I know this is might not be the right forum for this, but I need some help buying a CPU.
Right now my desktop has a Pentium 4 3GHz, and it's too slow. I have a new P45 motherboard, so I can get basically any current LGA775 CPU with no compatibility problems.
I was set on the Pentium E5300 until just now. It is a Wolfdale, so it is essentially the same as most of the current Core 2 Duos. At just $65, it's a steal, and it can be overclocked to well over 3ghz. I was about to buy it when I noticed that it doesn't have SSE4.1 (instructions optimized for multimedia and HD stuff. It doesn't have VT-x (virtualization instructions) either, but at $65 that's OK.
Intel makes it a pain to figure out what has SSE4.1 and what doesn't, but it looks like all Core 2 Duos and Core 2 Quads have SSE4.1. That means the cheapest processor with SSE4.1 on Newegg is the Core 2 Duo E7400. At $110 it's quite a bit more expensive than the E5300, and it still doesn't support VT-x. If I'm going to pay $110, I think I want VT-x so I can use XP mode in Windows 7, and maybe get some improvement in VMWare.
The cheapest processor with SSE4.1 and VT-x looks like the E7600 and $150. Only problem is, that's getting really close to the Core 2 Quad Q8400 at $170 which has VT-x and SSE4.1 and is quad core.
There are a few more expensive than the Q8400, like the Q9400 with an extra 2mb of L2 cache or the Q9550 with an extra 8mb of L2, but I don't think L2 will matter too much. Also, I am largely ignoring clock speeds because all of these chips will be overclockable. So if there is a 2.5GHz and a 2.6GHz with the same specs, I will pick the cheaper one and OC it. It's things like VT-x, SSE4, and quad-core that can't be added with overclocking
So my question is, do I really need any of these features? As far as I can tell, SSE4.1 will enable up to 40% more speed in applications optimized for it (like video encoding, mostly), but I couldn't find a list of applications that take advantage of it, or how much faster it is in ones that do (like Adobe Premiere Pro). VT-x is required for XP mode in Windows 7, but VMWare doesn't need it. It would be nice to use XP mode if it works well, but I can't test it on the RC since I don' have a VT-x processor. Reviews seem to be mixed, and I can't tell if it would be any better than running VMWare for all my XP needs. Finally, quad-core would be nice, but I don't think I do anything that would take advantage of it right now. Most video encoders I have seen just do the video on one core and the audio on another core, leaving up to 70% of the audio core idle. I don't know if they have really improved recently since I am not keeping track.
I could look at benchmarks, but the more expensive CPUs with higher clock speeds will obviously do better. What I am trying to figure out is how much VT-x, SSE4, and quad core will help in the future. For example, if the next version of some program I use requires SSE4, I could eliminate the E5300, and if quad core is the way of the future, I could just get that one. Finally, I could get the E5300 and upgrade it when I need something better. Assuming I can't sell it at all, how long would it be before say, the price of the Q8400 drops $65? The whole LGA775 platform is at the end of its life since it is being replaced by the Core i7/i5/i3 stuff, so maybe I should just get the Q8400 and keep it until I am ready to replace the CPU, motherboard, and memory.
Right now I'm leaning towards the extremes, either the E5300 or the Q8400. It really comes down to the money. While I can afford the Q8400, I don't know if there is something I would rather be saving for. I also just bought a new monitor, and I need a new graphics card (the one I have will barely run Aero, and I don't think it does HDCP). This is really my second computer to run any Windows only stuff (my main computer right now is my Mac laptop), but the things I would be doing on the desktop would benefit from some extra speed. Right now I know I will use it for video editing/encoding, Matlab, and gaming as a minimum, while I will probably still do web browsing/email/etc on my Mac.
If I can get my USB HDTV tuner card to work with Windows, I can use my desktop for all my HDTV needs, too which in addition to watching and recording HDTV would include converting to H.264 (which takes too long on my Mac, if there is a GPU or quad-core accelerated H.264 encoder for Windows that works with whatever my tuner card spits out, that could decide it), and archiving the massive amounts of data of any video I might want to save. My Mac is not really suited for that because GPU acceleration is still a ways off (once Snow Leopard is released, it will probably be some time before video encoders take advantage of its GPU acceleration), and the tuner card software saves stuff it its own format (MPEG2 with a special container), and I don't know if its encoder will ever be significantly improved. Also, there is no good way to access large drives from my laptop since eSATA is not well-supported, and Firewire 800 doesn't take full advantage of the speed of my drives.
