I am just wondering what the best cpu processor is at the moment?.
The market seems to be split between the AMD and INTEL P4 processors but i am wondering what the difference is and is there anything better out there?.

im not a expert on these matters but personally id go with amd every time the pentium ones seem to cost a lot more so maybe its just the price

It's a bit like saying "what's the best car". There are merits for both processors and important factors such as price, motherboard compatability and such.

If you're talking about personal preference I use a P4 at home, but an Athlon at work.

Hard to say, everyone has their own preferences. Personally, i prefer AMD, but thats mainly because of the price. Each company will have their fanboys that will support them to the death and slate the other at every opportunity, but, at the end of the day, it all really comes down to what you can afford.

.. and to add what the others have said...

With a lot of new CPU types coming out recently that use varying sockets and thus having greater or lesser upgrade potential you have to think about future proofing... (well, ok, so that's something of a "not easy" thing).

Right now AMD have a variety of CPU's that provide more or less bang for your buck as well as being geared for different things eg: server usage, home, etc...

Anyway, the most important thing to consider is that there's a trade off to be had with CPU's and motherboards.. there's absolutely no point in spending a fortune on a "good" processor if you've cut back on the motherboard quality... otherwise it's a bit like buying a F1 racing driver as a chauffeur and giving him a corsa 1 litre to drive.. :P

Moulinex!


Oops. Wrong kinda processor ;-)

From what i have been reading, it seems that the only way to get the AMD to compete with the P4 for raw processong power is to overclock it.
Does this not mean that the P4 is a winner.

Originally posted by vidster
From what i have been reading, it seems that the only way to get the AMD to compete with the P4 for raw processong power is to overclock it.
Does this not mean that the P4 is a winner.
This is based on heresay as I don't have time to double check but if I remember correctly, at the moment the P4 is slightly outdoing the AMD 64 bit cpu's because the software isn't fully utilising the 64 bit processing power.. most of it is still running only using 32 bit...

So, it's something of a question of what the future will bring...

So is there anything else out there?, Perhaps something even better?

Intel are keeping words on their new Prescott 64 bit chip tightly to their chests.

Intel tend to ram their chips down software development companies throats. Due to this most software in my opinion tends to run better on intel based systems. Things these days may be changing but definately in the past I have found Pentium based chips to be a lot more reliable than AMD.

AMD chips have a tendancy of running extremely hot compared to Intel chips.

And before people say I'm pro Intel I own both AMD and an Intel systems, but I prefer the Intel system for speed and reliability.

If you get an Intel make sure you also get a motherboard with an Intel chipset on board for best performance.

I just managed to find an Intel Pentium 4E Prescott with 1 MEG Cache 3.0Ghz for $188 from the US.

Ohh yeah, where does an intal P4 T processor come into the equation?

In 2010 what's the best processor I should be looking for in a laptop?

this (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=43126) one

Intel i Series are currently the best processors. AMD's are just nowhere near as fast.
However, this seems to change with each new processor range.

with the introduction of 6 core processors just how far do you need to go????
intel i series is the better so far

Ithink this article (http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed) sums it all up very nicely!

swarfendor43

And this (http://www.medion.com/gb/electronics/prod/MEDION%C2%AE++AKOYA%C2%AE+P8302+D+(MD7043)/10013925A1) for a great deal on a new PC

I am just wondering what the best cpu processor is at the moment?.

The 'best' is technically the I7 920/930. . The [I]one to go for on an average Joe level budget over the last year has most definitely been the i5-750. But it would annoy me to shell out now for one as they are *exactly* the same price they were 11 months ago. There is definitely a right an wrong time to buy computer equipment, and now isnt it. At least the I7 came down in price for a short while + the 1336 boards are now only £50 more than 1156s, and are rumoured to be eol'd later next year than 1156.

This assumes you are going to overclock. Naturally. Otherwise AMD might be worth looking at for gaming machines if you dont.

At the moment, its hard to say what to recommend with new kit from Intel due out soon. Initial benchmarks do not show the 32nm Sandy bridge quads blowing away the 45nm Nehalems. But you wouldnt have wanted to have bought a 65nm q6600 2-3 months before the 1156 boards came out. And the difference does look to be around that level. Ie. a 20-30% boost on average taking into account likely clock speed gain + clock for clock throughput improvement.

See here.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/9

definately intel

sandy bridge details are coming out now, and what do you know, it'll need a new socket. Due out Q1 2011.

Until now Intel® Core™ i7-980X processor Extreme Edition is best and the fastest processor that is available.

Intel® Core™ i7-980X processor Extreme Edition

* 3.33 GHz core speed
* Up to 3.6 GHz with Intel® Turbo Boost Technology
* 6 cores and 12 processing threads with Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology
* 12 MB Intel® Smart Cache
* 3 Channels DDR3 1066 MHz memory
* 32nm manufacturing process technology

There's never a good time to buy or build a PC - there's always a new technology on the horizon.

Best just to set a budget and buy the best for price & performance you can afford at the time.

Until now Intel® Core™ i7-980X processor Extreme Edition is best and the fastest processor that is available.

Xeon X5680 pips it ;)

There's never a good time to buy or build a PC - there's always a new technology on the horizon.


Yes there is. You buy when the new tech is released. Same with buying a car. Same with buying an Iphone.

Key premium mass market products stay more or less the same price until only a few months before they are due to be replaced.

Buy an 1156 based system now and pay 95% of what it cost 11 months back. Buy a 5850/5870 now and pay 100% of what it cost 11 months ago. They moved the game on when they came out and havent depreciated for some time. Same with everything.

I also agreed. Intel® Core™ i7-980X processor Extreme Edition is the best processor. This processor there some latest technologies are invented. Such as Intel turbo boost and HT threading.

I also agreed. Intel® Core™ i7-980X processor Extreme Edition is the best processor. This processor there some latest technologies are invented. Such as Intel turbo boost and HT threading.

£700+ yea everyone will be queuing up to buy one I think I will get 2 just in case 1 gets a fault:loopy:

I also agreed. Intel® Core™ i7-980X processor Extreme Edition is the best processor.

Except it isn't.

I tend to pick a budget for the components I need then go from there. Pick a socket that has a range of processors, find decent motherboard with that socket and put whatever chip in that the rest of your budget allows.

Then you have an upgrade path for a couple of years.

Going that way rarely means buying the latest and shiniest though, but does tend to leave you with a usable machine without needing a new mortgage every 6 months!

Yes there is. You buy when the new tech is released. Same with buying a car. Same with buying an Iphone.

Key premium mass market products stay more or less the same price until only a few months before they are due to be replaced.

Buy an 1156 based system now and pay 95% of what it cost 11 months back. Buy a 5850/5870 now and pay 100% of what it cost 11 months ago. They moved the game on when they came out and havent depreciated for some time. Same with everything.

I totally disagree, being an early adopter means paying a large premium, look at how quickly ssd's have fallen in price and improved in performance.
And if you are happy to be one generation behind the bleeding edge then you will save a huge amount.

I still maintain one of these (http://static.productreview.com.au/pr.products/101270_moulinex_odacio_direct.jpg) is the best processor.

I think its difficult to determine what is the best or fastest processor to use just by clock speed alone.

What needs to be taken into account is whether those 6+ cores are recognised by the OS and whether the software you are using will take advantage of them. Most windows 7 versions will only use up to 4 and at the moment there is not much software around that is capable of using more than 4, so some of those cores will be left idle.

I still maintain one of these (http://static.productreview.com.au/pr.products/101270_moulinex_odacio_direct.jpg) is the best processor.

I have to agree. And also with this (http://techreport.com/articles.x/18799)!

swarfendor43

All depends on whether 'best' means fastest or best value for money.

I also agreed. Intel® Core™ i7-980X processor Extreme Edition is the best processor. This processor there some latest technologies are invented. Such as Intel turbo boost and HT threading.

Nam, the 2nd Generation i7 2600K is by far the best standard (available to the home user) 'retail' processor on the market ;)

Nam, the 2nd Generation i7 2600K is by far the best standard (available to the home user) 'retail' processor on the market ;)

The i5 2300 is the most practical for most people though, and £150 is not too bad compared to the price of the last generation CPUs.

