Planning a new system and am having difficulty deciding on a processor. I don't plan on doing a whole lot of gameing, but want something that will be sufficent for a long time. I also want a lot of bang for my buck. First off, a quick question. If I buy a processor with a fsb speed that is not listed on my motherboard, but the motherboard supports a faster fsb speed, will it just run at the processors fsb speed? Or will it not work at all? May be an issue if I go with anything but a dual core. Please rank the follow processors by power and value and describe why one is better than the other. I was hoping to spend more around the dual core's price range, but would be willing to go for the quad or tri core if it would make my pc a better value in the long run.
The D940 @ $70 price point is a very poor performer compared to the E2200 Allendale 2.2GHz also available @ $70.
Pentium E5200 Wolfdale 2.5GHz @ $85 would be the next logical step up in performance.
At the low end I'd much prefer the AMD X2 4850e over the X2 4400+
In short I don't much care for any of the CPUs in that list.
So when it comes time to buy a CPU; AMD or Intel @ the same price point ($85 for example) will be close enough in performance its not worth getting excited about.
Planning a new system and am having difficulty deciding on a processor. I don't plan on doing a whole lot of gameing, but want something that will be sufficent for a long time. I also want a lot of bang for my buck...
I agree with WR2.
In addition, if you want a non-gaming system that will offer long-lasting features, consider these:
What are you basing these choices on, as much better CPU's can be had for very little more cash.
Pentium D....you abosloutely, positively don't want it, period.
AMD X2 4400....nah, you don't want this one either.
Phenom X3....stupid processor....disable the 4th core because it causes an errata bug to show up.....
Phenom 9500, best by far in this list.
Thanks to all for their thoughts. I concur about the AMD X2 4850e wr2. How is the Phenom 9500 since this seems to be the only decent processor in my list? I am more than open to suggestions in this price range as well. jitpublisher, you said that much better processors could be had for not muchmore money. Vould you please share some examples? These where the best I could find at these prices, but I am unexperienced. It has been some to since I've purchased a processor.
for the bang for the buck, the core 2 wolfdale is the way to go. It will be quite some time before quad really takes hold since, generally speaking, only enthusiasts are using quads and the i7's won't take hold for a few years in the mainstream enough to create performance issues with duals for what is sounds like you are doing. if you do alot of renduring, burning or video type stuff, the quad would be better but at the expense of cost.
As long as your board is rated at or above the fsb of the processor you want and the board supports the processor you will be fine.
If you can budget $120, this CPU will easily run away from any of the first 3 CPU's in your list, by a good margin. This processor is over TWICE the speed of the Pentium D. And unless you doing some very heavy multitasking, or running a specific program that can make use of 4 cores, it will outperform the Phenom 9500 as well. If you can budget more, well of course more money is more performance. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Thanks for the replies! jtpublisher, I could certainly run the expense of your suggested cpu if it would give a better value. I suppose it is the fsb that sets it apart from the pentium D? Would this meen needing ram that runs at the same speed to take full advantage of the fsb speed? Also, I cant quite see how this could be faster than the phenom 9500 when by stats they are similar but the phenom has 4 cores instead of two. Could you please explain this? Thanks again to all!
EDIT: Someone on another forums suggested the processor below. It is the absolute most I would be willing to spend and I would only go this high because it has a fan included and I was going to spend $30 on one (would be a better fan, but I believe amd usually gives lifetime warrenties with their included fans). How much better would this be compared to the Phenom 9500 and how does it compare to the wolfdale? Also, what speed ram would I need to take full advantage of the fsb? Would I have to match the processor?
The 7300 cpu I mentioned is faster than the 7200 and is also the same price.
It comes with a fan.
The Phenom X3 or X4 runs very hot and gives no gain on a wolfdale processor except in very limited circumstances. Most of the time it is much slower due to lower clock speeds.
Wolfdale processors run cool and fast.
If you buy the mobo I chose, you get good (non-gaming) graphics for video as well as a platform that will hold up well over time.
Newf, please forgive my ignorance. As I said, it has been a long time since I've purchased a processor. The Phenom has a faster fsb speed and 4 cores instead of two. How is it that the 7300 is faster? Could you explain the difference in clock speeds and how this effects things or perhaps post a link to some info on this? The 7300 is certainly cheaper so, if its better, thats the way to go. I would just like to understand why its better before I make a choice. Thanks!
You can't compare clock speed, FSB speed, cache size, etc. You compare Price and Performance.
Price is fairly easy - performance gets a bit tricky because different types of software dont always give the same results in 2 vs 3 vs 4 core CPUs.
Read the whole review for performance comparisons between the E7200, X3 8750/8650 and X4 9750.
You should then get a pretty good idea where the X4 9850 and E7300 run in terms of performance.
I see what yoou mean wr2. I read the article, and it would appear the e7200 outperformed the 9750 in everything but video encoding and some gaming applications. Although that article did say amd motherboards had better graphics. This worries me as I plan on using integrated graphics, although I plan on using them because I don't need great graphics. So maybe I need not worry about that. As I stated earlier, I plan on keeping this system for some time. Will programs and operatings systems made later run better on a quad core processor? Or will these processors be so outdated by then either would need a replacement? Thanks!
At the time that article was written (Apr 09) AMD did have a lead in the MB IGP performance. Since then nVidia has come out with a new MB chipset and taken a slight lead in IGP performance as shown in this review (Oct 08). But any of the recent IGP chipsets (AMD 780G, Intel G45 or nV 9300/8300) will do a great job with all graphics tasks - except gaming.
Will future programs/OS run better on the current Quads CPUs? Yes. Will they run better on the current Dual CPUs? Yes. The future performance shouldn't be all that different than the Quad/Dual differences today.
Again - the performance (in each price range) is close enough to being equal that CPU choice / IGP choice won't make that much difference in overall performance. AMD 9850 $175 / Intel Q6600 $190 or AMD 9550 $130 / Intel E7300 $120 or X2 5050E $65 / Intel E5200 $83. I personally like the middle options in the $125 range as the "best bang for the buck".
Interested in any gaming? To a certain extent - you have to "pay to play". Q6600 + Q45 IGP or E5200 + 9600GT video card will end up costing about the same. Both will do very well in standard computer tasks. The 2nd option will be a very capable budget gaming option.
Thanks for the reply WR2. Ended up settling on the e7300. I was able to find a motherboard that had the intel g45 graphics, which should suffice for my purposes. I appreciate all the help everyone has given me!