Yeah you would have about 10 bucks and some change...
<<I was referring to the Orthodox Wing of the United Church of We Don't Multitask, North American Single Core Synod . >>
I think this line should apply to all those offended by the acronym X2...
Hacp
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2005
- 13,923
- 2
- 81
You have trouble understanding my post. My post said that if A 2.4C was fast enough for him using those applications, the 3.2 P4 will be a noticable improvement. With the X2, he might not notice any difference. It woudl be the equivalent of having him upgrade from integrated graphics to the 7800GT, which is near useless for the things he does. I never suggested that he get a 7800GT. Kinda like having a 1GHZ PIII face off against a 2.8GHZ A64 in microsoft word.
You have your (everyone who attacked) opinion and I have mine. Please stop the blatant flaming of my suggestion.
As for the OP, your best bet would be to try both processors and see what its like. Maybe go to CC and try the X2 and 3.2 P4 out. Ask if you can install any programs, and generally if the sales person thinks that he might make a sale, he would let you (at least thats how it is for my local CC
). See if there IS a noticable improvement in the tasks you do. After you try it, you can say they are both too slow and that you are considering a Dell.Originally posted by: Hacp
You have trouble understanding my post. My post said that if A 2.4C was fast enough for him using those applications, the 3.2 P4 will be a noticable improvement. With the X2, he might not notice any difference. It woudl be the equivalent of having him upgrade from integrated graphics to the 7800GT, which is near useless for the things he does. I never suggested that he get a 7800GT. Kinda like having a 1GHZ PIII face off against a 2.8GHZ A64 in microsoft word.
You have your (everyone who attacked) opinion and I have mine. Please stop the blatant flaming of my suggestion.
As for the OP, your best bet would be to try both processors and see what its like. Maybe go to CC and try the X2 and 3.2 P4 out. Ask if you can install any programs, and generally if the sales person thinks that he might make a sale, he would let you (at least thats how it is for my local CC
I understood the crap you were saying...That pretty much disqualifies you from sounding like you know what you are talking about....
Remember I had a 3.5ghz oc'd 2.4c and the X2 is 150-180% faster in my activity...So spread that FUD elsewhere
Hacp
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2005
- 13,923
- 2
- 81
Originally posted by: Duvie
Originally posted by: Hacp
You have trouble understanding my post. My post said that if A 2.4C was fast enough for him using those applications, the 3.2 P4 will be a noticable improvement. With the X2, he might not notice any difference. It woudl be the equivalent of having him upgrade from integrated graphics to the 7800GT, which is near useless for the things he does. I never suggested that he get a 7800GT. Kinda like having a 1GHZ PIII face off against a 2.8GHZ A64 in microsoft word.
You have your (everyone who attacked) opinion and I have mine. Please stop the blatant flaming of my suggestion.
As for the OP, your best bet would be to try both processors and see what its like. Maybe go to CC and try the X2 and 3.2 P4 out. Ask if you can install any programs, and generally if the sales person thinks that he might make a sale, he would let you (at least thats how it is for my local CC
I understood the crap you were saying...That pretty much disqualifies you from sounding like you know what you are talking about....
Remember I had a 3.5ghz oc'd 2.4c and the X2 is 150-180% faster in my activity...So spread that FUD elsewhere
Is your activity the same as the OP activity? If you jump off a cliff and survive, will the OP survive if he drops off a cliff? I am spreading 0 FUD. I think your being a little too agressive in your attacks towards me.
For example, in my earlier post, you said that I had trouble reading because I suggested a 7800GT. Now you highlight one phrase and call my entire post BS because I said that the X2 might not feel alot faster than the p4. You probably didn't even read my whole post and just started to flame me like no tommorow. I have no Idea why you would do this as I made a suggestion that the OP check it out and see what the best sollution is for him.
