• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Eternal Question...

W

Wynder

Member
Greetings, folks...

Within the next two weeks I'll be ordering parts to throw together my first new machine in about two years or so. Up until recently, my Celeron 2.4 (OC'd to 2.9) had served me well; however, I'm starting to feel the lack of cache. A lot has changed with CPU's over that amount of time and I've moved from hardware to software development, so, I'm seeking a non-partisan (CPU-wise, anyhow) reccomendation on which way I should go... I'm currently looking at the following CPU's:

$246 (2.8ghz) intel Pentium D 820 800MHz FSB LGA 775 Dual Core, EM64T
$270 (3.4ghz) intel Pentium 4 550 Prescott 800MHz FSB 1MB L2 Cache LGA 775
$283 (3.2ghz) intel Pentium 4 640 Prescott 800MHz FSB 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 EM64T
$279 (2.2ghz) AMD Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego 1GHz FSB 1MB L2 Cache Socket 939

I'm not sure of the differences between the Prescotts and I'm not up on dual core CPU's. I also haven't kept up on AMD's since they went back to the non-frequency naming convention. So, any help or advice would be appreciated.

I'll be using the machine for a few things, but specifically, I'm a developer for an upcoming MMORPG, so our development client is still very CPU/Memory bound, so I'm definitely looking for the most CPU power here. Secondly, I still want to get the most out of my current online games (WoW, CoH, etc).

Thanks!
 
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
why are you not considering the AMD Dual Core stuff? Price?
Click to expand...

Yep -- I'm trying to stay around the $250-$280 range.

Something I had found quite interesting is that on Crucial, the DDR2 memory used on the Intel boards is now cheaper than the DDR PC3200 I'd have to buy with the AMD boards I'm seeing on newegg.
 
Personally I'd have to recommend AMD...simply because you get a lot of horsepower for the money. But a lot of it depends on the apps you're going to be doing.
 
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Personally I'd have to recommend AMD...simply because you get a lot of horsepower for the money. But a lot of it depends on the apps you're going to be doing.
Click to expand...

In this particular case, the AMD chip is the second most expensive of the four -- I had mentioned that, outside of my obsessive WoW and CoH habbits, I'll also be running a very CPU and memory bound application, so these prices are all relatively close... so, it's the nuances of these CPU's and experiences others have had that I'm looking to hear.
 
Originally posted by: Wynder
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Personally I'd have to recommend AMD...simply because you get a lot of horsepower for the money. But a lot of it depends on the apps you're going to be doing.
Click to expand...

In this particular case, the AMD chip is the second most expensive of the four -- I had mentioned that, outside of my obsessive WoW and CoH habbits, I'll also be running a very CPU and memory bound application, so these prices are all relatively close... so, it's the nuances of these CPU's and experiences others have had that I'm looking to hear.
Click to expand...

I honestly think you could go either way, and the new AMD chips dont give up nearly as much as they used to when it comes to clock cycle intensive aps. However, the Intel still performs better in some apps. I've had a lot of experience with both processors...I think you'd be happy either way...you know my personal opinion maybe we can get some other folks in here to hear what they have to say?
 
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang

I honestly think you could go either way, and the new AMD chips dont give up nearly as much as they used to when it comes to clock cycle intensive aps. However, the Intel still performs better in some apps. I've had a lot of experience with both processors...I think you'd be happy either way...you know my personal opinion maybe we can get some other folks in here to hear what they have to say?
Click to expand...

That'd be nice... I'm also looking at a 3ghz Dual Core Intel... though I'm a bit concerned with the performance hit from sharing the memory bus between processors.
 
That'd be nice... I'm also looking at a 3ghz Dual Core Intel... though I'm a bit concerned with the performance hit from sharing the memory bus between processors.
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it dude - no matter what you do, both the X2s and the 800 series Intels have to share the memory controller! It's just that the Intels, when they need to cross-communicate between cores, need to traverse the bus to do it (just like a traditional SMP system). Having an dual-Xeon myself and having set up a dual-core 820 for a customer (BTX form factor - da bomb!), I'd say you'd be well served with the 820 or 830. They multitask very nicely, and my customer was very happy, and utterly shocked at its speed. And did I mention that with the new BTX form factor how quiet it was? It was disturbingly silent. Not to mention that he didn't have to break his bank account to afford it.
 
