Good multitasking CPU for work

[tstein]

I'm looking for a good "work" CPU. I generally run lots of windows on dual LCDs. At any given time, I might have two PCB cad programs running, a couple compiler\debuggers, 20+ acrobat datasheets, and a slew of webpages open.

I don't really play games, so game performance isn't important to me. I want the best solution for work. I will not be overclocking.

Currently, I'm using a Intel 2.4c, which has been a really nice CPU for me over the years. It's been very responsive and generally runs very cool with the retail heatsink. Before that, I had a AMD 2000 (or something like that) that I was NOT impressed with. The heat coming off of that thing was insane. I recall going through 2-3 of them as they were burning themselves up with stock cooling. Heat is a big issue for me...the case is in a wood desk that isn't too forgiving on airflow.

I'm open to either brand, but I want the best solution for my needs. So I don't want to hear recommendations for one brand because it's what you use for gaming and you like it

Thanks!
Tomas

 

[DAPUNISHER]

With few exceptions, the AMD X2 and dual core Opteron are the best choice for gaming or workstation/x86 server use. The tables have turned, now it is Intel that is the heat and power hog.

 

[Hacp]

If you felt that the 2.4C was good enough for you, then something like P4 540 or something along those lines will do just fine. No reason to overspend.

 

[Markbnj]

Given your description of the number of applications you run, I have two comments:

1) Get an X2.

2) Don't listen to Hacp.

 

[Markfw]

X2. Whats the budget ?

 

[theMan]

yeah seriously, hacp has no idea what hes talking about. dual core opteron, or X2 is perfect for what you want. intel is now the one that burns itself to death on stock, and is a huge power hog. they also just dont perform as amd.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: theman
yeah seriously, hacp has no idea what hes talking about. dual core opteron, or X2 is perfect for what you want. intel is now the one that burns itself to death on stock, and is a huge power hog. they also just dont perform as amd.

From the orgiginal post, it seems that he thinks the 2.4C is serving him well, and happy using it for his work/tasks. Why pay overboard, if he will probably be satisfied with a 540J / 640??

 

[Duvie]

An HT enabled only task would still be falling on its face with those number of apps running....An X2 would be night and day for him...If he just needs blazing speed with 1 or 2 apps simultaneously I say get a good i875 ocing board like Abit IC7 and OC that 2.4c over 3ghz....


Other take it form an EX Intel 2.4c owner that was oc'd to 3.5ghz...This X2 is double it in performance in most things and 150-180% in my CAD apps in rendering time....

 

[Markbnj]

[From the orgiginal post, it seems that he thinks the 2.4C is serving him well, and happy using it for his work/tasks. Why pay overboard, if he will probably be satisfied with a 540J / 640??]

He said it had been serving him well. Obviously he wouldn't be upgrading if he didn't expect to move up a generation and get a large leap in performance. I was happy with a p4 2.5 ghz running on a 400 mhz bus until... I wasn't. Probably I shouldn't have bought the X2, since I was once happy with a 20 mhz 286.

The positions in this whole debate have become dogmatic . I've been around awhile, and I've seen every paradigm shift cause this exact same debate between the early adopters and the late movers. My advice to those who will in the future post ten variants of this question per day is to use the search function, then make your decision. I think what you will find is an overwhelming majority of opinion in favor of multiple cores being worth every penny. They're the future of personal computing, and I don't know why this should be surprising. The advantages of parallel processing have been known for years. All that has happened is we have a convergence of operating system support and inexpensive multicore designs that make it possible to put effective multiprocessor computing in the hands of ordinary desktop users. This is the point at which consumer market mass adoption begins to happen.

Dual cores will get faster, more efficient, cheaper, and will be followed by four, and then eight core dies, and then who knows how many? A few years from now single core chips will be the equivalent of EGA. Twenty years from now everything we do may get split up and handled by hundreds or thousands of processors embedded all around us. We may have a "Moore's Law" covering the doubling of processors in a net.

It's kind of silly, when responding to someone who asks this question, to say "Nah, it's too expensive, you don't need it." Anyone who bothered to come and post the question here is considering their options and can make their own decisions on budget. It's even sillier to say "Nah, you don't multitask enough." Really that's just funny. It makes me laugh everytime I read it, in a sad way. Ten bucks says most of the people posting that sentiment are sitting there running all sorts of crap: widgets, mp3 players, virus scanners, cpu monitors, email, voice comm, rss readers, not to mention all the services and processes that aren't running on the desktop. Then they want to run a 3d game on top of that workload, and they don't think another core would help? That's worth a rofl or two. Give me a break. Did anyone read the part of the manual for BF2 where they tell you to shut down as many extra programs as you can? Hahaha. Sorry, but on this point there are one or two people who should just put a cork in it . I mean that nicely.

