Dual core cpu upgrade for socket 939

[felang]

Ok so I'm looking into getting a final cpu upgrade for my socket 939 AMD rig. I know 939 is obsolete but I am not ready to buy a whole new sytem yet...

My question is, how much faster would an opteron 175 2.2ghz 2x1 mb L2 cache be than an Athlon x2 4200+ 2.2 ghz 2x512kb cache? I can get the 4200+ for a lot less money and am mainly looking to do a little gaming. Again, I know my best option would be to get a C2D, but for now that just isn't an option.

I figure both would overclock similarly (about 2.8ghz?), but I have no idea how much the increased L2 cache will help. I don't really care about synthetic benchmarks, I am more interested in actual FPS difference in games. Currently I have an 8800GTS and an athlon 64 3200+ (@2.6ghz) and 2gb ram. Obviously my CPU is dragging down my vid card and with some of the new games coming out supporting multiple cores (Bioshock, World in Conflict) I would expect to get a substantial increase in speed. Also, I need a cpu with at least an 11x multiplier as my mb is only good for about 280 max htt, this rules out the slower optys.

 

[betasub]

The extra cache is only a major improvement for operations that specificaly fit the 512kB-1024kB size. Because of the CPU's integrated memory controller, A64-based processors aren't heavily dependent on cache size (above a minimum level of, say, 128~256kB). More generally, in CPU intensive tasks 5%-10% increases are typical, whereas 1%-5% increases are more common across the board. Gaming situations are more difficult to generalise: GPU-limited situtations won't show any increase, whereas CPU-heavy games will benefit (an AT review found Oblivion was one of several games that improved with the move to larger L2). I've seen the extra cache "equated", as rule of thumb, to an extra 100MHz core speed, but the actual situation is application-dependent.

 

[felang]

Thaks for replying... that's sort of what I thought. I can get the 4200+ for about $80 while the opty would be about $140, don't think it's worth it, especially since I plan to build a whole new rig in about 6 months anyway. for example, those $60 might be put to better use by getting faster ram or a bigger HD when I get my new system.

 

[Retard]

Felang--I'm in the same boat as you---have an older 939 system and want to grab a processor before they become extinct for it

Is a 4200+ dual core about the best bang for the buck you've found? Can you link it for me?

Thanks a bunch.

 

[felang]

Newegg seems to have the best prices right now, even better than buying used from ebay. 4200+ seems to be the best value... but the opty's do seem really tempting because supposedly the overclock better and have double L2 cache.

 

[mindless1]

Considering the use is gaming within next 6 months, the best value would be a single core 4000+ overclocked (typically to about 3GHz).

You don't mention what you're replacing though, but I have to think the opty for $140 is a bad value, you'd be as well off to just stick with what you have and shorten that 6 month period till you do a larger scale platform upgrade all at once.

 

[felang]

I actually tried a 4000+ I have in another system and even though I got it running stable at 2950 mhz, the performance really wasn't all that good in bioshock and world in conflict, medal of honor airborne runs great though, and since games are now finally starting to use multiple cores I think I'll regret not going the dual core route once they are no longer available. I already upgraded my graphics card (8800gts 640mb) but I feel like I'm not getting the most out of it with my current single core at 2.6ghz.

 

[Retard]

Yeah, seems to me a dual core would be a little more "future proof" and its worth spending a little extra as a last hurrah for socket 939

 

[Arkaign]

Dual-Core helps more than some people think, particularly if the PC isn't extremely tuned. I'm shocked at how many people run 40+ processes on a regular basis (IM, Weatherbug, AV, Messenger, Email, etc, etc, etc, etc), and the windows scheduler does a very good job distributing cpu resources to both cores in either XP or Vista (haven't run dual-core in Win2k other than a short run with dual celeron 366@550 on an Abit dual-370 mobo).

The Opteron brand-name will also help you when selling the kit later, as you can justifiably refer to it as a light-server/midrange workstation processor. The fact that it's basically an Athlon X2 regardless.