If you just want a fast system without spending much money get a Newcastle 3400+ socket 754 and an Asus K8V-X.

By far the cheapest 2.4 GHz AMD64 you can get.
 
Originally posted by: Taishan69

Don't worry about it dude - no matter what you do, both the X2s and the 800 series Intels have to share the memory controller! It's just that the Intels, when they need to cross-communicate between cores, need to traverse the bus to do it (just like a traditional SMP system). Having an dual-Xeon myself and having set up a dual-core 820 for a customer (BTX form factor - da bomb!), I'd say you'd be well served with the 820 or 830. They multitask very nicely, and my customer was very happy, and utterly shocked at its speed. And did I mention that with the new BTX form factor how quiet it was? It was disturbingly silent. Not to mention that he didn't have to break his bank account to afford it.
Click to expand...

So, would the 820 (2.8) perform the same as an P4 2.8ghz if there were no considerations for optimizations on the application side?
 
Honestly, of the CPU's you listed, I personally would go with the AMD 3700+.

For your needs it will definately deliver better performance than any of the other CPU's.

While the Intel Dual Core you listed is a good value, I don't think you would be terribly happy with it's single thread performance.

Another reason to go with the 3700+ is, if you really want to go dual core later, it will be the easiest and cheapest upgrade option available to you later.
 
Originally posted by: Wynder


So, would the 820 (2.8) perform the same as an P4 2.8ghz if there were no considerations for optimizations on the application side?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why I think you would be dissapointed with this processor.
 
Originally posted by: MartinCracauer
If you just want a fast system without spending much money get a Newcastle 3400+ socket 754 and an Asus K8V-X.

By far the cheapest 2.4 GHz AMD64 you can get.
Click to expand...

It's not so much the cost -- I've budgeted myself about $1200 for CPU, Motherboard, Memory, Video and Disk Drives.

I can get 2gigs of RAM for about $240. A motherboard for about $125. $300 reserved for video. $120 for two 80g SATA's for RAID 0.

That leaves a decent chunk for a CPU -- say $280 or so (factoring in shipping and hell, maybe a new case ;p). I'm honestly looking for stellar power now and excellent options for future technology.
 
Originally posted by: Griffinhart
Honestly, of the CPU's you listed, I personally would go with the AMD 3700+.

For your needs it will definately deliver better performance than any of the other CPU's.

While the Intel Dual Core you listed is a good value, I don't think you would be terribly happy with it's single thread performance.

Another reason to go with the 3700+ is, if you really want to go dual core later, it will be the easiest and cheapest upgrade option available to you later.
Click to expand...

Interesting, Griff... thanks for that tidbit. 🙂

You really think that about the AMD, though? Even today, the cheapest X2 is $120 more than the cheapest Intel dual core...
 
ya know, im doing pretty much the same thing u were, and what i did was drop a gig of ram and go for the X2 3800+.. u could always upgrade ur ram later (though i read 4x512s dont perform so hot).

ive always been an intel guy, well still am actually, havent built my amd system, but im pretty sure that the X2s will pretty much own the pentium Ds, at least in most apps. plus, theyre pretty nice for gaming, and run cooler and cheaper (saving u money in the long run).

so yea, id scrap a gig ram, maybe save some money on video if its not so important...
 
Originally posted by: enwar3
ya know, im doing pretty much the same thing u were, and what i did was drop a gig of ram and go for the X2 3800+.. u could always upgrade ur ram later (though i read 4x512s dont perform so hot).

ive always been an intel guy, well still am actually, havent built my amd system, but im pretty sure that the X2s will pretty much own the pentium Ds, at least in most apps. plus, theyre pretty nice for gaming, and run cooler and cheaper (saving u money in the long run).

so yea, id scrap a gig ram, maybe save some money on video if its not so important...
Click to expand...

I had mentioned I'm doing MMORPG development and our client is still a beast -- very CPU and Memory bound, so I'd actually be more apt to add a gig of RAM before taking anything away. ;p Video will definitely be a key (I have an X850 256mb all picked out).

I guess my hesitation with the AMD's still lies with the frequency difference and how it compares to the intels.
 
