Need your help selecting an AMD processor

[bagg]

I haven't noticed any improvement in load times with the dual core.

 

[sojrner]

well then aparently based on a 2:1 ratio of subjective reviews I must be on crack.

...seriously though, mine screams... granted it may be them move from 1 to 2 gigs of memory too but I am pretty sure that switching from desk to game and loading is also affected by that second core... this whole system is just dang responsive!

 

[ak47is1337]

well then aparently based on a 2:1 ratio of subjective reviews I must be on crack.

...seriously though, mine screams... granted it may be them move from 1 to 2 gigs of memory too but I am pretty sure that switching from desk to game and loading is also affected by that second core... this whole system is just dang responsive!

Yeah, that's DEFINATELY the ram and the lack of cache file use =/

 

[ak47is1337]

I actually just ordered a Pentium D 805 last night. For the price, those can't be beat. Can't wait to see what it will do.

Yes, I hear the 920 overclocks very well. I have yet to have any experience with it, so it would be hard for me to recommend it to anyone based solely on what I've read. My experience with NetBurst P4's makes me shy away from any of the processors that utilize it, and makes me think that the AMD Opteron at 2.8 GHZ is faster. Notice I said "thinks". It was an easy upgrade for me, because I already had a board and memory that it would work on, so the upgrade was considerable less expensive than if I would have had to go out and buy a new board and memory. I bought the 805 because I can use it in my work machine (which is Intel) and it was so friggin cheap! I will not buy an Intel processor for my home machines until they come out with Conroe and Conroe has proven to be what Intel claims it is.

3.7 on stock cooler
http://hkepc.com/hwdb/pd-805-2.htm
massive performance increase =D

 

[bagg]

No, the single core processor isn't going anywhere. The industry is moving towards dual core and software optimizations for them. It will take awhile, but that's where it's headed.

Again, the 3200 is an awesome processor for an awesome price and anyone who buys one will love it. I personally notice a dramatic difference in the dual core over the single core. Not in running Windows, not in load times and not always even in benchmarks. I notice it when I'm running processor intensive apps, which I do all the time. At any given moment my home machine is running NewsLeecher, WinRAR (un-raring 4GB+ files) and repairing large rar files using Quick Par. Many times I am doing video encoding on top of everything else. My 3000+ would choke hard while trying to do that (at 2.6 GHZ).

Bottom line, IMO if you strictly play games, go single core. If you are a multitasker like me, go dual core.

 

[sojrner]

Yeah, that's DEFINATELY the ram and the lack of cache file use =/

k, but isn't that what i was saying earlier? that b/c it didnt have to swap out the cache (which means it is using the 2nd core) that it is faster? ya, i didn't mention the ram before, which is certainly a factor... but what you just said is saying the same thing isn't it? that dual cores produce better speed?

 

[ak47is1337]

Yeah, that's DEFINATELY the ram and the lack of cache file use =/

k, but isn't that what i was saying earlier? that b/c it didnt have to swap out the cache (which means it is using the 2nd core) that it is faster? ya, i didn't mention the ram before, which is certainly a factor... but what you just said is saying the same thing isn't it? that dual cores produce better speed?
Not really..cache file is mainly memory and hard drive. a very powerful CPU vs midrange CPU in load times will have suprising similar results.

 

[sojrner]

I'm talking about cpu cache... not system memory (ram)

I realize that cpu cache is fast and prb not physically notice a diff but just thought it would be a factor. (now that I think about it though, prb not even enough to mention... my bad) What you are talknig about then is the os page file which is totally dependent on system ram... am I right now in what you were saying? (dual cores could be a factor in "paging" that file out to the harddrive on less ram carrying systems, but w/ 2 gigs that is just not happening here)

I am still convinced that when doing things like music (or especially what bagg is doing above) or other apps in the background while playing games is faster with this dual core. Never have I been saying however that your system is not good, and single core is still viable... I just think dual core is better in most all cases unless you do not do any multitaking. (or not much of it anyway... like you said w/ straight games) regardless if the programs are dual proc aware. Of course, like you said earlier, programs will become more dual aware which to me only makes a dual core even more attractive.

 

[chuckshissle]

The AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Manchester 1GHz HT 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket 939 Dual Core Processor Dual Core sounds pretty nice for around $ 300!!!!

3800 is good and fits great with $300 price tag...but the 3200 has better bang for the buck since it really is half price and since the 3800 won't be able to use its dual core processing in many applications yet since games that really benifit from it are rare.

Yeah, I agree but If only the dude is willing to spend a little more money.

 

[bagg]

I can't argue against someone else's subjective opinion, since it's subjective and all, but my subjective opinion would be that you going from 1GB to 2GB of RAM is what you are noticing. The amount of cache usage is negligible. It would mainly be limited to data access from system memory and the hard disk page file, not a particular program. Additional cache is normally only noticeable with benchmarks. Now going from 1 to 2 GB of memory, well that's something you will easily notice just by using the system.

 

[sojrner]

fair enough... and yes, it is very subjective what I have been saying as I have NO tests to back me up. You have been saying that multitasking you see it... and multitasking is just that, running multiple apps at same time... so loads could still shorten b/c most ppl have stuff running in the background (provided they dont shut them down before a game which some do) but regardless... I am not trying to be argumenative b/c this is just opinion that is not proven. rock on.

 

[bagg]

Just because you have 2GB of RAM doesn't necessarily mean your system is not using the page file unless you turn it off. The CPU cache reads and writes to system memory and to the page file, and yes, it does it at full processor speed so unless the program is very cache-dependent, you normally would never notice it.

I agree 100% that dual core is the way to go. 99.99% of people who use computers would gladly trade a few frames-per-second for better system responsiveness. This trend is only going to continue, making a dual core purchase now a smart one, providing you're not piching pennies to get it. To me, a $150 difference in price is cheap if I'm not planning on upgrading the processor for a year or so. As I said in an earlier post in this thread, hardcore gamers are only concerned about frames per second, making them less likely to recommend dual cores, but all games developed now I'm sure will be coded to take advantage of multiple threads, so it's only a matter of time before the entire industry has moved to dual core. I'm sure there will still be single cores available, though they likely will be budget processors in the foreseeable future, much like the Celeron. It may not entirely happen this year, but it will happen. No doubt about it. My guess is sooner, rather than later.

 

[MU_Engineer]

You are correct saying that an OS will use a page file even if you have a large amount of RAM. I have 2GB in my computer and it will occasionally write stuff to swap even if I only have 300-400MB of RAM used. What gets written to swap is simply buffered memory and that should not influence performance. In fact, if your RAM is *not* all used as application data + application cache + buffers, then your OS has either just been turned on or it is shooting your performance in the foot. If things you use get loaded and buffered into RAM, it is less that the disk has to read. If there is too much, then some of the buffers get written to swap or just flushed.

This is true on Linux, I assume it is not much different in Windows, but feel free to correct me if I am not correct.

 

[bagg]

I'm not being argumentative either. The more information the not-as-experienced of us here have on both single and dual cores, the better off we all will be.

There are pros and cons to everything. The more we know of them, the better our money will be spent on what we need and not wasted.

 

[bagg]

Windows isn't quite as efficient at memory utilization as Linux is (not surprisingly). It's always a viable option when you have a large amount of RAM to simply turn the page file off.

 

[sojrner]

Just because you have 2GB of RAM doesn't necessarily mean your system is not using the page file unless you turn it off. The CPU cache reads and writes to system memory and to the page file, and yes, it does it at full processor speed so unless the program is very cache-dependent, you normally would never notice it...

ya, I was just meant that it is not a measurable contributor when i said "that is not happening here" b/c like you said it is at full proc speed. I understand how the page file and cache works... but that is cool. I agree with what you said.

 

[ecosoft]

KnowledgeSeeker

The simple answer is AMD Opteron 148 for $256 available here http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?DEPA=0&type=&description=opteron+148&Submit=ENE&Ntk=all&N=0&minPrice=&maxPrice=&Go.x=0&Go.y=0

The reasoning for this choice is:
1. It will plug right into either your Azus or MSI 939 mobos and use your existing HSF.
2. Natively the Opty 148 is 2.2GHz w/1MB cache ... kicks butt as is, and can OC (effortlessly compared to multiplier-locked AMD64 chips) to 2.8/2.9GHz (providing good memory used)
3. It meets your price criteria.
4. Unless you are running a server, there is absolutely no software, other than niche applications, that is coded to employ multi-processors ... I'm excluding the 2-3 games that can see benefit from MP. So, all of the responders to your question that "holler" dual-core dual-core that's the ONLY way are are full of baloney, UNLESS you simply want to brag about benchmarks rather than functional usefulness.

Good luck

 

[sojrner]

man, i did not see any dual core proponents "holler" dual only... and if you want benchmark bragging then we are looking in the wrong price bracket. Ease up there hoss and calm down a bit. Everyone here has said that unless he multitasks alot then single core is the way to go. 'nuff said.

 

[ecosoft]

Bagg Dude

Your "reasoning" in support of dual core CPU's = system response time is greatly improved, while "seeemingly" true disregards the single biggest factor in any Windows system (95 thru XP) response time slow down. Over time Winxx slows to a crawl due to file fragmentation. The MS built-in defragger does not, can not, defrag the MFT (master file table). Glom a copy of Diskeeper, run it to defrag everything it can and you will see system response times equal to those of a freshly installed OS. DKv10 is a bunch cheaper than a x2 CPU ... and it'll also "work" on any future X2 system!

 

[ecosoft]

Sojrner

Would you feel better if I employed "advocated" rather than "holler"?

 

[sojrner]

naw man, I just interpereted what you were saying about bragging and stuff to be stronger than maybe it really was. Not a big deal, sorry I ended up jumping on you for it. didn't mean that one... cool?

 

[bagg]

I hope you aren't insnuating that I'm not intelligent enough to be able to tell the difference between file fragmentation and overall syetem responsiveness. While keeping your HD defragged using DiskKeeper is important (Windows defrag sux), it has nothing to do with applications that are processor intensive.

And to state "Unless you are running a server, there is absolutely no software, other than niche applications, that is coded to employ multi-processors ... I'm excluding the 2-3 games that can see benefit from MP." is very simply put, misleading. The applications don't even have to be coded for MP, Windows handles it just fine. While a dual core won't produce better performance within an application unless that application is specifically coded for MP, a dual core WILL allow Windows to delegate processor usage to different programs, which speeds the WHOLE computer up, not a program.

Also, your statement of "UNLESS you simply want to brag about benchmarks rather than functional usefulness." is incorrect. A comparatively clocked single core normally will outperform a dual core in a benchmark or app, unless that app or benchmark is coded to use MP. That is not the point I am making. A dual core proc shines when you run more than one processor intensive app at a time.