AMD XP vs 64 and temps

[russell2002]

Hi,

If not using a 64bit OS do the "64" processors offer any advantage to the "XP" ones with the same + rating.

Plus, can the internals of your case be too cold. I have an industrial air conditioner doing nothing but cooling down the inside of my PC, VERY noizy and VERY COLD. The normally hot bits are less than 10c.

Thanks.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Athlon 64 CPU's are faster clock-for-clock than the XP's, and not just because "they're 64 bit". They have an integrated memory controller, etc.

About the case - the only potential thing you might have to look out for is condensation, when you're getting stuff that cold.

 

[Concillian]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

Yes, A64s are considerably faster than similarly 'rated' XPs.

The rating systems if XPs, Semprons and A64s are not "compatible"

You can also see that the higher end AXPs are able to maintain 60+ FPS in a relatively modern game like Doom III, so your improvements may be marginal if you're not already CPU bound. In something like HL2 that has a higher CPU reliance, the A64 will have a larger impact on performance. But, review sites had pretty much stopped using AXPs by the time HL2 was released.

 

[russell2002]

What abount the X2. Would an amd 64 x2 4200+ be much faster than an amd 64 4000+.

Or would it only be much faster when running multiple applications. And if so will such increase be available in win 2000 pro.

Thanks.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: russell2002
What abount the X2. Would an amd 64 x2 4200+ be much faster than an amd 64 4000+.

Or would it only be much faster when running multiple applications. And if so will such increase be available in win 2000 pro.

Thanks.

The AMD X2 4200+ is bascially two 3500+ processors together while the AMD X2 4400+ is basically two "3700" San Diego Processors together.

4000+ = 1 2.4ghrtz 1024 L2 cache processor (total of 1024 L2 cache)
X2 4200+ = 2 2.2ghrtz 512K L2cache processors (total of 1024 L2 cache)
X2 4400+ = 2 2.2ghrtz 1024 L2 cache processors (total of 2048 L2 cache)

First make sure you get the newer Venice/San Diego revision for single core.
In multithreaded aware applications the X2 4200 will obliterate the 4000+ single core.
Multitasking will also be smoother on the X2's if you have many programs running simultaneously.

In single threaded applications (i.e. most current games) the 4000+ will win because of the faster clockspeed (2.4 versus 2.2). However, many reviewers noticed the X2's performing better than its identically clocked single core brethen. It all depends on what you are using the computer for primarily and what you are willing to spend.

 

[russell2002]

I have 5 monitors and run upto 10 IE windows, Outlook Express, Dreamweaver, MS Office, Terapin and sometimes corel for minor image editing. All open at once.

I get frustrated when I have to wait for one prog to open or do something. I have no use for gaming or anything like that.

I run Win 2000 Pro.

I have aound $1500 to spend on processor, motherboard and ram.

 

[imported_whatever]

If you are willing to dish out a little extra money for one, the X2s are great CPUs. Although there is a difference, do you think you would notice (in real life, without benchmarks) the difference between a 3200+ and a 4000+? (the x2 4200+, with the 2 2.2GHz 512k CPUs, has essentially 2 s754 3200+)? No, you most likely could not, and that is in a worst case scenario. For anything that is SMP aware, or running multiple programs at the same time, the X2 will dominate. For internet etc, my dual P3 500 is more responsive than my A64 3400+. So, basically, if you have the money, go for the X2.
edit: I didn't see the most recent post, definately go with the X2. I would also reccomend using a different browser than IE if you have lots of windows open, tabbed browsing seems MUCH faster to me than lots of IE windows (which I also did before I started using FireFox)

 

[imported_whatever]

Oh yeah, also, as to the "too cold" aspect, because it is an AC before the computer, all of the condensation will happen in there, instead of in the computer. The computer components will be above local ambient, so there shouldn't be any condensation.

 

[russell2002]

Been a web designer its important I use the browser most users do, regardless of its issues.

Going back to my first point,

How does me using Win 2000 pro affect performance compared to XP64 on both single and dual core.

Thanks.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Windows 2000 Pro should work for dualcore because Microsoft is licensing by socket not the number of processors per socket. In other words two processors (or four [two physical, two virtual for Intel's 840EE]) for one socket should be fine. There really isn't any real performance benefit for what you are doing by getting XP64 because your applications are all still 32bit. I would stick with Windows 2000 Pro and still get great performance. When your primary apps are ported to 64bit then I would get Win XP64 (or Longhorn LOL by the time they are ported) and enjoy the nice 64bit boost (mostly from GPR's and refinements).

With your multitasking I would go dualcore all the way. The 4400+ at 600 dollars would be perfect for your needs. The 4800+ and 840EE are also within your budget (albeit barely) at around 1000 dollars but I don't think they are worth the extra price. If you want top notch performance the 840EE and X2 4800+ are the supreme (albeit allmightly expesive chips)

Also, what graphics cards are you running to have 5 monitors. The AMD dualcore is only compatible with 939 boards (not 754) but will work with AGP. If you decide to get a new motherboard but have an AGP card you will have to get the NF3 so you want to make sure it is dualcore compatible before purchase.

Edit: Dang typos

 

[russell2002]

I have 1 matrox p650 with 2 dvi outputs.

2 X Radeon 9250 each with 1 dvi, 1 vga and 1 svideo.

So I could connect 6 monitors.... and two tv's.

http://www.realtimesoft.com/multimon/ga...ID=616&date=desc&nummon=false&mon=desc

Thank god for ultramon.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: russell2002
I have 1 matrox p650 with 2 dvi outputs.

2 X Radeon 9250 each with 1 dvi, 1 vga and 1 svideo.

So I could connect 6 monitors.... and two tv's.

http://www.realtimesoft.com/multimon/ga...ID=616&date=desc&nummon=false&mon=desc

Thank god for ultramon.

You won't be able to get the NFORCE 4 939 boards because I believe they are all pci-ex.
I would look at NFORCE 3 Ultra or K8T800Pro from Via. Just make sure they are dualcore compatible first