Processor question

[UD_Delt]

I'm looking to upgrade my PC finally (been about 3 years) and I'm looking at the AMD X2 (AM2 slot) processors. Right now it looks like the prices on the 3800+, 4000+ and 4200+ are almost the same.

In looking at the 4000+ and 4200+ is it better to go with a slighty faster clock speed (4200+) or the larger cache (4000+)?

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ - 2.2GHz - 512KBx2
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ - 2.0GHz - 1MBx2 

Here's the rest of what I'm looking at if it makes a difference in the decision:
Configure it here: http://www.smksuperstore.com/catalog/viewitem.asp?ID=15041,  going to buy case, mobo, processor, and power supply from them.

Motherboard:
Asus M2N4 - SLI
http://www.smksuperstore.com/catalog/option.asp?ID=30522

I'm not going with dual cards yet but figure it's better to have the option in the future. The case I'll probably upgrade to their Thermaltake w. 580w powersupply.

I'll pick up 2GB of DDR2 667 RAM from somewhere and I'm currently looking at the 7600 GT card. The rest I'll scavenge from my existing box.

Any thoughts?

[Sky]

I wouldn't buy an AMD chip right now. They're overpriced compared to the new intel chips.

But to answer your question, I'd go with the bigger cache while you can still get it and just overclock it the 200MHz.

[UD_Delt]

I don't really know much about Intel chips. What's their comparable chip to the 4000+? Something like the 940 or 950?

Looking at this test:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2747&p=3

It appeared the AMD chips were generally outperforming Intel chips. The x2 4200+ is priced fairly closely to the 940 right now.

[Engels]

What you want to look at is the Intel Core2Duo chips, in particular the 6600 and 6700. The former performs as well as the latest and greatest AMD AM2 chip and the latter outperforms it by a significant amount, all for less money than the AM2 high end chips.

What's also important to note is that the DDR2 ram doesn't work very well with low end AM2 chips; you have to get the high end, expensive 800 buck ones to get the ramspeed up to Intel levels.

However, there is a catch; right now, Intel chips only work with NForce4 SLI chipsets, and that in turn also clocks down your ram for some reason. If you go for an Intel board and chipset, your ram goes to full throttle at the advertised 800mhz, but you don't get the SLI option.

There is a new chipset for the core2duo that's meant to be released relatively soon; the Nforce 590 chipset, which should, I repeat, should allow for fast ram speeds and SLI modes at the same time.

The whole AM2 'project' by AMD was a 'me too' reaction by AMD to the DDR2 ram upgrade from Intel. Unfortunately the implementation was flawed.

[Anoq]

I don't really know much about Intel chips. What's their comparable chip to the 4000+? Something like the 940 or 950?

Looking at this test:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2747&p=3

It appeared the AMD chips were generally outperforming Intel chips. The x2 4200+ is priced fairly closely to the 940 right now.

That test was done back in April before the new Intel Core2Duo chips came out and changed everything. For $250 or so, you can get a chip that outperforms everything on that test.

[UD_Delt]

That test was done back in April before the new Intel Core2Duo chips came out and changed everything. For $250 or so, you can get a chip that outperforms everything on that test.

Well fuck... looks like I'm starting over then.

Anyone want to throw out any ideas. I'm looking to spend about $1000 on a gaming machine. I need the core pieces but can scavenge the peripherals. I would need the following:

Case + Power Supply & Fans
Motherboard
Processor
Memory
Video Card

I already have:
60GB & 80GB hard drives - probably buy a bigger one later or an external data drive
DVD Burner & DVD Rom
19" LCD Monitor
Mouse, Keyboard, Speakes and such.

[Engels]

You've already indicated as much, but I take it you're not that keen on getting the latest and greatest card at the moment, but want a solid motherboard and chip and a mid-level graphics card, yes? Cuz for example, I went the other route; I just got a new board for my preexisting chip and ram, and then spent a wad on teh uber video card.

[Miguel]

As was said above, the Core2Duo chips are blowing away everything.  We had two systems in our office last week (for a Vista demo) and aside from the Vista problems they are fast as HELL!  Plop in a few gigs of ram and you are off and running.  These systems were running Asus P5WDG2 workstation motherboards (they are nice because they are fanless and use 8 phase voltage regulation) with 4 or 8 gigs of DDR2-667.  We also had some DDR2-800 but we didn't have 2GB modules on hand, only 1 GB (for a total of 4GB).

If you must have SLI then wait for the next NVIDIA chipset so you have the option of going DDR2-667 and DDR2-800 (I think the current NVIDIA platform is limited to DDR2-533).