 

[mindless1]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Dual-Core helps more than some people think, particularly if the PC isn't extremely tuned. I'm shocked at how many people run 40+ processes on a regular basis (IM, Weatherbug, AV, Messenger, Email, etc, etc, etc, etc), and the windows scheduler does a very good job distributing cpu resources to both cores in either XP or Vista (haven't run dual-core in Win2k other than a short run with dual celeron 366@550 on an Abit dual-370 mobo).

The Opteron brand-name will also help you when selling the kit later, as you can justifiably refer to it as a light-server/midrange workstation processor. The fact that it's basically an Athlon X2 regardless.

Dual core helps far less than most people think when talking about increasing performance on one specific (gaming) app and the background tasks' performance isn't as important.

If you're trying to run messaging and email/etc while gaming, why? It seems like a contrived scenario, if one can click an icon to run a game but can't click an icon to close their email client? Assigning a 2nd core when there are more than 2 threads, still requires the scheduling. For the argument about so many processses to pan out, you'd have to have nearly as many cores as threads, or the background jobs would have to be linearized in nature such that they were trying to take as much of one core as their respective priorities allowed. That just isn't the normal case unless there is some app improperly escalated in priority, is not the situation one is in if they just had a few things running when starting up a game.

Basically when you wrote "extremely tuned", it's only valid in one situation, that a person with a single core system would not have something running in the background that is linearized meaning it runs as fast as it can consuming all processor cycles it can. Encoding video in the background at normal priority would be a problem when simultaneously trying to game, for example. That's a situation easily avoided, or rather, not deliberately caused.

The single core system I'm typing on at the moment has over a dozen apps running in the background (actually more transparently, over 50 processes) and average CPU utilization is flip flopping between 0 and 2 %, averaging under 1%. I can start up another task like a video encode, and clearly see it runs almost identically as fast at the escalated foreground priority, with these background apps, as with them closed.


In normal use, these background apps are at lower priority and we can easily see them having practically no impact in Task Manager. The sum total of the background apps is minimal compared to the foreground gaming load unless the game is very well optimized for dual cores, enough that it offsets running a single core at higher clockspeed. Most games are not that optimized yet.

There's no resale factor involved here, buying a $140 Opteron will definitely not increase the resale value by $100 six months from now. It probably won't increase the value by $100 the very moment it's installed, unless you had targeted a buyer specifically insisting on (that) Opteron system - but one built like a PC gaming system instead of a server.

"Maybe" you're doing something different with your system that makes best use of dual cores. I am addressing the short term gaming use specified.

 

[Makaveli]

i'm sorry but he already has a single core cpu, getting another higher clocked single core cpu wont' be much of an upgrade, get a dual core chip. And as for the games argument not supporting them that is changing. Playing Bioshock or medal of honor demo use both cores on my rig. Bioshock generally hovers around 75% usage across both cores. and the new mohaa using 100% cpu usage. Getting a another single core cpu is a bad purchase!

Also what happens when more than 1 person uses the PC? A family of users won't always log off the system and instead just user switch. And if said family member doesn't remember to close all the appz running, it will affect you when u logon and try to game on a single core machine.

 

[mindless1]

Originally posted by: Makaveli
i'm sorry but he already has a single core cpu, getting another higher clocked single core cpu wont' be much of an upgrade, get a dual core chip.

Sorry or not, you're not listening to his needs nor accepting that gaming is not a task where there's a 2nd thread needing maximum performance - which is where dual core shines. A higher clocked 1st core is the best performance gain possible for today's and yesterday's games, the 2nd core does not matter as much as the clockrate of the first. IF both cores were clocked as high as the single core alternative, then you might get a minor gain, but this at a higher price, dumping that much into a system scheduled for replacement in 6 months just doesn't make sense.

And as for the games argument not supporting them that is changing. Playing Bioshock or medal of honor demo use both cores on my rig. Bioshock generally hovers around 75% usage across both cores. and the new mohaa using 100% cpu usage. Getting a another single core cpu is a bad purchase!

Paying significant amounts of money for any CPU upgrade is likewise a bad purchase. Naming a select 3 titles is not a valid argument when we both know the majority DON'T.

Also what happens when more than 1 person uses the PC?

Nothing. Doesn't matter. As stated already, background tasks at lower priority that idle in the background consuming 1% of processor time do not substantially impact the gaming performance, unless it just happened that all these tasks take up too much memory so it wouldn't be a processor issue at all.

A family of users won't always log off the system and instead just user switch. And if said family member doesn't remember to close all the appz running, it will affect you when u logon and try to game on a single core machine.

Having these background tasks running under another user matters no more than having them running under same user. As already stated, the only real factor is whether there were a linearized type task running at same priority, which is a situation one would already know about and have deliberately started, and is also a task that didn't need to run at same priority.

When it's time to buy the new system components, that is a good time to go dual core - but not paying over $100 just to try to eek out a few months instead of just moving that full upgrade up sooner. It's no my money though, OP can do whatever he likes, but these factors are well known by gamers, and apparently misunderstood by those who don't know about task priority or idle states, and ignore that you can easily see what does and does not take up significant processor time on a system and weight that against the increase in core speed per same %. Having a 2nd core idling at 2% is just a waste of a 2nd core for the most part, which is exactly what the typical gamer sees in Task Manager before starting a game unless they have a misbehaving app, or as I kept stating, a particular linearized job running. There was no mention if this atypical scenario and thus, no reason to suggest money be spent against it when this is a short term budget upgrade.

Unless I missed it, we still don't know the final clockspeed of his present CPU, nor whether the processor in particular is that much of a bottleneck to get a large framerate increase with either processor option being discussed.

 

[felang]

While I agrre that currently most games don't benefit from dual core, things are definitely changing. I've tried out 3 demos in the past week of games coming out that actually take advantage of dual core cpus (Bioshock, Moha, and World in Conflict), not to mention Crysis whick is coming out soon. In WOC for example, my cpu is definitely a huge bottleneck, running the benchmark in 1680x1050 I get 32 avg fps. In 1024x768 I get 33 avg fps. As you can see my 8800gts definitely could use a second core in this game. Also, I would probably be going from one core at 2.6ghz to two cores at at least 2.6 ghz, but quite possibly 2.8-3.0 ghz. While I should get similar performance in current or old games, future games should definitely run faster. Who knows, I might even hold off on my planned new sytem build... a dual core now, might get me through 12 more months. The truth is I know I will regret not springing for at least a 4200+ now while I can still get it.

 

[mindless1]

Well if you're going to "regret", ok, buy it.

The thing is, unless you have a significant purpose for this system after it's replaced in 6 months (this is still the plan, correct?) it seems as though it just isn't worthwhile, a bit of a waste of time to spend alot for this when you could just switch over to Core2Duo DDR2 platform and o'c it like crazy.

Sometimes, it's just time to let go and upgrade the board too. The performance increase per $ staying with your present system plus new CPU is less than increase per $ switching out the board and memory now, which you were going to do anyway in a few months so it ends up costing LESS in total to have MORE performance. My answer is still, pay nothing for a CPU for this, but if you must, pay as little as possible for that CPU it it is just delaying the inevitable.

 

[customcoms]

Pick up an Opteron 165 for $100 and be done: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103588

Clock it to 2.7+ and you'll be set for 6+ months IMO. Otherwise you are looking at $300+ for a C2D board and processor, plus another $100 for ram (which is dirt cheap imo).

Edit: just saw that your board is only good to 280HTT. This would be your best bet http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103053, and for $80 its hard to go wrong. I paid like $160 for my Opteron, like 8 months ago, HUGE upgrade over a single core, very noticeable in day-to-day operations, well worth the price. Now, YMMV with the 4200+, but you can reasonably expect 2.6-2.8 out of it (the limiting factor is usually the memory controller, Opterons generally have better memory controllers and thats the real reason they clock 100-200mhz higher than the X2's on average, though lately the difference has become somewhat negligible)

 

[bryanW1995]

I agree, buy the 4200+. Sell your current chip on ebay or at fs/ft, you should get $25-$30 for it so you'll actually only end up spending about $50. That's a very responsible upgrade and should help you to delay upgrading until phenom/penryn/nehalem are out.

 

[Makaveli]

With the prices of dual core cpu's being so cheap. I think its bad advice to recommend a single core upgrade in 2007!

I however do understand some of the points you have mentioned mindless1.

 

[msi1337]

my wife has an Opteron 165 in hers...it rocks