Speed Secrets
When you're looking for a new PC, deciding between Intel and AMD is only the beginning. Here's how to master the spec sheets and choose a genuinely speedy machine.Jeff Bertolucci
Competition is a beautiful thing--especially if you're looking for a speedy new PC. Almost daily, Intel and AMD intensify their pitched battle for CPU supremacy. New chip companies enter the fray. Processor performance shoots up. Prices tumble. Buyers get more computer for less money.
But competition can also be confusing. Which CPU best fits your particular needs--Athlon? Celeron? Duron? Pentium III? Or should you fork over the extra bucks for one of the first Pentium 4 systems? What's more, the CPU wars are only the beginning. Will your new PC get more of a speed boost from RDRAM or SDRAM? How about DDR SDRAM? Megahertz or gigahertz? Chip sets galore. Homework!
Just four years ago, Intel's Pentiums first inched past the 200-MHz mark. Now the new Pentium 4 is flirting with speeds of 1400 MHz (1.4 GHz), with no upper limit in sight. But the days when megahertz was all that mattered are long gone. Components such as memory, hard drives, and graphics cards can make a huge difference in system performance. Even relatively obscure parts like processor chip sets--those unglamorous slabs of support silicon that regulate data flow between the CPU and memory or peripherals--play a big part.
You need to make sense of it all, and that's not always easy to do. Some performance claims are based on cold, hard facts; others are sheer hype. Too often the technical arcana posing as intelligence are about as understandable as the nutritional information on a box of Froot Loops.
That's why we've assembled this no-nonsense guide to CPUs, RAM, graphics subsystems, and other PC components (see "Anatomy of a PC: The Inside Story" ). We'll help you find the speed you need--at the price you want to pay.
Jeff Bertolucci is a freelance writer based in Denver. Eric Dahl is a staff editor for PC World.
CPUs: The Processor Wars Heat Up
When you buy a PC, selecting a CPU remains your most important decision--and your choices are staggering. If you're in the market for a top-flight PC, you have plenty of options. Intel's Pentium 4, the current speed champ, comes in at clock rates approaching 1.4 GHz or greater. Nipping at its heels are the 1-GHz-plus AMD Athlon and Intel Pentium III CPUs.
Combined with pricey components such as Rambus DRAM (RDRAM) or Double Data Rate (DDR) SDRAM memory, 3D graphics accelerators, and ultrafast ATA/100 hard drives, these barn burners are suitable for heavy-duty multitasking and demanding applications such as computer-aided design and photo or video editing. But speed tends to be costly: Expect to pay $2000 and above for systems based on these CPUs (see the chart "Where the Chips Fall: How Today's CPUs Stack Up").
CPU Flavors
The 700- to 900-MHz Athlons and Pentium IIIs are powerful yet affordable midrange choices for business and home users. Priced from $1000 to $2000, PCs based on these chips are great if you keep a word processor, spreadsheet, and Web browser open and frequently jump between them. Our PC WorldBench 2000 tests show only a few percentage points' difference between 800- and 900-MHz Athlons and Pentium IIIs. PCs based on those processors are among the fastest we've tested.
The PC market's bargain segment--systems under $1000--isn't saddled with weakling chips, either. Choices include the AMD Duron, Intel Celeron, and Via Cyrix III. AMD's Duron is the top CPU here, offering competitive prices, faster speeds, a larger cache, and a 200-MHz front-side bus (the bus serves as a digital pathway that transfers data and instructions from the CPU to the rest of the system). In last month's Top 10 review of budget PCs, the Sys Technology TaskMaster 600D, equipped with a 600-MHz Duron, outscored a comparably equipped Pentium III-600 system on our PC WorldBench 2000 tests by 13 points. Duron PCs are ideal for someone who runs standard business programs and an occasional game or two. Users with more-demanding graphics and multitasking applications will want a faster Athlon, PIII, or P4 system, however.
Cost-conscious buyers will also find bargains among systems equipped with Celeron and Via Cyrix III processors. Business and home users who usually perform standard computing tasks--such as word processing, e-mail, or Web browsing--will like the selection of desktops priced between $500 and $600, too. Most of these discount boxes have a CPU that runs at 500 MHz or faster. On the downside, many of these PCs provide only 32MB of RAM--64MB or 128MB is better for keeping several applications open at once--and come equipped with hard drives and other components that are slower, which hamper overall system performance.
The Skinny on Pentium 4
At press time, Intel's Pentium 4 was the new kid in town. Though we didn't have any systems to test based on that CPU, tune in next month for hands-on reviews of the first P4 PCs. Sporting a clock speed of 1.4 GHz, the Pentium 4 delivers more than just raw speed. It features the PC industry's fastest front-side bus, which runs at a blistering 400 MHz--three times faster than the Pentium III's 133-MHz bus, and twice as fast as the Athlon's 200-MHz bus. (AMD plans to boost the Athlon's bus speed to 266 MHz by the end of this year, however.)
