• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

What makes a fast CPU

adelburn

adelburn

adelburn

Associate
Joined
8 Jul 2007
Posts
321
Location
Reading
What are the important factors in a fast CPU nowadays

I kinda gather that it is not solely about pure clock speed anymore, but what else would it be based on, clocks per cycle or something?
 
Currently, its all about the CPU with the best micro architecture which determines how fast and effiecient it is. Also, the number of cores (1/2/4) and the FSB speed. Then of course you have core clock speed but it really is all about the architecture and Intel are the best for this at the moment.
 
the cache size, socket, overclockability, clock speed and fsb.

the e6750 is the best non-expensive core2duo cpu and the q6600/6600pro is the best non-expensive quad core cpu.

the e2140 is very cheap and will overclock to 3ghz nicely, so those are the 3 best price/performance cpu's at the moment, depends on your budget and whether you will overclock to which cpu you buy.
 
Cheers for that.

Am I right in thinking that cache size is Virtually irelevant unless using CPU intensive programs, or hardcore gaming and that most "normal" users will be ok with 1mb of cache.

Also, bit of a noob question, but what are the bonuses of having a faster clock speed or FSB. Basically what I am trying to say is would it be more beneficial saving on the CPU and spending more on a HDD with a faster access time to increase performance?
 
adelburn said:
Cheers for that.

Am I right in thinking that cache size is Virtually irelevant unless using CPU intensive programs, or hardcore gaming and that most "normal" users will be ok with 1mb of cache.

Also, bit of a noob question, but what are the bonuses of having a faster clock speed or FSB. Basically what I am trying to say is would it be more beneficial saving on the CPU and spending more on a HDD with a faster access time to increase performance?
Click to expand...

In the case of a faster HDD or faster CPU I guess the CPU takes it everytime. I noticed very little difference when I had 2 150G raptors but when I overclocked my C2D OMG did that ever make a difference!

The trick is to strike a balance between all aspects of your PC so that one component isn't bottlenecked by another. No point having an Extreme quad core for gaming using an Nvidia 6200 turbocache for example.
 
clocka said:
the cache size, socket, overclockability, clock speed and fsb.

the e6750 is the best non-expensive core2duo cpu and the q6600/6600pro is the best non-expensive quad core cpu.

the e2140 is very cheap and will overclock to 3ghz nicely, so those are the 3 best price/performance cpu's at the moment, depends on your budget and whether you will overclock to which cpu you buy.
Click to expand...


Cache depends on the architecture. Intel have a cache depending version, AMD dont. Overclockabilty yes thats a good factor and so with clock speed. FSB kinda Intel know its getting old and are going to use AMD's Hypertransport with the Nehlem cores i think.

ATM INTEL are the best so i would stick to them.
 
BlastRadius said:
In the case of a faster HDD or faster CPU I guess the CPU takes it everytime. I noticed very little difference when I had 2 150G raptors but when I overclocked my C2D OMG did that ever make a difference!

The trick is to strike a balance between all aspects of your PC so that one component isn't bottlenecked by another. No point having an Extreme quad core for gaming using an Nvidia 6200 turbocache for example.
Click to expand...


Very strange as the HDD is the modern PC's bottleneck. ;)
 
adelburn said:
Am I right in thinking that cache size is Virtually irelevant unless using CPU intensive programs, or hardcore gaming and that most "normal" users will be ok with 1mb of cache.
Click to expand...

If you have 1mb cache C2D and a 4mb cache C2D at the same speeds their be like a 1-4FPS difference, melbourne did a review about it and showed having more cache hardly makes a difference in games anyway.
 
Technology, good design and fab process. AMD had the lead for 3 or 4 years but since C2D Intel have dominated. Barcelona may soon claw the crown back for AMD for a short while but then there is Penryn....
 
jaykay said:
FSB kinda Intel know its getting old and are going to use AMD's Hypertransport with the Nehlem cores i think.
Click to expand...

Nehlem brings back Hyperthreading, thats pretty much confirmed. Its speculated (and certainly possible) that intel will add an onboard memory controller, although there was also talk from into of a multichip package, like the current quad cores, where the northbridge chip would still be separate silicon, but fixed into the processors package.

As for intel using Hypertransport. Pretty sure thats a 'No'. They have their own system called CSI which is the most likely replacement for FSB, when they decide its needed.
 
How the cache is used determins its overclockability and effectiveness. Eg shared is generaly better then each of them having their own. Well i reacently read that somewhere. Which is why the C2d is better then the orginal dual cores which had separate caches. Something like that. Beleive i read it off a link posted on this forum to xbit labs.
 
helmutcheese said:
Very strange as the HDD is the modern PC's bottleneck. ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah I see where you are coming from, but on a pure cash per performance, bang for buck type thing more money on a CPU will equal a lot more performance than more on a HDD.

HDDs are really lagging behind all other components... sort it Seagate lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom