Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: NOT on July 15, 2006, 10:22:47 PM
-
Hey guys, I'm planning on doing some upgrades to my system, any recomendations on parts? I am planning on new mobo, cpu, vid card, and mem, and maybe new case. I am open to intel or amd. Was actually leaning toward trying amd this go around. thanks in advance for your input. Looking for positives and negs. Especially of any products to stay away from.
-
i would say athlon 64.. either 939 or the AM2 version .. i heard the Neo 4 chipset is nice. probably want SLI on the motherboard
heres a nice write up about the 939 vs 940 (am2) chips..
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2741
-
Read up a bit on the Intel conroe. The release date is July 27th. Pretty much every review site has had the chips for 2 weeks to evaluate them.
-
Yep, Intel's Conroe CPU is a very good part. It kills anything AMD has in like price ranges. Heck, AMD would have to cut thier price in half on some parts, to remain competitive.
Definately worth waiting for. It took Intel a while, but they are finally going to put the Prescott piece of crap behind them. And they are doing it with a quantum leap in performance with significantly less power consumption.
If you are looking to build a system, it would be a waste of money to build an AMD system. Intel now holds the price/performance crown.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It took Intel a while, but they are finally going to put the Prescott piece of crap behind them.
*sniff*
*wipes away tear*
But I have a Prescott!
*bawls openly*
-
Hard to have sympathy for you Krusty. It is common knowledge the Prescott CPU was Intel's worst version of the P4 to date. Even Willamette was better then the Prescott, in many areas.
The Prescott single-handedly gave AMD a pretty big jump in market share.
Conroe is a pretty significant design and market change for Intel. And it is the first time Intel has gotten a hold of the price/performance crown from AMD. Even when Northwood was faster than the top of the line AMD (before the 64 bit CPU's), it still cost more than an AMD part.
Unfortunately, you will need a new motherboard to use Conroe. I just wonder if Intel has any plans, at all, to roll out a Conroe based 478 pin P4 to replace the Prescott 478 pin part. Sure would be nice, but I doubt that will happen.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Yep, Intel's Conroe CPU is a very good part. It kills anything AMD has in like price ranges. Heck, AMD would have to cut thier price in half on some parts, to remain competitive.
Definately worth waiting for. It took Intel a while, but they are finally going to put the Prescott piece of crap behind them. And they are doing it with a quantum leap in performance with significantly less power consumption.
If you are looking to build a system, it would be a waste of money to build an AMD system. Intel now holds the price/performance crown.
Funny you should mention price cuts.
If the expected cuts go ahead the end of this month (July 24) -
AMD X2 around -
$282 5000+ (2.6GHz/512KB)
$224 4600+ (2.4GHz/512KB)
$175 4200+ (2.2GHz/512KB)
$149 3800+ (2.0GHz/512KB)
Intels should be around -
E6700 (2.67GHz/4MB) $530
E6600 (2.40GHz/4MB) $316
E6400 (2.13GHz/2MB) $224
E6300 (1.86GHz/2MB) $183
4 options -
a) Get a Conroe, if you can (most are speculating 'joe average' won't see them until September)
b) Wait for AMD "Torrenza" (basically way of having 2 x dual core on same mobo, due end this year.)
c) Wait till Q1 2007 for the AMD K8L (it is on schedule for socket AM2, delayed for AM3)
d) If AMD price cuts go ahead, makes them very competitive with similar performance Conroes. ( AM2 mobos will take K8L's in 2007)
-
Assuming they actually do drop thier prices that much.
The E6300 ($183) is faster than the 4600+ ($224).
The E6400 ($224) is faster than the 5000+ ($282).
The E6600, E6700, and E6800 ($999.00) are all faster than the FX-62 (over $1,000).
There is no way they will drop the FX-62 price to $320, which is where it will need to be in order to compete.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Assuming they actually do drop thier prices that much.
The E6300 ($183) is faster than the 4600+ ($224).