But you shouldn't assume that a faster bus automatically makes applications run faster. In most cases, your word processor or spreadsheet doesn't need the extra velocity. For example, we ran tests on more than a dozen 800-MHz Pentium IIIs, each with a 133-MHz bus, using our PC WorldBench 2000. The average score of 150 was impressive. However, several 800-MHz PIIIs with slower, 100-MHz buses performed just as well.
So who will benefit from the Pentium 4's higher clock rates and bus speeds? People seeing the most improvement will probably be users of photo- or video-editing software, 3D games, and other graphics-intensive programs--"something that does a lot of disk and memory accesses, such as Adobe Photoshop," says Intel spokesperson George Alfs.
One of the Pentium 4's most interesting--and potentially confusing--characteristics is its chip-set and memory architecture. Intel originally stated that Pentium 4 PCs would require RDRAM for main memory--a memory type that offers little or no improvement over industry-standard PC133 SDRAM on PIII systems, according to PC WorldBench 2000 tests. At press time, Intel's 850 chip set--the only chip set that will support the P4 when it premieres in PCs--uses dual-channel RDRAM modules. However, Intel and chip-set competitor Via Technologies plan to introduce chip sets for the P4 early next year that will support PC133 SDRAM modules, and Via will also introduce a chip set for DDR SDRAM (see "Chip Sets and RAM: Partners in Performance" for a discussion of memory technologies).
AMD will counter the P4 with a souped-up version of the Athlon, code-named Mustang, that's scheduled to ship by the end of this year. It will feature a larger, 1MB Level 2 (secondary) cache (a chunk of on-chip memory that stores data that the CPU will most likely need next) and a 266-MHz front-side bus.
Athlon Versus Pentium III
The Pentium 4 may be getting all the attention, but most of us will still be buying Athlon and PIII systems for some time to come. The AMD Athlon has proven itself a worthy competitor of the Pentium III. With speeds ranging from 600 MHz to 1.1 GHz and beyond, the Athlon has earned the respect of industry reviewers and computer manufacturers. Major PC vendors, including Compaq and Gateway, sell high-end Athlon-equipped systems.
The Athlon's PC WorldBench 2000 scores are impressive, typically matching those of similarly equipped PIIIs in everyday business tasks. The Athlon's superior number-crunching floating-point unit (FPU), a processor component designed for specific mathematical functions, gives it a slight edge over the PIII in graphics-laden programs such as AutoCAD and Quake 3. "Athlon is quicker at a given clock speed," says Giga Information Group vice president and industry analyst Rob Enderle.
Until relatively recently, CPUs had a fast Level 1 (primary) cache built into the processor, and a slower Level 2 cache connected by a data bus to the chip. But today's CPU designs integrate both types of cache in the processor, and the result is speedier performance.
Level 2 cache memory, which was a performance bottleneck on the first-generation Athlon, is no longer an issue thanks to an integrated, 256KB L2 cache introduced last summer. The original Athlon suffered from a slower, 512KB, off-chip L2 cache, but that CPU should be history by the time you read this. To make sure you're buying an up-to-date Athlon PC, check its specs: The box should have 384KB of total processor cache (L1 plus L2). If the specs list 256KB of L2 cache, that's fine too. The Athlon's total cache surpasses the PIII's 288KB total cache (32KB of L1 and 256KB of L2). Generally speaking, the larger the on-chip cache, the better the performance.
The Pentium III, despite its smaller cache size and less stellar FPU (compared to the Athlon's), is no slouch either. It remains the midrange workhorse in Intel's CPU stable, with speeds at press time ranging from 733 MHz to 1 GHz. "If you just write letters to Mom, a Pentium III is good enough, but if you do video editing, speech recognition, and entry-level workstation stuff, the P4 might be more your cup of tea," says Intel's Alfs.
In truth, the PIII is much more capable than that. It's fast enough to handle heavy-duty graphics applications such as CAD and video editing. And if all you need is a word processor, you're probably better off saving a few hundred bucks with a dirt-cheap, 566-MHz Celeron. The PIII is a solid mainstream performer--for now, anyway. "Intel's plan is to introduce the P4 as a high-end part, then quickly migrate it down to the mid-performance PC market to compete with Athlon," says industry analyst Bob Merritt of Semico Research.
According to Giga Information Group's Enderle, Athlon, released just last year, has a newer architecture and greater headroom for higher clock speeds in the future, whereas the aging PIII has pretty much reached its apex at 1 GHz. "They might be able to go up a little more than that, but we're right at the end of the PIII," Enderle says.
Well, perhaps not. Intel is developing a revamped PIII, code-named Tualatin, that's slated for release sometime in the middle of next year and will likely compete with the Athlon in the $1000-to-$1500 market, says InQuest Research analyst Bert McComas. The Tualatin will feature a larger, 512KB L2 cache and support either a 133- or a 200-MHz system bus. It may also allow the use of DDR SDRAM, but it's possible that Intel may reserve DDR for P4 systems, McComas speculates. So the PIII isn't dead yet.
Cheap Chip Choices
For PC users with simple needs--a little bit of Web browsing here, a mail merge there--so-called value processors might be a better buy than the PIII or Athlon. Boxed in PCs priced under $1000, chips such as the AMD Duron, Intel Celeron, and Via Cyrix III have speeds starting at 500 MHz. By the end of this year, the Celeron and Duron should reach--or get close to--800 MHz, and the Cyrix III will hit 700 MHz.
For speed at an affordable price, the Duron rocks. Our PC WorldBench 2000 scores show Duron PCs running neck and neck with the PIII. Not only did a 600-MHz Duron PC smoke a 600-MHz PIII by 13 points, it also scored a mere 5 points lower than a comparably equipped, 733-MHz PIII.
The Duron shines even brighter when you compare it to the Intel Celeron or the Via Cyrix III. Its 200-MHz front-side bus is three times faster than the Celeron's 66-MHz bus, and its 192KB of integrated cache (128KB Level 1 and 64KB Level 2) is 20 percent larger than the Celeron's 160KB (32KB L1 and 128KB L2). The larger the caches, the less often the CPU has to call out to main memory for information and instructions--and the improved efficiency translates into faster system performance.
Remember, though, that system performance depends on more than just the CPU. Consider, for example, that Celeron PCs usually ship with a graphics controller integrated into their chip set rather than one mounted on a dedicated graphics accelerator card, like those used in most PIII systems. Such integrated graphics controllers often share their memory with the PC's main system memory. Stress the system, and graphics performance will often slow down, resulting in the likes of choppy video playback in the latest 3D games. If you're a serious gamer, you'll be better off investing in a pricier PIII or Athlon PC.
The Via Cyrix III has a 128KB L1 cache but no L2 cache, making it the slowest of the three bargain chips. Via Technologies plans to introduce by early next year an updated Cyrix III--code-named Samuel II--that will include a performance-boosting, 64KB L2 cache. As for the front-side bus, the Cyrix III supports speeds of 66 MHz, 100 MHz, or 133 MHz. At press time, no major PC vendors in the United States had announced plans to use the Cyrix III chip, so its popularity among computer makers remains uncertain.
The Cyrix III will appear in systems starting around $500 or $600 by the end of the year, according to Via Technologies' director of marketing, Richard Brown. Clock speeds range from 500 MHz to 700 MHz, but even Via concedes that the chip isn't designed to be a speedster, particularly on graphics applications. "If you're looking at things like floating point, the Celeron definitely has better performance," admits Brown. However, when running standard productivity programs such as word processors and Web browsers, Celeron and Cyrix III performance "is pretty much equivalent," he says. The truth remains to be seen. Analyst Linley Gwennap of The Linley Group agrees that the performance of the Via Cyrix III may rival that of the Celeron, but only because Intel's bargain chip is running out of steam. "As Intel continues to crank the Celeron's clock speed, the chip is getting constrained by its 66-MHz bus," Gwennap says.
Intel is developing a Cyrix III competitor, code-named Timna, that will ship sometime early next year in computers priced at less than $700. The Timna will reduce system costs by integrating the graphics and memory controllers on the chip with the microprocessor. Timna's highly integrated design is not likely to interfere with system performance, Gwennap believes. In fact, he suggests, it might help some applications. "When you integrate the memory system onto one chip, there's actually a performance benefit in that the CPU doesn't have to go to the chip set to talk to memory," he says.
Will Timna present another confusing processor product line for computer buyers to consider as they shop? Probably not, according to Gwennap. "Intel will likely introduce the Timna under the Celeron brand," he says. "The end user probably isn't going to care whether a 600-MHz Celeron PC has a Timna or Celeron chip inside."
What else is on the horizon for bargain hunters? Higher clock speeds are a given. But PCs will also need faster motherboards and peripherals to realize a real speed boost. Intel's next-generation Celeron chip, for instance, will probably upgrade the current version's poky 66-MHz bus to 100 MHz or higher, analysts predict--not because Celeron buyers are clamoring for it, but because the Duron's 200-MHz bus has raised the bar for low-end computing performance. "It depends on whether Intel sees the 66-MHz bus as a competitive weakness" says Enderle. "But honestly," he predicts, "I'm not convinced Celeron buyers will see the difference when running day-to-day applications." He also says that the system bus isn't a bottleneck for common applications. Intel officials agree. "Bus speed is of lesser importance for Celeron," says Intel's Alfs. "Consumers focus on the megahertz." In other words, when people do their comparison shopping, most pay more attention to a PC's CPU type and speed (Celeron-600, Duron-600, and so on) than they do to the nitty-gritty of what makes a PC run fast.
A wide array of subtle system bottlenecks do affect PC users, however. Affected people range from the everyday word processing crowd to the especially vulnerable group of users who rely on graphics software in their work with high-resolution images. One solution is to add more memory. If your hard drive churns when you jump from one open application to another, adding extra RAM can help. For instance, the average Pentium III-500 PC with 128MB of RAM ran nearly 13 percent faster on our PC WorldBench 2000 benchmark than the average PIII-500 with just 64MB of memory.
Mobile, Power-Saving CPUs
The mobile computing front is changing rapidly, too. Laptop users in search of power-cord-free, all-day computing may finally have an answer to their prayers. And the solution isn't coming from chip behemoths Intel or AMD: Transmeta's Crusoe, a unique mobile processor designed to boost battery life, is expected to be shipping this year in 3- to 4-pound portables from major PC makers such as Fujitsu, Hitachi, IBM, and Sony. (None were available for testing at press time, however.)
Rather than creating an Intel-compatible (x86) processor in hardware, Transmeta has created "code-morphing" software that translates x86 instructions into commands understood by the Crusoe's Very Long Instruction Word hardware engine. Operating systems and applications behave as if they're running on an x86 chip, though they're not.
The Crusoe chip promises stellar power savings--IBM anticipates 7 to 8 hours on a ThinkPad 240X. By comparison, a similarly equipped ThinkPad with a 500-MHz Pentium III chip runs for about 4 to 4.5 hours on a battery charge, the company says. Since Crusoe's hardware component is smaller and has fewer transistors than traditional mobile CPUs, it produces less heat and uses less power, making it ideal for lightweight, fanless notebooks and Web appliances. The Crusoe chip typically uses 500 milliwatts to 1.5 watts of power--a pittance compared to the 6 watts to 16 watts gobbled up by other mobile CPUs.
Apparently, however, IBM anticipates that the first-generation Crusoe will suffer from laggardly performance in comparison with the performance of mobile CPUs from AMD and Intel that have equivalent processor speeds. "The chip has a range of 300 MHz to 600 MHz, but its performance is much more like that of a 500-MHz PIII," says David Nichols, IBM's worldwide market segment manager. That speed disadvantage could decrease as subsequent versions of the processor emerge, though.
Meanwhile, competing mobile CPUs from AMD and Intel have power-saving technologies that the manufacturers claim reduce average power consumption to within striking distance of Transmeta's Crusoe. Intel's SpeedStep technology, for instance, automatically cuts the voltage and processor speed of mobile Pentium IIIs when operating on battery power. For example, one mobile Pentium III processor runs at 600 MHz on AC power, but at only 500 MHz on batteries. AMD's PowerNow technology runs the CPU at different voltages and speeds, depending on the needs of an application. Which technology offers the best overall power savings remains to be seen.
Chip Sets and RAM: Partners in Performance
Educated buyers focus on chip sets and memory, both of which have a huge impact on system price and performance. Don't get us wrong: Unless you're building a PC from scratch, you probably won't be able to hand-pick a particular chip set, such as the Intel 820 or Via Technologies' Via Apollo KT133. But it's a good idea to understand the capabilities and limitations of the chip set and memory you're buying. If you don't, you may overpay for features or components you don't need.
Chip set information isn't always easy to find, though. Your best bet is to scan a vendor's Web site for technical specs, but even then you might come up empty-handed. We couldn't find chip set details for Presario desktops at Compaq's site; however, similar information was easy to track down at Dell's and Gateway's sites.
You can't discuss chip sets without also discussing main memory--the two are inexorably intertwined. Intel's high-end 820 and 820E chip sets, for instance, support Rambus DRAM, or RDRAM, a cutting-edge memory technology designed to take advantage of today's ultrafast CPUs. Whereas conventional SDRAM PC memory--PC100 or PC133--uses a wide, 100-MHz or 133-MHz memory bus to transfer data between the CPU and main memory, RDRAM uses a relatively narrow, 600-, 700-, or 800-MHz bus. (Most computers ship with PC100 or PC133 SDRAM.)
Theoretically, RDRAM should result in faster system performance. RDRAM PC-800 (800-MHz) memory, for instance, offers a maximum data-transfer rate of 1.6GB per second--60 percent faster than PC133's top rate of 1GB per second. But the PC World Test Center found that RDRAM offered no performance gain for mainstream applications, and only a slight boost for high-end graphics programs such as AutoCAD.
No surprise there, says Intel's Alfs. "On sequential benchmarks where you run Word for a while, then Excel for a while, the memory bandwidth isn't taxed," he says. "Those kinds of apps don't require a lot of bandwidth."
Analysts agree that today's applications aren't sufficiently demanding to prove the virtues of Rambus. "I agree with Intel's comment," says Semico's Bob Merritt. "There probably aren't industry-accepted benchmarks that do the multitasking, high-performance, data-streaming apps that could accurately test RDRAM." So what is RDRAM best for? Programs that shovel enormous chunks of data between memory, the CPU, and the hard drive. One example, says Alfs, is Photoshop, which users often call upon to edit multiple high-resolution images.
The speedy, 1.4-GHz Pentium 4, with its 400-MHz bus, will aid Rambus performance, according to Intel. Analysts are skeptical, however. Intel is "trying to put Rambus into systems where SDRAM is more economical," says Semico Research senior vice president Sherry Garber.
Indeed, if RDRAM's only sin were that it provided just marginal performance gains, few computer users would care. But it's also expensive, adding roughly $150 to $200 to the price of a computer. At press time, a spot check at Price Watch, a search engine that finds street prices for computer goods, revealed that a 128MB Samsung PC133 module listed for about $100, whereas a 128MB Samsung PC-800 RDRAM module was about $250.
Together at Last
The first batch of Pentium 4 systems will use the 850 chip set, formerly code-named Tehama. The 850 supports the 400-MHz front-side bus, two channels of RDRAM memory, and AGP 4X graphics (see "Graphics If You Want 'Em"). The 850 also uses a new I/O controller hub (which provides an interface to the PCI bus), the ICH2 (also part of the Intel 820E and 815E chip sets) that supports high-end features such as the fast ATA/100 hard drive standard (see "Disks and Other Power Secrets"), six-channel stereo sound, and multiple networking options for the computer manufacturer, such as 1-mbps home phone-line networking.
Intel is developing a Pentium 4-specific chip set slated to ship next year that will support PC133 SDRAM. At press time, Intel also said the company is evaluating DDR SDRAM--an evolutionary improvement over PC133 that offers memory bus speeds of 200 MHz or 266 MHz, as well as maximum data-transfer rates of 1.6GB or 2.1GB per second.
The verdict is still out on DDR's performance. But even if standard office apps don't fully utilize its impressive bandwidth, DDR should prove popular among memory manufacturers, analysts predict. "DDR has evolutionary features that make it attractive to DRAM vendors who think they can produce it in high volume," says Semico Research's Garber. And if DDR is cheaper to make than RDRAM, there's a greater likelihood you'll see PCs equipped with DDR very soon.
Cheaper production costs mean cheaper memory. According to Semico Research's Merritt, most DRAM makers expect a modest 5 to 10 percent cost premium for DDR SDRAM over PC133 SDRAM modules for the rest of this year. End users will likely see DDR SDRAM-based computers selling without the substantial price premium commanded by RDRAM-based systems.
Even if Intel decides not to support DDR SDRAM in its P4 chip set, competing chip set vendors will step in to fill the gap. Via Technologies, for instance, plans to introduce a P4 chip set next year that will support PC133 and DDR SDRAM. "Chip set suppliers will also provide DDR support for the Athlon," Merritt says. AMD's upcoming 760 chip set for the Athlon will support DDR as well, according to AMD product marketing manager Martin Booth.
Graphics If You Want 'Em
Many new midrange to low-end PCs feature one of Intel's 810E, 815, or 815E chip sets. The 810E is designed for low-cost Celeron PCs and includes integrated graphics. The 815 and 815E chip sets incorporate graphics features too, but also support either a graphics processor accelerator (or GPA, a card that plugs into an AGP slot and holds a 4MB SDRAM memory chip devoted to assisting in 3D functions) or a standard AGP 4X graphics card.
If you're serious about gaming, photo editing, or computer-aided design, an add-in card is a must. "The 815 has mediocre integrated graphics, and most users will notice better graphics performance with an external card," says Peter Glaskowsky, MicroDesign Resources senior analyst for 3D and multimedia technology. But if you're just crunching numbers in Excel, the lack of blazing graphics won't be a problem--unless, of course, you want ultrahigh resolution for huge spreadsheets.
It's exactly those cost-saving, mediocre integrated graphics that make the 815 and 815E chip sets attractive to corporate buyers. "The 815 has enough graphics power for any business application and thus has become a popular chip set," says Semico Research's Merritt.
The 815E includes the updated ICH2 controller bus found in the 820E, and hence supports the same list of cutting-edge features. Both the 815 and 815E support PC133 SDRAM. The older Intel PIII chip set, the 440BX, supports only slower PC100 SDRAM and lacks integrated graphics. It will be phased out early next year, according to Intel.
