Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Tigger29 on February 04, 2007, 10:52:26 AM
-
OK.. I posted earlier about upgrading to an A64 processor..
just did taxes last night.. found out we're getting a LOT more than we had planned...
I think I'm going to make the jump to the Core-duo!
I saw a post awhile back for a compatible motherboard that had both AGP and PCIe slots... I still want want to stick to a "budget" system, and that means keeping my high-end AGP video card.. for now.
Does anyone have a link for that motherboard? Any advise on what I should look for on the processor/cooling setup?
I'm looking to spend at most $500 and I'll need to purchase:
-Motherboard
-Processor
-RAM
-Power Supply - Maybe a case (sometimes you can get them together) I have several cases laying around but kind of want a new one.
-SATA hard drive
For now I'll be using XP Home and reusing my AGP video and optical drives.
Thanks for any advice!
-
ASRock 775Dual (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813157092) - intel
or this one for AMD:
ASRock 939Dual-VSTA Socket 939 (http://www.pcplanetsystems.com/abc/product_details.php?category_id=114&item_id=1911)
I'd get one of these if you can find one if it can handle an Opteron. Just dropped an opt 170 into my asus 939 pin mb.
-
Tigger,
If you have a frys near by you can pick up a dual core combo with the E6300 for around 170. The board you get with it is fine (i have one) but forget about any overclocking.
I just got the ASROCK board on (open box) from new egg. This one should overclock better plus it has both pci express and agp.
-
The 775dual looks exactly like what I need... but.. it doesn't list the core-duo as a compatible processor.. does it work with those?
As far as frys... there are none near me.. I've never even heard of that store.. we have compusas and best buys around here.
-
Yes the Asrock board supports the core 2 duo (conroe).
Check frys.com and look under combos. I think it is a good deal if you don't plan on overclocking.
-
OK.. i was reading about the inter ASRock... it appears some were shipped with an older version of BIOS and do not work with the core-duo until you update the bios.
The problem is you need a processor that WILL work, to allow it to boot enough to do a flash.
Anyone run into that problem?
I'm actually considering an Athlon 64 X2 processor... anyone have any experience with this?
I e-filed saturday.. hopefully I'll see the money by the 12th or 13th... can't wait ;)
-
I heard that Core-duos are based on Pentium3 architecture. P3s were far more efficient (in terms of ghz/watt ratio) than P4s. Basically the core duo is like having 2 pentium 3s:p. I guess breaking the 3GHZ barrier is just not possible with the current materials.
-
The P-3s weren't that great... they were just alot less transistors. If I recall right, they only went up to 667MHz. The Centrino laptops started appearing about the same time that the P-4 was breaking 2GHz. They originally came out in the 1.2GHz-1.4GHz area. I don't recall them being based on any particular pentium architecture. The chip was completely designed in Israel. The Core2Duo is based off of that core. All of Intel's current releases are based off of that core. It's the only smart decision (processor related) that Intel has made in the last 7 years. Hell... maybe even 10 years.
The question I have to ask is: "Why the hell do we still have 5,000 designers working stateside?"
-
LOL MiniD. That was good.
1K3, dunt know where you dug up that information but it is pretty wrong. It is common knowledge the Core design was done in Israel, initially for the laptop CPU's, as I recall.
And the P3 architecture was not that great either. but it did go to 1Ghz MiniD. I have several 933Mhz P3's about.
The P4's had a colorful life. The went from bad (Willamette), to decent (Northwood HT), to really bad (Prescott).
I was glad to see the Pentium name retired for this new line of CPU's. That would have been some tough marketing baggage to shed. Cannot figure why anyone would want an AMD CPU right now. Intel owns the price/performance crown right now.
-
Skuzzy, not trying to flame you or anything, but what is it that you have against the Prescotts? Just about everything I'm reading... reviews, etc... are on a positive note.. I mean I'm sure they may be no match to the high end Core2Duo's, but then again they are a generation older too.
I've been looking at systems, parts, prices and all that... and I'm getting back into realization that the Core2Duo may still be a bit out of my price range, and I'm leary about taking a GHZ hit to open myself up for dual cores.
So I'm curious... let's take a... 2.0 GHZ Core2Duo.. and match it up against a... 3.2GHZ Prescott... We're talking Windows XP here.. let's say... 1 GB ram. What kind of performance differences would I really notice?
I don't do any high-end 3d design. I do some gaming, but nothing I would consider "profession gamer" kind of stuff. I'm not running a server or anything and do only moderate multitasking.. maybe at any given time have 3 or 4 programs open in the foreground...
Would it really make THAT much of a difference?
Then let's go one further.. How would this same Prescott 3.2GHZ compare to an Athlon 64 2.0 processor?
