Ugh! I need help deciphering all those PC processor names and speeds

Fredrica C., there are many good posts here that have attempted to give you a simple answer to a very complex question.

While the choice of processor (CPU) is very important, it is only one of many factors that will affect performance. All the top choices even if a bit wordy and perhaps overly technical for your purpose offer good solid advice. While Keith Kressin's post and, indeed, the 1st response (from helfdeadryl) are simple and do a good job of answering your processor question, they don't answer the question you are really asking (IMHO). I think Bubba_Gump provides the best answer and guideline for you and Zouch while not as clear also does a good job. Both try to steer you towards THE question(s) that you should ask:

(1) WHAT IS THE INTENDED USE FOR THIS COMPUTER?
(2) Is PERFORMANCE of greater importance than PRICE?
(3) What activities will you send most of your time doing on this machine?
(4) How satisfied were you with your old computer?
(5) Do you intend to run a lot of older software currently on your old system? Or just a few applications and you don't mind upgrading to newer versions.
(6) Do you want your new system to support your current peripherals such as printers, scanners, etc.?
(7) How old is your legacy hardware and software and will your new system support them?

Unless #7 is not an issue for you, the fact that a new consumer system from a branded manufacturer (HP, Dell, Gateway, etc.) comes with a new OS, Vista, should be a major concern because it may cause all kinds of incompatibility headaches for you. Who cares about speed when you can't get your printer to work or your computer crashes frequently? Of course, there are options to circumvent this type of problem but at the very least, you need to anticipated such a possibility.

Next there is the issue of branded systems being bogged down with a lot of "garbage-ware". Again, there are work-arounds, such as ordering a custom built system from a trusted local vendor where you specify what OS and additional software should be pre-loaded unto the system. Some of the big names such as Dell are starting to listen to consumer complaints and have given the customer a lot more say in choosing what is pre-loaded to the system (unfortunately only business level machines, at a price premium, come pre-loaded with XP).

Bubba_Gump provides adequate advice on how your primary uses should drive many of your hardware choices, so there is no need to rehash those. But let me just add the following:

Most low end systems available today will satisfactorily meet the basic needs of answering email, web surfing, listening to music, and writing Word documents. However, one of the biggest deficiencies that these low-end systems have is insufficient memory (RAM - Random Access Memory - not hard disk storage).

With this in mind, my suggested minimal configuration for a budget XP system is:
CPU: "AMD Athlon64 3500+ AM2" or "Intel Pentium 4 650"
MEMORY: 1GB PC2-4200 DDR2 (preferably 2GB)
HD: 160GB
DVD: 16X DVD-RW (from a brand such as Pioneer/Sony/LG/Panasonic)
PSU: 320Watts or higher. If custom built get a high quality dual rail Power Supply (PSU) preferably from Antec, Thermaltake, or Ultra.
Video: integrated "NVIDIA Geforce 6100" or "ATI X1300" (preferably PCI-x NVIDIA Geforce 7300LE with 128MB or equivalent ATI)

I guess I ended a bit prematurely without stating a few other major considerations.

Are you considering a Desktop or a Laptop.

If it's a desktop system:
You want to ensure that you have some flexibility to upgrade or override the current system defaults such as adding/upgrading a video card or hard drive.
Preferably you can use "off the shelf parts" but many branded systems require pricey, proprietary parts or don't allow upgrades.

If its a laptop:
You usually have very limited, expensive upgrade options so get as much power as you think you'll need from the start.
Intel Core Duo is your most suitable CPU choice.
Battery life is very important aspect to consider.
Weight, especially if you have to "schlep" it around is also a big concern.
NVIDIA Geforce GO video cards offer a powerful flexible solution and trash the ATI competition.


The Vista OS is very graphic intensive. Although settings can be modified and the version (Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Ultimate) has impact, it is recommended that you have a decent standalone graphics card (see my minimal recommendation above) with at least 128MB of on-board memory. I would also suggest that the main system be equipped with at least 2GB of RAM. Finally, avoid the "Home Basic" version of this Operating System.

Have fun.

