PDA

View Full Version : Processor



c_freak
08-27-2006, 05:03 AM
Hi guys,

I am buying a new processor for my system. I would like to know about your opinon as to which processor gives a better price to perfomance ratio. And why??

anonytmouse
08-27-2006, 05:30 AM
I'm sure you can find a 486 for free. You can't get a better price/performance ratio than that!

laserlight
08-27-2006, 05:42 AM
c_freak, I suggest that you make a bet with anonytmouse that you can find a processor with a better price/performance ratio. Make your bet $(x+2p), where x is the price of a processor that you have in mind, and p is your projected profit.

Then, I'll buy the processor for $x and give it to you for free. After anonytmouse pays up for losing the bet, you return me $(x+p), and come out $p richer. Deal?

Salem
08-27-2006, 05:48 AM
> I am buying a new processor for my system
Which you neglect to mention. No point suggesting a processor if it doesn't fit in the socket which is on your motherboard.

> better price to perfomance ratio
Since benchmarks are often "cooked" in favour of particular application scenarios, which are you interested in?
High performance games, software development, image editing, movie editing, surf-and-email?

A question better asked at
http://motherboards.org/
http://www.overclockers.com/

VirtualAce
08-27-2006, 12:26 PM
I say AMD. Intel is over-hyped, over-priced, and over-rated.

With AMD you can get a chip for cheaper that will match or exceed an Intel of equal speed. Most hardware mags and sites I've seen recommend AMD not b/c they are faster, but simpy b/c for the price you cannot beat the performance. So price to performance ratio would definitely be AMD.

AMD has come a long way in a short time. My first AMD was the 40Mhz and it sucked. Ever since the P3 600 I've had an AMD of one type or another and they just scream. As of up to about a year ago they consistently outperformed Intel in games, have a better relationship with the gaming dev companies, and work hand in hand with developers so they can produce better games. AMD is all about games and they've been rewarded highly by the gamer community for it.

I've been running ASUS boards with AMD chips and NVidia cards for nearly 10 years and I've been more than happy with the results. AMD's floating point unit is so damn fast it's unbelievable. Intel is just now starting to catch up. And as far as 64-bit goes, nothing beats the AMD FX series. You will pay A LOT for this chip but it is one bad chunk of silicon. It will kick Intel's arse any day of the week.

c_freak
08-27-2006, 01:20 PM
Hi again!

Salem, i am interested in high system performance. I want my system to be fast. Apps should open reasonably fast. I do involve myself with multimedia (as part of my programming too) and games of course.

I have a 7 year old comp. I think the motherboard is too old to get a new processor.

Bubba, thanks for your comments :) Many of my friends are prejudicing me with AMD with similar comments like yours. I still have an P3 500 Mhz :D. Which one do you think is better, AMD 64 X2 3800+ or AMD 64 4000+?

laserlight!! do you run any business management classes? I would be glad to join :)

itsme86
08-27-2006, 01:52 PM
Which one do you think is better, AMD 64 X2 3800+ or AMD 64 4000+?
The X2 3800+.

Perspective
08-27-2006, 01:59 PM
The X2 3800+.

Is that the 64 bit dual core chip? I hate all these stupid product names, they should have some sort of standard for naming processors. 3800+ means its like 2GHz as well doesn't it. Stupid marketing people....

VirtualAce
08-27-2006, 03:51 PM
Yeah AMD really messed up their chip names by getting the great idea to sep the actual freq of the chip from the number designation. Annoying.

joeprogrammer
08-27-2006, 04:11 PM
Although AMD is cheaper and equal quality of Intel chips, they don't really have much in the way of laptop processors. AMD chips tend to run very hot, so I would only recommend AMD for a desktop computer.

psychopath
08-27-2006, 04:49 PM
3800+ means its like 2GHz as well doesn't it.
My Athon 64 3000+ is roughly 2Ghz. A 3800+ would probably be 2.5-2.7Ghz.


AMD chips tend to run very hot
AMDs actually run cooler than Intel chips, as far as I know.

joeprogrammer
08-27-2006, 05:08 PM
AMDs actually run cooler than Intel chips, as far as I know.
Here's a chip heat comparison:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2026&p=3

VirtualAce
08-27-2006, 06:29 PM
Although AMD is cheaper and equal quality of Intel chips, they don't really have much in the way of laptop processors. AMD chips tend to run very hot, so I would only recommend AMD for a desktop computer.


AMD does not have anymore heat issues. AMD is also making chips for laptops that far surpass Intel. I abandoned Intel when they abandoned me the end user by overpricing their chips and using bad marketing tactics in the 90's to market chips with nearly no diff in them.

Perspective
08-27-2006, 08:14 PM
My Athon 64 3000+ is roughly 2Ghz. A 3800+ would probably be 2.5-2.7Ghz.




I just googled it, the 3800+ is two 2GHz cores. BOOOOO for that naming convention.

psychopath
08-27-2006, 10:02 PM
I just googled it, the 3800+ is two 2GHz cores. BOOOOO for that naming convention.
That is a little messed up isn't it. Maybe they're trying to say that it runs like a 3800Mhz processor (if it were an Intel)..or something?

VirtualAce
08-28-2006, 12:26 AM
I'd take an AMD FX or and AMD anything running at 2GHz anyday. X2 is their dual core 64-bit but FX is the bad boy to have.

Salem
08-28-2006, 12:30 AM
When you start to have things like speculative instruction execution, out of order execution, and now parallel execution, a single number representing the clock speed isn't really telling you that much about what's really going on.