The E6400 ($224) is faster than the 5000+ ($282).
The E6600, E6700, and E6800 ($999.00) are all faster than the FX-62 (over $1,000).
There is no way they will drop the FX-62 price to $320, which is where it will need to be in order to compete.
I don't think they'll drop the FX-62 that much either.
Lucky I don't need to upgrade until first half 2007 :) .
In gaming benchmarks the 5000 is faster than the E6400, unitl you hit insane resolutions where they all tend to be about the same.
It's also faster at multitasking.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?page=7467&head=0
By contrast yup the E6300 holds about the same advantage over the 3800 that the 5000 holds over the E6400.
So performance top/bottom
5000
E6400
E6300
3800
-
Intel definetly has a good offer there... AMD will have to cut prices or present a new processor verry fast.
Currently i would really give it 2 weeks before upgrading.... it will either be much cheaper or a lot faster.
-
Originally posted by Schutt
Intel definetly has a good offer there... AMD will have to cut prices or present a new processor verry fast.
Currently i would really give it 2 weeks before upgrading.... it will either be much cheaper or a lot faster.
Thats the big prob, AMD sat on it's collective *** the last few years.
The new rev f cores later this year will claw back some of the advantage, but the one that will get it back is not due until Q1/H1 2007.
Thats why AMD is releasing the "Torrenza" platform end of this year, although they claim it was always slated for release at that time.
-
It seems that all the MB's for Conroe are going to be DDR2, which I thought was a step down from DDR? Does this newer MB/CPU make DDR2 and non issue?
-
AMD is going DDR2 and Intel has been there for a while. There are fast enough DDR2 modules to compete with DDR1, but they run very hot.
We are pretty much stuck until they transition to DDR3, which has the speed of DDR2, the latencies of DDR1, and the lower power consumption of DDR1. Best of all worlds. Still a couple of years out though.
-
Originally posted by Grits
It seems that all the MB's for Conroe are going to be DDR2, which I thought was a step down from DDR? Does this newer MB/CPU make DDR2 and non issue?
DDR2 - Higher latency than DDR, but greater bandwidth.
Latency helped by Conroes large cache and AMD's memory controller in the CPU not on the mobo.
Interesting side effect -
Intel - If they ever make a mobo with space for 2 x Conroes, they will share the memory controller. Communication would be between front side bus.
AMD - With "Torrenza" each CPU adds a memory controller, each with it's own bank of memory. Communication between CPU's through HTT 3.0 bus.
End of this year, H1 of 2007 is going to be very interesting for both sides.
If I can't get a sweet system for around 2k by then, there's something way wrong.
-
Ahem, multiple CPU's, regardless of the physical location of the memory ccontroller, cannot access system RAM at the same time. The operating systems will not allow it.
The only time multiple CPU's can be operating at the same time occurs when they are operating out of thier own cache and that is only true if the operating system does not invalidate the cache.
Just FYI.
-
Didn't say they could access simultaneously, what it gives is higher percentage of the max bandwidth available, rather than split it.
Thats the multiple Opterons advantage over Xeons.
Situation will only worsen with the first quad core Conroes which yet again will be two CPU's glued together, only this time two dual core CPU's.
It's a killer chip no doubt, but I think Intel should have gone farther and got away from shared busses, and using the FSB for communication.
Saying that unless AMD produce a lower cost CPU with the coherent link enabled (currently only FX series), "Torrenza" is going to be a real hard sell.
Thats even if it lives up to it's preliminary 80% performance increase claims.
No grey area, Torrenza will either fall flat on it's face because of cost, or be a resounding success. AMD's big problem, and logically us poor end users, is going to be cost.
-
Kev, the dual core Conroes communicate via the internal cache. Not the FSB. The FSB is just for memory reading and writting.
And by the way, the new Conroe based Xeon's will be out soon. The Opteron is going to be severely out-classed when that happens. The specs for the new Xeon's are impressive.
The Opterons edge over the current Xeon's lies in the Prescott based architecture Intel used in the Xeon. It was just bad.
The internal versus external memory controller really does not buy as much as you might think. Having an external memory controller is a huge benefit when using multiple CPU's. A centrol point of memory control makes it much easier for the operating system to handle bus contention issues.
AMD's internal solution, requires a huge piece of system based software to manage the memory controllers in a multiple CPU environment.
-
were'd I put my flashy thingy ???
Im gonna need it after reading all this..
I think its time to play the waiting game ... unless you despartly need a new pc
I would think theres gonna be anouther price war soon ... but all is for not if there isnt a better OS built to make use of whats coming . (i just dont see vista doing it..... its tooooo fubared already)
-
But the first Quad core Conroes (next year?) are going to be two dual core ones 'glued' together, much the way the current P4 based dual cores are.
There isn't even a dual Conroe setup on the horizon as yet.
I think this is why AMD is gambling on the Torrenza dual X2/FX mobos, which can then be upgraded to dual K8L's (both dual and quad core versions).
Current and future AM2 mobos are 100% compatible with K8L.
Just a shame it's taken AMD so long to get their poop together.
Conroe could be my 1st Intel CPU in 3 years come 2007 if AMD hasn't got the cost right and/or Torrenza doesn't live up to expectations.
The 80% boost on Torrenza is preliminary, and using apps that favor hyperthreading, so I don't read too much into them until more 'real world' tests leak out. Oh and it was running Vista also, which doesn't bode well :( .
-
"Don't cry for me Argentina!"
I think I'm good though. Despite having a Prescott, I'm running it socket 775 on a P5P800. Unless I'm mistaken, this board will be able to take a Conroe chip when it comes out. Yay me!
Now just a matter of saving up for 2 years to afford one!
I'm really looking forward to this. The chip development market has been stagnant for too long (relatively). If we ever want flying cars inside our lifetimes, we need to push technology. That's not going to happen unless there's major competition amongst the leading developers of the technology (that'd be AMD and Intel, mind you).
I hope this spirals off a major war, the kind not seen since the Pentium/K6 competition! :t
-
Think you'll need a new motherboard, but 'should' be able to re-use your DDR2 memory, although Conroes seem to be as picky as X2's regarding memory.
Mobo compatibility list -
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101408
-
Hold the phone! I coulda swore that one of those review sites for Conroe made a crack about "Should be able to use a P5P800 but wouldn't want to overclock it because of the power regulator" or some such remark!
Shazbot!!!!!!!
P.S. p5p800 has DDR1, so I'm shafted there as well.
I don't want to waste money on DDR2 if it's going to change shortly, requiring a new mobo in a couple of years. In my house we're not rich. A PC has to last 5 years before an upgrade (and most do on a regular basis).
-
It'll be at least 2 years before DDR3 starts being used by CPU's and mommaboards. I wish it would happen faster. I hope I miss this prediction by a mile or two.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It'll be at least 2 years before DDR3 starts being used by CPU's and mommaboards. I wish it would happen faster. I hope I miss this prediction by a mile or two.
Think your about spot on with two years.
If I remember correctly though the slots are the same.
Although knowing how they love to tinker with specs etc, it'll probably all change by the time it 'arrives'.
OMG is that uncle 'Bill' doing commercials now?
-
Bias is an ugly thing.
-
I think i'm confused:confused: Thanks for all the input guys, i think i can wait 2-3 more weeks to see what happens with conroe. Maybe.;) It will be hard, i do so want a new system.lol.
bmnot
-
Originally posted by BMnot
I think i'm confused:confused: Thanks for all the input guys, i think i can wait 2-3 more weeks to see what happens with conroe. Maybe.;) It will be hard, i do so want a new system.lol.
bmnot
Easy -
If you just can't wait - get a Conroe now. (On most forums guys who have ordered have said they aren't getting them untill 1st/2nd week in August).
If you can wait 1 week - AMD price drops, I'd still take an AMD 5000 over a Intel E6400, and it's only $60 more expensive. (Plus AMD socket AM2 will take K8L's in 2007)
Rest of them - Conroe has the advantage.
If you can wait till last quarter - See what AMD "Torrenza" brings with its dual core/dual processor possibilities.
If you can wait till 2007 - AMD K8L arrives.
-
More news from Intel:
"Intel today said that it has notified its partners that it has accelerated the roadmap for its quad-core processors. The launch has been pulled from the first half of 2007 into the fourth quarter of this year - in time to compete with AMD's 4x4 platform. Intel also indicated that the Pentium brand will move into the value segment of PCs."
Just FYI.
-
Love it, I smell even more price cuts come the end of the year :) .
This is what has been missing the last two years, a good old price war between Intel and AMD.
Good for us.
-
I have seen on the boards where people have talk about prob with dual core processors. Is that an intel issue and amd, or one or the other?
-
The dual core issues were with AMD running Windows XP (Windows 2000 was fine). However, they have recently released a patch to address the problems (availble at AMD's WEB site). So far, seems to be fine.
-
one more question. Im reading alot of reviews on mobos, and was wondering about any opinions u guys may have on manufacturer. Abit, Asus, Gigibyte, Foxconn, DFI....etc.... Who do u guys think offers best product?
Again thanks for all the help.
-
Personally I've always liked Asus and Abit.
My only gripe with mobos now is ALL the onboard stuff. I'd prefer a basic one with a lot of slots and no onboard, sound, network etc.
Another reason to hang on a week -
AMD price cuts may be MORE that what I first posted.
Original plan was to cut them by -
X2 - 40% - 50%
64 - 20% - 50%
Sempron - 10% - 20%
Instead we may see -
X2 - 50% - 60%
64 - 40% - 60%
Sempron - 20% - 30%
If you decide on an AMD make sure to get a socket AM2 one, not socket 939. Will be upgradeable to K8L etc in the long run, 939 isn't.
-
yeah but a 939 board and X2 chip will be cheap in the coming days.. i mean honestly you can get a X2 4800 939 50.00 cheaper then x2 4800 AM2 . 939 is still a great chip to use .. i mean if you have a 4800+ of any type of chip (AMD or INTEL) and cant run aces high or any game for that matter then we got problems.
-
Originally posted by handy169
yeah but a 939 board and X2 chip will be cheap in the coming days.. i mean honestly you can get a X2 4800 939 50.00 cheaper then x2 4800 AM2 . 939 is still a great chip to use .. i mean if you have a 4800+ of any type of chip (AMD or INTEL) and cant run aces high or any game for that matter then we got problems.
True, but for the sake of the $50, you get an AM2 based one that is UPGRADEABLE.
No point buying a brand new system that is effectively at a dead end.
If the price-cuts pan out and they apply to all the AMD CPU's I'm going to be real tempted to get a single FX on a Torrenza (yup not as fast as a Conroe), but will be able to either add a 2nd FX later, or replace it with a K8L.
Of course if Intels plans to release the quad core Conroe early come to be, that further complicates my choices.
Theres so much up in the air at the moment I'm glad I won't be upgrading till the start of 2007, all the proposed releases will be available by then.
-
well the 939 is not dead yet.. they are still putting out chips for it .. the AM2 will go further down the road in the future though ... i guess coming from the point i can go from my 64 3000+ to a X2 4800+ and consider it a good cost effective upgrade a plus.. also .. just a word of note.. when they move to quad cores.. windows XP pro wont support it .. your only choices are gonna be vista if it supports more then 2 CPUS or linux .. so really at this point .. if i had any chip that ran 4.8ghz or eqivant wither it be AMD or Intel .. AM2,478 ,775 ,939 or even 754..i would be happy ..
i mean for playing games 4.8ghz with any processor is gonna rock ..
to be honest when if 4.8ghz gonna be obsolete? maybe 2-3 years .. whats the minimum reqs on the high end games these days?
