CPU decisions...
Discussion
I am looking into getting a new comp now as this one is falling to pieces...
Either:
Intel P4 830 3.0GHZ 800FSB 1MB LGA775 Dual Core
or.. AMD X2 4200+ Dual Core (Possibly 4400+)
The intel is much much cheaper, meaning more cash to spend on a Graphics Card (I'm buying Barebones)
The AMD would leave me a lot less cash to spend on a Graphics Card, which I would need for GT Legends..
But what are the performance differences between the two, which one would you go for? If i'm right the Clock speed of the Intel is less than that of AMD?
Need a bit of advice before buying I think!
Dave.
Either:
Intel P4 830 3.0GHZ 800FSB 1MB LGA775 Dual Core
or.. AMD X2 4200+ Dual Core (Possibly 4400+)
The intel is much much cheaper, meaning more cash to spend on a Graphics Card (I'm buying Barebones)
The AMD would leave me a lot less cash to spend on a Graphics Card, which I would need for GT Legends..
But what are the performance differences between the two, which one would you go for? If i'm right the Clock speed of the Intel is less than that of AMD?
Need a bit of advice before buying I think!
Dave.
if you got the AMD route - which to be honest is the best way if you are gaming but dont want to sacrifice the video card get a opteron chip for £100 or so!! (not sure which model it is off the top of my head) These bad boys overclock something silly and they even get up to FX57 speeds if you cool it right. The FX57 AMD Chip retails at £700 or something. 1mb on board cache also on the opteron
Get one of those and a Sli mobo, get either a 6800gt or a 7800gt, and at least a gig of ram and that will easily sort your gaming out for some time, plus allow you to upgrade to quite a hefty piece of kit if you want !
I have a 3200+ venice core in mine at the minute but i will be swapping it for an opteron before they phase them out. They are an overclockers wish come true !
Steve
>> Edited by lockstock2sb on Sunday 1st January 14:29
Get one of those and a Sli mobo, get either a 6800gt or a 7800gt, and at least a gig of ram and that will easily sort your gaming out for some time, plus allow you to upgrade to quite a hefty piece of kit if you want !
I have a 3200+ venice core in mine at the minute but i will be swapping it for an opteron before they phase them out. They are an overclockers wish come true !
Steve
>> Edited by lockstock2sb on Sunday 1st January 14:29
rich1231 said:
And how do the dual core Pentiums compare with AMD's offerings then?
>> Edited by rich1231 on Sunday 1st January 14:11
Yes, very very badly. I'm not too sure about the lower spec AMD's, but their Opteron's are the best server CPU's available at the moment IMHO. The issue with Dual core chips is that access to memory is generally shared between the 2 CPU's, so you get a lot of contention for resources and not a massive improvement in speed. However, the Opteron's architecture helps make good use of the extra processing power (though it will depend on the OS you're using).
HP went as far as saying that they did not recommend the Intel dual cores until at least generation 3 of the chips due to the way in which they access memory.
I've done a decent amount of performance comparisons with a wide variety of systems (in conjunction with IBM) and have since only spec'd AMD's for my high powered server systems.
D
edited to add: Performance comparison of AMD/Intel CPU's for gaming here - www.theinquirer.net/?article=26899
>> Edited by _deejay_ on Sunday 1st January 15:15
UncleDave said:The Athlon 64s are indeed 64 bit. They go up to around 4000 IIRC and a 3500 can be had for around £120.
AFAIK these are 64bit?
AMD64 X2 4200+ Dual Core I think
But either way a lot more powerful than this 3000+I just fancy going Dual for DVDs, Graphics software etc..
lockstock2sb said:Just make sure you cool them properly
if you got the AMD route - which to be honest is the best way if you are gaming but dont want to sacrifice the video card get a opteron chip for £100 or so!! (not sure which model it is off the top of my head) These bad boys overclock something silly and they even get up to FX57 speeds if you cool it right. The FX57 AMD Chip retails at £700 or something. 1mb on board cache also on the opteron
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=539390470426
Just to add my 2p worth. Im running a P4 3Ghz HT which I overclock to 3.3Ghz with no problems. It flies , but only with games/apps that are HT aware/capable. The few apps that cant use the HT effectively are significantly slower.
I would say go for the 3Ghz as its cheaper, buy at least a Gig of the fastest DDR2 RAM you can afford, making sure you get a motherboard that supports DDR2 RAM and PCI-EXPRESS for the video card. You can also save yourself a few pennies by getting a motherboard that includes surround sound so then you only need to buy the speakers. Oh and dont forget to use SATA hard disks (SATA 2 if you can find a motherboard that has it).
Then if you are serious about gaming get the best video card you can with the most on board memory, fastest processors etc...
then sit back and Enjoy :-)
Edited to add: Looking at a previous post, performance of the processor when used as a server cant be compared when used as a game machine - these are very different applications with different needs and dependencies. The graphics card will make the most difference on a games machine whereas a server needs raw processing power.