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: Duvie
Originally posted by: Hacp
You have trouble understanding my post. My post said that if A 2.4C was fast enough for him using those applications, the 3.2 P4 will be a noticable improvement. With the X2, he might not notice any difference. It woudl be the equivalent of having him upgrade from integrated graphics to the 7800GT, which is near useless for the things he does. I never suggested that he get a 7800GT. Kinda like having a 1GHZ PIII face off against a 2.8GHZ A64 in microsoft word.
You have your (everyone who attacked) opinion and I have mine. Please stop the blatant flaming of my suggestion.
As for the OP, your best bet would be to try both processors and see what its like. Maybe go to CC and try the X2 and 3.2 P4 out. Ask if you can install any programs, and generally if the sales person thinks that he might make a sale, he would let you (at least thats how it is for my local CC
I understood the crap you were saying...That pretty much disqualifies you from sounding like you know what you are talking about....
Remember I had a 3.5ghz oc'd 2.4c and the X2 is 150-180% faster in my activity...So spread that FUD elsewhere
Is your activity the same as the OP activity? If you jump off a cliff and survive, will the OP survive if he drops off a cliff?
2 out of the 4 task which still makes better sense then you trying to steer him towards status qou he already has in terms of multitasking ability....
YOur X2 comment was on a level that I just cannot discuss reason with you....It is pointless....I will let the others...I am laughing too hard...
Hacp
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2005
- 13,923
- 2
- 81
Originally posted by: Duvie
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: Duvie
Originally posted by: Hacp
You have trouble understanding my post. My post said that if A 2.4C was fast enough for him using those applications, the 3.2 P4 will be a noticable improvement. With the X2, he might not notice any difference. It woudl be the equivalent of having him upgrade from integrated graphics to the 7800GT, which is near useless for the things he does. I never suggested that he get a 7800GT. Kinda like having a 1GHZ PIII face off against a 2.8GHZ A64 in microsoft word.
You have your (everyone who attacked) opinion and I have mine. Please stop the blatant flaming of my suggestion.
As for the OP, your best bet would be to try both processors and see what its like. Maybe go to CC and try the X2 and 3.2 P4 out. Ask if you can install any programs, and generally if the sales person thinks that he might make a sale, he would let you (at least thats how it is for my local CC
I understood the crap you were saying...That pretty much disqualifies you from sounding like you know what you are talking about....
Remember I had a 3.5ghz oc'd 2.4c and the X2 is 150-180% faster in my activity...So spread that FUD elsewhere
Is your activity the same as the OP activity? If you jump off a cliff and survive, will the OP survive if he drops off a cliff?
2 out of the 4 task which still makes better sense then you trying to steer him towards status qou he already has in terms of multitasking ability....
YOur X2 comment was on a level that I just cannot discuss reason with you....It is pointless....I will let the others...I am laughing too hard...
As I have said, unless you are in the Ops shoes, you do not know what his feelings are. Would a 2.4 GHZ processor be on the same level as a 3.2 GHZ processor? No. Unless you are the OP and try the X2 and P4 out individually, and see if there is a big enough performance difference, you are just making a big deal out of nothing.
Ow ya, to say that changing from a 2.4C to a 3.2 with HT is status quo even in terms of multitasking ability is a horrible statement to make. I will, however, not make any personal attacks towards you just because you said that.
Hacp
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2005
- 13,923
- 2
- 81
Just another point to make out. I have never ever said that a 3.2 P4 with HT would beat an X2 in terms of multitasking ability. All I have said is that the OP should check all his options, as he might think that he needs an x2 when all he really needs is just a faster P4.
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 27,321
- 16,151
- 136
Why don't you let the OP decide ? The difference is so large, that I don't think he can comprehend it. (no offense intended OP). If he has the money, it IS the right processor to get as many of us have said.
hacp, you need to knock off the crap you are spewing.
Originally posted by: 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
G'day Tomas!
I'll try to give you an unbiased summation (though admittedly I am biased towards AMD).
From your description, it sounds like any upgrade you make must be towards a dualcore processer. If you're running 2 CAD programs simultaneously, your multitasking needs almost require it! You obviously have a few choices...
1. Pentium D - This will be the least expensive solution IFF you choose the 820D. The cost on an 820D system will be about $50 cheaper than all the others. As to the rest of the Pentium D line, you'll be paying the same or more. The downside to the Pentium Ds is that they run as much as twice as hot as the X2s, and they perform significantly slower for what you want. In addition, they are exceptionally poor at single threaded apps (worse than the single core Intels in many cases).
2. Paxville (multicore Xeon) - The worst choice possible (without contention, even by Intel fans)... Just reading this review should explain why...
3. AMD X2 - Certainly the most cost effective, with performance that is even superior to a 2CPU Xeon system (and we won't even discuss how much better than Paxville it is...).
It also runs at a power and heat level that in many cases is half that of the Intel PD line.
4. DC Opteron - For serious workstations and servers...Opterons aren't cheap (except by Xeon standards, where they are incredibly cheap), but with a single DC Opteron in a dual CPU board, you have the option of adding a second DC Opteron should you require even more processing at a later date...
I don't know if you're planning on moving to 64bit for work, but if you are then don't even consider the Intel chips...while a few of them are indeed 64bit capable, they aren't nearly as efficient/quick as AMD in 64bit. In addition, AMD has an onboard hardware IOMMU for mapping 64bit addresses, whereas Intel must use software because their chipsets don't provide this.
Hope that helped...
Originally posted by: Viditor
Originally posted by: 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
G'day Tomas!
I'll try to give you an unbiased summation (though admittedly I am biased towards AMD).
From your description, it sounds like any upgrade you make must be towards a dualcore processer. If you're running 2 CAD programs simultaneously, your multitasking needs almost require it! You obviously have a few choices...
1. Pentium D - This will be the least expensive solution IFF you choose the 820D. The cost on an 820D system will be about $50 cheaper than all the others. As to the rest of the Pentium D line, you'll be paying the same or more. The downside to the Pentium Ds is that they run as much as twice as hot as the X2s, and they perform significantly slower for what you want. In addition, they are exceptionally poor at single threaded apps (worse than the single core Intels in many cases).
2. Paxville (multicore Xeon) - The worst choice possible (without contention, even by Intel fans)... Just reading this review should explain why...
3. AMD X2 - Certainly the most cost effective, with performance that is even superior to a 2CPU Xeon system (and we won't even discuss how much better than Paxville it is...).
It also runs at a power and heat level that in many cases is half that of the Intel PD line.
4. DC Opteron - For serious workstations and servers...Opterons aren't cheap (except by Xeon standards, where they are incredibly cheap), but with a single DC Opteron in a dual CPU board, you have the option of adding a second DC Opteron should you require even more processing at a later date...
I don't know if you're planning on moving to 64bit for work, but if you are then don't even consider the Intel chips...while a few of them are indeed 64bit capable, they aren't nearly as efficient/quick as AMD in 64bit. In addition, AMD has an onboard hardware IOMMU for mapping 64bit addresses, whereas Intel must use software because their chipsets don't provide this.
Hope that helped...
:thumbsup:
Ummm...if he was satisfied, why would he want to upgrade?
Did you read what programs he was actually using? The P4 540 would almost be a downgrade for him...
Hacp
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2005
- 13,923
- 2
- 81
The 64 bit version is useless right now, and I wouldn't consider it for the x2, especially since you need hardware driviers that are 64 bit. As for overclocking, I wouldn't suggest it for your work machine. You might lose some sensative data going at speeds the processor isn't rated for. I wouldn't risk anything at all. I would suggest either the 3800+ or 4200+ as those seem to be the best bang for your buck processors. Personally, a 2.0GHZ processor is fine enough, and it seems like you won't need the extra 200MHZ the 4200+ provides because you said your 2.4C P4 felt smooth.
Thanks for the detailed breakdown Viditor. That gives me a good idea of what the current picture looks like.
Hacp is correct. The main reason for the upgrade is the fact that I've got a motherboard resulting in semi-random video lockups. But, I'm certainly leaning toward an upgrade. Although a faster HT processor similar to what I have would do the job, I've got a few more bucks lying around that I'm willing to put into something that will provide a larger increase in performance for what I'm doing. X2 certainly looks like the obvious choice that is in my prefered price range.
That isn't to say that suggesting the 3.2Ghz version of what I have isn't a valid solution. I appreciate the suggestion and if my motherboard wen't the main thing and I were still looking to squeeze some more performance, this is probably the route I would go. Leave hacp alone..jeez
Thanks
Hacp is correct. The main reason for the upgrade is the fact that I've got a motherboard resulting in semi-random video lockups. But, I'm certainly leaning toward an upgrade. Although a faster HT processor similar to what I have would do the job, I've got a few more bucks lying around that I'm willing to put into something that will provide a larger increase in performance for what I'm doing. X2 certainly looks like the obvious choice that is in my prefered price range.
That isn't to say that suggesting the 3.2Ghz version of what I have isn't a valid solution. I appreciate the suggestion and if my motherboard wen't the main thing and I were still looking to squeeze some more performance, this is probably the route I would go. Leave hacp alone..jeez
Thanks
Originally posted by: tstein
Thanks for the detailed breakdown Viditor. That gives me a good idea of what the current picture looks like.
Hacp is correct. The main reason for the upgrade is the fact that I've got a motherboard resulting in semi-random video lockups. But, I'm certainly leaning toward an upgrade. Although a faster HT processor similar to what I have would do the job, I've got a few more bucks lying around that I'm willing to put into something that will provide a larger increase in performance for what I'm doing. X2 certainly looks like the obvious choice that is in my prefered price range.
That isn't to say that suggesting the 3.2Ghz version of what I have isn't a valid solution. I appreciate the suggestion and if my motherboard wen't the main thing and I were still looking to squeeze some more performance, this is probably the route I would go. Leave hacp alone..jeez
Thanks
No worries, mate! If we left Hacp alone, he would feel most unloved and dejected
Honestly, I do appreciate his input (even though I often disagree with it)! He often states an opposing viewpoint that's most important to hear, and he backs it up with links and facts (without which it would just be noise). He really is an excellent poster (even if he IS wrong, wrong, wrong!)
(j/k hacp)As to my comment on the 3.2 Prescott, I still would consider that a downgrade in many ways. The 2.4c (Northwood) really was one of the best CPUs of it's day, sadly I cannot say the same for the Prescotts...they're too hot and just don't perform well enough (at least not on the apps you listed) to justify themselves.
I think you will be MOST pleased with the X2...the difference between HT and real dualcore is quite astounding.
Good luck, mate!
Originally posted by: tstein
Thanks for the detailed breakdown Viditor. That gives me a good idea of what the current picture looks like.
Hacp is correct. The main reason for the upgrade is the fact that I've got a motherboard resulting in semi-random video lockups. But, I'm certainly leaning toward an upgrade. Although a faster HT processor similar to what I have would do the job, I've got a few more bucks lying around that I'm willing to put into something that will provide a larger increase in performance for what I'm doing. X2 certainly looks like the obvious choice that is in my prefered price range.
That isn't to say that suggesting the 3.2Ghz version of what I have isn't a valid solution. I appreciate the suggestion and if my motherboard wen't the main thing and I were still looking to squeeze some more performance, this is probably the route I would go. Leave hacp alone..jeez
Thanks
X2 is the obvious choice if you want it to zoom zoom.
If you want to upgrade on-the-cheap then get a low Pentium 4 (~ 3 Ghz), but for your description of tasks you like to do, the X2 is a no-brainer. Hyperthreading is nice but dual core is the real deal - two cores can get a lot more done simultaneiously than one core pretending it's two.
And AMD is the performance leader these days.
Dual cores >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>HT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>HT
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter