Is it a good time to upgrade my 3000+ to a 4400+ dual core?

mach1trading

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2002
44
0
18,530
I just bought a A8N-SLI premium, 2GB dual channel OCZ platinum 2-3-2-5, and a 7800 GTX Asus card. Now my CPU right now is a venice 3000+. I just want to play games and stuff... Will upgrading to that newer/better cpu really help? I just want to be sure becuase its ~ $400, which is a big chunk of change. Thanks =]

PS: I am not upgrading to a SATA drive just yet, im sticking with good ol faithfull 133. Anywayz... Just thought id let yall know. :p
 

pat

Expert
if you want to speed up thing a bit in game, dual core won't do anything to help for now. But,m a faster HDD, like a raptor will.. I would get a raptor instead of the cpu
 

mpjesse

Splendid
<in yodaesque voice> Yes, yes! To Pat listen.

$400 would be better spent on dual 74GB Raptors in RAID 0 configuration. Actually, that'll only set you back about $280. You won't get any increase to FPS obviously, but games and windows XP will sure as hell load at least 2x faster.

I have the same board you do... using dual raptors in RAID 0. It's so freaking fast it's stupid.

If you do end up getting dual raptors for RAID, make sure you use the nVidia RAID controller, not the crappy Silicon Image controller that's also on the board. The nVidia controller connects directly to the hypertransport bus making it much faster that the Silicon Image one (it connects through the PCI-E bus, which is slower)

-mpjesse
 

SidVicious

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2002
1,271
0
19,280
I got a X2 3800+ so I could run one instance of F@H while I game and run two F@H client when I'm not (That's how I doubled my PPD output).

Even with F@H hogging one core and a game running on the other, ALT-Tabbing is seamless, used to take ages on my now retired XP-M @ 2.6GHz.
 

mach1trading

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2002
44
0
18,530
<in yodaesque voice> Yes, yes! To Pat listen.

$400 would be better spent on dual 74GB Raptors in RAID 0 configuration. Actually, that'll only set you back about $280. You won't get any increase to FPS obviously, but games and windows XP will sure as hell load at least 2x faster.

I have the same board you do... using dual raptors in RAID 0. It's so freaking fast it's stupid.

If you do end up getting dual raptors for RAID, make sure you use the nVidia RAID controller, not the crappy Silicon Image controller that's also on the board. The nVidia controller connects directly to the hypertransport bus making it much faster that the Silicon Image one (it connects through the PCI-E bus, which is slower)

-mpjesse

I don't understand why I need 2.. I went ahead and got one. I hope that will be enough. I listened to everyone and upgraded to the 74gb raptor SATA drive. So thats good for me. I really don't understand any of this RAID 0 talk, and why you would need 2, and how it would be faster than one. Anyway I am going to hold off on the cpu, and wait for the 4800+ dual core to drop in price. Or go get myself an FX series. Who knows... But for now this setup with this HD and OCZ 2GB I also upgraded to should do the trick. I am kicking myself in the butt though becuase I spent ~ $180 on an Asus X800 with DDR3 memory and all, but its not a GTO2. Or w/e anyway =]
 

fishmahn

Distinguished
Jul 6, 2004
3,197
0
20,780
RAID means Redundant Array of Independent (or inexpensive - debate continues) Disks. Raid 0 is where the system splits the writes and reads across multiple drives (usually 2, but more gives more speed) so performance goes up (since its writing to both drives 'at once' it increases HD performance. Not double because of overhead, but up to 75% or so... There's also other levels of raid that include varying levels of data redundancy.

There's a slight increase in chance of data loss (if one drive goes down, all the data is lost unless its backed up), but drives are reliable nowadays, so its not much extra risk.

Mike.
 

mpjesse

Splendid
You'll definitely see an improvement w/ a 10K drive... but RAID 0 (two drives) is really what pushes the envelope. The nice thing is RAID 0 combines the drive capacities and makes it one big logical drive. For example, if you had bought 2x 74GB raptors, your C drive capacity would have been seen by windows as 148GB (actually 138GB after formating). But like fishman said, if one drive goes down you loose everything on the other as well. But it's still worth the extra speed IMO. Just don't put anything critical on the array- that's what I do.

There's also different levels of RAID. RAID 0+1 for example uses 4 drives to both mirror and stripe. You get the same performance as RAID 0 AND the redundancy of RAID 1. If a drive does down, you still have all your data.

RAID 5 uses 3 drives. You get a performance increase (not as fast as RAID 0 though) and redundancy. Any drive can go down and you don't loose data.

If you have some extra $$$, get another one for RAID 0. You'll be happy you did- i promise.

Read the RAID FAQ in the hard drive forum. Good stuff.

-mpjesse
 

fishmahn

Distinguished
Jul 6, 2004
3,197
0
20,780
RAID 5 uses 3 drives.
3 or more - can have up to 8 or 10 drives in Raid 5 (or some similarly ridiculously large number...). Each additional increases performance so at about 5-6 drives it can outperform a 2-drive Raid 0. (but not a 5-drive Raid0 of course...)

Mike.
 

