Dual Core, Single Core, 64bit computing vrs 32 Bit, Windows Vista, shared graphics vrs dedicated cards and widescreens in various resolutions. AMD, Intel, DVD, Dual layer DVD. DDR memory.. dual channle DDR memory.
Frankly I don't think there has ever been a more confusing time to purchase a computer. I am focusing on Laptops here but the general information applies by and large to any current computer purchases.
First off lets talk 64 bit computing. I can go into long deep dark technical mumbo jumbo about the benefits of 64 bit computers. But the bottom line is this. If you don't know why 64 bits would help you.. and I mean knowing exactly and specifically why you need a 64 bit base address/instruction computational power then frankly for the time being 64 bit is going to get you absolutely zilch. In fact till driver re-writes iron themselves out it will probably give you more headaches than anything else.
Sales people will tell you horror stories about the comming of Windows Vista... ignore them. Mainstream need for 64 bits caused by the new OS is probably a good 3 years out. Certainly 2 baring a very bizare mass exodus from XP when the initial vista release happens early next year (supposedly). As such there is no reason to be bothered about 64 bits because A) in 2 to three years someone that will need 64 bit computing will buy a new system anyway. B) If you are not the kind of person who buys every 2-3 years then you won't care cause you will have a system that works for you.
So its not a don't buy thing. Its a don't spend more to have it thing unless you have a specific need for it. Again, If you don't know if you have a specific need for it then the answer is in all likely hood you don't. if the system you like has it and it falls in your budget range then great. But no big loss if it does not.
Dual Core. Now on the other hand this is a very big deal indeed. While dual core is not twice as fast as single core it is bringing a very large change to the computing experience in that finally the system has more than one main busy body to do all the work. Think of the number of cores as being akin to the number of secretaries available to do the work. Till very recently most systems only had one Secretary. They continually upgraded how fast the single secretary could do work but it was still just one secretary. So if any one task tied the secretary up completely you were shit outta luck. Dual core is like having Two secretaries. So something can tie up the first secretary and the second will chug right along doing other things. And as most people know even the single setup has gotten pretty good at appearing to do multiple things at once. Well now the system can ACTUALLY do two things at once rather than simply be so fast that it appears to be doing two things at once. The future is multiple core architechture.
The short version is you want Dual Core. And amazingly enough its normally not even a price hike over other options. The CPU manufacturers are offering the new dual core chips at essentially the same price as similar speed single core chips of equivalent technology. The only reason in the world not to get a Dual core system right now is because the options are far more limited (still not many systems which have them) and while they are identical in price to similar powered single core systems... they are not budget chips (older spec tech that exists at the cheapest end of the spectrum) so if you are going cheap then it may be a problem. However that only applies to the extreme budget level laptops (sub 1000). Starting at 1000 there are plenty of dual core options. I would strongly reccommend getting one if you are spending 1000 or more on your machine.
Choosing a chip speed. The longer you are thinking of using your system then the higher the chip speed you should consider buying. This has less to do with the speed and more to do with the quality of the manufacturing. You see it is a great rule of thumb when buying chips is to look a the full range of options and then opt for one or two steps down from the absolute screaming fastest possible. Why ? The fastest chips are pushing their tech to the limit... consider them race cars. Durability and reliability can often be an issue over the long term... the chip is always going to be racing along near its max potential. But the thing about most chips is that the lower speeds are not different chips. They are in fact the SAME chips. Just that in testing they prooved incapable of performing at the outter limits consistently enough to make the 'cut'. The first cuts are your mainstream cars that are high quality and all but bullet proof. The remaining cuts are simply less and less capable chips and when you land in the cheapest budget areas you are often dealing with the just above complete rejection chips.. or a top notch chip that is simply out moded tech. Knowing the difference there is what makes it hard to know what the good deals are in the budget systems. But that first or second tier chip is actually the chip the manufacturer expects to make. Its the chips that came out of the process in the middle of the bell curve. And as such almost always proove the most rock solid performers so long as they are kept withen their limits. If you have every heard of over clocking and wondered what it was all about. Well it is about taking these lower rated chips and actually jacking up their speeds to the next level. Its a gamble. Not always a bad gamble but still a gamble. It works because it behooves manufacturers to leave a comfortable margian of error in their grading process. Thus most of the chips are indeed capable of running at higher speeds... it is that very fact that makes them more reliable in their assigned range.
