What specs do I look at when comparing two processors?

[Woozie]

My PC is falling apart on me, and I wont have enough money to buy a beefy PC for a while (a year). Instead of trying to fix up this outdated piece of crap like I originally wanted, I figured I'd buy a really cheap PC (less than 350) and use it for a year or so until I want to buy/build a PC.

I'm going to go buy a budget PC tomorrow. I don't want to buy online because I don't want to pay for shipping because I'm broke. Also, I don't want to have to deal with this PC for another week or two because I'm tired of it rebooting or freezing in the middle of my matlab calculations.

I doubt that there's going to be a huge performance difference on budget PCs, but I wanted to ask anyways just in case. I'm not that interested in performance, to be honest. I just want a PC that works for now. But I may as well maximize my performance within my limitations of buying at a local best buy and spending less than 400.

Compaq - Presario Desktop with AMD Athlon™ X2 4450e+ Dual-Core Processor - SR5710Y

Acer - Desktop with AMD Sempron™ X2 2300 Dual-Core Processor - AX1200-U1711A

Since these two have the same memory and the same processing speed, does that mean they'll do matlab calculations at the same speed? If there's a difference in speed, will it be significant? I'm assuming there wont be a significant difference in overall performance, will there?

I'm asking because I heard that Athlon is better than Sempron, but the only thing I understand about processors is the frequency. Since the two processors in question have the same frequency, I can't tell the difference.

Although I posted two specific examples of PCs, I kinda want to know more about processors and performance in general. I have a few different friends who have volunteered to let me do calculations and music production on their computers, and they have way different PCs. Also, I can do calculations at a few different computer labs on campus. So I want to take a look at my friends PCs and see what would probably be best for my calculations.

What's the major difference between Intel and AMD processors? Is one generally better or faster than the other for math calculations?

Which has a bigger impact on overall speed and performance, CPU speed or RAM? Some of the computers at school have slight differences in RAM and CPU speed. Most of the ones in the physics department don't have duo cores, but that shouldn't matter if matlab is the only thing I'm running, right?

Also, is there a inherent difference in speed between Mac/Windows/Linux? I have a choice between the three at school. Linux typicaly works faster for me, but I'm using a different program to run the calculations when I'm on the linux computer, and plus my professor helps me when using that, and she typically makes my programs more efficient. So my comparison isn't exactly fair. I'm wondering if it would be worth it to get more familiar with Linux for the sake of using those machines.

Now that I think about it, I may as well get the absolute cheapest computer I can since I have so many other options for my calculations. But being able to work from home is nice if I don't feel like leaving. Hmm...

[Cephius]

A basic principal of computer components is that the computer is only as fast as it's slowest component. If you have a great video card but a weak processor, you'll be bottle necking your performance because the card can only process information as fast as the processor can send it. If you don't have enough RAM, your computer will bog down, etc etc.

Processors these days mostly come in dual-core or quad-core varieties. The more cores and the higher speeds, the better. You can debate this a bit, because not all programs can take advantage of having multiple cores - like FFXI. However generally speaking, a 3ghz dual core is less powerful than a 3ghz quad core. The newest i7 processors use hyperthreading, and have 8 (virtual) cores.

Intel vs AMD is pretty much Intel by a landslide at this point. AMDs are comperable processors, and if you get one you should be fine, but Intel certainly has the better market share, and thus better selection of motherboards, chipsets, etc.

[Woozie]

Does the video card matter for things like matlab or music production or is it only important for games?

[Kryssan]

Video card is only going to matter in applications that require video processing. Movies (making or watching), gaming, art programs (Photoshop, C3D, Max, etc), and the like. Granted, using all of those examples above, one comes up with using a variety of different video cards on top of the 'baseline'.


For what you're suggesting, no, VC isn't going to matter much. Especially with a Linux system. Can also work with Windows but you have to tone it down quite a bit. Lots of clutter in Windows. Linux will let you have the 'just right' for your desktop environment a lot easier than Windows will. Not to say you can't get there, just more difficult.

[Blubbartron]

An important aspect to not overlook on a CPU is the cache size. If the cache isn't substantial, you'll have much more frequent cache misses, resulting in more delays while waiting for RAM.

[fishstix]

I looked up on google: athlon vs sempron and in general, they say the sempron has half the L2 cache size than that of a similar athlon cpu. The 2 computers you listed though have a 1mb cache vs a 512+512. Idk if they're the same, but I'd probably go with the athlon that comes with 1mb.

[Isiolia]

The "Sempron" series are basically the Celerons of the AMD world - though at one point they were basically the previous gen Athlons relabeled I think. Not necessarily bad, but I have a slightly higher clocked version of the CPU the Compaq has (4850e versus the 4450e in that) in my media PC, and it's been pretty decent. I'd probably go for that one. Cheap HP/Compaq desktops are usually decent for the money anyway. That one has an ECS board in it, but a lot of them actually use ASUS boards. Acer...eh, my main experience is with their cheap laptops, and those are crap.

[Olo401]

Celeron & Sempron - Extreme budget consumer use (WP, basic web browing). Dual-Core CPU, has slower internal clock, lower multiplier, cache reduced to minimum levels, uses slower memory. Celeron will be redesigned and rebranded as Core i3 next year.

Pentium Dual Core / Core 2 Duo / Athlon / Athlon 2 - Low to Mid-range consumer use (Everyday computing, some gaming, basic business apps, HTPC). Dual Core CPU, Wider clock multiplier range, 2-8x the cache of Celeron/Sempron, can handle faster DDR2 memory speeds. Also has a much higher threshold for overclocking than Celeron/Sempron. C2D is rumored to be redesigned and rebranded as Core i5 next year.

Core 2 Quad / Phenom / Phenom 2 - Mid-to-high end consumer use and heavy multitasking (Gaming, business applications, graphic design, number crunching). Has similar specs & features to C2D/Athlon/Athlon 2, but is a 4-core CPU design.

Core i7 - next-generation design of the Core 2 Quad with advanced hyperthreading and a DDR3-only memory controller built into the CPU. Designed for advanced gaming, computer enthusiasts and business multitasking.

Xeon / Opteron - High-end business, networking and server/workstation applications. Used in blade/cabinet servers, often in a physical dual-CPU configuration. Based on the C2Q, Core i7 or Phenom.

Core 2 Mobile / Turion - low-wattage adaptation of the C2D and Athlon designed for notebook computers.

Atom - Intel's mobile low-wattage processor for use in small electronics such as Netbooks or handheld PDAs.

[fishstix]

They should've kept the other naming scheme, duo/quad... Core 2 Sext or something. xD