Intel has plenty of competition in the chip set market. Via Technologies' Via Apollo Pro133A and Acer Laboratories' Aladdin-Pro IV chip sets, for example, are popular among PC manufacturers as an alternative to the 815. Both chip sets lack integrated graphics--a surprising plus for many computer manufacturers and power-hungry end users. "A gamer would probably prefer to use this chip set and add a graphics card," says Merritt. "With the 815, you've already paid for the minimum graphics that you won't be using."
AMD, meanwhile, isn't twiddling its thumbs. The AMD-760 chip set, which should be in production by the end of the year, supports a 266-MHz front-side bus and 2.1GB-per-second DDR SDRAM. Impressive technical specifications, certainly. "AMD's 760 chip set is intended for the mid-level to high-end PC market and will quite possibly blow the 815 away," predicts Merritt. Similar to Intel's 820/RDRAM/P4 platform, AMD's 760/DDR SDRAM/Athlon design should shine with heavy-duty graphics applications and speech-recognition programs.
The graphics subsystem can be a bottleneck in performance that many buyers don't expect, because they assume their 600-MHz Celeron will rip through Quake and other graphics-intensive games. But even a PC with a breakneck-speed CPU won't deliver great gaming performance unless it's also got a high-powered graphics subsystem.
PC buyers often encounter a baffling array of graphics terms, so here's a quick primer.
- AGP stands for Accelerated Graphics Port. It is a dedicated channel between system memory and the graphics controller, which is typically on a board. Most new PCs have AGP graphics.
- Older PCs use the PCI (Peripheral Component Interconnect) bus for this task. Since the PCI bus is shared by other system components, including the hard disk, it's not ideal for graphics-heavy games and apps.
High-End Graphics
Many bargain PCs feature integrated graphics, but 3D graphics cards are a must for power users. "The primary user would be a gamer, but ordinary users will also see a difference," says analyst Glaskowsky. "You'll get snappier 2D graphics, and the ability to support higher resolutions on the screen"--a noticeable improvement over integrated graphics. For instance, the Intel 815's built-in graphics deliver a maximum 2D resolution of 1600 by 1200 at a measly 16 colors. But the Matrox Millennium G400 Max, the top pick in our Top 10 Graphics Boards chart, delivers a maximum 2D resolution of 2048 by 1536 with a whopping 16.8 million colors. The G400 Max will add about $200 to the cost of your PC. Of course, resolution that high would be overkill for most users with 17- or even 19-inch monitors. The primary benefactor of an ultrahigh-resolution display would be someone with a very large monitor (21 inches and up) who does lots of photo editing, for instance.
Which graphics chip is best? According to Glaskowsky, NVidia's GeForce2 Ultra leads the pack. On the memory side, boards with DDR SDRAM provide 20 to 50 percent faster performance than those using SDRAM, he adds. But the DDR SDRAM cards typically cost $50 to $75 more than the SDRAM versions, Glaskowsky says. In this month's Top 10, five of our ten picks use DDR memory, but the top choice--the G400 Max--does not. Keep in mind, however, that our overall graphics rating isn't based solely on performance, but rather on a combination of speed, features, price, and the vendor's support policies.
Future, faster graphics processors will be more adept at specific tasks, such as drawing pixels or calculating the locations of objects on the screen, Glaskowsky predicts. "By making the graphics chip smarter, you free the CPU to do more-important tasks, like managing a more sophisticated user interface for your PC." At the low end, integrated graphics are here to stay, he says, "because bargain hunters won't pay money for 3D graphics."
Disks and Other Power Secrets
ATA/100 Hard Drives: Faster or Not?
Your PC's hard drive presents another potential system bottleneck. A sluggish drive can hamper performance by slowing the transfer of data from the disk to your ultrafast CPU. Demanding applications such as speedy data-backup programs, or graphical presentations with embedded video clips, need the fastest drives around.
The biggest and fastest drives support the new ATA/100 specification. ATA/100 is the most recent version of the venerable IDE interface that moves data between the drive and the PC's motherboard. ATA/100 supports burst-data rates (top transfer speeds) as fast as 100 MBps, whereas the older--yet still popular--ATA/66 specification supports burst-data rates up to 66 MBps. Major hard drive makers, including IBM, Maxtor, Quantum, Seagate, and Western Digital, began shipping ATA/100 drives earlier this year.
At first glance the ATA/100 interface seems like the best choice for speed freaks, but its faster burst rate may not translate into dramatically better PC performance. That's because the average hard drive operates at a sustained data-transfer rate of only 36.5MB per second, according to IBM product application engineer Jeff Johnson. "Since the sustained data rate is lower than what ATA/66 can already handle anyway, ATA/100 might not be that much faster," he says. Analyst Bob Zimmerman of the Giga Information Group agrees: "The typical desktop user is not driving the storage subsystem anywhere near its capacity. Applications that come close include high-speed backup programs and anything with embedded video, such as a PowerPoint presentation with a 15-second video clip," he says.
