Re: CPU info
From: Stefan Patric (not_at_thisaddress.com)
Date: 10/18/05
- Previous message: Ari Rankum: "Re: Video Upgrade from GeForce2 to 6600GT"
- In reply to: ray: "Re: CPU info"
- Next in thread: ray: "Re: CPU info"
- Reply: ray: "Re: CPU info"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:51:32 -0700
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:33:11 -0600, ray wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:54:08 -0700, Stefan Patric wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:09:15 -0600, ray wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:25:30 -0700, Stefan Patric wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:18:03 -0600, ray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm looking at doing some computer replacements - I'm wondering if
>>>>> anyone can either explain the differences of the multitude of Intel
>>>>> and AMD CPUs currently available or point me to a definitive article.
>>>>
>>>> It might be more expedient for you to list your computer use
>>>> requirements, and in return get CPU/motherboard recommendations and
>>>> why.
>>>> Or tell us what you're using now, and why they (or it) are no longer
>>>> useful. Or do a Google or Yahoo search.
>>>>
>>>> Stefan
>>>
>>> My wife's computer is a Compaq 7470 with 550mhz AMD K6-2 - I'm aiming
>>> to replace it because it's quite slow. I know people will suggest using
>>> a 'lighter' desktop (we're using KDE on it), but that's not an option
>>> for her. I'm also thinking about getting a new sub $1000 laptop. I'd
>>> still just like to know about the differences of the different Intel
>>> and AMD chips. It seems like about all I'm seeing on the AMD side right
>>> now are Sempron and AMD64 - so I'd like to know how a Sempron compares
>>> with a Celeron and a Celeron D or a P4. On the laptop, what's the
>>> difference among Sempron M and plain Sempron; Celeron Celeron M,
>>> Celeron D, P4 M, etc.
>>
>> "M" stands for Mobile. They use less power, run cooler, etc. Perfect
>> for laptops.
>>
>> Semprons? Like Durons. "Economy" model. Less expensive. New name is
>> a marketing strategy to separate the new generation of AMD's CPUs from
>> the old. I've heard them described as slow Athlons. Ditto: Celerons and
>> Pentiums.
>>
>> Intel CPUs are traditionally more expensive than AMD's, which normally
>> run cooler and process more data, MHz for MHz. For mostly those
>> reasons, I prefer AMDs. Although, I don't consider Intel CPUs "bad,"
>> just uneconomical for my use.
>>
>> Unless you need to do major number crunching like scientific work, big
>> compiles or power gaming, you won't really benefit from a 64-bit system.
>>
>> You didn't mention how much RAM your wife's system has or what distro
>> you're running, but with any disto KDE is a memory hog. If you have
>> less than 256MB, adding RAM can make a "slow" system more peppy. Also,
>> "leaning" the system by eliminating unneeded background processes.
>> Using the latter method a year or so ago, as an experiment, I was able
>> to make an old 300MHz system with 256MB of RAM running Slackware
>> 9.something quite usable even with KDE. Although, in your case, a new
>> system is definitely the best option.
>>
>> B
>
> I'm familiar with some of the general differences between AMD and Intel -
> I was wondering about the comparison between Sempron and Celeron - I'd not
> read anything about Sempron and did not know where it fit in the picture.
> Her desktop runs Mandrake 10.1 and has 384 MB ram. I'm sticking with KDE
> for her because it is reasonably 'familiar'. May shift to Ubuntu when we
> upgrade - I've gone that way with my main desktop (using the kubuntu
> desktop). I'll probably either keep the old guy around and install Elive
> or (more likely after I've transferred some data - digital pics, etc)
> donate it to the local library.
I just recently did some fairly extensive research on CPUs (Athlon vs
Pentium, 64-bit vs 32-bit, etc.) regarding building a new system and
whether it should be a 64-bit one, and never came across any comparisons
of Semprons vs Celerons. In fact, they were only mentioned in passing in
the reviews as "economy" versions.
Haven't used Mandrake since about version 8.something, but the one thing I
discovered during the 2 years I used Mandrake -- starting with 7.0 -- was
that the standard install sets up a lot of background processes that most
users don't need. By turning them off I was able to turn a rather sluggish
install of 7.0 and KDE on a 166MHz Pentium system with 64 MB of RAM into
something useable.
My only experience with Ubuntu is with its LiveCD. Worked very
well. Recognized and configured everything without mistakes. Although,
it did take a long time boot. Playing with Mepis 3.3 right now after
using Fedora Core 3 for about 6 months. When I finished building my new
system, a 32-bit Athlon XP one, I'll probably install Fedora Core 4 on it
having liked 3.
Stefan
- Previous message: Ari Rankum: "Re: Video Upgrade from GeForce2 to 6600GT"
- In reply to: ray: "Re: CPU info"
- Next in thread: ray: "Re: CPU info"
- Reply: ray: "Re: CPU info"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