[Trippy]

What's also important to note is that the DDR2 ram doesn't work very well with low end AM2 chips; you have to get the high end, expensive 800 buck ones to get the ramspeed up to Intel levels.

What are you talking about? There are issues with multipliers and stuff with AM2 and DDR2 (depending on the CPU speed some memory may be run at less than rated speed) but that goes up and down the range of chips. E.g. an X2 4800+ can run at a full 800 MHz (DDR2-800) -- you don't need an FX-62 to do that.

However, there is a catch; right now, Intel chips only work with NForce4 SLI chipsets, and that in turn also clocks down your ram for some reason. If you go for an Intel board and chipset, your ram goes to full throttle at the advertised 800mhz, but you don't get the SLI option.

You keep saying this but I see no evidence that the nForce 4 SLI x16 is underclocking memory and from what I've read in fact shows *better* memory performance than the Intel chipsets. It's also the top gaming performance chipset according to AnandTech.

The whole AM2 'project' by AMD was a 'me too' reaction by AMD to the DDR2 ram upgrade from Intel. Unfortunately the implementation was flawed.

It's less that the implementation was flawed than the fact that the on-chip memory controller of the A64s reduces the need for high bandwidth memory. When the A64s move to a 65nm process we'll see if AMD tweaks the memory controller to take better advantage of the extra bandwidth.

[Trippy]

If you must have SLI then wait for the next NVIDIA chipset so you have the option of going DDR2-667 and DDR2-800 (I think the current NVIDIA platform is limited to DDR2-533).

No it's not, stop that. I agree though that you should wait a week or two, then you'll have more options to choose from.

[Engels]

What are you talking about? There are issues with multipliers and stuff with AM2 and DDR2 (depending on the CPU speed some memory may be run at less than rated speed) but that goes up and down the range of chips. E.g. an X2 4800+ can run at a full 800 MHz (DDR2-800) -- you don't need an FX-62 to do that.

That's all I am saying. the cpu speed determines the memory speed, and hence the faster AM2 cpus run at full 800s, but the lower end ones don't reach that. If you buy a low end AM2 chip you get far lower bus speeds than if you buy the equivalent Core2Duo chip. That's all I'm saying.

I see no evidence that the nForce 4 SLI x16 is underclocking memory and from what I've read in fact shows *better* memory performance than the Intel chipsets. It's also the top gaming performance chipset according to AnandTech.

You're right, I was mistaken. I was thinking of the Nforce590s better handling of SLI/PCIe speeds vs the Nforce4, but what distracted me was references to poor memory overclocking in the Nforce4. From the article itself:

The ASUS P5N32-SLI SE is the only board currently available that brings NVIDIA SLI to Conroe. That will be an important consideration for many. However, it is based on the older nForce4 Intel Edition chipset and suffers from very poor FSB overclocking when compared to the Intel chipsets for Conroe.

[Trippy]

What are you talking about? There are issues with multipliers and stuff with AM2 and DDR2 (depending on the CPU speed some memory may be run at less than rated speed) but that goes up and down the range of chips. E.g. an X2 4800+ can run at a full 800 MHz (DDR2-800) -- you don't need an FX-62 to do that.

That's all I am saying. the cpu speed determines the memory speed, and hence the faster AM2 cpus run at full 800s, but the lower end ones don't reach that. If you buy a low end AM2 chip you get far lower bus speeds than if you buy the equivalent Core2Duo chip. That's all I'm saying.

Which I'm saying is wrong. Any AM2 that runs at a clock speed that's evenly divisible by 400 (MHz) will run DDR2-800 memory at full speed. That includes the X2 3800+ (2.0 GHz), X2 4600+ (2.4 GHz), X2 4800+ (2.4 GHz) and the FX-62 (2.8 GHz).

[Xerapis]

Geek fight!!

Please strap on the SCSI loincloths and proceed to the thermal paste pit.

The match will begin in 5....4....3....2....

[Engels]

Turns out its even more complicated than simple clock multipliers, according to this source http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2800&p=9

Probably the hardest conclusion for many will be the fact that increasing memory speed, increasing clock speed, and increasing CPU speed alone will not be enough for AM2 to catch up to Core 2 Duo in performance. The performance gap that remains when overclocking AM2 to 2.93GHz at 266 clock speed with DDR2-1067 is still huge. A die-shrink from 90 to 65nm and the additional cache that will allow will definitely help, but we are even skeptical there with Core 2 Duo already overclocking to 4GHz and beyond. No doubt AMD will find a solution, but it is now clear this will not be an easy fix for AMD.

The deep price cuts announced by AMD yesterday will definitely help. The new numbers indicate AM2 will be very competitive at the low end to low-mid of the processor food chain - a spot they have held in the past and where they have still managed to survive.

