CPU upgrade advice -- Single v.s. Dual core?

[ANova]

But most of us have (do) own Intel too

You never know till you try...come on, the first one's free

If you or anyone else wants to offer me one I'll gladly take it.

I have played around with AMD processors (specifically a friend's computer with a Thunderbird awhile back), though I haven't really had the privilege of testing an Athlon 64. I've had nothing but Intel because of other mitigating circumstances and during the Thunderbird and Athlon XP days Intel's offerings proved better.

 

[Moloch]

Funny, I feel the same way for the other side.

Why, because I got a cpu for less money for equal or better framerates in games?
I also idle at 30C and full load at 45C at 2.5 ghz.
But of course everyone does videoediting and such where hyperthreading gives a nice advantage...

 

[ANova]

Why, because I got a cpu for less money for equal or better framerates in games?
I also idle at 30C and full load at 45C at 2.5 ghz.
But of course everyone does videoediting and such where hyperthreading gives a nice advantage...

No, because they delude themselves into thinking they're decision to buy a certain product automatically makes the competition unworthy and inferior. In marketing it's called brand loyalty, something many people between the ages of 13 and 24 are very common for. And before you say anything, I'll note once more that I said mitigating circumstances were responsible for my Intel exclusive collection.

But I'll humor you, AMD used to be cheaper, many Intel products do run under 50C (some much lower) and hyperthreading has been shown to help in more areas than just video editing. Btw, an A64 at 2.5 GHz roughly equals an FX-53, my P4 outperforms or is on par with an FX-53 in everything except one area and it's not a large difference. Plus I only paid $200 for it more than a year ago. Oh and it's currently at 35C idle and gets to around 45C under load with stock cooling. Yeah, I'm soooo mad I wasted my money on it.

 

[Moloch]

No, because they delude themselves into thinking they're decision to buy a certain product automatically makes the competition unworthy and inferior. In marketing it's called brand loyalty, something many people between the ages of 13 and 24 are very common for. And before you say anything, I'll note once more that I said mitigating circumstances were responsible for my Intel exclusive collection.

But I'll humor you, AMD used to be cheaper, many Intel products do run under 50C (some much lower) and hyperthreading has been shown to help in more areas than just video editing. Btw, an A64 at 2.5 GHz roughly equals an FX-53, my P4 outperforms or is on par with an FX-53 in everything except one area and it's not a large difference. Plus I only paid $200 for it more than a year ago. Oh and it's currently at 35C idle and gets to around 45C under load with stock cooling. Yeah, I'm soooo mad I wasted my money on it.

I never said that.
While you got an excellent deal on your intel, in real life, an intel 640 goes for 217 on newegg, while an a64 3200+ goes for 166.
It's really too bad intel failed at the 90NM transition with the P4.
And if you want to say my cpu is roughly on par with an fx-53(4000+), in low res game benchmarks it's much faster than anything intel has out.
Lucky for you we don't play games at 640x480 so the difference in speed isn't that great.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_cpu_performance/page3.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/half_life_2_cpu_shootout/page4.asp
my cpu idles at 29C btw full load is 45C~
I should put on my ASC(artic..) so I will be a bit cooler than you

 

[KimB]

Er, the FX series is intentionally overpriced for enthusiasts (i.e. there's no reason to buy anything but the latest FX processor, as the normal A64 line offers much better price for about the same performance).

So what you should be considering instead as a comparison is the ~$333 single core Athlon 64 4000+ (2.4GHz), which is about the same price as a 3.6GHz P4, but with higher performance.

 

[Moloch]

Er, the FX series is intentionally overpriced for enthusiasts (i.e. there's no reason to buy anything but the latest FX processor, as the normal A64 line offers much better price for about the same performance).

So what you should be considering instead as a comparison is the ~$333 single core Athlon 64 4000+ (2.4GHz), which is about the same price as a 3.6GHz P4, but with higher performance.

