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

Like I said, the P4 is hardly a bad performer. The cpu in gaming isn't that big of an importance, especially now as higher resolutions become the norm and games become more GPU oriented. Most forward looking games use the cpu primarily for physics as well as sound. Sure a 4000+ will outperform my P4 in games by maybe 5-10 fps depending on the settings and game but my P4 is already more than a year old as I mentioned and it's actually a Northwood, which as you may know runs cooler and faster than the Prescotts. My P4 at 3.4 GHz outperforms the P4D 3.6 GHz, runs just as cool as the 4000+, is on par with it and was relatively cheap. I have yet to find a game that has a problem running on my system as a result of the cpu.

I'll admit that the A64 is better than the Prescott, but compared to a comparitively clocked Northwood not so much and AMDs closest competitor to the Pentium M is the Turion, which doesn't quite match up in performance or battery life not to mention the core duo, which AMD currently has nothing to counter. In the past the Pentium 3 was faster than the Thunderbird and the P4B/C was faster than the Athlon XP.

Intel has already started undercutting AMD, the X2s cost quite a bit more than the Pentium Ds asside from the EE but than you also have the likes of the X2 4800+ going for over a grand. Intel's motherboard's are fairly expensive yes, but you can find plenty of good third party motherboards for decent prices; I got mine for about $100.

Sandra, PCMark, compression tests, if you would like to make suggestions or compare results be my guest. x86-64 is a hack that provides very little to no performance improvement in general. 15% is best case scenario.

This is true for the prescott only. The Pentium M runs slightly faster and runs cooler/draws less power than the Turion and the Core Duo runs laps around it. Your assessment on the Conroe is a bit premature as well, especially considering how well the "aging platform" compares to AMD's new platform. The Conroe is also a heavily modified version.

 

Sandra is only usefull for seeing if you're cpu is performing like it should.
I found out by using that that win x64 doesn't support the current windows octing tools (clockgen and ntune).
15% is not the best case
where the hell did you pull that out?
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/64-bits/index.x?pg=7
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1665&page=6
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/x86-64-rc1_10.html
etc.
bottom line- do you research before condemning something you know nothing about.
There was a site showing massive difference for an app but I'm afraid I can't find it.
Kinda figures since someone gave me the link.
Anyway quit clinging to your P4.
Just admit it's not a good cpu for single threaded applications and I'll be fair and say it can be much faster in multitasking and multitheaded applications.
And then I'll say amd dual cores crushs intels.
You'll have to wait untill am2 before we get "cheap" amd dual cores.
But the cheap intel dualcores are massivly slow in single theaded applications so it doesn't concern me.

I'm not sure if you're northwood is faster than the latest prescotts- with the 2MB L2 cash and 1066fsb either.
As for turion vs pentium M http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/pentiumm-vs-turion64/index.x?pg=1
ya turion is a bit slower and uses a bit more power (under load) but its also cheaper.

 

When everything goes quad core the GTL+ bus is going to scream or be replaced, hopefully the latter.

 

I looked plenty of places, all showed minor to no improvements with x86-64, maybe now more applications are being written to take advantage of it and we'll see larger improvements. I can't pretend to know how each and every program in existence works on all the latest stuff. Btw, you disproved yourself with those links, they show the P4 does gain increases right along with the A64 when running 64 bit.

I'll never admit anything like that because it's simply not true, we're talking very small percentages between the two when comparing overall performance, something AMD fans cannot seem to understand. Like I tell anybody who asks, the P4 is better in some areas and the AMD in others. Neither is all around better than the other, I will admit the Prescotts get hotter, and that's certainly something to consider, but that's about it. My work recently got a Dell Optiplex with a P4 3.2, it's a BTX case with a passive HSF on the cpu and two 120mm fans (one intake, one exhaust) blowing over the hsf, it works very well and is almost completely silent. Regardless to say the system has no problems running and is quite fast.

As far as dual cores, yes the X2s are faster, that is why the Pentium Ds are cheaper, but compared to the Core Duo (both at 2.0 GHz), well its performance is mostly on par and it runs cooler still than the X2.

Yes, it is. The Prescott has a 31 stage pipeline, compared to the Northwood's 20 stage, the Northwood runs cooler and performs better per clock, it just can't reach the speeds the Prescott can. The extra cache and fsb helps the Prescott but than I'm also running a higher fsb.

 

The increased power consumption of the P4 also means it costs much more than an equivalent-performance A64 over the time it's in your computer.

 

That really depends on how it's used. Most of the time the processor is idle, so unless someone has a really old early P4 (or Athlon), that's not a biggie. Modern chips enter sleep states that are a lot more efficient.

Depending on how heavy a gamer the user is, the power difference would be much smaller than the theoretical heavy load numbers, and would more likely be dwarfed by the wattage sucked up by modern video cards.

 

Well you shouldn't make make blanket statements like that then
As for P4 showing gains, yes, but in some instances it doesn't gain speed.

The point is that I can get a similar performing A64 for less atm.
Depending on the applications used the small difference can be big if it's fpu intensive.
Amd is all around a better cpu unless you use some multitheaded applications which the P4 shows large gains over the A64.
amd= superior bang for buck and for gamers outperforms intel.
I run my a64 with no case fans with the side panal off.
This may change when I sell my AXP setup

Well the DC P4s run at much slower clockspeeds compared to the single cores where as amd doesn't need to clock them down nearly as much, they're on par for the single core model number (x2 3800 vs 3800)
And don't forget the P-D uses more power of course.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q3/athlon64-x2-3800/index.x?pg=13
But I agree that the core duo is a better product- bloody hell better be with a smaller process and it does cost more

I know how long the pipelines are but I'm just wondering how the 2MB of L2 helps per clock performance to bring perhaps in the same ballpark as northwood?

Oh and I ran some sciencemark 2.0 benchmarks and at 2.5 ghz I perform right around the 4000+(2.4 1MB L2) /fx 53 level.
woohoo.
Since I have a stick of pny cheapy I run at a 333 mhz ram divider so at 250 HTT ram runs at 208 mhz which translates into 62XX in sandra and 578X in scienemark.
I'm satified with my 600 doller uprade (7800GT plus mobo/cpu).
The upgrade I might do with this platform is a 1900XT since cheap dual cores should come with the socket change plus maybe faster ram.
I say maybe because of the high latency of ddr2.
However for DDR1 in real world benchmarks you can run shitty timings (like cas 3,4,4) and have a tiny performance difference.
The only big differences are in memory thoughput benchmarks.


edit- pricing for X2 A64s at the "local "(30min away) place where I purchased my system
http://mypcparts.com/amdatx2duco.html
3800- 299
4200+-359
4400+-459
4800+-639

edit2- found a pcstats article comparing a 3.2ghz northwood and prescott
http://pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1535&page=4
doesn't look to bad imo.

 

Some general thoughts:

My problem with AMD chips is not the chips themselves, but the chipsets. IMHO intel continues to set the standards by which all other chipsets are measured.

AMD had as much trouble moving to 90nm as intel.

A lot of the power/heat points that people brought up were valid for the old 90nm Prescotts, but don't forget intel has switched to 65nm now and things are better. Maybe not as efficient as the AMD chips, but certainly the gap has narrowed.

I'll run benchmarks on my 830D if anyone wants to compare anything.

This thread makes me think I'm accidentally stumbled over into Tom's Hardware.

 

The chipset argument for amd is so 1998.
I've had 0 problems with IDE for both my NF2 system and and NF4 system.
Good thing amd has an ondie memory controllor now- one less thing to screw u p

.65 hasn't closed the gap in power consumption either
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/fx60-vs-955xe/index.x?pg=15
225 watts full load for the FX60 vs 286 for the 955XE.
Still 60~ watts, and thats on a smaller process than amd so they should have an advantage.
They improved power consumption, but they still aren't within striking distance of amd. it might be seen differently if intel outperformed amd btw.
As for amd's 90nm trouble, what trouble?
I have a winchester- the first 90NM A64 and the heat output is way improved over a 130nm barton.
idles at 30C and full loads around 50C at 2.5 ghz.
So what exactly is the problem?

We don't need you to run anybenchmarks either- that's what review sites get paid to do.
And I already know you'll wup my ass in SMP applications.

 

just put in my thoughts..

I'm currently running a 4200+ X2. It has proven a *very* competent upgrade from my 2.53ghz P4.

I'll definitly say that if you do any multi-tasking, or use applications that are heavily multi-process or multi-thread based (ie, any development work, such as visual studio) the difference between single and multi-core is pretty staggering.

Simply, your system will not lock up when you go to compile something. Running development web servers, databases, etc, won't gum up your PC, lots of little things that you used to deal with you no longer notice. Which is the best bit, you don't notice how fast it is, you simply don't notive how slow it is anymore.

Highly recommended. From a developers point of view (like many here), multi-core is the future, and preparing for it is a wise move. Everything I'm working on right now gets a healthy boost on multi-core PCs.

 

Aye, one thing that amazed my about my dual-core system is that I ceased to notice when AVG did its full-system virus scan while I was playing (I try to set it to a time when I'm not on, of course, but then there's weekends....). I mean, level load times lengthen dramatically, but I can't tell at all while I'm playing most games.

It still irks me, though, how Windows XP will occasionally lock solid while accessing the hard drive for as long as a minute. Windows 2000 didn't have that problem

 

There are some fanatical individuals, most of which come out from the closet after you you go against the norm.

 

Inside a single app, right? I don't get full system locks on HD access that I've noticed.

 

Well the norm has been Intel for many years. It is only because of the product that AMD has offered that the tables have turned. Or are you going to tell me that AMD have more marketting budget or bought themselves market share? Maybe AMD has a superior product and has made more astute business and technical decisions in the recent past?

Calling other people fanatical and stating they come out of the closet at times is pretty fanatical behaviour from you. But then there is no debating with some people.

 

new to AMD myself....(FX60 on the way)

dual core 2.8Gz per....

can anyone tell me what that might equate to in p4 equivalencies? (for gaming)

 

Something in the range of 4.2GHz-4.5GHz or so.

 

are you multiplying the cores?

what about single threaded games?

 

No. Just considering the frequency of one core (assuming a 2GHz A64 is approximately equivalent to a 3.0-3.2GHz P4). So I mean it would be approximately as fast as a hypothetical 4.2-4.5GHz dual-core P4.

 

I believe the FX60 is 2.6GHz core.

 

i think that's the fx 58....according to pc gamer compare and contrast.

woot! that cpu in cahoots with my x1900xtx (also ordered) is gonna rock!