VirtualAce
08-28-2006, 12:32 AM
And when the 'pipe' is bigger as in 64-bit you can get a lot more done with a lot less cycles.

c_freak
08-28-2006, 09:26 AM
Thanks guys,

I think the only thing that lets an AMD X2 down is the fact that many softwares nowadays run as a single thread and to truly exploit the dual core features they must run in as two threads.

I guess that X2 is the next big thing too,,

Salem
08-28-2006, 10:03 AM
> I think the only thing that lets an AMD X2 down is the fact that many softwares nowadays run as a single thread
But there's usually more than one process right?

So one CPU heavy process runs on one processor and the other runs something else. I quite like still having a usable machine when one processor is fully loaded doing some task.

There aren't that many processor-bound applications which are readily able to be implemented in parallel. Sooner or later, some kind of I/O gets in the way.

siavoshkc
08-29-2006, 03:55 PM
Its a good idea to ask in pcguide forum (http://www.pcguide.com), core hardware board.

VirtualAce
08-29-2006, 11:06 PM
Well I've been building my own PCs for nearly 15 years and I'm A+ certified (if that counts for anything ...which in my book it doesn't) and it is my feeling a programmer should be intimately acquainted with the hardware he is using (that sounds really bad I know so no jokes).

Most of the people here know hardware and know it well.

psychopath
08-29-2006, 11:12 PM
so no jokes
Awww, c'mon!

System_159
09-02-2006, 11:09 PM
That is a little messed up isn't it. Maybe they're trying to say that it runs like a 3800Mhz processor (if it were an Intel)..or something?


Ding, Ding, Ding! Winner!
I've always heard that's the reasoning for the naming of their chips. Because the general consumer will see the intel saying "P4 2.8ghz" and the AMD saying Athlon XP 2800+, and think, "oh They much be the same speed, cause the numbers are the same. I'll get the AMD then cause it's cheaper."
This isn't really cheating by AMD though, as it's keeping the really difficult stuff of trying to understand that AMD can run 12 calculations per cycle where P4 can run 8 per cycle. I think it's something like that.

AMD is cheaper, and faster. They have much better customer service than Intel, and tend to last longer(In my experience). ASUS and AMD are the dream team of computer hardware.

bithub
09-03-2006, 10:57 AM
Let me be the first to jump off of AMD's bandwagon and suggest an Intel chip. Intel's most recent line (Core 2 Duo) chips are the best things out on the market right now (assuming you can afford them). Not only do they have the best performance, but they also have the best performance/power consumption ratio.

Take a look at this comparison (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=14) for more information on how it stacks up against other processors. You can use the "index" drop-down box on that page to see more comparisons based upon application performance, power consumption, 3D rendering, etc.

System_159
09-03-2006, 12:15 PM
Let me be the first to jump off of AMD's bandwagon and suggest an Intel chip. Intel's most recent line (Core 2 Duo) chips are the best things out on the market right now (assuming you can afford them). Not only do they have the best performance, but they also have the best performance/power consumption ratio.

Take a look at this comparison (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=14) for more information on how it stacks up against other processors. You can use the "index" drop-down box on that page to see more comparisons based upon application performance, power consumption, 3D rendering, etc.

That comparison doesn't take into account the ability to overclock. Given enough power and cooling the FX will overclock to infinity(well not quite, but it gest up there). Also, you must realize that AMD has been working on the next step up for some time now(hence the lag in their chips, allowing Intel to jump ahead). Give it a few months and they'll be back in the lead again.

bithub
09-03-2006, 06:33 PM
That comparison doesn't take into account the ability to overclock. Given enough power and cooling the FX will overclock to infinity(well not quite, but it gest up there). Also, you must realize that AMD has been working on the next step up for some time now(hence the lag in their chips, allowing Intel to jump ahead). Give it a few months and they'll be back in the lead again.
AMD has stated they won't be moving to 65nm technology until the first quarter of 2007. As long as they continue to have 90nm of space between their transistors, they won't be able to put out a chip as efficient as the Core 2 Duo. In the mean time, Intel has already demonstrated a working 45nm chip (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060125comp.htm).

I am by no means a fanboy of either company. I just research whatever chip is best when I am in the market for a new processor (as I happen to be right now).

Wraithan
09-03-2006, 07:30 PM
My little brother runs a AMD 3800 and I run a 2.8ghz Intel. Both systems have 1 gig of ram, but mine does better on the Super Pi test. And that is in a clean boot in DSL with the toram option set.

Just an observation... my computer was a gift and that is why it is an Intel... otherwise I am not sure which I would have gotten.

System_159
09-03-2006, 10:15 PM
AMD has stated they won't be moving to 65nm technology until the first quarter of 2007. As long as they continue to have 90nm of space between their transistors, they won't be able to put out a chip as efficient as the Core 2 Duo. In the mean time, Intel has already demonstrated a working 45nm chip (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060125comp.htm).

I am by no means a fanboy of either company. I just research whatever chip is best when I am in the market for a new processor (as I happen to be right now).

cool. Didn't know about the 45nm chip. That's pretty awesome. It doesn't help in my quest for enlightening the general public that just cause it says "Intel Inside" or DeLL on it, doesn't mean it's made of gold, butterflies, and boogers. So for that I smite THEE!. :p

ftp://download.intel.com/pressroom/images/manufacturing/45nm_wafer_photo_2.JPG
Damn, this guy is holding what's probably a multi-million dollar disc there. I'd love to see his face if he dropped it.