Any advice?
Right now my desktop has a Pentium 4 3GHz, and it's too slow. I have a new P45 motherboard, so I can get basically any current LGA775 CPU with no compatibility problems.
I was set on the Pentium E5300 until just now. It is a Wolfdale, so it is essentially the same as most of the current Core 2 Duos. At just $65, it's a steal, and it can be overclocked to well over 3ghz. I was about to buy it when I noticed that it doesn't have SSE4.1 (instructions optimized for multimedia and HD stuff. It doesn't have VT-x (virtualization instructions) either, but at $65 that's OK.
Intel makes it a pain to figure out what has SSE4.1 and what doesn't, but it looks like all Core 2 Duos and Core 2 Quads have SSE4.1. That means the cheapest processor with SSE4.1 on Newegg is the Core 2 Duo E7400. At $110 it's quite a bit more expensive than the E5300, and it still doesn't support VT-x. If I'm going to pay $110, I think I want VT-x so I can use XP mode in Windows 7, and maybe get some improvement in VMWare.
The cheapest processor with SSE4.1 and VT-x looks like the E7600 and $150. Only problem is, that's getting really close to the Core 2 Quad Q8400 at $170 which has VT-x and SSE4.1 and is quad core.
There are a few more expensive than the Q8400, like the Q9400 with an extra 2mb of L2 cache or the Q9550 with an extra 8mb of L2, but I don't think L2 will matter too much. Also, I am largely ignoring clock speeds because all of these chips will be overclockable. So if there is a 2.5GHz and a 2.6GHz with the same specs, I will pick the cheaper one and OC it. It's things like VT-x, SSE4, and quad-core that can't be added with overclocking
So my question is, do I really need any of these features? As far as I can tell, SSE4.1 will enable up to 40% more speed in applications optimized for it (like video encoding, mostly), but I couldn't find a list of applications that take advantage of it, or how much faster it is in ones that do (like Adobe Premiere Pro). VT-x is required for XP mode in Windows 7, but VMWare doesn't need it. It would be nice to use XP mode if it works well, but I can't test it on the RC since I don' have a VT-x processor. Reviews seem to be mixed, and I can't tell if it would be any better than running VMWare for all my XP needs. Finally, quad-core would be nice, but I don't think I do anything that would take advantage of it right now. Most video encoders I have seen just do the video on one core and the audio on another core, leaving up to 70% of the audio core idle. I don't know if they have really improved recently since I am not keeping track.
I could look at benchmarks, but the more expensive CPUs with higher clock speeds will obviously do better. What I am trying to figure out is how much VT-x, SSE4, and quad core will help in the future. For example, if the next version of some program I use requires SSE4, I could eliminate the E5300, and if quad core is the way of the future, I could just get that one. Finally, I could get the E5300 and upgrade it when I need something better. Assuming I can't sell it at all, how long would it be before say, the price of the Q8400 drops $65? The whole LGA775 platform is at the end of its life since it is being replaced by the Core i7/i5/i3 stuff, so maybe I should just get the Q8400 and keep it until I am ready to replace the CPU, motherboard, and memory.
Right now I'm leaning towards the extremes, either the E5300 or the Q8400. It really comes down to the money. While I can afford the Q8400, I don't know if there is something I would rather be saving for. I also just bought a new monitor, and I need a new graphics card (the one I have will barely run Aero, and I don't think it does HDCP). This is really my second computer to run any Windows only stuff (my main computer right now is my Mac laptop), but the things I would be doing on the desktop would benefit from some extra speed. Right now I know I will use it for video editing/encoding, Matlab, and gaming as a minimum, while I will probably still do web browsing/email/etc on my Mac.
If I can get my USB HDTV tuner card to work with Windows, I can use my desktop for all my HDTV needs, too which in addition to watching and recording HDTV would include converting to H.264 (which takes too long on my Mac, if there is a GPU or quad-core accelerated H.264 encoder for Windows that works with whatever my tuner card spits out, that could decide it), and archiving the massive amounts of data of any video I might want to save. My Mac is not really suited for that because GPU acceleration is still a ways off (once Snow Leopard is released, it will probably be some time before video encoders take advantage of its GPU acceleration), and the tuner card software saves stuff it its own format (MPEG2 with a special container), and I don't know if its encoder will ever be significantly improved. Also, there is no good way to access large drives from my laptop since eSATA is not well-supported, and Firewire 800 doesn't take full advantage of the speed of my drives.
Any advice?