Please tell me about processors

[physics_ninja]

I am wanting to get a new computer to replace my current dinosaur. So I have been looking around and I see alot of choices regarding the processor (intel vs amd etc) and don't really know how to compare them. I know that bigger is better - but how much bigger do I need.

I plan to surf the net and watch movies (netflix, hulu and anything I can legally download).

Oh, I plan to get windows XP if that makes a difference.

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Rackhir]

I am wanting to get a new computer to replace my current dinosaur. So I have been looking around and I see alot of choices regarding the processor (intel vs amd etc) and don't really know how to compare them. I know that bigger is better - but how much bigger do I need.

I plan to surf the net and watch movies (netflix, hulu and anything I can legally download).

Oh, I plan to get windows XP if that makes a difference.

Any help would be appreciated.

For surfing the net and watching movies, essentially anything will do. CPUs long ago surpassed what you needed for anything like that.

Just get at least 2 gb ram (4 gb preferable - should be dirt cheap).
Gigabit ethernet is preferable, 100 mb Ethernet will do.
You should try to avoid "integrated graphics" they basically suck. You want a graphics card. Unfortunately, there's so many of them that it's difficult to give specific recommendations without more info.

 

[physics_ninja]

Thanks.

More info . . .

Well, I don't plan on playing video games or WOW. On the other hand, I dream of getting a HD monitor, but that's not necessary.

 

[Rackhir]

Thanks.

More info . . .

Well, I don't plan on playing video games or WOW. On the other hand, I dream of getting a HD monitor, but that's not necessary.

For a computer monitor, the resolution is not so important in terms of "picture quality". A "HD" monitor that is small tends to be self defeating because it makes things so small. A smaller screen with more pixels means each pixel is smaller and since objects tend to be a set number of pixels a 20" monitor with the same resolution as a 30" monitor, everything is going to be about 2/3rds the size on the smaller monitor. You can't tell the difference between HD rez and 720p/1080i rez on a TV of less than 50" size. So on a 20ish inch monitor it isn't going to make a difference, except for how much you can show on a screen.

A 20-22" monitor should be available for $100-$200 and is the minimum I would recommend. You might even be able to get a 23-24" for that price range. But don't worry about the resolution too much.

If you have a decent recent model TV you can probably use your TV as a monitor. Some graphics cards even have an HDMI output, but you can easily get a DVI (typical monitor interface) to HDMI cable or adapter.

Here's a roundup of good cheap graphics cards. You'll want to look for one of these in a computer.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card,2464-2.html

Do you have a price range for the computer? Or a place/source you are planning to buy it from?

BTW, it is going to be difficult to get a mass market consumer oriented computer that will come with windows XP. You pretty much have to either build one, get a business machine from Dell or go to a custom PC builder in order to get XP on a machine. Unless you have some specific need for XP, windows 7 does by all accounts suck considerably less than Vista.

 

[babomb]

I am wanting to get a new computer to replace my current dinosaur. So I have been looking around and I see alot of choices regarding the processor (intel vs amd etc) and don't really know how to compare them. I know that bigger is better - but how much bigger do I need.

I plan to surf the net and watch movies (netflix, hulu and anything I can legally download).

Oh, I plan to get windows XP if that makes a difference.

Any help would be appreciated.

If that's all you're doing, essentially any computer on the market right now will have a fast enough processor for you, so just find something that fits your budget. At the low end of the price spectrum, AMD processors give you more bang for the buck. Intel is better for mid- to high-budget PCs.

There's no reason not to get 4 GB of RAM; I recommend DDR3.

You may be able to get away with integrated graphics, but I don't recommend it. There are plenty of good cheap graphics cards, particularly from Radeon. It's well worth the extra money.

As for the OS, while I usually like to wait for the first service pack before using a new version of Windows, I don't think going with XP is a good idea at this time. I'd go with Windows 7.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Well, here's a quick budget build for ya, but still with some room to move down the track. If you could put it together yourself (not as hard as it might sound) or get a buddy to do that for you - or hey, even pay a shop to do it, for cheap - it'll end up very inexpensive indeed.