Well the EE P4s are also overpriced, either way if you buy one of those either you're an idiot or have tons of money to throw away for a minimal increase in performance, or both.
I used the 3200/3.2 ghz since I have a 3200+ and that's a rather popular cpu for overclocking, not sure about the 640 but I assume it should oc well aswell.

 

[ANova]

And if you want to say my cpu is roughly on par with an fx-53(4000+), in low res game benchmarks it's much faster than anything intel has out.
Lucky for you we don't play games at 640x480 so the difference in speed isn't that great.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_cpu_performance/page3.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/half_life_2_cpu_shootout/page4.asp
my cpu idles at 29C btw full load is 45C~
I should put on my ASC(artic..) so I will be a bit cooler than you

I'm not interested in cherry picked benchmarks in the only area the A64 is faster in. Come on now, show me something I haven't seen.

I could also put on a Zalman cnps and get temps under 30C but I'm not into e-penis comparing contests nor do I consider it worth the extra $30 bucks.

Er, the FX series is intentionally overpriced for enthusiasts (i.e. there's no reason to buy anything but the latest FX processor, as the normal A64 line offers much better price for about the same performance).

So what you should be considering instead as a comparison is the ~$333 single core Athlon 64 4000+ (2.4GHz), which is about the same price as a 3.6GHz P4, but with higher performance.

My point was that AMD is neither cheaper nor faster except in one specific area. I paid less for my P4 a long time ago and have comparible performance.

 

[KimB]

What, gaming? That's the most processing-intensive thing that most people ever make use of! The A64 is no slouch in any other area, and manages to come ahead in a number of non-gaming benchmarks, such as:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page37.html

or:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page39.html

or:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page43.html

All in all, looking at that massive CPU charts article, if I compare the Athlon 64 4000+ to the Pentium4 660 (3.6GHz) with only non-gaming, non-synthetic benchmarks, I get 6 wins for the A64, and 6 for the P4. That's not so bad for a product that comes out way ahead in games at about the same price.

 

[Sxotty]

I have never owned an AMD product

No, because they delude themselves into thinking they're decision to buy a certain product automatically makes the competition unworthy and inferior. In marketing it's called brand loyalty, something many people between the ages of 13 and 24 are very common for. And before you say anything, I'll note once more that I said mitigating circumstances were responsible for my Intel exclusive collection.

The only mitigating circumstances are that you did not pay for it. And that just means you really have no leg to stand on from a price performance perspective.

And by the way yes I have a P4 2.8GHZ, as well as pII 300mhz, p3 450, 800 MHZ, amd 850MHZ, 1600+, 2500+x2, Athlon64 3000+ and sorry the amd systems now are simply better for what I do and have been for awhile. Intel needs to get back in the game and quick though for the prices have really been going up on the AMD side as well. I want Intel to undercut AMD massively on prices and then perhaps I will try them agian, but with their ridiculous motherboard changes constantly it is really difficult to get excited about the Intel platform for me.

 

[stevem]

No question AMD ATM. AM2 will be interesting. I keep hearing that Conroe/Woodcrest are monsters, though.

 

[Cartoon Corpse]

Well the EE P4s are also overpriced, either way if you buy one of those either you're an idiot or have tons of money to throw away for a minimal increase in performance, or both.
I used the 3200/3.2 ghz since I have a 3200+ and that's a rather popular cpu for overclocking, not sure about the 640 but I assume it should oc well aswell.

im an idiot (graduate degree). and i have tons of money. so i just bought an FX-60 (and liquid cooling for it). once in my life, i wanted to have the best (for a short time of course). time will tell. maybe there's some value there only us idiots will ever know!

 

[Mize]

im an idiot (graduate degree). and i have tons of money. so i just bought an FX-60 (and liquid cooling for it). once in my life, i wanted to have the best (for a short time of course). time will tell. maybe there's some value there only us idiots will ever know!

Sounds like fun to me. I think Cartoon and others know it isn't just the performance - it's the fun of tooling around with new toys - liquid cooling! - that's the fun part.