Then again, it might help a little. "By bursting the data off the drive as fast as possible, ATA/100 helps overall performance," says Johnson of IBM, "but only by a few percentage points." So, peak transfer rates may exceed 66 MBps--but only occasionally, and only for the most demanding graphical programs.
That will change, however, as up-and-coming programs such as video editors demand a higher data-transfer rate. The advantage of ATA/100? Headroom. "If we put it in now, we enable a slight performance gain. More importantly, the next generation of applications and operating systems will be ready to go without any bottleneck," Johnson predicts.
Faster drive interfaces beyond ATA/100 are in the works. An industry consortium called the Serial ATA Working Group, which includes members from APT Technologies, Dell, IBM, Intel, Maxtor, Quantum, and Seagate, is developing data-transfer rates of 150 MBps and beyond; products could appear sometime next year.
In addition to keeping tabs on the ATA/100-versus-ATA/66 debate, you should also be aware of a drive's rotational speed, which is measured in terms of rotations per minute. Most of today's PC drives rotate at either 5400 rpm or 7200 rpm, although some SCSI drives spin as fast as 10,000 rpm. Faster disk rotational speeds mean less latency time--the amount of time the read/write head must wait for the drive to spin to the correct sector. On average, a 5400-rpm hard drive has a rotational latency of 5.7 milliseconds; for a 7200-rpm drive, the wait is only 4.2 milliseconds, according to Quantum.
Poky Ports
A system's I/O ports can slow system performance. The venerable serial port, with its maximum transfer rate of 115 kilobits per second, is fine for some external 56-kbps modems, but it's inadequate for such bandwidth-hogging devices as high-resolution, 3-megapixel digital cameras. The equally creaky parallel port is faster, at about 150 KBps (the enhanced ECP/EPP versions deliver approximately 2 MBps) but is still rooted in technology from the 1980s. And both of these ports lack Plug and Play features.
Universal Serial Bus, on the other hand, makes installation easy. Connect a scanner or a printer to a USB port, and Windows 98 or Windows 2000 will automatically recognize the device and will ask the user, if necessary, to install the appropriate driver. But USB's 12-megabit-per-second transfer rate is still too slow for those peripherals that require faster bandwidths, such as digital video cameras.
To the rescue is USB 2.0, a much faster specification that boosts the maximum transfer rate to 480 mbps. Vendors will begin shipping USB 2.0-compatible devices and add-in cards by the time you read this; and next year's PCs will include USB 2.0 ports (which will also support current USB products).
IEEE 1394, also known as FireWire (Apple's trademark for the technology), also delivers speeds ranging from 400 to 800 mbps and is designed for high-bandwidth devices such as digital video cameras. But 1394 ports aren't standard on PCs. Will USB 2.0 kill off 1394? Not very likely, according to Gartner Dataquest analyst Martin Reynolds. "In the near future 1394 will be the port of choice for set-top boxes, digital televisions, and other devices." So while video-editing buffs might want a computer with built-in 1394 ports, the rest of us should be well served by USB 2.0.
Big Bucks, Little Bang?
CPU and PC makers are fond of telling customers to buy systems built around the latest technologies to protect against obsolescence. Get a Pentium 4 because you'll actually need its blazing performance, oh, sometime next year. Go with RDRAM or ATA/100 because future apps may need the wider bandwidth.
But a wait-and-see approach is usually best. Take the Pentium 4. Unless you want to pay for the dubious benefits of RDRAM, you should delay your P4 PC purchase until after Intel and competing chip-set makers have enabled support for cheaper PC133 and DDR SDRAM. "We're not sure what the problems will be with the P4 architecture," Giga analyst Rob Enderle says, "and I'm not talking about the chip architecture so much as what needs to go on the motherboard to use the chip's improvements."
The good news? Even up-to-the-second innovations evolve into workhorse technologies--often sooner than you'd think. And when they do, they show up in mainstream, affordable PCs. Ultimately, buying a system based on proven, cost-effective components is one of the smartest moves you can make.
Anatomy of a PC: The Inside Story
Peek inside a PC, and you'll find a dizzying array of components connected to the motherboard. Here's a look at how those different chips, slots, and ports work together.
CPU The brain of the system, the CPU controls the calculations that run programs. Though other components are as important as the CPU, it still has the greatest influence on a PC's speed.
Chip Set These chips act as traffic cops on the motherboard, directing the flow of data and determining which devices the PC will support.
A chip set directs the flow of data from the CPU to the graphics board and system memory. It also determines the speed of the front-side bus, memory bus, and graphics bus, as well as the capacity and type of memory supported.