-
this is what you need :)...
http://www.tyan.com/products/html/thunderk8qw.html
no more problems..
and vista from what i read will support 8 cpus
-
You'll need 8 CPU's to run Vista at the speed dual-cores run XP. Not to mention the umpteen terrabytes of system RAM (well, more if you want to actually run an application). :D
-
hehe skuzzy thats why i posted that motherboard link up above.. its scable to 8 dual cores ( 16 CPUS) and supports 64 gigs of memory .. oh and if you have available windows XP data center you can run up to 64 CPUS i think.. home only supports 1 .. pro supports 2 ..
-
I thought XP EULA was based on number of sockets (CPUs') not cores.
XP Home supports 1 socket
XP Pro - supports 2 sockets
So all the guys running dual cores on XP Home proves it's based on physical CPU's, not cores.
I have a mate who is running 2 x dual core opterons (4 cores) on Win XP Pro.
Taskmanager shows 4 "CPUs", 0, 1, 2, and 3.
So can't see any reason why even XP Home can run a single quad core, obviously for say a Torrenza you are going to need XP Pro to support the two physical CPU's.
But no reason each CPU couldn't be quad core for a total of 8 "CPUs".
[edit] 2000 Professional also supports 2 physical CPU's.
-
I don't think it works that way. My EULA (from memory) doesn't say anything about the number of CPUs. It said something about being allowed to install on one PC and have 1 backup copy on a laptop (this is good because I also used it on a laptop).
This is XP Pro
-
So I'm reading this thread, post after post after post in some geek speek language I have no basis of understanding to resource. So my question is this. Can I just call Dell and have em make me a comp that will run this freaking game at a competitive resoloution and speed?:huh
-
Of course. You just have to say one thing. "Money is no object."
The trick is you have to mean it.
You can make a call and have any computer made at any time. It will simply cost 10 times the raw parts it would take to assemble your own :D
-
Anyone running XP Home with a dual core CPU shows that MS bases it on physical number of CPU's.
XP Home only supports 1 CPU, but people run dual cores on it, and both cores show up.
Therefore for quad core on a sinlge physical CPU all you need is -
XP Home
For two physical CPUs you need
XP Prof
Win 2000
Anything above that
Win 2000 Server
Vista
etc etc.
-
This is what i got. Thanks to all for your input.:cool:
-
My head hurts.
I was all keyed up to start the work once the Conroe initial release prices stabilized....but now I'm not sure anymore.
I've been seriously thinking about building this time, and its about time for an upgrade. Current system works OK, does what I need (although the little incremental software defect annoyances are almost to the point of a reformat clean start) Bottom line though is that although I really really really want a new system, I can string this one out for months if its really an advantage to do so.
I was thinking about the 6600 or 6700 conroes....but should I wait for quad core?
Or will quadcore be $1000, like the 6800 is now -- which would make lower price of the 6700 the primary benefit? (BTW Skuzzy...Newegg has that for $250 more -- is there a cheaper reliable source we regular guys can access?)
Will better MoBos be coming out?
Or....is this one of those "there's always something better on the horizon" situations, where you cant ever wait long enough to get the best/fastest at the cheapest, so you might as well jump whenever you're ready?
-
Quad core will provide a very limited performance boost as compared to dual core's performance boost over single core, which is still marginal.
The only reason there is any performance boost comes from offloading threads to another CPU. However, very few applications are threaded and even fewer run small enough threads to give any performance boost. Once a thread cannot occupy the local CPU cache, it has to be fetched from memory.
I really do not see the cost/performance benefit of quad core CPU's. I chalk them up to more marketing hype than anything else. Remember this one fact. The only performance gain you can have happens as long as the CPU does not have to access RAM or anyother external I/O.
Only one core can access the outside world at a time. This includes RAM, disk, video card, USB, and the like.