CPU's?

Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm) and
would therefore be better than (45nm)?

Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently
ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be better
off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz?
I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which
currently is the top of the line with Intel.

I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to
change almost daily now.

Thanks


"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_ RemoveThis @mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:eS3nTWB6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely
be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then
be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.
The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A
quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual
core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will
appear later this year.

"ColTom2" <noemailaddress RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote in message
news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi:
>
> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon
> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in
> descriptive terms.
>
> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a quad
> core at a lower speed?
>
> Thanks
>
>

Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your
CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core.
Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be
higher using Quad-Core processors.

The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of
speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you
can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs.

I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range
that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses.

You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still
way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable.

"ColTom2" <noemailaddress DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%2331mpmB6IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm) and
> would therefore be better than (45nm)?
>
> Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently
> ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be
> better
> off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz?
> I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which
> currently is the top of the line with Intel.
>
> I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to
> change almost daily now.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_ DeleteThis @mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:eS3nTWB6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely
> be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then
> be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.
> The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A
> quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual
> core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will
> appear later this year.
>
> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Hi:
>>
>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon
>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer
>> in
>> descriptive terms.
>>
>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a
>> quad
>> core at a lower speed?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
>
>

I really appreciate your taking the time to provide with this informative
info as it has been hard for me to place any correlation with the new CPU's.

I currently have a Sony desktop with Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz which at the
time of purchase was one the best out if I recall correctly. What would you
consider it's equivalent in today's CPU's?

Apparently you feel that a Dual-Core 2.0GHz is sufficient unless I wanted
to pay the premium for a Quad-Core.

Thanks again....



"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_.TakeThisOut@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Ov57JxB6IHA.3684@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your
CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core.
Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be
higher using Quad-Core processors.

The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of
speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you
can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs.

I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range
that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses.

You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still
way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable.

"ColTom2" <noemailaddress.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%2331mpmB6IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm) and
> would therefore be better than (45nm)?
>
> Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently
> ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be
> better
> off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz?
> I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which
> currently is the top of the line with Intel.
>
> I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to
> change almost daily now.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_.TakeThisOut@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:eS3nTWB6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely
> be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then
> be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.
> The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A
> quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual
> core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will
> appear later this year.
>
> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Hi:
>>
>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon
>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer
>> in
>> descriptive terms.
>>
>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a
>> quad
>> core at a lower speed?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
>
>

I replaced my Pent 4 3.2GHz with a Pent D dual core 3.2GHz and was
impressed.

Then I replaced that with a E2200 dual core 2.2GHz and it is definitely
comparable and a bit faster.

Also cut way down on the cooling problem.

Galen

"ColTom2" <noemailaddress DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote in message
news:e0QTbxD6IHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I really appreciate your taking the time to provide with this informative
> info as it has been hard for me to place any correlation with the new
> CPU's.
>
> I currently have a Sony desktop with Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz which at the
> time of purchase was one the best out if I recall correctly. What would
> you
> consider it's equivalent in today's CPU's?
>
> Apparently you feel that a Dual-Core 2.0GHz is sufficient unless I wanted
> to pay the premium for a Quad-Core.
>
> Thanks again....
>
>
>
> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_ DeleteThis @mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:Ov57JxB6IHA.3684@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your
> CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core.
> Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be
> higher using Quad-Core processors.
>
> The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of
> speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you
> can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs.
>
> I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range
> that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses.
>
> You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still
> way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable.
>
> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:%2331mpmB6IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm)
>> and
>> would therefore be better than (45nm)?
>>
>> Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently
>> ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be
>> better
>> off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz?
>> I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which
>> currently is the top of the line with Intel.
>>
>> I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to
>> change almost daily now.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_ DeleteThis @mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:eS3nTWB6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely
>> be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then
>> be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.
>> The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A
>> quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual
>> core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will
>> appear later this year.
>>
>> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon
>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer
>>> in
>>> descriptive terms.
>>>
>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a
>>> quad
>>> core at a lower speed?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Comparing a P-4 3.20 Ghz, I'd have to say that a Core 2 Duo E8500
is probably it's peer CPU today. On a cost vs. performance it's a very
good deal.

"ColTom2" <noemailaddress.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:e0QTbxD6IHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I really appreciate your taking the time to provide with this informative
> info as it has been hard for me to place any correlation with the new
> CPU's.
>
> I currently have a Sony desktop with Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz which at the
> time of purchase was one the best out if I recall correctly. What would
> you
> consider it's equivalent in today's CPU's?
>
> Apparently you feel that a Dual-Core 2.0GHz is sufficient unless I wanted
> to pay the premium for a Quad-Core.
>
> Thanks again....
>
>
>
> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_.TakeThisOut@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:Ov57JxB6IHA.3684@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your
> CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core.
> Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be
> higher using Quad-Core processors.
>
> The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of
> speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you
> can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs.
>
> I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range
> that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses.
>
> You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still
> way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable.
>
> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:%2331mpmB6IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm)
>> and
>> would therefore be better than (45nm)?
>>
>> Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently
>> ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be
>> better
>> off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz?
>> I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which
>> currently is the top of the line with Intel.
>>
>> I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to
>> change almost daily now.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_.TakeThisOut@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:eS3nTWB6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely
>> be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then
>> be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.
>> The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A
>> quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual
>> core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will
>> appear later this year.
>>
>> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon
>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer
>>> in
>>> descriptive terms.
>>>
>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a
>>> quad
>>> core at a lower speed?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Thanks!


"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_.TakeThisOut@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:uqQQiQE6IHA.1428@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Comparing a P-4 3.20 Ghz, I'd have to say that a Core 2 Duo E8500
is probably it's peer CPU today. On a cost vs. performance it's a very
good deal.

"ColTom2" <noemailaddress.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:e0QTbxD6IHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I really appreciate your taking the time to provide with this informative
> info as it has been hard for me to place any correlation with the new
> CPU's.
>
> I currently have a Sony desktop with Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz which at the
> time of purchase was one the best out if I recall correctly. What would
> you
> consider it's equivalent in today's CPU's?
>
> Apparently you feel that a Dual-Core 2.0GHz is sufficient unless I wanted
> to pay the premium for a Quad-Core.
>
> Thanks again....
>
>
>
> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_.TakeThisOut@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:Ov57JxB6IHA.3684@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your
> CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core.
> Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be
> higher using Quad-Core processors.
>
> The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of
> speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you
> can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs.
>
> I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range
> that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses.
>
> You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still
> way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable.
>
> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:%2331mpmB6IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm)
>> and
>> would therefore be better than (45nm)?
>>
>> Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently
>> ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be
>> better
>> off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz?
>> I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which
>> currently is the top of the line with Intel.
>>
>> I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to
>> change almost daily now.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_.TakeThisOut@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:eS3nTWB6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely
>> be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then
>> be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.
>> The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A
>> quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual
>> core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will
>> appear later this year.
>>
>> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon
>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer
>>> in
>>> descriptive terms.
>>>
>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a
>>> quad
>>> core at a lower speed?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>