In addition, it directs the flow of data through the PCI bus, IDE drives, and I/O ports and determines which IDE standards and types of ports the system will support.
System Memory RAM holds programs and data where the CPU can access them while your PC is running. The amount, type, and speed of RAM has a large effect on system performance.
AGP This dedicated path for graphics data gives the graphics controller direct access to the CPU and main memory. AGP comes in three speed flavors--1X, 2X, and 4X, which can transfer data at up to 1.07GB per second. Faster AGP speed can aid performance in graphics-heavy 3D games.
IDE Data-storage devices like your hard disk and CD-ROM drive connect through the IDE interface. Early versions transferred data at 16.6MB per second. Common devices today use the ATA/33, ATA/66, or ATA/100 versions of the IDE and transfer data at up to 33.3 MBps, 66.6 MBps, or 100 MBps, respectively.
PCI This bus provides connections for internal devices such as sound cards, internal modems, and SCSI controllers. It can move data at 133 MBps. Many computers still house slots for cards that connect to the slower ISA bus.
I/0 Ports These provide connections (keyboard, mouse, parallel, serial, or USB) for external devices such as digital cameras, printers, and scanners.
--Eric Dahl
What's Next? Next-Generation CPUs, Chip Sets, and More
We've deciphered the latest CPUs, memory, and other components for you. Now here's a look at what's up next in PC hardware.
2000 Fourth Quarter
CHIP SET AMD 760High-end Athlon.
CHIP SET Via Technologies DDR P4: Keeps the heat on Intel to support DDR SDRAM.
BUS Intel 400-MHz for Pentium 4: Faster, Intel, faster!
CPU AMD Athlon Mustang: Athlon gets larger, 1MB L2 cache.
MOBILE CPU Transmeta Crusoe 5600: Will it really double battery life?
PORT USB 2.0: Up to 480-mbps transfer rate for digital video.
2001 First Quarter
CPU Via Technologies Samuel II: Brings much-needed L2 cache to Cyrix III.
CPU Intel Itanium: 64-bit processor for workstation/server market.
CPU Intel Timna: Integrated graphics and memory on the chip.
CPU Intel 800-MHz Celeron: Bargain chip inches toward 1 GHz.
BUS Intel 100-MHz Celeron front-side bus: Still lags behind AMD's Duron.
Third Quarter
CPU Intel Tualatin: PIII gets 512KB on-chip L2 cache and maybe 200-MHz bus.
CPU AMD Sledgehammer: Intel Itanium competitor.
Where the Chips Fall: How Today's CPUs Stack Up (chart)
| CPU | Vendor | Processing speed(MHz) | Typical system price | Bus speed(MHz) | RAM type(s) supported | Typical PC WorldBench 2000 score | Comments |
| Athlon | AMD | 600 to 1100 | $1000 to more than $2000 | 266 1 or 200 | PC100 SDRAM,PC133 SDRAM,DDR SDRAM 1 | 132 (600 MHz)to 158 (1 GHz) 2, 3 | BEST FOR: Folks such as graphics enthusiasts and gamers who use high-end applications. PRO: As fast as PIII. CON: Few systems are equipped with Athlon. |
| Celeron | Intel | 566 to 700 | Less than $1000 | 66 | PC66 SDRAM,PC100 SDRAM | 103 (566 MHz) to 118 (700 MHz) 2 | BEST FOR: Value seekers looking for a solid workhorse. PRO: Clock speeds keep rising. CON: Aging bus is slow by today's standards. |
| Duron | AMD | 600 to 750 | Less than $1000 | 200 | PC100 SDRAM,PC133 SDRAM | 133 (700 MHz) 2 | BEST FOR: Power seekers on a tight budget. PRO: Powerful, low-cost CPU. CON: No proven track record. |
| Pentium III | Intel | 733 to 1000 | $1000 to $2000 | 133 or 100 | PC100 SDRAM, PC133 SDRAM, RDRAM | 141 (733 MHz)to 165 (1 GHz) 2 | BEST FOR: Folks such as graphics enthusiasts and gamers who use high-end applications. PRO: Proven high-power chip. CON: Reaching its power peak. |
| Pentium 41 | Intel | 1400 to 1500 | $2000 and up | 400 | RDRAM; PC133 SDRAM, DDR SDRAM 1 | 4 | BEST FOR: Power-hungry users, early adopters, gamers, graphics-software gurus. PRO: Megafast internal clock speed and system bus. CON: No proven track record, pricey. |
| Via Cyrix III | ViaTechnologies | 500 to 700 | $500 to $600 | 133, 100, or 66 | PC100 SDRAM | 4 | BEST FOR: Bargain hunters. PRO: Can't beat $500 system price. CON: No L2 cache until next year. |