RAM. This is probably the single most misunderstood component of computers these days. People tend to get focused on the CPU that they forget about the RAM. Most typical system builds by stores like Comp USA and internet ordering sites like Gateway offer 'cheap' systems where they tout the CPU while the under spec the RAM. You want the highest speed the system can handle. And these days at least 1gb, and prefferably that 1gb on a single stick of RAM rather than split into two. If you have to get a cheap budget system the one single thing you should not compromise on is the amount of RAM. Max the system if you can (2gb typically). It is the best money you will ever spend on a computer component.
Screen/Size. I group these together with laptops because the size of the LCD is what is most responsible for determining the overall size and portability of the package. If you are wanting a highly mobile system then you do not want to consider anything over a 15.4 inch screen... and very few systems with that size of a screen would be what someone would call Svelt. For a great exception take a look at the Mac Book pro with that size. More typically for highly mobile systems you will deal with 14 or lower screen sizes. Wide screen vrs standard aspect (box or rectangle). Widescreen is one of those things that if you have never used one you probably won't miss it. But if you ever try it then you won't go back. Hence widescreen is a pretty good thing. In either case the thing to look for is the resolution. 1024 X 768 is a combination of numbers you will see an awful lot of. Especially in the budget end.. and to some extent in the ultra mobile setups. By and large you want to get something with at least a 1280 x something. standard aspects will be 1280 x 1024 while wide screens will often be 1280 x 800. Unless you go for a 17 inch screen you are fairly limited in your choices here. And if you see any of the 1650 x 1050 15.4 options you had best find an example to make sure the size of the information on the screen is easy for you to read (can get microscopic).
Each company has its own way of reffering to their screen technology. But really it boils down to matte or glossy. Make sure you see an example of the various screens. An investigation to best buy or similar store were you just peruse the laptops looking for the screens that impress you the most is a very good idea. Make a note of the terminology/model numbers ascociated with the display and then later when you are sorting through your various choices for a laptop you will be able to judge their screens. All in all screens are a HUGE useablity factor. A good screen can be the difference between a machine you hate to use and one which you love to use despite speed issues. A poor performer with a shitty screen will be a constant bur and annoyance. Be warned that the majority of the laptops at the cheap prices use very low quality displays and components.
keyboards/mouse etc... Often overlooked in laptops. But flimsy keyboards and poor build quality can lead to reliability issues. Check out examples from the various manufacturers and make sure to note systems that simply do not strike you as high quality. Typing a few lines on several laptops at a store if possible is a great way to do this. And it can be a real eye opener for folks. Many people are scared to touch the systems and thus never compare details like this. Similar testing should be done with the mouse. Though here I reccommend checking out review sights as users that own them will have a better chance to encounter the quirks... many of the touch pad mice are very sensitive to heat and if the laptop components are poorly placed then they can get hot and very erratic.
Hard Drives. After RAM this is the component that has the most to do with having the system work faster. Most systems these days have a cpu that is plenty fast. Even the el cheapo's. What really seperates the noticeable difference in useuability are hard drive size and spin speeds and RAM. 5400RPM drives are the typical choice. If you need long battery life then you are stuck with this option. 7200rpm drives suck down considerably more juice. The next thing to pay attention to are the HD cache's. The larger the cache the less often the drive actually has to go looking on the platters for recent information. A 5400rpm drive with a large cache can often perform comparably to a 7200rpm drive with a small cache except under specific circumstances. large caches can also cut down on HD activity so that can also extend battery life. Low end HD's have only 2mb of cache. The upper end seems to be around 16mb these days. This is a case where the more there is the better. If you system is typically going to be plugged in and not sitting directly on your lap then 7200 RPM 8mb cache (and up) hard drives are the way to go.
Connectivity. Identify any needs you have here. Wireless is the biggest must have in my book for a laptop. Some folks poo poo it. But I don't know anyone yet who gets introduced to wireless laptops on the couch that don't love it. Mostly a moot point as it is currently all but impossible to buy a lap top without it. The other considerations are the multi card reader slots. these are for things like compact flash, memory sticks, sd etc... from digital cameras and mp3 players. These are about half and half it seems. If you have some of the periphials that use these cards then a built in reader is very handy for easing transfers. Another one to keep an eye out for is blue tooth. Blue tooth seems to slowly but surely be in the process of making wires to periphial items obsolete. Printers, mice, phones, gps recievers etc are all examples of devices that are now available to connect wirelessly with your system via blue tooth. MP3 players are not far away. Laptops can ammass a surprising number of cables for all the various toys that connect to them. Blue tooth is a good way to eliminate many of them... and potentially enable you to use resources wherever you go. Wireless connectivity means you can have more than one person able to access a periphial unlike when it is physically connected and only one person can have the cable attached at once. This is deffinatly a less common option on systems but one which is well worth it if you have devices that take advantage of it. One great example is wireless bt headsets for cell phones. These could be used to connect to your laptop to use VOIP (internet phone calls) without needing some retarded headphones and boom microphone setup.