Ha. These have yet to seriously materialise and their top end chip still sells for 800 bucks while the chip that outperforms it, the 6700, sells for just shy of 600

[Miguel]

No it's not, stop that. I agree though that you should wait a week or two, then you'll have more options to choose from.

Indeed you are right.  I haven't kept up with the BIOS updates in a while, but the first shipping board that I saw was locked to DDR2-533.  I thought it was an NVIDIA requirement but I think that was just done by the board manufacturer.

[Engels]

I knew I wasn't imagining it; new bios updates now allow faster memory clock speeds, it seems. So the NForce4 setup for the Core2Duo is a good option, and is probably more than adequate to anyone who's not interested in uberl33t overclocking.

[Trippy]

No it's not, stop that. I agree though that you should wait a week or two, then you'll have more options to choose from.

Indeed you are right.  I haven't kept up with the BIOS updates in a while, but the first shipping board that I saw was locked to DDR2-533.  I thought it was an NVIDIA requirement but I think that was just done by the board manufacturer.

Which motherboard was that? The P5N32-SLI SE Deluxe is so new it doesn't have any BIOS updates (it's not even available on the ASUS support page) so it's always been able to support DDR2-800.

[Bunk]

Based on my fairly recent upgrade, I'll just say this - don't go for a mid range vid card. If you're playing games, spend the money on the card and accept a slower CPU speed if necessary to keep in budget. Just my opinion.

I wouldn't go anything less than a 7900GT right now.

This was thie first time in years I've not cheaped out on the vid card when I upgraded, and I'm in heaven. I went from a 6600GT to a 7900GT. In Oblivion, that's the difference between not being able to see accross town vs. being able to see the Spire in the capital from half way accross the map.

[Sky]

I can see the Spire from anywhere on the map with my 9800pro 256.

I just can't play Oblivion since I put that fucking Auzentech sound card in (though it's mostly fine with everything else). I might send it back, using the X-Fi or whatever creative has through their digitizer seems to work ok, according to MaxPC mag. Cost me a couple hundred more bones, but I'm not too happy with the Xplosion.

[Jimbo]

So would the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ $360.00 from newegg be the one's to get, and is it worth going ahead and getting two of them?  Sounds kinda neat, having 2 CPU's and 2 video cards.  Would need a big unit to keep it cool and a big power supply I would imagine, but it sounds pretty good.

Hmm, you could build up a pretty nice system with it.  I paid way to much for my FX-55 now that these have came out, this might make me drop my loyalty from AMD to Intel.

[Bstaz]

  Would need a big unit to keep it cool and a big power supply I would imagine, but it sounds pretty good.

CPU wise not really,  the Core 2 Duo uses about 1/2 the power of a  Pentium D, Athlon 64. So you could put two into the same case and have a just a little more power / heat then a single Pentium D.

The E6600 uses 65W

The Pentium D 950 uses either 90W/130W
The Athlon 64 X2 4600+  uses  110W

So running two E6600 should *not* be a problem with power and cooling at all.  Graphics cards on the other hand...

[Engels]

is it worth going ahead and getting two of them?  Sounds kinda neat, having 2 CPU's

Unless you're getting a server motherboard that has two sockets, why would you get two Core2Duos?

[Trippy]

is it worth going ahead and getting two of them?  Sounds kinda neat, having 2 CPU's

Unless you're getting a server motherboard that has two sockets, why would you get two Core2Duos?

It doesn't matter since the Core 2 Duo doesn't support a 2-way setup -- you have to go to the Xeon line for that. The Core 2 Duo doesn't even fit in a Xeon server/workstation motherboard.

[Trippy]

So would the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ $360.00 from newegg be the one's to get, and is it worth going ahead and getting two of them?  Sounds kinda neat, having 2 CPU's and 2 video cards.

The Core 2 Duo has two processor cores on it already (hence the "Duo" in the name). There's only a handful of games right now that currently support more than one CPU/core (e.g. CoH/CoV) so going for 4 cores would be a significant waste of computing power unless you are trying to build a rendering workstation or other multiprocessor optimized application, in which case you wouldn't even want a Core 2 Duo since like I said above it doesn't support 2-way computing.

[hal]

Totally in my opinion. I could be wrong and probably am. This is right up there with 64 bit. Nothing uses it today, will it ever you ask? Of course. But hardware leads software buy a good margin. So, Wheres my money? you ask? When dx10 settles down i will buy or build a single processor system with the one step under vid card because i am just like that. Buy the time that dual (or more) cores are desirable I will be looking to upgrade. Again my opinion. I could be wrong. It is hard to see the future in tech reliably.