I guess I should add one more bit of info regarding the newest batch of consumer grade (reasonably priced) processors. I am of course referring to Dual core processors:

AMD Athlon64 X2 (desktop)
AMD Turion64 X2 (laptop)
Intel Core Duo (laptop)
Intel Core 2 Duo (desktop / laptop)

If you multi-task (i.e. run multiple application simultaneously) these processors can improve system performance significantly. Given the fact that most Windows users are running a bunch of different background processes (such as Anti-Spyware, Anti-Virus, Firewall ... just to name a few) even before opening a personal application, we can see/feel the benefit of these processors. Some of these security apps can seriously bog down performance on a single core system.


Here again its your call as to how much you want to spend but in most cases you can get a very good system (sans the monitor) for under $800.


The mid-priced system I'd recommend (assuming you are not an extreme gamer) would include:

CPU: AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+ (sweet spot @ $110 <<2.4Ghz, 1MB Cache, FSB 2000Mhz>> - in many cases performs better that much pricier AMD X2 processors and goes toe-to-toe with Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 @ $110 <<1.8Ghz, 2MB Cache, FSB 800Mhz>&gt
VIDEO: XFX NVIDIA Geforce 8600GT w/256MB GDDR3 PCI-E16 or 7900GS for $156 and $170 respectively
RAM: 2GB Dual Channel PC2-6400 DDR2
HD: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 400GB SATA w/16MB cache for $125
PSU: Antec TruePower Trio 430 430W (triple rail ... 3 x 12V+) for $75
DVD-R: LG Electronics GSA-H62NB 18X SATA Super Multi DVD+/-RW Double layer Drive for $40 or Plextor PX-800A/SW-BL IDE DVD Burner for $78
MOTHERBOARD: MSI or Gigabyte in the $80 to $100 range

Note prices are for retailed packaged items (except HD) from reputable online vendor, ZipZoomFly.com (shipping included). Expect to pay more locally and unless you are tech savvy, there would be an installation/configuration charge.

For a pre-configured system that comes fairly close, check out:
HP A1730N for $722+
HP A6130N for $729+
you should be able to "test drive" one of these at your local BestBuy or Fry's Electronics store.

Happy hunting

This guy must be a lawyer; not only a lawyer a Philadelphia Lawyer.
He attempted to answer a very simple preference question with a question; not just one question, but multiple questions. Then he did not answer the question !

sOME FOLKS JUST CAN'T BE SAVED FROM THEMSELVES NO MATTER HOW HARD ONE TRIES.

I was going to leave this at just my initial short response to user, dclarkfw, but after some consideration I felt that some further clarity might be achieve by readers of this thread who really want to learn and/or share information. But before doing so, perhaps some data on my background would be helpful.


Sorry to disappoint you, dclarkfw, but I am not and never have been a lawyer. Since the mid-eighties, I have been an IT professional and though my main title would be a Programmer Analyst I have always been in positions that involved Customer Service and Support. This may have involved:

Being a liaison between Technical Support and management/occupational users.

Designing intermediate databases and reporting applications to process and collect claims, track trends, accounts payable, etc.

Act as 1st terrier PC support.

Make departmental recommendation on hardware and software acquisition.

Troubleshoot hardware and software issues for standalone PCs and client/server applications.

Built and repair several PCs.

Anyway that's enough about me but it should be sufficient to establish that I do have some experience in this area. Now back to the main discussion.


The major points (IMHO) are these:

Fredrica C. is looking for a super easy way to determine what is the best computer for her to buy. This is understandable given the confusing array of choices that are out there in the marketplace.

This is further complicated by the unfortunate fact that many sales are clueless or under educated even about their own limited product line so forget about an honest overview of what is actually available to in the broader market.

So Fredrica C., smart lady that she is has approached a "unbiased" and well informed (or at least should be) community to help her with making a SMART, INFORMED purchasing decision. However, she has also let you know up front that she can't handle responses that are going to be really technical.

The point is:
She is seeking to buy a computer not just a processor. She is, however, incorrectly assuming that the choice of processor will magically address all the other issues that would relate to purchasing a new PC. Keep in mind that this purchase will probably be seen by her as an "upgrade" to her current system in the sense that she may be assuming that all her current programs and peripherals will continue to work seamlessly on the new PC.

Most posters got this point and so provided some guidance well beyond the scope of trying to explain the differences between some of the popular consumer level processors that are available from AMD and Intel. Some posts just attempted to explain the difference in processors but that's OK since was given a fairly balanced view if she read enogh of the posts particularly the "top choice".

The intent of my post was not to rehash the excellent information already provided by others but to possibly help Fredrica to expand her understanding of some of the unspoken implications that go along with her purchase decision.

The two primary things that Fredrica has not stated and needs to before she can be given any really specific advice is:

(1) What is her budget?
(2) What are the main purposes that needs the computer for (i.e. types of activity and examples of software applications she intends to use)?

Again, the above has been stated in a number of other posts. At the risk of further duplicating the excellent work of other posters here, let me state some additional concerns that she should keep in mind:

Your computer is NOT built to last for a many, many years. Many hardware vendors see 3 years as the normal product cycle while software cycles are all over the board (but figure 7 to 10 years for the OS and 1 year for security based products). Ultimately the issue is not even that the product(s) will break down so much as the fact that it will become obsolete.

Memory (RAM) is very stable but the module type changes every 3 to 5 years so don't plan on reusing your old modules in the next computer to which you are upgrading. For the motherboard/system memory, DDR2 is the current standard. The "sweet spot", in terms of speed, that offers the best value for money is [IMHO] the PC2-6400 (a.k.a. 800Mhz DDR2) although most mid-level systems are configured with older, slower PC2-4200 or PC2-5300. There are compatibility issues particularly as relates to voltage matching between the memory and motherboard tolerances but most memory and motherboard manufacturers offer online support with this issue.
For Windows XP get 2GB (although 1GB will get you by) and for Vista Ultimate, I read somewhere that 4GB was recommended (although 2GB seems to get you by).
Since modules become obsolete with time it makes sense to purchase as much as you need or can afford, at least up to the levels given above or the maximum supported by your motherboard. Actually I recommend staying a bit below the motherboard's maximum to ensure stability. As old module types become less available they actually increase in price rather than get cheaper. And the current market conditions (where manufacturers battle for market share and recognition) are artificially depressing prices to about 50% of what they were a few months ago. Expect prices to go back up within the next few months. So now is a good time to buy.

Hard Drives can fail at any instant without any warning. So the morale is back up your data regularly (of course most of us are just too lazy and get caught with our "pants down" anyway). From my own experiences in corporate as well as personal, I prefer Seagate and Hitachi drives. I wasn't so fortunate with WD drives but they did at least die after the warranty expired. The morale (at least for me) is:
(1) Try to back up, at least your personal data, as often as you can.
(2) Assume that the drive will not last beyond its specified warranty. After that period either: (A) replace it entirely, (B) make it a secondary drive, or (C) make very frequent backups. Of course there is no absolute guarantee, but this is one of the big reasons why I am attracted to Seagate. It offers a 5 year warranty compared with the industry standard of 1 year. To me, the warranty reflects the level of confidence the manufacturers have in their product. And the old 3 year warranty has all but vanished.
I do believe that the current crop of hard drives are becoming much more stable than they were a few years ago.
The impact of heat on Hard Drives is quite debatable per the findings of a recent study but I would recommend a dedicated fan for todays high speed (7200rmp) discs.
If your Motherboard/PSU supports it, go with a SATA drive. Even the 400GB drive are very reasonably priced (usually between $90 to $150). It comes as a standard option in the HP Pavilion A6130N.
Last but not least, today's market offers huge amounts of storage for relatively little money. This is of particular import if you intend to work with a lot of multimedia files especially video or uncompressed audio.

DVD drives wear out over time. As long as the PC is powered up, consider the DVD to be under "stress". Heat is also not regarded as its friend (so if you are a fanatic like me, you'll assign a dedicated fan to it as well). Not sure if there are any advantages to getting a SATA vs a IDE type drive but you should at least be aware that these two type exist and may or may not be supported by your current Motherboard/PSU setup.

Many very reasonably priced Video Card are available and if you are playing games or running any type of graphic intensive application (such as Photoshop), I would highly recommend getting a system with a standalone video card (with at least 128MB of onboard memory). At the very least, you should get a system that allows you to easily install one at a later date. Here too there can be some compatibility issues so try to get some feedback from users or vendors before purchasing a video card.
The NVIDIA cards generally offer much better value for money and often out perform supposedly higher class (definitely higher cost) ATI boards. For NVIDIA boards, however, there seems to be some possible compatibility issues with many of the motherboards supporting Intel's Core Duo processors - but I am just speculating here based on the choices I have observed in the market.
The introduction of DirectX 10 further complicates matters since it is not supported by the "older" boards. But DirectX 10 is relatively new and there are only a few application where this would be an issue.
To future proof, however, I would recommend going with NVIDIA's Geforce 8600GT w 128MB or the ATI equivalent HD 2400 XT
Remember that integrated graphics chips share your system's main memory and thus degrade overall performance. My personal preference is to avoid such systems unless I am sure that a Video Card can be easily added later without the need for additional purchases such as a special rider board.

Customer Service Support is not what it used to be as most companies have tried to cut costs by outsourcing, often to international sources whose first language is not English. At times this can be quite frustrating for the consumer who is already frustrated with non-working equipment and/or programs. Is there relief? Yes, but it is going to cost you. In most cases corporate customers do not have this issue. In an effort to repair tarnished images, companies such as Dell are working to improve/repair their customer service reputation (used to be first rate) by providing a choice of reasonably priced service contracts. It is up to you, the consumer, to decide what level of hand-holding you require and whether you are willing to pay for it. Not perfect but a reasonable compromise.

OK, finally a word about processors. I have always avoided the strip down models like Celerons and Semprons. Frequently these exhibit significant performance compromises. But these may be ok you if you just do very basic tasks. There are many choices out there (particularly on low-end machine) but for mid-price performance minded (value for money) consumer, the choices are "relatively" simple.

My preference is for a processor that offers at least 1.8GHz but preferably over 2.0GHz and that supports a system bus speed of 1ghz or greater.
For AMD this is Athlon64 X2 3800+ or higher
For Intel this is Core 2 Duo E6300 or higher (preferably the E6320 which has twice the cache ... 4GB).

Anyway that my 2 cents. How those who manage to read through this find some info worth remembering.

A really great and knowledgeable answer cnetmessageman really enlightening thanks

For well over a year, AMD (with the Athlon) has been trashing Intel's Pentium. And offering a much better deal in the price. This was both on the consumer side and on the server side (different processor name there). It's only with the intro of the Core Duo chips that Intel has been able to resume a leadership role. And for the budget conscious AMD Athlons are still the best choice.

Core 2 duo has been out for over a year, in that time amd has yet to even remotely catch up with the architecture, both in terms of speed and in terms of wafer size.

For whatever reason( probably the same reason that in historical terms AMD was always behind intel, and only managed to catch up in the period of time that intel was transitioning to 65nm wafers with dual core architecture,) AMD is not even looking like its remotely trying to catch up.
What is strange is that it positioned itself beautifully with the purchase of ATI to really make a fight ofthe desktop world and even there it seems to have backed down. leaving nvidia with an almost clear field.
AMD , is for the dollar concious only, is cetainly not as good as intel and is totally unfuture proof.
Whereas an intel core2 duo chip on the correct intel board can be changed out in a year or so to a quad core if need be, try changing a 64x2 athlon chip out in a year or two when AMD finally gets the dual core revolution.

OK, I admit that I am a bit off the mark by a few months although I was actually referring to the period a year or two prior to the launch of Intel's Core 2 Duo. Yes, Intel has transitioned to 65nm and once again has ascended the processor throne. And it should be recognized as such. That certainly doesn't make AMD crap. AMD is really playing against a stacked deck and has shown amazining resilience where lesser entities have crumbled. This is a "David" taking on a well "monied" Goliath and succeeding if but for a short time. At 90nm, Intel had been outdone. But Intel has the financial resources to take it to the next level. And some predict that by the time AMD can really play at the 65nm level, Intel will be ready to move to the 45nm level. If we compare apples to apples (wafer to wafer) then has Intel won? But competition doesn't have to be fair particularly if it is in the IT industry.

For one so well read, you should know that in this industry there really isn't any future proofing. I admit I have a vested interest in hoping that AMD continues to remain a viable competitor for Intel. I have no illusions that AMD would act any differently from Intel to maintain its market share. But the competition is good for innovation within the industry and in keeping pricing attractive to consumers. Yes I am dollar conscious and I want the best value for it. But I do understand that not everyone has these priorities.

You may want to check the accuracy of your last statement but that's really beside the point.

Stick to Vista PRO, you will be happy with this OS.(Operation System)
I remember same guys were telling us stick to WIN 98 after XP been released. The same old story.LOL

I cannot recommend Vista for anyone. Especially someone who is upgrading to a better system and not technically savvy. I have a laptop with Windows XP which works with my Lexmark printer and all of my other gaming and educational programs. With my new Desktop supporting VISTA I had to purchase a new printer because it wasn't compatible, and most of my existing game programs don't work with Vista. Nevermind the many hours I spent on line with someone in India trying to download a driver from Lexmark and HP websites addressing the numerous problems with Vista compatibility. Nothing is compatible with Vista and it constantly slows your work by asking permission to do the simplest things. In order to use Microsoft word in Vista I had to go to the Microsoft website and download another "update" to get Word to work. I love XP, I wish Bill Gates would stop lining his pockets with our money by introducing "New and Improved Programs".

Here is what I use and its rock solid. Operating System: Model
Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 (build 2600) Enclosure Type: Desktop
Processor a Main Circuit Board b
3.07 gigahertz Intel Pentium 4
16 kilobyte primary memory cache
1024 kilobyte secondary memory cache Board: http://www.abit.com.tw/ IS7-V2 (Intel i848P-ICH5) 1.0
Bus Clock: 204 megahertz
BIOS: Phoenix Technologies, LTD 6.00 PG 08/17/2004
Drives Memory Modules c,d
640.14 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity
143.57 Gigabytes Hard Drive Free Space

SONY DVD RW DW-D26A [CD-ROM drive]
3.5" format removeable media [Floppy drive]

ST3120814A [Hard drive] (120.03 GB) -- drive 2, s/n 5LS1EG0A, rev 3.AAD, SMART Status: Healthy
ST3400632A [Hard drive] (400.09 GB) -- drive 1
WDC WD1200JB-00EVA0 [Hard drive] (120.03 GB) -- drive 0, s/n WD-WMAEK2317991, rev 15.05R15, SMART Status: Healthy 1024 Megabytes Installed Memory

Slot 'A0' has 512 MB
Slot 'A1' has 512 MB
You only need 1 Gig of memory to run most applications and surf the web in the process. I have repeatedly run several applications while surfing and had no problems. I recomend this cpu-motherboard-memory setup. It doesn't cost an arm and a leg either. I currently run about 2/3 of a terabite in hard drive space on 3 drives with aprox. 2.2 million files (as told by anti virus file total).

First off, price isn't everything. I paid $1400 for my HP notebook, completely custom (but I need to buy a second HD for it, I admit, I should of shelled out for it in the first place.)
17" 16:10 LCD @ 1680X1050 resolution (that's better than HDTV)
100gig SATA hard drive @7200rpm (upgradable to two)
2 gig (2x1024)ram
Vista Pro
AMD Turion 64x2 processor @1.8ghz X2
Extended life battery
DVD-R DL
HDMI & Video Remote Control

Looks Good, runs like hell. Wish I would have realized I needed to buy VISTA ultima to run a 64 OS! I am really mad about that, but that's another thread!

Point being, the three things that matter most with processors are:
Number of Processors
Frequency of Processors
Whether Processor is 64 or 32 bit

First of all, most processors now are 2 core and this is easily the way to go. Don't bother with a Celeron, they are garbage.

Second: What GHZ is the processor? If you are currently running say, a P3 or P4 single core @ 2.X or higher Ghz, then a dual core @ 1.8 x2 will likely blow it away and one at an 2.x or higher, will make it look like it's standing still.

I have run AMD, I have run Intel. Both my AMD's, a single core 32bit at 1.6ghz outstriped a Intel momble pentium at 1.8ghz and my AMD Turion 64 1.8 x2(with Vista 32 OS) runs circles around my Tower with it's Intel 2.8x2 overcloced to 3.1 x2 32 bit also with Vista.

I highly support and recomend AMD. It cuts hundreds off the price and your not paying for the "Intel Inside" sticker that looks oh-so-cool on the computer, but is meaningless ot performance. I have looked over and over at pros who benchmark these processors and Intell is often equal, seldom better and sometimes left in the dust. It's just not worth it.

That said, Vista is a ram hog, if you give it two gigs, it takes one all for itself, so don't skimp on ram.

Go for the 64bit processor, even if you run a 32bit OS because you might change your mind latter.

Remember, unless your running heavy gamming you won't notice the differnce between a 1.6 x2ghz and a 2.0 x2ghz, so don't spend the extra hundreds on it, buy according to your needs.

You can't buy what you ain't got money for!

Start with you budget range, then get the best rated processor for that price range.

But my main point was we have nothing to work with here--No budget and no intended use? There's a big difference in price and specifications between a gaming pc and a pc for school.