What's with all this Intel Processor name nonsense?

[Alex]

Hi chaps,

I haven't built a PC in the last 2 years or so - the last one was a AMD XP 2500+, 6800GT, 1GB type PC.

Now I'm considering building a new one (somewhere in teh £300-400 region) as mine is getting sluggish with games and photoshopping despite reinstalls etc.

I don't want to ask someone to spec me a system, as that just seems lazy (but feel free if you'd like), but what I really don't get is what all these intel processor names are about. For instance, on Scan's Today Only, I could get either a Core2Duo 6320 or 6550 for essentially the same money - how do I know which is better? And how do I go about comparing with the speed I have now? How I miss the days when they were all called "2500+" of "P4 3.2" - where it all sort of made sense and was easier to know what you were comaring to!

Many thanks if anyone wants to help clear this up for me!

Alex

[Aez]

higher number = bett0r

[Alex]

So 6550>6320, despite the same price?

Also, for roughly, £100, is there much to choose between AMD AM2 Athlon 64 6400+ and Intel Core 2 Duo 6550?

[Aez]

The core2 are generally faster than amd's current offerings and overclock by a big margin but if you are not into overclocking sometimes there is not too much in it.
Yes the e6550 is faster than the e6320 look at the Ghz and cache, higher is better (the ones with 1066 fsb are older than the ones with 1333fsb) if your wanting a 100 quid cpu check out a e8200 its £115 Computer hardware and software at amazing prices, available online from Scan Computers UK
Will you be needing everything for 300-400 case, psu and hard drive?

[matty-hodgson]

it's becuase back in the old days we could compare CPUs just on their clock speeds, but not it depends on such a lot more
FSB (Front Side Bus), multiplier, L2 and maybe even L3 cache, obviously clock speed and sometimes they're rated on the technology used to build them (90nm, 65nm, 45nm)
but when it comes to clock speed that doesn't really matter as much anymore, becuase my 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad would outperform a 3GHz Pentium 4 on a single-threaded application just becuase of the faster bus speeds and everything.

any more questions just get back to me.

apparently the E6600 is the best 'bang for buck' of the Core 2 range Intel have on offer but i'd go for a 45nm if i was to buy a processor now.

[TooNice]

I am not sure when 'back in the old days' refers to, but I think it has always been more than just the clockspeed: from my memory (which most likely does not go all the way back), I first came across the term FSB as far back as Cyrix were around.

The clock for clock thing was already widely discussed back in the XP2500+ days (designed to compete with the 2.4Ghz P4, yet clocked only at 1.83Ghz?) and even prior. And after the Barton, there was also the Mobile-Barton.

In some way, AMD was the one to start the 'non-sense'. It made 'sense' at the time because it made reference to clockspeed (if I recall properly, they claimed that it's using the original Athlon or the T-Bird as reference, but really, it was more likely used to 'match' Intel's numbers in clockspeed). These days though, both side have just gone a bit crazy. 'Q' for Quad, but 'E' for? What's 6600 supposed to be? How about the Phenom? '9' for Quad, '8' for Tri and '6' for Dual? That's pretty random, and so are the numbers that follows it. At least they are increasing the numbers I suppose.

[Mblaster]

I am not sure when 'back in the old days' refers to, but I think it has always been more than just the clockspeed: from my memory (which most likely does not go all the way back), I first came across the term FSB as far back as Cyrix were around.

From what I remember clock speed was pretty much everything until about the Althon XP time, where AMD adopted a different method of increasing speed other than upping the frequency, and started using the alternate naming scheme because of it.

[TooNice]

Come to think of it, in the fairly early-ish days there was also the whole DX vs SX thing. If people had (widely available) forums back then I bet there would've been questions on 486 DX 33Mhz vs 486SX 50Mhz (and something similar for the 386). I also recall wondering about the 486DX4 100 vs the Pentium 60 (AFAIK, Pentium wins). Then MMX came along, and I am pretty sure there were discussions of the Pentium 166MMX vs Pentium 200. But it is true that from a marketing perspective, everything was very Mhz oriented. To the point that I kind of wonder how Intel marketed the first Pentium which dropped over 40% of the clockspeed of it's predecessor (486DX4 100).

[staffsMike]

If you need everything including Case and PSU

Abit IP-35 - £58 today only at scan.
2gb PC6400 RAM - £30 - £35
Antec sonata 3 - £70
ATi HD 3850pro 512mb - £110
500GB Western digital AAKS - £60
DVD writer ~ £20
Intel Pentium Dual core E2160 - £43
Scythe Ninja - £25

That's roughly £400

If you just want to do CPU, mobo, graphics and RAM

IP-35 - £58
2GB PC6400 - £35
Nvidia 8800GT 512mb - £150 - £160
Intel Q6600 quad core - £150 (or dual core E8400 -£130)
Scythe Ninja - £25

[Alex]

Thanks guys, that clears some of that up!

I'm after CPU, MoBo, RAM, GFx, case, and possible Windows Vista. I have a decent 450W PSU (might be Antec? I can't remember), keyboard, mouse, DVD and 22" monitor. Might prefer a home cinema capable GFx, and HTPC case, not sure yet...

[d032sh]

My friend's P5-60MHz whooped my 486DX4-100

[Shooty*]

I hear the DX7800gts420psu172649192385646171 G0 stepping is good. But my Spoo has too much fleem.



Staffsmikes list is good. But you might want to look at your PSU again... (perhaps. Depends on your gpu, perhaps. I've just gone from 7800gt on a 460watt to 8800gt and a 620 watt)