So should I go dual-CPUs or 64-bit?

TalonRazor

Junior Member
Jun 3, 2004
2
0
0
Ok, I built my current rig with the following specs:

Processor: AMD Athlon XP +2600
Motherboard: Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe
Video Card: Sapphire ATI Radeon 9800 SE
Sound Card: Audigy 2 Platinum ZS
Hard Drives: Western Digital 160GB and 100GB drives
RAM: Kingston DDR400 PC3200 512mb
Media Drives: Sony DRU-510A and HP (not sure of model, bought off of a friend) CD-ROM

It's a UV case with decals on the side with the computer name "Hardcore".

Looking to upgrade in August with about $900. I'm a cinematographer who does a part-time business, using my rig for gaming and am a student. When I upgraded, what would you suggest I do? Would swapping mobo and going to 64-bit be a hassle? Has anyone done that without too much of a components conflicting?

I'm also tempted by a dual CPU machine. What do you guys think of a Dual CPU rig? Are they worth it? You think Dual 32-bits CPUs better then a single 64-bit? Would you think that ripping out the mobo and getting a dual-mobo is worth it?

Thanks for the help!
 

TalonRazor

Junior Member
Jun 3, 2004
2
0
0
Aye, and that DOES look attractive...

However, you think I could get a mobo and two Opteron CPUs for my budget? And would games work that well on a dual-cpu system?

More and more, I'm wondering why the hell I'd get a FX or something at their current price when the Opteron look fine.
 

AnnoyedGrunt

Senior member
Jan 31, 2004
596
25
81
For $900 I think you could just barely do a dual opteron:

$300 = 1Gb ECC RAM
$200 = Dual CPU Mobo
$400 = Two Processors = 242 @ $207 each

The 242 is 1.6GHz, so would probably be just a bit slower than an A64 2800+ which is 1.8 GHz but has less cache for your single processor programs.

This is assuming you reuse the rest of your components.

Another option would be to buy all that same stuff but go with a single 246 @ $450 first, and then add another later (if you can actually do that).

-D'oh!
 

TimeKeeper

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 1999
4,927
0
0
I don't know how accurate or significant Sisoft is....
But my OCed 2.8C@3.5 score
9507/7238

That's pretty much same as Dual P4 3.2B 9808/7095
 

Jeff7181

Lifer
Aug 21, 2002
18,368
11
81
Originally posted by: TimeKeeper
I don't know how accurate or significant Sisoft is....

Not very :D


To the OP... the question you should be asking is not two 32-bit CPU's vs. one 64-bit CPU. It's Athlon XP vs. Athlon-64. The Athlon-64 is superior in every way. Buying another Athlon XP based system is more of a sidegrade than an upgrade. Sure you could have two processors, but there's only a few programs that make use of more than one processor... many video encoding apps included.

However... since the video thing is a part time thing, you're probably not doing multiple projects in a single day, probably not even one a day. So I'd say go with an Athlon-64 since it will increase performance in every area, not just in areas designed to benefit from multiple CPU's. Another bonus... Athlon-64's use less power and run much cooler than Athlon XP's... so it'll use less electricity, and in the summer, you'll spend less money cooling down the room the computer sits in :)

Of course Intel would be a third option. If the computer's main use was for video and audio encoding tasks then I'd say a Pentium 4 would be your best solution. However, Athlon-64's are VERY competative in the encoding department... and they do a little better at games.

As always, your decision will come down to price... you obviously can't afford an FX-53 on a $900 budget. If it were me, I'd go with an Athlon-64 3200+ (the extra L2 cache over the 2800 and 3000 will help with encoding performance). That'll leave you around $600 for the rest... get a GB of decent PC3200 RAM for $250... motherboard for $150... then maybe a nice 74 GB Raptor hard drive, or keep your current hard drive(s) and get some more RAM.