Heck, the Core 2 Duo E8400 is almost that expensive today and its several generations old now. The i5 2300 is something like 5-6 times the performance of that CPU.

I have always tended to buy one step down from the latest release, purely to get better value for money. AMD PhenomII x6 for me, is the best value for money at the moment.

I see what you mean, that AMD is very good value. I just am sold on Intel as since I made the switch from AMD to Intel my PC has been FAR more stable than it ever was before.

Now perhaps that is just because I bought higher grade motherboards than the cheap junk VIA based ones I ran AMDs on, but its made me reluctant to go back.

I've never had a problem with AMD unless on some uber cheapo mainboard. I would suspect Intel chips would also suffer on the cheap as chips boards too.

I still maintain one of these (http://static.productreview.com.au/pr.products/101270_moulinex_odacio_direct.jpg) is the best processor.

Now I was expecting you to say this:

http://www.bagley.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/L_Zilog-Z80A-8400W.jpg

:)

I am just wondering what the best cpu processor is at the moment?.
The market seems to be split between the AMD and INTEL P4 processors but i am wondering what the difference is and is there anything better out there?.

wont get much better than this cpu it will out run anything on market today http://vintagecomputerbits.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=13&products_id=266

Now I was expecting you to say this:

http://www.bagley.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/L_Zilog-Z80A-8400W.jpg

:)

Only when in one of these (http://jscustom.theoldcomputer.com/images/manufacturers_systems/Sinclair/Spectrum/142017zxspectrum_48k.jpg):D.

Too many memories of too many late nights (and waaayy too much coffee):D.

Wouldn't be surprised to find one in the processor I linked to above though:D.

lies!!!
http://cdn.cpu-world.com/CPUs/68010/L_Motorola-MC68010P10.jpg
68000/010

lies!!!
http://cdn.cpu-world.com/CPUs/68010/L_Motorola-MC68010P10.jpg
68000/010

How many of the processors used in PCs today share a heritage with that monstrosity?:D

Whareas the Z80... Pure pedigree.:D

How many of the processors used in PCs today share a heritage with that monstrosity?:D

Whareas the Z80... Pure pedigree.:D

The Motorola 680x0 series was the work-horse of the late 1980s, from the Amiga and Atari ST to the Megadrive and Apple Mac, it could be found everywhere.

It also powered a lot of the arcade machines of the time.

The Motorola 680x0 series was the work-horse of the late 1980s, from the Amiga and Atari ST to the Megadrive and Apple Mac, it could be found everywhere.

It also powered a lot of the arcade machines of the time.

And where is it now:D? Where are it's (direct) descendants? Even Apple are shipping with Intel chips:hihi:.

And where is it now:D? Where are it's (direct) descendants? Even Apple are shipping with Intel chips:hihi:.

Seriously? We are doing that now? :huh:

No wait, actually ARM is by FAR the best CPU. Without it we wouldn't have mobile phones or broadband routers. Microsoft are even releasing Windows 8 on it for energy efficient tablet PCs.

Although it does make me laugh how they claim releasing Windows on it will allow energy efficient servers, like this is something new and we aren't already running millions of energy efficient ARM servers powered by Linux (eg NAS boxes and broadband routers).

Plus the fact there is NO Windows applications written for ARM right now whereas there is the same software available for Linux on ARM as on x86. Its not like its going to magically let you run all your current software on it, its just their desperate attempt to cash in on the Linux and BSD powered ARM tablets. Rather late I think seeing as the big push for those is this year, the market will already have dried up by the time Windows 8 comes around.

Is there some reason that programs not talking directly to the metal (ie nearly everything in windows) still won't work? As long as the API's that consumer programs talk to are recompiled for the ARM, everything on top of that should just work.

I totally disagree, being an early adopter means paying a large premium, look at how quickly ssd's have fallen in price and improved in performance.
And if you are happy to be one generation behind the bleeding edge then you will save a huge amount.

SSD is not yet mass market. So my point in the post stands :P
1GB / $ has been touted as happening this year some time. I'd be happy with £1/gb, but you get the feeling that big manufacturers will be considering shipping computers with 2 drivers at the $1 mark. 60GB is just too small a C: drive for a mainstreem (non techie) user to manage. But I think it will become the next big headline spec thing, and I dont think the manufacturers will be able to avoid doing it.

It kind of helps to know when the cross over point into mainstreem has just occurred. I can definitely sympathise with the poster who I responded too originally when he felt there wasnt a good time to buy a whole new computer. As surely one of the components will be old hat even if the processor and mobo aren't. Should have said that in the original response. But as to this overall thread's topic. If you are upgrading the backbone (cpu/mobo/ram) then there is definitely a right and wrong time.

eg. its _always_ been a bad time to buy an AMD 6 core :hihi:

Seriously? We are doing that now? :huh:

Doing what?

SSD is not yet mass market. So my point in the post stands :P
Clearly it doesn't. Buying early would have meant paying a massive premium.
It's not mass market yet, but it is beyond the early adopters, and already prices have fallen dramatically. I believe that's my point proven and yours disproven.
1GB / $ has been touted as happening this year some time. I'd be happy with £1/gb, but you get the feeling that big manufacturers will be considering shipping computers with 2 drivers at the $1 mark. 60GB is just too small a C: drive for a mainstreem (non techie) user to manage. But I think it will become the next big headline spec thing, and I dont think the manufacturers will be able to avoid doing it.

It kind of helps to know when the cross over point into mainstreem has just occurred. I can definitely sympathise with the poster who I responded too originally when he felt there wasnt a good time to buy a whole new computer. As surely one of the components will be old hat even if the processor and mobo aren't. Should have said that in the original response. But as to this overall thread's topic. If you are upgrading the backbone (cpu/mobo/ram) then there is definitely a right and wrong time.

eg. its _always_ been a bad time to buy an AMD 6 core :hihi:

The point that poster was making is that it's always possible to read about the next big thing and wait 'just 6 months' only to find that there's another 'next big thing' still just 6 months away.
Pick your budget, and buy whenever you need to to whatever is in your budget.

Is there some reason that programs not talking directly to the metal (ie nearly everything in windows) still won't work? As long as the API's that consumer programs talk to are recompiled for the ARM, everything on top of that should just work.

You do not use an API for everything, there is still a lot of normal code which when compiled will become architecture specific. That may not be the case with .NET applications (I'm not sure on that but I believe they are interpreted, like Perl or PHP), but the bulk of mainstream software will at some point have machine specific code. I'm not saying it will be written in assembler (though I believe some really optimised software still has bits done that way) but when you compile software it is turned into machine code by the compiler. So while most software COULD be cross-compiled over, that is still putting the weight onto the developer to write it in a cross-platform manner so they can do that. Yes it might be easier with Windows 8 having its APIs on ARM, but it still isn't going to make all existing software magically work without recompiling.

But wait, there is more. Even if all the Windows APIs are ported over (and I doubt it, I suspect Windows 8 will throw away a lot of the older APIs and focus only on the current ones, at least on the ARM version) there are plenty of third-party APIs, such as the ones used for game engines etc. So even if Microsoft make stock Windows APIs compatible it doesn't mean its a walk in the park to get existing software to run on ARM. In some cases a piece of software may not be portable purely because one single library has been licensed from a company who is unwilling to port it to ARM. There a lot of licensing issues with software, especially games, so again simply having Windows running on ARM is a small piece of the puzzle. I would argue that in most cases its no better a situation to today, where they could just port the software over to Linux and in doing so they could open up the potential to run it on ALL current operating systems, not just Windows.

Things could have been different though Microsoft were too narrow minded. Take Windows Mobile for example, they made it look and act like a PC, so it was too fiddly for a mobile phone, but then missed out too much out of the desktop APIs, so it wasn't functional enough as a PC either. I tried dabbling in C# myself but the API calls I wanted were ALWAYS only available on the desktop not the mobile version of the API. If they had made them feature identical I think Windows Mobile would have done a lot better today, for people who want a PC in their pocket.

Fair enough, I don't really do coding in anything but Java, which is always isolated from the machine hardware and just needs a JVM for the target architecture.