Laz.e.rus January 27, 2006 Share Laz.e.rus Member January 27, 2006 (edited) all dualcore 64 bit Format: proc, L1,L2,Freq,price 3800+, 256,1M,2.0, $313 4200+ , 256,1M,2.2, $350 4400+, 256, *2*M, 2.2, $466 4600+, 256, *1*M, 2.4, $575 4800+ 256,2M, 2.4, $645 FX55, 128, 1M, 2.6 $811 FX57, 128, 1M, 2.8, $814 FX60, 256, 2M, 2.6, $1125 -------------------------------------- For AMD alone, the 44 to the 46 loses 1M cache, but goes up .2Ghz. k.. 4600 to 55 - lose 128 cache, go up .2 Ghz, add $250 ??? 4800 to 55 lose 128 AND 1M cache, add .2 Ghz, add $170? 4400 t0 55 lose 128 AND 1M cache, add .4 Ghz, Add $340? 4400 to 60 gain .4 Ghz, same caches. add $650 !?!?!?! ---------------------------------------------- Thats jsut AMD, lets add in some intel P-D Smith 830 800FSB (down .2Ghz from AMD) ...... 28,2M,, 3.0, $325 P-D 820 28,2M, 2.8 $243 --------------------------------------- So, the diff I see between PD 820 and FX60 is add .2Ghz FSB and 226KB cache lose .2 Ghz Add $900-- eep? 830 to 4600: add 228 cache, LOSE 1M cache, LOSE .6 Ghz, ADD $250 This makes no sense to me.. Either AMD vs Intel or even AMD vs AMD I ran the CPU tests from Toms for comparison IN GENERAL test - - - - Pentium - - - - AMD Farcry - - -BAD - - - - - Mch better Doom - - - - same -- - - - same PCMrk05 - - better - -- - - - worse 3DM5 Gfx - Mch Bttr - - - - Mch Wrse 3DSMax7 - -lil wrse - - - - - lil bttr Divx6 - - -held up-mid - - top4, then P owned all uppe below that. Edited January 27, 2006 by Laz.e.rus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laz.e.rus January 27, 2006 Author Share Laz.e.rus Member January 27, 2006 (edited) edit: added Toms tests I guess if you're a Doom freak adding hundreds for AMD is dumb. If your a farcry freak, itll double your frames. But what if your a HL freak? If the actual GAME makes a diff as big as doubling frames, it seems you would HAVE to do a game comparison to tell which you want. AMD doubles farcry, but what if Intel doubles CSS? You wouldnt know it until its too late. Edited January 27, 2006 by Laz.e.rus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOFX January 27, 2006 Share NOFX Member January 27, 2006 dang your post is very hard to follow. its all marketing man... Can you beleive video card companies actually take the time to disable pipelines to make the cards run slower, so they can sell them for cheaper? You know htey are making a good profit on those cut-back cards. So that only means one thing. The difference in price you pay for the premium card vs the scaled back card is all profit. Very sad... You do know that you are able to overclock some of those processors and gain more performace than the next level up, savingyou about... oh 650 bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laz.e.rus January 27, 2006 Author Share Laz.e.rus Member January 27, 2006 (edited) sorry tried to make it as simple as I could. List AMDs, ask questions. List P4s, ask questions. Show cpu tests, ask questions According to 3Dmark05 Graphics: Intel is the way to go for gaming by a LONG shot. This goes against all I have heard lately so again, more confusion. Toms calls 3DMark 05 "the Gamers Test" To be more specific, in the 3dM05 Grfx test, Intel holds the top 14 postitions totally unchallenged. http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?mod...l2=202&chart=60 Edited January 27, 2006 by Laz.e.rus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laz.e.rus January 27, 2006 Author Share Laz.e.rus Member January 27, 2006 now Im twice as confused as before after my last edit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookie January 27, 2006 Share mookie GC Alumni January 27, 2006 I've heard that AMD is appreciably better for Source than Intel. I'm sure there are some tests out there that would show this, I know I've seen some. From what I've heard, dual-core doesn't boost performance much in Source though. Exactly why the AMDs rise so steeply in price I don't know. One thing I can say though is that cache size is not a very telling number for performance. Once a cache is around some size (I think 1MB) the hit rate is already 99%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
