Printable View
I need an intense system because I multitask like there is no tomorrow.
Currently running on my system:
Windows XP
Dual RAID Mirrors:
C drive ATA Mirror
D drive SATA Mirror
1.0 Gb DDR Dual Channel RAM
(4) VS.NET 2003 instances
(8) IE
(2) Windows Explorer
(3) VS 6
(1) PhotoShop 7
(1) Outlook
(1) Regedit
(2) MSN IM
(1) API Viewer
(1) SourceOffSite
(1) McAfee AV running background service
(1) MS AntiSpyware
(1) Intel Application Accelerator RAID
Thou art insane.
How on earth do you use so many applications ? thats worse than my sister and she pushes the limits [22 MSN IM convo's open at once with 3 IE's and Sound Forge XP, and that includes webcams, audio, music etc... AMD Athlon XP 1600+, 640Mb RAM PC2700, Win XP Home]
I can see why you would want perfromance but ouch, i now see why you NEED performance.
Ok, so i still say AMD, and with that little lot i will definitely say 3800+ X2 (if you want to OC) or the 4800+ (if you'd rather not overclock)
:D
I dont like to OC as I dont want any issues, just stability. I find myself having to close apps and watch what I have running. I dont like to do that as some apps are like a R&D thing and I dont want to clutter my drive with junk unless I have to . I just rewrite code so I'll stay shard.
I was looking at the 3800 and am considering it. If I decide to go AMD I will have a tough time convincing my Dad to get me the AMDs instead of the Intels (its my xmas present - dual cpus and a mobo). My cousin works at Intel and that may be how I get them on a promotional sale.
I purchased a retail version of an Athlon XP 2100+ a long time ago. It has the exact same packaging as a Pentium 4 so I don't know what you're talking about. If you buy an OEM CPU, then it comes with shoddy packaging but the same goes for Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
How could you not make a decision yet? It's very simple. AMD > Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
If you like Intel that much, then just buy one. If you want the highest performance then you get an AMD.
This isn't rocket science and there isn't a need for 100+ posts to make up your decision. It's like beating a dead horse with a stick.
Comparing some tests, it was 6X. One average it's going to be 3-4X for the new Mac Book Pros and 2X for the new iMac. The reason is because the PowerPC processor just sucked. Plain and simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
This is like the issue with HyperThreading making a CPU slower with single threaded applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
HyperThreading run two threads in the same CPU space. It uses the left over space to run the other thread. If HyperThread is enabled, then a single threaded Application doesn't get the entire dedication of the CPU so it can go slower.
This shouldn't be a problem with dual-core though (or I haven't seen any issues like that with dual core CPUs)
Not really. Intel's road maps ar ekind of embarressing for the company and they change all the time. AMD still has a solid roadmap.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I think Penagate was refering to the slot 1 & 2 type intel cpu's that come in cartride style riser form.
If you want stability, I think you'd be well advised to not run so many programs simultaneously. Running that many apps is like mixing medications, you never know what the interactions might be.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
If you must - then why not run multiple PCs? Then you have more screen real estate, multiple KBs, multiple busses, HDs, paths, RAMs, etc etc etc
It would have to be faster, more stable, and still impress your friends.
A single system will always have its bottlenecks somewhere.
I think I just invented "distributed computing"!
He already uses KVM switches, so in effect, he does this already...Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBo
In all honesty if you do the OC correctly then it will remain stable :)
My system is stable as it has been running for over 2 years so far. I go weeks without rebooting or turning it off. Here is my 3 systems and its a little hard to see but I have a Linksys KVM on my desk on the right side so they all are connected to my 18" LCD. One system is a test system and the other is my 2003 server. Then I have my main developer system that I speced out in the earlier post. :D
http://www.vbforums.com/attachment.p...chmentid=44202
Erm, not quite that far back ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by -TPM-
At the time I purchased my 2600+ it was common knowledge that the XP's were more fragile to install than the P4's. They do not have anything like the same packaging, the P4 has a riser over the entire chip.Quote:
Originally Posted by kasracer
P4:
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentiu...6-400-1.7V.jpg
Athlon XP:
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K7/L_AMD-AXDA2100UT3C.jpg
You can't tell me you don't believe more clowns knocked the XP to bits than the P4 when they installed it :D
I had less hassle with technical specs this time: I bought a laptop. Not to entirely replace my desktop though. I had a laptop before, but I'm planning to sell it: it was portable and all, but it wasn't even nearly as convenient as my desktop. This new laptop I have is much more convenient, close to the desktop. And darn, this has even more processing power than my desktop!
I ended up choosing AMD based computer, I needed power versus long duration; I'm not sure, but atleast some Pentium machines seemed to have fairly long duration but they seemed to lack processing power. I don't move the laptop daily and it is almost always plugged to power outlet so it is close to a desktop replacement.
Here are the specs of the laptop for the interested people:
Processor: Mobile AMD Turion 64 3200+
Memory: 1024MB
Harddisk: 80 GB
Screen: LCD 15.4" WXGA Crystal View
Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon X700 128MB
DVD-drive: multiformat burner, dual layer
Its pretty nice how far laptops have come in the past few years, these stats are very much enough for my needs. Good thing I didn't buy a laptop of this price category two years ago when I bought my first laptop as a introduction to the laptop world, it would have been very much a waste of money (the screens of that time weren't this good not to speak about graphics power and processor...).
Although, with my income, I'm not gonna buy much if any computer related stuff this year thanks to spending a bit more than I've used to into this machine... :)
Ohhhhhh I thought you meant Box packaging. lol. nmQuote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Oh.. no :D
I was kinda briefly read threw the conversations here..lol
1 Major Reason Intel can mass produce more Chips than AMD is that their "Waffer" is much larger than AMD's...Which in Return allows Intel to get more Chips out of a Single Waffer...
Now the only way i see a 2( Dual Core Cpu) system happening is with 2 Dual Core Xeons processors or AMD Opterons...
Now also keep in mind ,yes intel has had Heating issues but that is all about to come to an End quickly,by say Mid 2006...Intel will be releasing a New Line of Dual Cores that will include a New Set of programming lines from the Pentium M Class CPU...The Pentium M / Centrino Mobile has no heating issues..
1 the over all design their more compact and designed to work on a Lower amount of Volt's because their designed for Laptops...Also in comparison ::
P4 3.0Ghz E To Centrino Chip of equvelant speed performs more Calculations per Clock Cycle than a P4 for a Desktop...
In return the Centrino Mobile is actually more powerful than the Desktop model,In the Magazines i get " Info World" the best network mag around..Not only have i been keeping up on this Heat issue with Intel Chips ,I also have a Reseller Account with Intel so i get some additional inside Info..LOL
So it wont be long that once the New Instruction Set's from the Mobile processors are put into the New Pentium D CPU Class the Heat issues will go away..And Intel will be able to go right into the 4 Ghz Class without any problems...Dont get me wrong just stating facts ..lol I have no issue's with AMD they do make a very good chip specially if your a Gamer..
my current system
Intel P4 3.0Ghz E
Asus P4P800 SE Motherboard
2 Gig of PC3200 OCZ with Heat Spreaders
(2) Western Digital Raptors on a RAID 0
(2) 250 Gig Western Digital for Storage
Nvidia FX 6800 (AGP) No long in Production but did make them for a short while...
HeatSink " ThermalTake DIY Tower" Solid Copper Version, Using " Artic Silver Thermal Grease"
(2) Fans to get a Push / Pull over the Heat Sink (4000 RPM) Fans adjustable
i'm not a guru on hardware... and i'm not aware of the benchmarks of the two... but i give idea based on my experience with our school's laboratory...
this is on the durability side of the processors... i'm not familiar with the price and its speed and all...
--- in my 3 yrs as a technician, i have never encountered a damaged Intel processor...
--- but, i have replaced 5 or more damaged AMD processors
A Technician who's not aware of speeds or prices or benchmarks or anything ?
Sounds strange to me, especially as your other thread is about what a technician would do for a living.
Still Rob, i think Dual CPU's of any description will work for you, whether its Intel Or AMD, i still believe however that AMD Opteron 146's are the way to go...
I'd say, according to the poll, it's a resounding win for AMD
The next system I build will be with Dual Core Xeon Processors on a Double Socket Motherboard,with a Minimum of 2 Gigs of Ram Per CPU Core...But yeah AMD or Intel will work good for you Rob...But from what i see the AMD X2 is also more expensive...LOL
Kinda weird AMD being more expensive this time around but if you look on Newegg.com you will see the starting price for a AMD X2 is around $500 give or take...To where the Intel Pentium D @ 2.8Ghz starts at around $280.. :)
Yup, I saw that and feel with the durability of Intel and lower price, it may be a win for Intel. I hate hardware issues as I need my system to be reliable.
I seen that Xeon processors are more designed for server systems. Does anyone know more on this?
Hmm, but doesn't Intel's processors produce more heat than AMD's processors, thus wearing down the system overall quicker thanks to the "extra" heat it produces? Atleast HDs and powers don't like too much heat all that much afaik. I'm also interested to see what these hardware issues are: do they mean some kind of immarity problems with motherboard chipsets or are the processors somehow more prone to errors than Intel's? As far as I remember, there was just talk in this thread that there are no major differences between lifetime and error pronity of AMD and Intel, or something like that.
The X2 3800+ is $322, IMO ~$50 for what equates to 1Ghz faster CPU isn't bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattlerr
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103562
what is Frappr??
Friend Maper. Click on it and see where all the VBF'ers are located.
Now, let me share something here.
Price: Intel expensive…AMD cheap
Stability : Intel stable …AMD less stable
Performance : Intel low…AMD high
Heat : Intel cool…AMD hot
Manage calculation software : Intel better…AMD less better
Manage graphic / 3D game software : Intel less better…AMD better
It is depending on our priority. If our priority concern on;
-price--> buy AMD
-performance --> buy AMD
-stability --> buy Intel
-use calculation software --> buy Intel
-use graphic/3D game --> buy AMD
thanks
The last time checked (and that is a while ago, I admit that), it was Intel that consumed both more power and created heat a lot. This from the times of Pentium 4 generation. I haven't followed how the things are for the newest processors since I'm not buying a new computer in atleast two-three years.
AMD was hotter before those times, the first generation Athlons were worse on heat than Intels (was it Pentium III that competed with the Athlons...). Then things changed with Pentium 4 and the later generation Athlons.
Anyways, it'd be always nice to see actual numbers and models that were compared instead of using generalization to all processors currently available :)
go for AMD...
We just recieved a demo unit sunmicrosystem x4200 Server. Currently it has two (2) 2.8 Gig opteron single cores and 2 gig of Ram. At first I was skeptical of its performance coz it was built by sunmicrosystems in which before don't support windows OS, but now they do. We installed 64 bit windows 2003 server and 64 bit sql server 2005. Man! it's Amazing. Our sql queries are now faster. Super fast. Too good to be true actualy. We have this one heavy sql query that would take 29 seconds to complete on a Pentium 4 2.8 Gig Extreme edition, 2 gig of ram. In the x4200 Opteron Powered Server it can compelete the query in less than 2 seconds. amazing! Another is I have batch update module that would take 4 hours to complete on the said P4E and on the Opteron less than 20 minutes to complete. I'm so satisfied! Too bad no Xeons to test. We are convinced in buying the x4200 server but with 2 dual core opterons instead. Can't imagine what power the twin dual opterons and 4 gig of Ram can provide.
AMD rules!