What is the best time to buy a processor to get maximum longevity?

Does it make sense to buy a computer/processor the first year it comes out in order to get longevity out of it?

It makes sense to me but I wanted other thoughts.

With the Intels coming out this year, I thought this would be the time to buy a computer.

 

Well if that's how you're going to put it, then I suppose so. However, since CPUs are arguably the most rapidly changing components on a computer, it's really just a matter of time before it gets replaced by the next generation down the line. The best you can do is to purchase the most advanced unit at the time. Then hope that when the next model does come out, you won't go from state-of-the-art to obsolescence over night.

On the other hand, there's no guarantee even the most advanced CPU you buy won't turn out to be the last of that design, and is superseded by a totally new technology in CPUs. In that case, it won't matter much even you bought the most advanced unit.

Still, that doesn't mean it will stop working or won't give you the functions it did when you bought it. Rather then trying to predict the future of CPU development, a better way to reduce the time between most advanced and obsolescence, would be to simply look for a notebook (or desktop) with the most user upgradeable parts.

That way, you won't have to toss your notebook because you don't have the bragging rights to the latest XYZ CPU. I know that will be one of the primary element I'll be looking for in my next notebook (although bragging right won't have anything to do with it).

For me, the would be when they're at their cheapest!

 

It's a double edge sword. While the Core i's are new and should be around longer than the C2D's will be, there will always be a faster and more powerful version of the Core i coming out in the near future so you still run into the same problem. Just get the best system you can possibly afford that meets your needs and pray that it lasts. Most computers with moderate care will outlast the technology anyway so you should be okay. With Core i and Windows 7 being released at roughly the same time you should be good to go with one of these for the foreseeable future and I would imagine that the next version of Windows should run on most of the better hardware available today.

 

The best time is when you need it ;p It's impossible to know unless you work for intel really.

Though, experience has taught me to wait for a line refresh following new release before buying anything (see core duo/core 2 nonsense) - the icore line should be refreshed this summer, and even if they don't get much/any faster they will at least be more efficient power wise.

 

There are plenty of counter-examples to this. If you needed a new computer when Conroe came out, would you really have wanted to wait for a refresh considering the huge leaps Conroe made?

In my opinion, there is never a truly bad time to buy a new computer, but some times might be a little better than others. In particular, it's a good idea to buy when there's a big discount, or immediately after a price drop.

 

I can think of a few examples of a bad time to purchase a laptop. My ex decided she had to have a laptop last May. I kept telling her to wait a month till the Free Win 7 upgrade offer period began but she wouldn't wait. Now she's stuck with Vista instead of waiting the 3 weeks.

Another example is my oldest daughter who purchased a laptop 2 weeks before the Conroe laptops first became available (the return period expired the day before they hit the store).

Neither of them actually needed their laptop at that exact moment and would have benefited greatly by waiting a short bit.

But I agree that waiting is a delicate balancing act. Sometimes you just have to move ahead knowing that there will always be something better, faster, bigger, and less expensive somewhere down the line.

 

The cpu in just about any machine sits around waiting for user input and data from the hdd/sdd. the question isn't how much cpu can you buy, it's how do you buy a machine that is built from a set of performance-balanced components.

 

Longevity depends on what your computer needs are and not the hardware. Set the goals on what you want out of the machine and get one that satisfies its requirements. You'd be surprised that often you don't need the latest to do what you want.

cheers ...

 

Most users simply don't need the power of Clarksfield--many not even need the power of Arrandale! I'm sure my parents (which use computers for nothing but internet, email, and Word) would be perfectly happy with a C2D for years to come.

Also, the last *three* laptops I owned failed at a time when their respective CPU was still sufficient for me. Longevity of a mobile device depends on many things other than processor speed.

 

Intel Roadmap:

Summer 2010-Arrandale/Clarksdale refreshed, faster cpu's introduced
Q1 2011-Sandy Bridge 32nm cpu's introduced
Summer 2011-Sandy Bridge cpu's refreshed
Q1 2012-Ivy Bridge 22nm cpu's introduced
Later 2012-22nm Haswell cpu's introduced
2013/2014- Rockwell 16nm cpu's introduced

So basically every 6 months Intel has a new group of cpu's. If you want processor longevity, get an AMD because they seem to take longer in bringing out new cpu's.

 

I would disagree.. AMD CPU's are usally lousier than intel's one so u need to upgrade more often then.. if u really want to have a processor which lasts for long , than getting a quad now would allow u to keep it and upgrade to sandy bridge maybe... so now would be the time to buy..

 

I wish it were that simple. Unfortunately, there little guarantee to any future updates beyond a year or so. The rest is at best an educated guess; at worse wishful thinking.

That's because they're alway playing catch-up

Lousy is a bit unfair. In fact, is some cases AMD exceeds Intel--price for one. However, I will concede to Intel due to there overall slight technological superiority, and product placement.

 

Only currently, with the advent of Intel's Core Duo CPUs have they been better than AMD. That doesn't necessarily mean that AMD CPUs are lousier than Intels though...

 

This is exactly true.

Waiting for the next update, means a constant wait as there is always something better just around the corner.


The best bang for the buck though, is usually to buy somewhere between the lowest of the top brand or the 4th from the top of the line. It doesn't matter if you were to buy today, or 6 months from now. So right now, you want somewhere between the lowest Core I7, or just a few models down from the top. The price difference between the very top, and something a bit lower is HUGE, but the performance difference is minor. Especially now that cpu performance has gone so far ahead of things and taken somewhat of a backseat to graphics in gaming.

Granted, this time Intel has 3 lines more or less, so even a decent I-5 isn't going to be a bad deal, but you should never buy the top of the line or from the lowest line (I-3), it's simply a waste of money at least in terms of longevity.

