On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:47:40 +0000, Lexusan
<Lexusan.2j2y94.RemoveThis@hardwarebanter.com> wrote:
>Which processor is better?
Can you make that a bit more of an open-ended question?! </sarcasm>
Seriosuly, both AMD and Intel make quite a range of processors at
various performance levels and price points.
> Im currently using a intel celeron (i know )
>But am looking to the new 4's with hyper-threading.
The Pentium 4, of any stripe, is a VERY poor choice these days. Their
performance is pretty weak as compared to either AMD's Athlon64 line
or Intel's own Core 2 Duo line. P4 chips also consume a LOT of power.
As for Hyperthreading, at best it's a poor-mans excuse for dual-core
that offers slight improvements in multithreaded performance. At
worst it makes the system slower, which is why it's often disabled.
Given that true dual-core processors start at under $100 these days,
it's something that can very safely be ignored.
>Ive seen this amds that are quite good but i heard the semperons are
>bad.
Sempron chips are quite reasonable for their price. They compete
against Intel's Celeron chips and offer very competitive performance
for the price. For example, a Sempron 3000+ will set you back $43
(prices according to
www.newegg.com) and will give you similar to
slightly better performance as compared to a Celeron 336 that costs
$48.
Of course, both of these are low-end solutions. Spending a small
amount more will get you a MUCH faster processor. At $93 you could
get a dual-core Intel Pentium D 805. That will perform about the same
as the Celeron or Sempron mentioned above in single-threaded
applications, but it has a whole other processor available allowing
for MUCH faster performance in multi-threaded applications and/or much
better multitasking performance. This is probably the absolute
cheapest chip that I would recommend unless you absolutely need a
computer now and can't afford the extra $50 or so.
The next step up from that would be AMD's Athlon64 X2 3800+ at $131.
Again this is a dual-core chip, but it's much faster than anything
from Intel with the "Pentium" name on it. It will be faster than any
of the chips mentioned above in either single-threaded or
multi-threaded applications and have much better performance in
multitasking. The Athlon64 X2 4200+ ($165) also isn't bad, though
going beyond that the price/performance ratio starts to drop off on
these chips.
Going up to the high-end of things, Intel currently holds the crown
with their Core 2 Duo line. The Core 2 Duo 6300 sells for $181 and
from that point on up the only question is what speed grade you want.
So, recommendations? Well that depends on what you want to spend:
High-end: Intel Core 2 Duo 6600
Mid-range: Intel Core 2 Duo 6300 or 6400
Low-end: AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+ or 4200+
"I can just BARELY afford a computer": Intel Pentium D 805
"I really CAN'T afford a computer": AMD Sempron 3000+
--
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