Rob423

Distinguished
Feb 5, 2002
2,809
0
20,810
upgrading the CPU to just browse the net and run some games is deff pretty stupid.

better access times will give you a bigger performance increase with a lower price cost.
 

plac

Distinguished
Dec 4, 2005
31
0
18,530
If you do end up getting dual raptors for RAID, make sure you use the nVidia RAID controller, not the crappy Silicon Image controller that's also on the board. The nVidia controller connects directly to the hypertransport bus making it much faster that the Silicon Image one (it connects through the PCI-E bus, which is slower)
-mpjesse

I have a Raptor 74GB and a 36GB. Does the controller matter as much if you are NOT using RAID? I cant remember which controller I'm on right now. Thanks.
 

endyen

Splendid
A few things. First, if you are not using raid, it's a good idea to disable it in bios. I would also disable the SI controller, as it affects boot times. That would leave you using the nvidia sata ports. This creates problems for people who are heavy OCers, but I'm guessing you aren't.
The nvidia raid is more cpu dependant than the SI raid, but that isn't important. The nvidia sata is slightly more responsive than ths SI.
Hope that's not too much information. Sufice it to say, the nvidia sata is better.
 

plac

Distinguished
Dec 4, 2005
31
0
18,530
A few things. First, if you are not using raid, it's a good idea to disable it in bios. I would also disable the SI controller, as it affects boot times. That would leave you using the nvidia sata ports. This creates problems for people who are heavy OCers, but I'm guessing you aren't.
The nvidia raid is more cpu dependant than the SI raid, but that isn't important. The nvidia sata is slightly more responsive than ths SI.
Hope that's not too much information. Sufice it to say, the nvidia sata is better.

hehe too much info? yes im overclocking. my 3200+ (2.0ghz) up to 2.4ghz by increasing my HTT bus to 240mhz, and lowering my memory ratio to like 6/4 or something. my memory doesnt run well over 200mhz, its cheap.

my cpu runs 25C
my pwmic runs 30C
my chipset runs 34C
my video idle is 39C

I run a Coolermaster Stacker with front 120mm over hard drive module, rear 120mm exhaust, 80mm top blow hole, and 300mm crossflow blowing across entire motherboard. Oh, and the 80mm in side blowing over my 7800GTX.
 

fishmahn

Distinguished
Jul 6, 2004
3,197
0
20,780
Cache stores data from RAM to make it more easily accessible to the CPU. The same way RAM is much faster than a hard drive, cache is faster than RAM. Since CPU's run at 2 or 3 ghz and RAM runs around 400mhz, accessing from ram is slow (to the CPU). Cache is much faster as its on the CPU die and runs at CPU speed.

Usually clock speed is more important, but it depends on many things. If the Cache is too small performance suffers, if its too big, performance is improved further, but not significantly (its a 'law of diminishing returns' thing).

Mike.
 

david_uk

Distinguished
Nov 12, 2005
249
0
18,680
ok thanks. so cache acts as bridge between ram and processor. so what is best, 4200 with 512kb of cache, or 4400x2, with 1mb of cache? (obviously the latter, but is it really worth spending out extra at the expense of other components)
 

MercilessDeadlyRaven

Distinguished
Dec 10, 2005
23
0
18,510
@mpjesse-I wish I had enough money to do that. The hard drive I'm throwing in my new rig is WD 7200 RPM 250GB $90 HD. Its good enough. ^.^

Now, about the processors. I seriously suggest that you not do that. I mean, if you have $400 to just throw away, get the two WD 10KRPM 74GB HD like jesse says, get a AMD 3700+ San Diego (from newegg of course) and overclock it. I clocked mine from 2.2GHZ to 2.5GHZ (which is more power then a 4000+, which is $100 more). I mean, sure the 4400+ will own my clocked 3700+, but you can still get the super fast hard drives. I mean, its really all how you look at it. A dual core processor that isnt even needed for games until a few years from now, or super fast hard drives I can use now?
 

seanx

Distinguished
Dec 10, 2005
44
0
18,530
as u see I am in the same boat , so to speak...

I used to have an AMD3000+ 754socket , was ok ...but time to upgrade
it used to run at 40 - 50'celcius , so I don't think I can o'clk much ....
I play games , but not intensively, use it more for chess programs , DvD burning , ripping , copying files and so I am looking at the x2 4400 since it has 1mb for each core and I am hoping this will improve on
the above tasks ...? as compared to the cheaper x2 4200 which has 512kb on each core. since both chips run at 2,2ghz the question of extra cache vs price for wot I need my pc for...which is better?
btw still deciding on the 4000+ with 1mb cache , but I don't think it'll handle the multi-tasking as well as the x2 's..
 

nitto1320i

Distinguished
Oct 28, 2005
76
0
18,630
<in yodaesque voice> Yes, yes! To Pat listen.
make sure you use the nVidia RAID controller, not the crappy Silicon Image controller that's also on the board.
-mpjesse

hi, sorry for buttin' but i was just curious about the nVidia RAID controller. is this also onboard or baught separately? i already bought 2 Raptor like everyone on this forum suggest for people. my mobo is a K8N SLI Platinum with Nforce 4. will the onboard RAID controller help? or...
 

david_uk

Distinguished
Nov 12, 2005
249
0
18,680
or, putting it another way, which is best, either:

1. 512kb or cache with 2gb of ram, or

2. 1mb of cache with 1gb of ram

assuming a choice had to be made between the 2.
 

endyen

Splendid
Yes nitto, your motherboard comes equiped with bothe raid controllers. The nvidia raid controller works for bothe sata and pata, if you choose. In your case, you can use it for your two sata hdds. It is the better raid controller, unless you plan to OC.
Make sure you have a floppy with the raid drivers ready, before you try to load youe OS.
 

endyen

Splendid
I'd bet that you will see no noticeable difference by going to dual cores. Most of your bottleneck is in your drives.
You would also probably benefit more from a raid0 setup.