 

The difference between Core i3s and Core i5s isn't that big, really, so I'd say it all comes down to price. However, since the mobile Core i3s are all OEM parts, I can't give a conclusive answer. I wouldn't suggest a laptop quad-core unless you do a lot of video encoding or similar tasks.

 

Wait , Wait.. Did i get this correctly? Are u saying Core 2 Duo CPU's just came out? For the matter they came out , 2 years ago and AMD still have nothing to beat them and now there's the Core I series which is way better than Core 2 Duo and is thrashing everything to the ground.. AMD has nothing which can even compete with my almost 2 year old T9400... and even with what it has , it barerly keeps up with P7000 series... and not to mention worse battery life , overheating etc.. AMD isn't just behind intel but whatever it has in the mobile market , it just ain't lousy, its crap full stop. I'm not going to argue about their desktop processors. No doubt about it. Price and perfromance wise , they're better than intel. But as far it goes , mobile sector wise, they're an epic fail.

 

No he isn't saying that C2Ds just came out. For several years during the Pentium 3 and 4 era the AMD cpus outperformed Intels processors for the most part. It wasn't until Intel released the C2Ds that Intel was able to reclaim the cpu leaderboard back from AMD. You just need to take his comments in context.

 

What he meant is that Intel took the lead after their Core Duo architecture. Before AMD Athlons were thrashing Pentiums around the block.

Basically Intel's Core Duo combined with AMD buying ATI(and causing themselves massive debts that they still are paying off) caused AMD's downfall.

But in the mobile sector they've more or less always been second rate to Intel even back in the days(but at least then they could keep up).

 

And in number crunchers/super computers that use the x86/AMD64 instruction sets, AMD Opterons were kicking everything Intel could come up with up to and including the recently released Neahlem-EX generation of server chips.

Neahlem-EX has some recent one-off design wins in supercomputers that are intended to run Windows HPC Server/Cluster. But for everything else, including Linux clusters, Opteron Shanghai/Istanbul and the new 12-core Magny-Cours generation of AMD chips still rule the roost. This week, anyway.

Intel has recently shown off what is essentially a 48 core Atom MCM (multi-chip-module) that runs on a power budget of 100-130 watts. Whether or not this particular offering has the raw IEEE floating point performance to challenge AMD in number-crunching is unknown.

 

Correction: The Intel SCC(Single Chip Cloud) 48-core chip is not based on Atom. Each cores are exactly P54C "Pentium" cores and TWO of them are smaller than single Atom core. It is a pure research product and those that state that its anywhere near a real world product shouldn't teach others technology.

Nehalem-EX can not compete with latest Opteron in HPC and compute bound apps like virtualization, but can kick the pants off Opteron in database. Remember, the recently released 6 core Xeon performs similar to the 12 core Opteron at same socket counts, too bad that Opteron can do 4P while 6 core Xeon stops at 2P. Fortunately for AMD it has gained virtual monopoly at that cheap, 4P server segment.

To OP: Buy when architectural refresh is released. The process shrinks are generally small gains and when new architecture comes out it'll look worse than when you bought a new arch CPU and a process shrink comes out.

 

What are you going to do with it? If you don't use programs which need powerful CPUs, it doesn't matter when or what you buy. Even a 2.5Ghz Core 2 Duo is a technological overkill for the majority of buyers.

 

thanks for the correction on the origins of the 48 core part.

 

Meh, you buy a processor when it first comes out, you'll likely paying a premium. You are better off getting an older processor and spending that extra money on components that matter.

For example, I find having an extra laptop battery far far more productive than spending $200 extra dollars on upgrades that will only marginally increase my productivity.

 

Unless, of course, your application requires the more advanced processor? Since it's not always clear how the computer will be used, you have to steer away from blanket statements without having more of the specifics.

 

Purchases in the computer world are always related to your uses.

 

With how powerful modern CPUs have become, especially the high-end quadcores from both Intel and AMD, I think the current gen of CPUs may last for quite a while. GPUs, IMO, has a faster turn-over rate than CPUs at this point in the game. But if you have a i7 or a Phenom II X4 9xx, it will certainly be plenty powerful for a vast majority of computer users and gamers for a few years to come. Because definition of being obsolete can either mean comparison between hardware or comparison in performance related to software.

I think things will certainly get obsolete every year as new improvements roll out but then again when talking about real world performance just how much of a difference are you going to see between a Core i7 975 and a Core i7 980X ? (unless of course there are those who can actually use programs that take advantage of the 2 extra cores and/or are bench junkies). So in the end it's all end-user based. If you can utilize the new techonology and it helps you do your work/save time/make more money/etc. then you can get the latest and greatest but for avg user and gamer I think the current latest gen of CPU will be more than enough for maybe even 4-5 years down the road, IMO.

 

If you don't stress your CPU often, a $1000 CPU will perform NO better in real life than a $100 one since CPUs downclock when cycles aren't required (thus saving power).

 

Isn't ATI now making epic profits for AMD now and is actually making profits?

 

It is, but AMD hasn't finished paying their debt and cutting their losses after buying ATI. There are a good few business articles around about the topic of AMD buying ATI and how it set them back.

 

Intel just gave AMD a good chunk of money to settle their antitrust practices lawsuit. AMD/ATI aren't doing too badly.

 

Indeed, I recall that "truce", but still, I never mentioned AMD was doing badly, just that buying ATI set them back.

 

Net income of $304 million still leaves them $2.8 billion in the hole from the previous year ($3.1 billion net loss in 2008). Things are improving, of course, but there's still previous years' losses and debts to consider.