CPU: AMD Athlon II x2 240
M/Board: Gigabyte GA-MA770T-UD3P
RAM: Kingston [or other OK cheapish brand] 2x2GB dual channel DDR3-1333 kit
Graphics: AMD HD4650 [?] - should help with general stuff, like HD vids.
Hard Drive: Seagate Barracuda 500GB [SATA II]
Optical: Any [SATA II] DVD-RW (Pioneer, Sony, Asus. . .)
Power Supply: included below. . .
Case: Coolermaster Elite 360 with 420w PSU
Monitor: 22" or 24" full HD LCD (Asus, Samsung, BenQ, Dell. . .)
Mouse & KB: to taste.

Just some ideas really. I don't know what your budget is, so that makes it a bit tricky! The case might seem a bit odd in that mix, but I do believe in getting a decent one, and that particular CM Elite is quite flexible in how it's used, and even how it's placed. The PSU included admittedly isn't the best, but it ain't one of the worst either. And you do *NOT* want any of those time-bombs. The CPU is a budget buy, but not shabby anyhow, and certainly upgradeable at some stage, if needed. Monitor is an item you might as well spend a bit on, because you're staring at that for possibly hours at a time. But the good thing is, full HD is standard now, and 22 or 24 inch is around the sweet spot.

USB 3.0 and SATA 3.0 are both being included in new motherboards as of, well, right now, but they're very new tech, so I wouldn't worry about either thing for qutie some time.

 

[drothgery]

BTW, it is going to be difficult to get a mass market consumer oriented computer that will come with windows XP. You pretty much have to either build one, get a business machine from Dell or go to a custom PC builder in order to get XP on a machine. Unless you have some specific need for XP, windows 7 does by all accounts suck considerably less than Vista.

Well, now that Win7 is generally available, there's no reason not to go that way on a new machine. But reports of Vista sucking on anything other than an ancient box or a netbook are greatly exaggerated.

 

[Rackhir]

Well, now that Win7 is generally available, there's no reason not to go that way on a new machine. But reports of Vista sucking on anything other than an ancient box or a netbook are greatly exaggerated.

The User Account Control. Explain to me how something that nags you to death for absolutely anything you want to do or change on the machine is not pure suck?

Our vista machine at work has to be rebooted every couple of days unlike any of our XP/2000 machines.

And it's suckyness is pretty much the feed back I've gotten from my windows using friends.

 

[Cergorach]

I see a couple of 'mistakes' in the replies above.

You do need to look at processing power of your CPU if you want to watch 1080p movies. An alternative is to use a video card that supports certain features to do some of the prosessing of you 1080p movie.

You can see the difference between DVD and 720p clearly on a 20" screen, I can see the difference between a 720p and 1080p movie on my 30" monitor.

Do you expect to do a lot of different things at the same time (multiple programs)? If so you might want to consider a multicore processor (dual, triple, or quad), that generally helps more then a faster CPU (if you run multiple programs at the same time). But if it's only surf the web OR watch movies, you don't really need a multicore CPU.

 

[Rackhir]

You do need to look at processing power of your CPU if you want to watch 1080p movies. An alternative is to use a video card that supports certain features to do some of the prosessing of you 1080p movie.

Considering that you can get a video card for <$50 that will do the 1080p playback, the processor as I said is not worth worrying about.

You can see the difference between DVD and 720p clearly on a 20" screen, I can see the difference between a 720p and 1080p movie on my 30" monitor.

A 30" monitor at typical prices is around $1,200. That's probably about twice as much as the OP is looking to spend on the computer and monitor. It's more than most people spend on their TVs. Also it requires a dual-link capable video card to drive it, which is also more money. I would certainly hope you'd be getting something for all that money.

That you can "see the difference" doesn't change the fact that on a computer monitor, the resolution does NOT directly relate to the picture quality. It simply affects how much you can see on the screen at one time. Computer monitors btw have almost always been of much higher quality than TVs, since clarity is paramount with most computer work.

Do you expect to do a lot of different things at the same time (multiple programs)? If so you might want to consider a multicore processor (dual, triple, or quad), that generally helps more then a faster CPU (if you run multiple programs at the same time). But if it's only surf the web OR watch movies, you don't really need a multicore CPU.

For any typical sort of user, there is essentially zero advantage to anything more than a dual core. You need to be using highly threaded, highly parallel software before triple or quad cores give you any advantage. Given that triple and quad core chips often have lower clock speeds than the equivalent dual core chips, this actually makes their larger number of cores a liability for most people.