Finally DVD recording. If this is a big deal for you then dual layer capable systems are the way to go and you will have to make sure it is an option most times. If its a non issue for you then single layer burners are very common equipment... the budget systems normally have DVD reader CD burning combo drives.
Graphics. For the officianados and folks that want to do things like Photoshop work or run games. Get a dedicated graphics card with at least 128 mb of dedicated memory. If you are interested in running the vista aero stuff that is also a good minimum though knowing microsofts history I would advise getting 256mb or even higher. Otherwise if you are not doing any graphics intensive work (viewing snapshots does not qualify... am talking about in depth image manipulation or video editing tasks) then shared memory will most likely do you well. If you have two systems that are otherwise equal and one has a dedicated card and the other has shared memory I would suggest going with the dedicated carde. Often even if the dedicated amount of memory is less than the shareable amount. Its similar to that dual core thing. A dedicated graphics processor and memory is a widget that can do something at the same time as the main processor. Sharded graphics actually use the CPU and system RAM. Thus in dual core systems with shared graphics what you are going to see happen is large shareable graphics options that essentially turn one of the cpu cores into a graphics processor and you will be back to single core. If you are doing just typical office ap work, email, web browsing, then this isn't going to be an issue. But when you start doing some heavy lifting graphics it will cause a noticeable performance issue on your system... if it is capable of doing it at all.
Well I think that about covers it. recap.
64 bit is largely something to ignore. But not a bad thing if it is in the system you finally decide on. Just shouldn't be a real driver for your choice.
Dual Core... Is very good. You want. You should get. Easiest reccomendation I can make.
RAM - Fastest speed the system will handle and as much of it as you can afford. On one stick if possible.
HD - 5400 rpm for battery life. 7200 rpm for performance. 8mb cache minimum, preferably 16mb.
Screen - I would reccomend Wide screen with at least 1280 X 800 resolution. Systems intended to be portable should not have more than a 15.4 screen. And that is pushing it. 15.4 are the hybrid systems somewhere between highly mobile systems and the sedentary desktop replacement systems. And be warned, some 15.4's are deffinatly aimed at being desktop replacements as well.
Disc Drive - Unless you really need something small do not get a system that does not have one. Modular systems are a good idea. These are suspect number one for wearing out and modular systems means they are easy to replace. Normally it also means you can add an extra battery for long cordless operation.
Overall build quality - often overlooked due to brand prefference or falling in love with something you never see. Take the time to demo various models whether they interest you or not just to get a feel for the range of build quality and how different it feels/sounds etc... Small detail that has a lot to do with long term happiness with a system.
Connectivity - Wireless, all in one card readers and BT are the biggies. USB is damn near universal as is a single fire wire port. Another thing to look for is S-video out and VGA/DVI monitor outputs. S lets you put out a signal to a TV with an S input. THe others are so you can use regular computer monitors (bigger screens) which can be nice to have at home if you don't have a stand alone desktop system. Basically it allows you to turn your lap top into your 'grey computer box'.
AMD vrs Intel chips - Opinions vary all over the place on this. Currently Intel is the only Dual core laptop chip provider in town. Thus by and large I am saying buy Intel. AMD has annouced its X2 chip that is also 64 bits. If I had to buy a system now I would get an Intel Core Duo. If I could wait a year. I would hold out and flip a coin between a merom 64 bit Intel dual core or AMD X2 64 bit chip from AMD. Price would most likely be the real key. AMD may well have a slight performance edge but its a bench mark edge. Funtional difference to the end user from either chip will be almost undetectable without a stop watch and an anal retentive nature for noticing very small details. If you ask me the only legitimate argument between the chips will be the one over power usage. Most likely they will be very similar as well. For now Intel has the tech lead with 65nm chip etching vrs AMD's 90nm. But for various reasons AMD is able to make up the ground in other areas with different design decisions... the real bottom line of which the difference is very small in most cases. Now when AMD gets down to 65nm with Intel then it might be a different story.
And that about covers it. Long ramble about info that will soon be out of date.
No comments:
Post a Comment