[Trippy]

Totally in my opinion. I could be wrong and probably am. This is right up there with 64 bit. Nothing uses it today, will it ever you ask? Of course.

It's coming sooner than you might think. For example the 32-bit version of Windows Vista will not play back HDCP content.

But hardware leads software buy a good margin.

There's value in dual-core/multi-CPU computing now, even if the vast majority of apps can't take advantage of it. If you only ever care about doing one CPU-intensive task at a time then yes, dual-core CPUs are a waste. However, if you would like to, for example, play a game while you reencode some videos, then having a dual-core CPU is very useful.

[hal]

Trip, thanks for your thoughts. I'd prefer to talk about Vista when it is a product for sale. Multitasking? Yes you win. No question there, but what percentage of users time is spent multitasking? I am sure there is a range of answers. And that dual processors make good sense to some users. But most? The golden rule here is "buy the system that will run the application you want now" because you don't know what tomorrow will bring. Future proofing computers is a fools game. Tech changes to fast. Again all my opinion and observation. I could be and probally am wrong.

[Engels]

but what percentage of users time is spent multitasking?

MMORPG players do quite a bit of multitasking. Ask any Eve player if he's alt-tabbing to browse the web while waiting or a thing or two. Or an EQ/WoW raider, looking up l33t stats on the web while the raid gets organised. There's plenty of useage for multitaskers.

I am sure there is a range of answers. And that dual processors make good sense to some users. But most? The golden rule here is "buy the system that will run the application you want now"

Buying a dual core processor makes sense now simply because the pricing is not prohibitive anymore.

[Trippy]

but what percentage of users time is spent multitasking?

MMORPG players do quite a bit of multitasking. Ask any Eve player if he's alt-tabbing to browse the web while waiting or a thing or two. Or an EQ/WoW raider, looking up l33t stats on the web while the raid gets organised. There's plenty of useage for multitaskers.

That's not really the kind of multitasking that takes advantage of a dual-core processor, though. Web surfing isn't CPU intensive enough unless you happen to be visiting a Flash site or something and many games now are smart enough to lower their process priority when you switch out of them. In other words switching between apps where only one app is really CPU intensive won't see signficant performance improvements with a dual-core processor -- you need at least two CPU-intensive tasks to really take advantage of it.

[Strazos]

Two-Boxing. That is what takes advantage of the dual cores - almost the same as running on 2 seperate systems.

[Sky]

All major gaming platforms are now multi-core. Content providers are pushing for 64-bit (for DRM reasons, but hey). It's not hard at all to predict that 64-bit, multicore cpus are the future. They're here now and you can't really buy anything else if you want good performance.

The advantage of dual core? I don't really give a damn. The sheer power and overclockability of a Core 2 Duo? That's what I'm talkin' 'bout.

[Engels]

That's not really the kind of multitasking that takes advantage of a dual-core processor, though. Web surfing isn't CPU intensive enough unless you happen to be visiting a Flash site or something and many games now are smart enough to lower their process priority when you switch out of them. In other words switching between apps where only one app is really CPU intensive won't see signficant performance improvements with a dual-core processor -- you need at least two CPU-intensive tasks to really take advantage of it.

In theory, you're right; a web browser in this day and age doesn't suck enough processing power to hamper a game's performance enough to prevent alt-tabbing. On the other hand, in practice, the switch between the two programs is completely seamless on my pal's dual core, whereas on my machine which has a higher hertz rating but a single core, the switch between applications still makes the machine burp a bit. Its not significant, and probably not a point of sale item, but it is rather nice.

[Righ]

But hardware leads software buy a good margin.

This is a pointless and misleading statement when applied to general purpose computers like PCs and Macs. The fact is that the pace of hardware development inhibits software development, even today. People often moan about software bloat, but in fact most software is bloated for good reason. Software tends to use available resources in order to provide as rich a feature set in as reasonable amount of time as possible. You *could* spend a decade coding PhotoShop CS3 and an underlying operating system in highly efficient functions closely coupled to hardware, but it wouldn't produce a gain, because the hardware would have moved on. You *could* produce 30 stripped down versions of PhotoShop that only had the features used by particular groups, but the cost to market, and the sales complexity would kill you. That's not to say that we're not living with a lot of legacy crap we don't need - most of us are. It's the price of low cost general purpose computing. But waiting for the software to be meticulously optimised to "take full advantage" of a particular generation of hardware is silly. It won't happen outside of specialist computation (which includes both research computers and games consoles). Today's software will run just well enough on today's machines. To run today's software better, you need tomorrow's machines. Tomorrow's software will be along soon enough to make them look sluggish.