>> Edited by bigdods on Sunday 1st January 16:31
I would say go for the 3Ghz as its cheaper, buy at least a Gig of the fastest DDR2 RAM you can afford, making sure you get a motherboard that supports DDR2 RAM and PCI-EXPRESS for the video card. You can also save yourself a few pennies by getting a motherboard that includes surround sound so then you only need to buy the speakers. Oh and dont forget to use SATA hard disks (SATA 2 if you can find a motherboard that has it).
Then if you are serious about gaming get the best video card you can with the most on board memory, fastest processors etc...
then sit back and Enjoy :-)
Edited to add: Looking at a previous post, performance of the processor when used as a server cant be compared when used as a game machine - these are very different applications with different needs and dependencies. The graphics card will make the most difference on a games machine whereas a server needs raw processing power.
>> Edited by bigdods on Sunday 1st January 16:31
AMD wins Intel on 90% of apps at the moment, especially gaming.
to make the AMD run propperly though buy a decent PSU (you should buy one anyways) as the AMD still have pants power managment microcode where as Intel has this perfected but the CPUs run real hot .. .. .. .. .. and are not as powerfull at the moment (4 cores on the way in 2006 from intel so the rumour mongers are saying)
If you want the system for DVD + Gaming the CPU wont make too much diff out of the ones listed, the graphics card will make much much much more difference.
id spend more money on the graphics card, but if you want the biggest and best, mabe wait till feb as nv and ATI will both have their new products out by then
to make the AMD run propperly though buy a decent PSU (you should buy one anyways) as the AMD still have pants power managment microcode where as Intel has this perfected but the CPUs run real hot .. .. .. .. .. and are not as powerfull at the moment (4 cores on the way in 2006 from intel so the rumour mongers are saying)
If you want the system for DVD + Gaming the CPU wont make too much diff out of the ones listed, the graphics card will make much much much more difference.
id spend more money on the graphics card, but if you want the biggest and best, mabe wait till feb as nv and ATI will both have their new products out by then
bigdods said:I upgraded from a P4 3.0 GHz to an AMD A64X2 4400+ a few months agoe. The AMD is much, much faster.
Just to add my 2p worth. Im running a P4 3Ghz HT which I overclock to 3.3Ghz with no problems. It flies , but only with games/apps that are HT aware/capable. The few apps that cant use the HT effectively are significantly slower.
I would say go for the 3Ghz as its cheaper, buy at least a Gig of the fastest DDR2 RAM you can afford, making sure you get a motherboard that supports DDR2 RAM and PCI-EXPRESS for the video card. You can also save yourself a few pennies by getting a motherboard that includes surround sound so then you only need to buy the speakers. Oh and dont forget to use SATA hard disks (SATA 2 if you can find a motherboard that has it).
Then if you are serious about gaming get the best video card you can with the most on board memory, fastest processors etc...
then sit back and Enjoy :-)
Edited to add: Looking at a previous post, performance of the processor when used as a server cant be compared when used as a game machine - these are very different applications with different needs and dependencies. The graphics card will make the most difference on a games machine whereas a server needs raw processing power.
>> Edited by bigdods on Sunday 1st January 16:31
_deejay_ said:
And how do the dual core Pentiums compare with AMD's offerings then?
>> Edited by rich1231 on Sunday 1st January 14:11
Yes, very very badly. I'm not too sure about the lower spec AMD's, but their Opteron's are the best server CPU's available at the moment IMHO. The issue with Dual core chips is that access to memory is generally shared between the 2 CPU's, so you get a lot of contention for resources and not a massive improvement in speed. However, the Opteron's architecture helps make good use of the extra processing power (though it will depend on the OS you're using).
HP went as far as saying that they did not recommend the Intel dual cores until at least generation 3 of the chips due to the way in which they access memory.
I've done a decent amount of performance comparisons with a wide variety of systems (in conjunction with IBM) and have since only spec'd AMD's for my high powered server systems.
D
edited to add: Performance comparison of AMD/Intel CPU's for gaming here - www.theinquirer.net/?article=26899
>> Edited by _deejay_ on Sunday 1st January 15:15
Thanks for the answer
Cheers
Rich
DucatiGary said:
and are not as powerfull at the moment (4 cores on the way in 2006 from intel so the rumour mongers are saying)
I'd seriously doubt that. Intel are in trouble IMHO, because of their current architecture. They'll get significant diminishing returns as they add cores until they sort out the memory architecture. Rumour has it that'll be in the 3rd generation multiple core chip.
If that's in 2006 with 4 cores I'll be seriously impressed.
I've spoke to some development engineers who claim to be running 16 cores processors in the labs (but that wasn't at Intel
) I must admit I don't know what's the most suitable for a modern gaming machine, but it you want the quickest performing CPU at the moment, I'd definately recommend AMD. Whether that's sensible with a limited budget which will impact spend on graphics cards I'm not experienced enough to speculate...