((Shockwave)) January 27, 2006 Share ((Shockwave)) Member January 27, 2006 Okay, here's my 2 cents. What do you plan on using your computer for? Multitasking, Gaming, Programs? Keep in mind, the FSB is larger on the AMDs and require less power, and the Intel’s on the other hand are a power hog. Also, mind that price difference isn't just about the L2 cache. The Manchester cores have fewer transistors than the Toledo’s. Which means lower performance, but better OC'ing (but I'm not sure even if that's enough to match the Toledo core above it's class, that 1MB of cache is nice.) As with the dual-cores AMD has the upper hand, The 4400+ and up can out perform Intel’s extreme edition (yeah it's not dual core, but way more expensive) in normal day-to-day operations (multitasking here). As with gaming AMD hands down. Especially with HL2. Benchmarks can support this. Some games do benefit from have Intel’s HT technology though. Over all the Pentium D’s haven’t shown any power over the AMD Dual-Cores at the present time. And with the fact that AMD’s run on less power, it makes it even the sweeter. I’m in no way an AMD buff, I used to be pro-Intel back in the day, but now it looks as if AMD has gotten their game together, and I’ve trusted them more for gaming PC’s rather than Intel. And although the Pentium D 840 cost a little less, it's worth the money for go AMD. I'm planing on getting the 4400+ Toledo myself. Remember to get at least 1gb of ram if you go dual-core. I'm going for 2 in my new system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laz.e.rus January 27, 2006 Author Share Laz.e.rus Member January 27, 2006 The reason Im starting to look/learn now is that soon I will be putting a new one together. The goal will be to future proof a much as possible on a small a budget as possible. Ill need a CPU thats on the track of the latest wave, but not THE latest wave as that auto doubles the price ( ie: see FX60 lol). Ill be getting an SLI board, but only one card at first. ( why you ask? Future proofing. If Im running a 7800 gt, Im ok for now, and 18 mos from now when its slackin, I can add a 2nd for what will be pennies 18 mos from now and increase my Gfx capabilities for low cost at that time) 2 gig ram. Then Ill need help with the HDDs. I ll want one of the smaller faster for primary (10000rpm..are these SATA? 70's gig?), then a big ole monster for music, movies, 300 game demos, the games I dont wanna uninstall but arent my fav etc)..250 gig+ I will prolly even use an the onboard sound to start and spare the card. I rarely use surround anymore and am always on headphones. Primary use: Gaming, as future proofed as you can get without paying for the current king-of-the-hill. Im thinking 4400+ if I were to do it right this minute. Toledo class, dual core, lower end cost ($466 above) the 4800 wouldnt be worth the extra $200 as far as future proffing for .2 Ghz. And in some places the 4400 outperforms the higher cost FXs--still dunno why for the huge price jump-part of what Id like explained) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vovik January 27, 2006 Share Vovik Member January 27, 2006 I'm no expert but, I really don't think X2 processors have 2MB of L2 cache. It's 1MB * 2 as the call it, which I figure just a way of saying both cores have access to that 1MB....someone research pls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vovik January 27, 2006 Share Vovik Member January 27, 2006 also on those dual core processors.....even though referring to THG's My The Mother of All CPU Charts 2005/2006 article I couldn't see a benefit of Dual Core in gaming. Similar clocked processors actually performend marginally worse than single core Athlon 64s. And considering the fact that X2's cost almost twice as much....what's the point? In the near future (1+ years) both Intel and AMD will have 4 cores and more, then it'll be something to scratch on, but for now....explain it to me. I mean, you're gamers right? You can't really play two games at the same time, and I'm sure it will be more productive with an X2, but I doubt that you ever will do it. For the future in processors I look forward more to speed and decrease from 90 n to 60 and 45 to save the heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayfarer January 27, 2006 Share wayfarer Member January 27, 2006 Found a half life 2 CPU benchmark chart here. entire article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vovik January 27, 2006 Share Vovik Member January 27, 2006 Found a half life 2 CPU benchmark chart here.entire article. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, I think I saw this article before but I still wanted it for reference. Thx wayf. It also helps that they have x850xtpe in their tests the same card i got. Makes me wanna save up dough for 4000+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
((Shockwave)) January 28, 2006 Share ((Shockwave)) Member January 28, 2006 I'm no expert but, I really don't think X2 processors have 2MB of L2 cache. It's 1MB * 2 as the call it, which I figure just a way of saying both cores have access to that 1MB....someone research pls <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If I'm correct, each core has 1MB cache, which equals 2mb. The X2 is essentially 2 processors. Tom Martinez and Sunish Marikh wrote an article named "Understanding Dual Processors, Hyper-Threading Technology, and Multi Core Systems" where they have a detail technical explanation about Dual Core CPU. This term refers to integrated circuit (IC) chips that contain two complete physical computer processors (cores) in the same IC package. Typically, this means that two identical processors are manufactured so they reside side-by-side on the same die. It is also possible to (vertically) stack two separate processor die and place them in the same IC package. Each of the physical processor cores has its own resources (architectural state, registers, execution units, etc.). The multiple cores on-die may or may not share several layers of the on-die cache. Furthermore, they explained what inside each physical processor. A dual core processor design could provide for each physical processor to: 1) have its own on-die cache, or 2) it could provide for the on-die cache to be shared by the two processors, or 3) each processor could have a portion of on-die cache that is exclusive to a single processor and then have a portion of on-die cache that is shared between the two dual core processors. The two processors in a dual core package could have an on-die communication path between the processors so that putting snoops and requests out on the FSB is not necessary. Both processors must have a communication path to the computer system front-side bus. On WikiPedia, there's more brief explanation abot this. A multi-core microprocessor is one which combines two or more independent processors into a single package, often a single integrated circuit (IC). Similarly, a dual-core device contains only two independent microprocessors. In general, multi-core microprocessors allow a computing device to exhibit some form of thread-level parallelism (TLP) without including multiple microprocessors in separate physical packages. This form of TLP is often known as chip-level multiprocessing, or CMP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo January 28, 2006 Share Cujo Member January 28, 2006 (edited) dual core is two processors. you failed to mention that. going from 4800 to fx55 you lose a whole cpu. buying an intel right now for ANY reason is simply stupid. price to performance is still in amd's favour and always will be as long as they're the underdog. adding to that is the incredible heat output and power consumption of today's pentium 4s vs their amd counterparts. in fact the fx60, the current, undisputed leader in desktop cpus, has a lower thermal dissipation than the measley 2.8ghz intel single core cpu. just so you guys know, tomshardware is possibly the most intel biased site that exists. if you go to any enthusiast/ocing forums, they'll laugh in your face if you mention toms. anyway, i'm not saying don't use toms, just use it with a grain of salt. you really should be reading and linking 5 or 6 review sites when comparing anything... or just ask me as i daily read 6 sites and sell these parts to people for a living. btw, just re-reading through some of your comments and no offense but you guys are so full of mis-information. to start with, shockwave, amd doesn't even have "fsb" anymore and what you're thinking is fsb doesn't really factor in performance as it's such an incredibly fast interface, it doesn't even bottleneck at 1600mhz. btw, it's also 800mhz one way. they say 1600 cause it's full duplex so-to-speak. laz, the fx55 and 57 are both single core parts. the fx60 is basically two fx55s. 3dmark2k5 is one benchmark. as well, all those scores are within the 2% margin of error as it is. notice that all the intel machines that are on top use ddr2 ram. the 3.4ghz on the 875 chipset is the same as a 3.4ghz on s775 except for the ram difference. notice also there is a pentium ee 840 on the s775 with the 955 chipset and ddr2 that is well down there below the 3500 venice. where's the consistency??? it's on faster ddr667 ram as well. vovik, that's why toms is screwy. a dual core, logically should outperform a single core of the same frequency. also, there are games out there with patches for dual core now that show huge increases in fps. the latest drivers from ati and nvidia are both dual core optimized. most people also use onboard audio which would use more cpu and the second core, as well as lots of background apps that also would run off the second core. i've definately noticed an increase in performance with dual core even though it may not be noticed in benchmarks. "The CPU subtest of the PCMark05 test is optimized for NetBurst architecture that is why Intel processors perform better there." taken from here: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/displ...n64-fx60_7.html now if pcmark05 (a futuremark product) is optimized for an intel architecture then could it be possible that 3dmark2k5 (also a futuremark product) is? does toms point that out?... read the rest of the review and you'll see the intel's don't touch amd in gaming or much else. also, check out the power consumption numbers... i could go on and point out more flaws but i'm done for now. i know everyone here's things differently and will have different information but even take what people on here say with a grain of salt. heck, take what i say with one and if i'm wrong call me on it. obviously proof would be required. Edited January 28, 2006 by Cujo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laz.e.rus January 28, 2006 Author Share Laz.e.rus Member January 28, 2006 Thx for posting Cujo, I was hoping youd see the linky at xT. So, if I were to do this today, the 4400+ would be a VERY wise purchase? I believe what many of you said leads to this. Any opinions on my idea for how/why SLI? Thx in advance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo January 28, 2006 Share Cujo Member January 28, 2006 yes the 4400 would be the best purchase price/performance wise. if you plan on ocing then get the 939 pin opteron for a mere 50 bucks more. only card that's worthy of sli is the 7800gt. anything lower can be beaten by one of them and anything higher you'll never need a second card before you have to upgrade the rest anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laz.e.rus January 29, 2006 Author Share Laz.e.rus Member January 29, 2006 newegg'd it heres what I found Only these were dual core in 939 pin. Opt 165 : 1.8 Ghz $325 Opt 170 2.0 Ghz $415 Opt 175 2.2 Ghz $513 Opt 180 2.4 Ghz $775 The 940s were all generally priced much higher. Is that the way things are swinging? to the 940? Price-speed the 175 seems to be comparable to the 4400+ I was interested in. They would both have equal staying power with the future? Should I wait for 940s? This prolly wont happen till Mayish so.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kruten January 29, 2006 Share Kruten Member January 29, 2006 Opteron's are like the best in overclocking. The 165 can go past 2.5Ghz easily on stock cooling. S940 isn't going to go any farther than it already has. AMD is coming out with something new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman January 29, 2006 Share Batman Member January 29, 2006 Are Opteron's good for gaming?? My new mobo can handle a Opteron x2 170, Opteron 152, Opteron 146, Opteron 144 chips.. I was gonna get a 3700+ but im not sure.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo January 30, 2006 Share Cujo Member January 30, 2006 yes, get the opteron 165, 170, and 175s. they are awesome chips. they are teh same as the 939 pin desktop dual cores except they have an extra layer for added stability which leads to much better overclocking. once my store gets them in i'll be selling my 3800 and getting a 165 or 170. price wise, for the 175 it's 45cad more than it's desktop equalivelent, the 4400+. well worth it if you are going to overclock. even if you're not, it'll sell for higher when you go to sell it. current 940 pin opterons are completely different chips as they require registered ram. amd's next gen socket am2 is 940 pin as well i believe but it's a different pin-out. watch you don't get the two 940 pins confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laz.e.rus January 30, 2006 Author Share Laz.e.rus Member January 30, 2006 Sweet! Ladies and Gents we have a chip! Woohoo! Next.. Mobo ( sli ) and ram Thx for all the help guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vovik January 30, 2006 Share Vovik Member January 30, 2006 nice talk on opterons guys...thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laz.e.rus January 30, 2006 Author Share Laz.e.rus Member January 30, 2006 (edited) Heh. Ran into a block already. Went to newegg. Out of their 10 zillion Mobos, there was ONE listed for Opteron and it was 940 pin ONLY. However, there are a ton of Mobos listed for 939 pin. But they all say either this "Athlon 64 FX/Athlon 64/Athlon X2" or this "Athlon 64 FX/Athlon 64/Sempron" in the "CPU Type" description. Is the opteron also considered one of these types of CPU? Will any 939 pin work? edit: Actaully, I have no hope. There are so many, and so many new variables I dont understand that I would never work it all out. I want : 939 opteron 175 SLI pci-X16 ( true 16 not 8x8) easy and stable overclockable ( the whole point of spending more for the opteron) I really dont understand raid/sata etc. Edited January 30, 2006 by Laz.e.rus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kruten January 30, 2006 Share Kruten Member January 30, 2006 Opteron 175 As for the motherboard, DFI always rock with OCing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo January 30, 2006 Share Cujo Member January 30, 2006 asus a8n32 is your only real option for true dual x16 right now. just cause they don't say opteron support doesn't mean they don't. any 939 board should work with them and any of the dfi lanparty series (i have the ultra-d) should work with it. not sure on the asus but a quick google will tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now