• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

[REQUEST] Intel Processor Hierarchy?

I think that comparing CPU clock speeds within a family is ok but there are too many factors and the situation is too complicated to compare across families or vendors.

People got too concerned with absolute clock speed and the arms race has died down a bit given that it got to the point where in some situations a slower clock CPU ran stuff quicker.

You should always be thinking about overall system performance and the CPU is just one of many factors in the chain. The biggest bottleneck in PC's is generally the RAM path. Random accesses to RAM is very expensive which is why there are multiple layers of cache to them. Even then the situation is not clear as faster RAM chips on the same bus does not appear to make more than a few percent difference.

From the games point of view, nearly the whole story is about the video card because when it has a lot of video ram and lots of pixel shader power, the CPU is not so involved as it used to be. The geometry for the game is held on the card and the textures and shaders are also on the card and the GPU does the actual drawing of it all. The CPU has been relegated to the scoring, the UI, the game physics and the AI.

So, hot CPU + duff video card means slow game. Hot CPU and video card but slow path to RAM is also bad. And you also don't want to burn the CPU cycles doing sound processing so get a sound card which has a capable sound processor.

Basically a fast system is where all of the hardware units are firing on all cylinders. And a cost effective fast PC is where all of the hardware units are balanced in speed so that no one bit of the system is significantly slower than all of the rest.

The CPU does need to be good but its not the whole story and the raw GHz of it is not the best indicator any more.

Most games are multi-threaded and even if they are not then the OS and other processes on the system will want a time slice so a dual core is almost always better than a single core. Often one core is fairly idle but when playing games it ought to be in full use. A good game developer would try to balance the workload amongst the hardware units available so you try to balance the CPU work with the GPU work and the CPU work should be made available in chunks that can be given to each core concurrently.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Redrobes said:
I think that comparing CPU clock speeds within a family is ok but there are too many factors and the situation is too complicated to compare across families or vendors.
I'm guessing it would be the same for the software publishers, which is why they're sticking to specify single-core CPU requirement.


Redrobes said:
People got too concerned with absolute clock speed and the arms race has died down a bit given that it got to the point where in some situations a slower clock CPU ran stuff quicker.
If clock speed is no longer relevant, is there a better method?


Redrobes said:
You should always be thinking about overall system performance and the CPU is just one of many factors in the chain. The biggest bottleneck in PC's is generally the RAM path. Random accesses to RAM is very expensive which is why there are multiple layers of cache to them. Even then the situation is not clear as faster RAM chips on the same bus does not appear to make more than a few percent difference.
Do not assume that I'm forgetting the rest of the systems. I know that if I should purchase a PC, I'm going to ask the retailer to fill up the blank RAM slots with as much memory the motherboard can handle by specification. The same goes for video card.

Right now, I'm trying to find the right affordable CPU that can handle resource-heavy software applications, as I'm sure the high-end CPU would be financially out of my reach.
 

Hey there Ranger ... sometimes it is helpful to get speed measurements, etc. on individual machines and then look at the parts those machines use ... especially if you want to build it yourself! :)
 

Ranger REG said:
I'm guessing it would be the same for the software publishers, which is why they're sticking to specify single-core CPU requirement.
They tend to state minimum requirements and since all software runs on one core then the requirement is for one core. It might still run better on more cores. You can tell if this would be the case by getting the task manager out (ctrl-alt-del) and looking at the Threads value. Mine is currently reading 311 which is a lot and Im only running firefox and email (+ a shed load of services, background tasks etc). Most of these threads are idle but if you fire up a game and can still see the task managers threads total go up then thats how many threads the game has spawned.

Ranger REG said:
If clock speed is no longer relevant, is there a better method?
Its not easy and has never been easy. The only real way is with a benchmarking tool. For games 3DMark is the daddy. The latest version has been updated to test for multi-core CPUs. You can log into their database and look at the benchmark scores that other people have obtained with their systems and parts listed.

Ranger REG said:
I'm going to ask the retailer to fill up the blank RAM slots with as much memory the motherboard can handle by specification. The same goes for video card.
If its a new system then the video is likely to be PCIe 16x. Check the number and clock rate of the pixel shader pipelines on the video card too.

Ranger REG said:
I'm trying to find the right affordable CPU that can handle resource-heavy software applications
Well it does depend a bit but the AMD X2's are cheaper but run hotter than the Core Duo 2's. The latter are better, cooler, but more expensive.
 

Ranger REG said:
Right now, I'm trying to find the right affordable CPU that can handle resource-heavy software applications, as I'm sure the high-end CPU would be financially out of my reach.

Are you figuring on building a new system from parts, buying a complete system at retail/from an online vendor, or canibalizing your existing setup for parts and upgrading? The best you can get for a given budget is going to vary a lot depending on how you do things (and at the low end -- say under $750 for a system w/o monitor, complete systems from retail and direct vendors are often cheaper than buying the parts yourself, especially if you're including a legit copy of Windows and not canibalizing many parts from an existing system).
 

drothgery said:
Are you figuring on building a new system from parts, buying a complete system at retail/from an online vendor, or canibalizing your existing setup for parts and upgrading? The best you can get for a given budget is going to vary a lot depending on how you do things (and at the low end -- say under $750 for a system w/o monitor, complete systems from retail and direct vendors are often cheaper than buying the parts yourself, especially if you're including a legit copy of Windows and not canibalizing many parts from an existing system).
Wish I could build it myself. I'm not that confident.

At the moment, I'm looking for a system + monitor combo package (yeah, my monitor's on the fritz). I want to get a free Vista [Premium] upgrade as part of the deal, hopefully with a DVD codec that won't expire.
 

Ranger REG said:
Wish I could build it myself. I'm not that confident.
Well sir ... if I was there I would happily build it for you! (I like to build systems for other people's use.)
At the moment, I'm looking for a system + monitor combo package (yeah, my monitor's on the fritz). I want to get a free Vista [Premium] upgrade as part of the deal, hopefully with a DVD codec that won't expire.
Well if you don't feel confident building one ... drothgery's quotes are one the ball for going rates. Hmm.
Don't know what to tell you. :( [[Wishes he could help more....]]
 

Ranger REG said:
Wish I could build it myself. I'm not that confident.

At the moment, I'm looking for a system + monitor combo package (yeah, my monitor's on the fritz). I want to get a free Vista [Premium] upgrade as part of the deal, hopefully with a DVD codec that won't expire.

Well, the minimum fairly upgradeable systems with a dual-core CPU (which will be an Athlon 64 X2 3800+; systems with a Pentium D aren't any cheaper, and it's better in the low-end space) from Dell and HP will run $600-$700, with 1 GB of RAM, Windows Media Center (free upgrade to Vista Premium), and a cheap 17" LCD. The boxes that Best Buy and CompUSA are selling online for less than that haven't impressed me (I was thinking about buying my parents a new desktop for Christmas).
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top