 

[paulw86]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
[From the orgiginal post, it seems that he thinks the 2.4C is serving him well, and happy using it for his work/tasks. Why pay overboard, if he will probably be satisfied with a 540J / 640??]

He said it had been serving him well. Obviously he wouldn't be upgrading if he didn't expect to move up a generation and get a large leap in performance. I was happy with a p4 2.5 ghz running on a 400 mhz bus until... I wasn't. Probably I shouldn't have bought the X2, since I was once happy with a 20 mhz 286.

The positions in this whole debate have become dogmatic . I've been around awhile, and I've seen every paradigm shift cause this exact same debate between the early adopters and the late movers. My advice to those who will in the future post ten variants of this question per day is to use the search function, then make your decision. I think what you will find is an overwhelming majority of opinion in favor of multiple cores being worth every penny. They're the future of personal computing, and I don't know why this should be surprising. The advantages of parallel processing have been known for years. All that has happened is we have a convergence of operating system support and inexpensive multicore designs that make it possible to put effective multiprocessor computing in the hands of ordinary desktop users. This is the point at which consumer market mass adoption begins to happen.

Dual cores will get faster, more efficient, cheaper, and will be followed by four, and then eight core dies, and then who knows how many? A few years from now single core chips will be the equivalent of EGA. Twenty years from now everything we do may get split up and handled by hundreds or thousands of processors embedded all around us. We may have a "Moore's Law" covering the doubling of processors in a net.

It's kind of silly, when responding to someone who asks this question, to say "Nah, it's too expensive, you don't need it." Anyone who bothered to come and post the question here is considering their options and can make their own decisions on budget. It's even sillier to say "Nah, you don't multitask enough." Really that's just funny. It makes me laugh everytime I read it, in a sad way. Ten bucks says most of the people posting that sentiment are sitting there running all sorts of crap: widgets, mp3 players, virus scanners, cpu monitors, email, voice comm, rss readers, not to mention all the services and processes that aren't running on the desktop. Then they want to run a 3d game on top of that workload, and they don't think another core would help? That's worth a rofl or two. Give me a break. Did anyone read the part of the manual for BF2 where they tell you to shut down as many extra programs as you can? Hahaha. Sorry, but on this point there are one or two people who should just put a cork in it . I mean that nicely.

Easy there, he's new =)

 

[Markfw]

He was talking about hacp I think. ^^

 

[Markbnj]

I was referring to the Orthodox Wing of the United Church of We Don't Multitask, North American Single Core Synod .

Not beating up on Hacp in particular, but at least the Loyal Opposition should stick to the "too expensive" argument. The "don't get it unless you multitask" argument is causing me to consume higher than normal quantities of rolaids.

 

[Zim]

To get a noticeable improvement over a P4 2.4 it should be at least a hyperthreading processor, and preferrably a dual core processor. Intel may have a dual core worth considering by next quarter, but for now and Athlon X2 would be the best choice IMHO. Alternatively, a nice fast P4 Hyperthreading model would be a big improvement too, and possibly provide the least expensive upgrade option.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
I was referring to the Orthodox Wing of the United Church of We Don't Multitask, North American Singe Core Synod .

Not beating up on Hacp in particular, but at least the Loyal Opposition should stick to the "too expensive" argument. The "don't get it unless you multitask" argument is causing me to consume higher than normal quantities of rolaids.

LOL!! QFT!!!!

 

[tstein]

Thanks for the replies and discussion

1) My budget is pretty much unlimitted, but I'd feel better about spending less than $400 on the processor itself. I'd maybe spend $600, but I'm deffinatly NOT paying $800+ for a processor.
2) The reason for upgrade is two fold (a) I'm experiencing some strange video lockups that I'm 99% sure are motherboard related. (b) If I am upgrading, I'd like to see an improvement over what I have.
3) Sounds like a complete flip-flop of the processor "scene" since I last upgraded. I'll be honest...I'm going to be a bit nervous about going back to an AMD, but sounds like some major improvement has been made.

Hcap's suggestion is totally valid and I appreciate the different viewpoints. If my budget were tighter than it is, I think your suggestion would probably be a good choice for me.

I have a few other questions:

Looks like an X2 model will probably be my best choice. Looks like there isn't a whole lot of difference between the models: 2.0, 2.2, 2.4Ghz in standard and double cache versions. In regular use, is the 400Mhz noticable? What about the double size cache? I realize it would be noticable in benchmarks (which I don't care about).

Is the X2 worth considering overclocking? I have generally NOT had good experience with overclocking for the following reasons: I don't want to spend time tweaking voltages and running stability tests. I use only the retail fan\heatsink. The ONLY way I would be interrested in overclocking is if there is a particular setting that I will be able to run it out with very little to no messing with. Is overclocking (based on my willingness to F' with it) something I should consider?

Is xp 64-bit version something I should be buying with an X2? Or stick with my regular licensed xp pro?

Thanks for all the help
Tomas

 

[thecoolnessrune]

I'd reccommend a dual core Opteron on a 939 socket board.

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: tstein

I'm open to either brand, but I want the best solution for my needs. So I don't want to hear recommendations for one brand because it's what you use for gaming and you like it

Thanks!
Tomas

Wrong place for an unbiased opinion, pal!

 

[Jeff7181]

That's odd that you went through a bunch of XP2000's. I've owned AMD CPU's from a 333 MHz K6-2 up to my current Athlon 64 3500+... NONE of them have run so hot that they were even close to being in danger of overheating. Sounds like you had very poor case ventilation.

Anyway... some people will tell you the ones recommending an AMD processor are biased and AMD fanboys and blah blah blah. Screw that... look at the benchmarks and reviews yourself if you don't trust the people recommending X2's. They are the best performing processors you can get right now. That's why 95% of people are recommending them.

 

[Markbnj]

[Is the X2 worth considering overclocking?]

They overclock pretty well, actually. I have my 4400+ running at 2.5 ghz, but I believe the Gigabyte mobo is limiting it, as is poor airflow in the case. I don't like to push it too far, and I know several people here have their 3800+ chips running faster than mine.

 

[Leper Messiah]

X2 for the win. Get a 3800+, it'll be faster at single threaded apps than your 2.4C, plus multitasking. My X2 runs at 2.5 on stock vcore, its not that hard to get it up there.

 

[secretanchitman]

intel pentium 4 640 (3.2Ghz) or amd athlon 64 x2 3800+ - 4400+.

both are great overclockers. 640 goes to 4Ghz+ and the X2 goes pretty high too. just remember that if you get the amd, BE SURE and get the dual-core fix for windows xp. or else there will be no performance benefit whatsoever. (from what i hear)

 

[carlosd]

Get that X2 3800+, it will be so much faster than your actual CPU, also much beter choice than any intel CPU for the work you do.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: secretanchitman
intel pentium 4 640 (3.2Ghz) or amd athlon 64 x2 3800+ - 4400+.

both are great overclockers. 640 goes to 4Ghz+ and the X2 goes pretty high too. just remember that if you get the amd, BE SURE and get the dual-core fix for windows xp. or else there will be no performance benefit whatsoever. (from what i hear)

You didn't hear right!!!..IN the apps he listed there is no performance penalty, and period there is not performance penalty without the dirver...the glitch is that without the X2 driver an OS issue arises that effects games working but does not effect ones performance in terms of fps...

I didn't have the X2 drivers installed for 3 weeks cause I dont game and I was destroying P4's oc'd well above 4ghz...You will need 5ghz to beat my Divx score....No P4 at 4ghz will beat my CAD scopres cause I am running almost 150% better then my 3.5ghz P4....

It should be X2 or nothing...no single core even with HT will multitasking well enough for the number of apps he has listed for multitasking...

 

[Hacp]

I wouldn't want to overclock your work computer at all. Overclocking means an added level in insecurity, and I would never want to have that, no matter what performance gains it provides. As for the previous post with the guy who made a long post about X2s and using the search functions, well everyone's experience is subjective. What may be fast to one person may be slow to another. Considering that he considered his 2.4C smooth ( a single core processor that he considered well enough to do his work), why waste money on an x2 when a 3.2 640/540J would serve him fine and provide a speed increase from the 2.4C?

Everyone goes and shouts X2 and X2 for everything, while you have to take into account a person's needs.

Heck why don't we all go and suggest a 7800GT to this guy too.

 

[Duvie]

multitasking what he suggested doesn't need the pretender with HT...and this is coming from someone who trupted them when it was all we had....

"I don't really play games, so game performance isn't important to me."

7800gt?? What the heck part are you having trouble readind???

If he wants status qou then he should stick with single core P4s...step up to a future he probably doesn't realise exist (like many newly created X2 owners...ask Mechbgon)