Originally posted by: Wynder
Originally posted by: Griffinhart
Honestly, of the CPU's you listed, I personally would go with the AMD 3700+.

For your needs it will definately deliver better performance than any of the other CPU's.

While the Intel Dual Core you listed is a good value, I don't think you would be terribly happy with it's single thread performance.

Another reason to go with the 3700+ is, if you really want to go dual core later, it will be the easiest and cheapest upgrade option available to you later.
Click to expand...

Interesting, Griff... thanks for that tidbit. 🙂

You really think that about the AMD, though? Even today, the cheapest X2 is $120 more than the cheapest Intel dual core...
Click to expand...

The X2 prices can only go down from here. So, down the line they will be more affordable. Plus, what will make the X2 a cheaper upgrade from the 3700+ is that it will be a chip swap and nothing else as they use the same socket. I fully expect the 4400+ X2's(basically two 3700+'s) will be in the $300 range by the end of next year.
 
Originally posted by: Wynder

I guess my hesitation with the AMD's still lies with the frequency difference and how it compares to the intels.
Click to expand...

That seems to be a hard mindset for many to break out of. But, I went from a 2.4Ghz Intel to a 2.2 Ghz AMD (3500+) last year. And I can tell you. Mhz means nothing when talking performance. 🙂

 
Despite the frequency difference AMD is much faster than an Intel solution due to its far higher IPC - proportionally higher than frequency. That mean it beats it across the board from games (especially), to scientific aps to even some encoding tests where Intel used to reign.

In fact if you look at AMD's model numbers you can often add a little bit to them to find the proper performance.

Personally, for your situation I'd recommend
X2 4400+ - premium solution with 1Mb cache per core
X2 3800+ - cheapest dual-core but very capable - 512kb cache per core
3700+ San Diego for it's 1Mb cache - great overclocker.
3000/3200 Venice - overclocking champs. 512kb cache

However, I'd recommend the X2 3800+ as the best solution which you can overclock a bit too. Cache for AMD's has shown to make remarkably little difference beyond 512kb thanks to it's integrated memory controller reducing RAM access latencies.
 
Originally posted by: Griffinhart

The X2 prices can only go down from here. So, down the line they will be more affordable. Plus, what will make the X2 a cheaper upgrade from the 3700+ is that it will be a chip swap and nothing else as they use the same socket. I fully expect the 4400+ X2's(basically two 3700+'s) will be in the $300 range by the end of next year.
Click to expand...

After reading and reading (and yet more reading), I'm slowly starting to lean towards the Prescott EM64T 3.2ghz. It uses the LGA 775 socket (as do the Dual Core Intels for future upgrades), and that 2MB L2 cache keeps slapping me in the face. Since another limitation of a CPU is usually memory bandwidth, the DDR2 compatibility for the Intel boards gets me... if AMD was using DDR2, I think I'd be in a rougher situation decision-wise.
 
AMD chips actually aren't bandwidth starved at all (like Dothan also doesn't benefit from extra bandwidth much)- you can see it as a mark of efficiency over Intel Netburst chips.

Anandtech did a test on this with dual-core where he used some DDR500 RAM - only a few % in it.

Don't get mislead by large numbers as often they are to disguise a poor designed archtecture - are trying to make up for poor design.
 
Originally posted by: Diasper

Personally, for your situation I'd recommend
X2 4400+ - premium solution with 1Mb cache per core
X2 3800+ - cheapest dual-core but very capable - 512kb cache per core
3700+ San Diego for it's 1Mb cache - great overclocker.
3000/3200 Venice - overclocking champs. 512kb cache
Click to expand...

X2's are definitely out of my price range... at a little over $400, there's nothing I can really cut back on to try to fit that in.

Though, what kinda of OC'ing can you get on the 3700+?
 
Originally posted by: Griffinhart
Originally posted by: Wynder

I guess my hesitation with the AMD's still lies with the frequency difference and how it compares to the intels.
Click to expand...

That seems to be a hard mindset for many to break out of. But, I went from a 2.4Ghz Intel to a 2.2 Ghz AMD (3500+) last year. And I can tell you. Mhz means nothing when talking performance. 🙂
Click to expand...
Yeah thats pretty cool isn't it? I have tried to explain that to people, but they dont really get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top