If it is to be for gaming, AMD is the way to go. Personally, I would go for one of the single-core chips right now. Interesting benchmarks here...
www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Nzg3LDQ=
...show the AMD FX-57 pretty much blowing everything else out of the water, including the X2 4800, in gaming benchmarks. I would get one of these, or if the budget won't go that far, one of the San Diego core FX-55s or Athlon64's.
As for VGA, I would say nVidia SLI all the way; it's quick, stable and expandable later if you get one card now. Go for GeForce 7800s if you can, from a reputable manufacturer.
Don't forget that if you want true 64-bit operation, budget for a copy of WinXP Pro-64 as well.
[k]
>> Edited by [k]ar| on Tuesday 3rd January 13:22
www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Nzg3LDQ=
...show the AMD FX-57 pretty much blowing everything else out of the water, including the X2 4800, in gaming benchmarks. I would get one of these, or if the budget won't go that far, one of the San Diego core FX-55s or Athlon64's.
As for VGA, I would say nVidia SLI all the way; it's quick, stable and expandable later if you get one card now. Go for GeForce 7800s if you can, from a reputable manufacturer.
Don't forget that if you want true 64-bit operation, budget for a copy of WinXP Pro-64 as well.
[k]
>> Edited by [k]ar| on Tuesday 3rd January 13:22
Just to add my 2p...
If this system is primarily for playing games then go with a single core AMD, something like a 3500+ or 3700+ and spend the money on a high end video card; nVidia 7800GT, 7800GTX or ATI X1800XT. This will make WAY more difference to games than adding dual core CPU. It will take a long time before games start to make any real use of dual cores.
Also bear in mind that the X2 chips get there performance ratings from having two cores, something that does NOT effect games at the moment. For example the X2 4200+ runs the same speed as (I'm not sure about the exact speed) the 3000+ or maybe 3200+ single core processor. And in most of the gaming benchmarks the dual core chips actually run slightly slower than the single core chips at the same speed (but this is by such a small margin you wouldn't be able to notice).
If you look at many of the benchmarks for the current video cards when you start playing games in higher resolutions (1024x768 and up), add anti-aliassing, texture filtering, stick all the graphics options on high quality, the speed of the CPU has next to no effect within reason. And with one of the latest high end graphic cards to can still get smooth 60fps gameplay with most games.
Also like others have said at least 1Gb of fast ram.
If this system is primarily for playing games then go with a single core AMD, something like a 3500+ or 3700+ and spend the money on a high end video card; nVidia 7800GT, 7800GTX or ATI X1800XT. This will make WAY more difference to games than adding dual core CPU. It will take a long time before games start to make any real use of dual cores.
Also bear in mind that the X2 chips get there performance ratings from having two cores, something that does NOT effect games at the moment. For example the X2 4200+ runs the same speed as (I'm not sure about the exact speed) the 3000+ or maybe 3200+ single core processor. And in most of the gaming benchmarks the dual core chips actually run slightly slower than the single core chips at the same speed (but this is by such a small margin you wouldn't be able to notice).
If you look at many of the benchmarks for the current video cards when you start playing games in higher resolutions (1024x768 and up), add anti-aliassing, texture filtering, stick all the graphics options on high quality, the speed of the CPU has next to no effect within reason. And with one of the latest high end graphic cards to can still get smooth 60fps gameplay with most games.
Also like others have said at least 1Gb of fast ram.
Plotloss said:
Media apps - AMD
Business apps - Intel
Its just the way its always been...
Not true, at all, from my testing. I've done extensive tests (with preproduction dual cores admittedly) and the Opteron outperformed comparable Intel Pentium 4 CPU's in almost every test.
We simulated productivity apps, database servers, but mainly virtualisation simulations. Given a suitable operating system, the Opteron was leagues ahead of Intel in every test.
ThatPhilBrettGuy said:
Business apps - Intel
Maybe once, but after a week of performance testing in Redmond @ MS we're going AMD. I'd only go Intel if my app didn't read lots of memory and was tight loop CPU bound.
And that's only because of the higher clock rates on the current Intels. Attainable CPU speed is finite and given that Intel CPU are much more inefficient than AMD's, the chances are that the gap will widen in the future until Intel so something drastic with their architecture. The likes of IBM try to design chipsets to overcome some of the current limitations (with some success) but still lag behind....
_DeeJay_ said:
Media apps - AMD
Business apps - Intel
Its just the way its always been...
Not true, at all, from my testing. I've done extensive tests (with preproduction dual cores admittedly) and the Opteron outperformed comparable Intel Pentium 4 CPU's in almost every test.
We simulated productivity apps, database servers, but mainly virtualisation simulations. Given a suitable operating system, the Opteron was leagues ahead of Intel in every test.
Even using software compiled specifically for the Intel instruction set?
Maybe on generic PC software but that optimiser makes a shitload of difference.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff