at a monitor for 2hrs, see how you feel.
64bit technology.... well it wont process things 2x as fast as 32bit if thats whats going through your mind. My best suggestion is that you setup a dual boot system. One OS 32bit (XP or Vista) and the other Vista x64. Check things out for yourself.
While in a 64bit os, applications have access to more ALU's or FPU's or whatever they are called in the cpu. So applications can work faster however the program has to be written to take advantage of the extra processing power.