Hell, I get a kick out of no hitches in email download during editing a 100 MB file on my X2.

I'm weird that way.

 

[Cartoon Corpse]

i thought only the FX chips were 'unlocked' for overclocking? but apparently that's not true.
did it used to be true?

anyway i suppose what i did, is like those doctors and their porsches. it's a waste of money, but damn it's fun to drive around in.

 

[Rolf N]

i thought only the FX chips were 'unlocked' for overclocking? but apparently that's not true.
did it used to be true?

The FX line has the added bonus that it allows you to increase the multiplier.
Of course you can overclock by different means, namely cranking up the mobo's reference clock which leads to a proportional increase in CPU core clock.

So you can overclock all of them. The FX just makes it a little easier by giving you that extra option.

And FWIW all Athlon 64s/Opterons (including the FX of course) allow you to decrease the multiplier, down to 4x I believe. That's a required functionality for Cool'n'Quiet anyway.

 

[Moloch]

I'm not interested in cherry picked benchmarks in the only area the A64 is faster in. Come on now, show me something I haven't seen.

I could also put on a Zalman cnps and get temps under 30C but I'm not into e-penis comparing contests nor do I consider it worth the extra $30 bucks.



My point was that AMD is neither cheaper nor faster except in one specific area. I paid less for my P4 a long time ago and have comparible performance.

I was talking about gaming performance, an area where across the board amd is faster.
Amd is faster in other areas aswell
pretty much any singletheaded application amd is faster in (but the above in multitheaded.. yet HT can't save intel).
Heres another site so you can't claim site is biased.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2456&p=4 feel free to read the whole review.

So what "cherry picked" benchmarks did you choose to claim your P4 was on par with an fx 53?
Btw you paid less, that is not the case anymore (or ever considering I don't trust you).
Oh and for 64 bit applications amd is faster in most of them as well.
Automatic 15~% boost for recompiling an app with 64 bit binaries.

 

[Tahir2]

Intel is getting the ultmate annihalation and total destruction by AMD.

At least that is what my work colleague would say

ANova the AMD64 platform is better for a number of reasons.. one of them being powerdraw and heat. AMD concentrated on lowering power output and heat disappation and Intel concentrated on MHz.

We know how that turned out and Conroe, although good, will be crippled by its aging platform (GTL+ bus vs Hypertransport).

 

[Moloch]

Intel is getting the ultmate annihalation and total destruction by AMD.

At least that is what my work colleague would say

ANova the AMD64 platform is better for a number of reasons.. one of them being powerdraw and heat. AMD concentrated on lowering power output and heat disappation and Intel concentrated on MHz.

We know how that turned out and Conroe, although good, will be crippled by its aging platform (GTL+ bus vs Hypertransport).

The sooner core duo (based) is in desktops the better

 

[Intel17]

Do you guys think that AMD will be able to maintain its performance lead in spite of Intel's Conroe offerings?

 

[Moloch]

Do you guys think that AMD will be able to maintain its performance lead in spite of Intel's Conroe offerings?

Well they still will have the advantage with the dual core interconnects but.. it is very possible intel could lead amd for some time based on duo core benchmarks.

Anova, I'm actually running at 2.4 ghz if it makes you feel any better.
Do to xp X64 not support windows overclocking tools...
I'm back in the 32bit world.
But atleast I get to overclock, my msi mobo only will post up to about 215HTT, but in windows i can do much higher.

 

[poopypoo]

I love my 4400+ X2 - I don't game much but I do dreamweaver/coreldraw/surf/email/imageprocessing/CAD all at the same time. With 2 cores and 2 GB of RAM, life is good.

(emphasis mine)

I was all sitting here quiely thinking to myself, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah my a64 handles all that with ease, even with roms in the background and 200 tabs open in maxthon ^^; but the CAD part made me stop and think for a second... wouldn't that be nice...