-
The Prescott consumes far too much power (i.e. runs far too hot) and is slower than the previous Northwood family, clock for clock. A 2.4Ghz Northwood was comparable to a 3Ghz Prescott, except the Northwood ran about 50 defgrees cooler.
A 2Ghz Core2Duo will stomp a 3.2Ghz Prescott into the dirt, in virtually every area. The same Core2 CPU would eat that Athlon alive.
-
Another note i Have the e6600 and they are nice and easy to install too.
-
P3's went up to 1.4 GHz, as did their Celeron equivalent's. One of my lab machines is one of these 1.4 GHz Coppermines, and it is much faster than you would think.
These Coppermine core chips were much more efficient, cycle for cycle, than the P4's that replaced them. Their big liability was that they worked on a 100 or 133 MHz bus, whereas the later P4s were working at up to 800 MHz bus speeds. That meant that anything involving memory could be a lot faster on a later P4 than a P3, but in terms of raw CPU muscle-powered tasks, and for windows computing in general, in my lab, the P3 @1.4 runs about as fast as a P4@2.4 on a 400 MHz bus.
The Pentium M and Centrinos are evolved from the Coppermine core P3's, created by Intel's Israeli team as a wholy seperate branch from the P4. Basically think of them as P3's with SSE2 and more, and a higher memory bus speed.
The Core2 Duos are basically a pair of fast Pentium M cores slapped together with an even higher bus speed.
I'm greatly simplifying here, but the gist of things are that the NetBurst architechture of the P4 wound up be an evolutionary dead end, and the Coppermine P3 led directly down the Intel CPU branch we are enjoying today.
There's no doubt that the Core2 Duo's are really great. When my current rig, currently running the last, great overclockable and cool P4, the 3.0 GHz Northwood, is replaced, it's certainly going to be a Core2 Duo...
-Llama
-
Thanks guys.. that's exactly the type of information I was looking for. I'm still into the old school thought that MORE GHZ is better, and was skeptical about expecting a performance improvement while DECREASING GHZ.. but the more I read you guys talk about it, the more secure I feel about my investment.
Let me do some more research and see what I can come up with.
-
OK.. I've done some research.. and some math.
I can do the ASROCK 775dual-VSTA MB
2 (2X1028) gigs of ram (kingston DDR2)
E6300 Conroe 1.86GHZ (stock heatsink/fan, included with processor, for now)
Combo CDRW/DVD drive (Lite-on brand, but cheap enough to take that risk)
160GB SATA Western Digital Harddrive
And reusing my case/PS/AGP Video/wireless network card and Windows XP Home.
And it will only cost $25 more than a similar setup I was (somewhat) considering with a Prescott 3.2GHZ.
Shipping reduction costs may even make up that difference, being I won't be purchasing a case/ps and those are the most expensive things to ship.
I'd still like to break the 2.0GHZ barrier in the Conroe, but processor prices appear to increase SHARPLY above the E6300, so I think I'll stick with that.
I just want one more reassurance that this 1.86GHZ Conroe will outperform the 3.2GHZ Prescott that Skuzzy despises so much! haha Once my taxes come in next week, I'll be ordering it all up!
Purchasing all brand new from newegg, looks like I'll be spending $461.99+shipping.
We do not have Fry's here, the closest thing we have is CompUSA, and they don't even come CLOSE in prices. Thanks for your help! You guys are great!
-
Hi Tigger,
since you want a more detailed anwser than "conroe blows it away" ill give it a try.
First, you cant compare dual core directly to single core performance wise. So i will first assume you only use one of the cores in the conroe.
1.) power : core2duo BOTH cores together use 65W, prescott ONE core uses 100W. If you only use one of the two cores, that uses more than 50% since it uses the whole cache, thats like 40W against 100W. Since you often have the comp swithced on but dont need the cpu for more than 10% of its power and conroe is much better in power saving its probably more like 25W to 80W.
2.) Raw numbers: 1 conroe core does more than 3 times the work of one prescott at the same frequency. Since the rest of the computer is virtually the same, the conroe computer is slowed and does about 2.2 times as much only, the whole computer. That is for a 1.83G Conroe you need at least a 4G Prescott, which doesnt exist. If you overclock your prescott to that level it uses 130W, has a shortend livespan and you still have only 1 core. Still you pit it against a stock conroe which could be overclocked as well, running at performance the prescott never reaches.
3.) Application performance: Compare some numbers on the net, checking the 2 cpu prescott version against the conroe 2 duo, the conroe 1.83 gives about the same performance as the D 960 clocked to 3.9G, slightly better in single threaded apps. It is a lot better in apps that use both cores, since it has a much better dual core design than the pentium D. prescott runs worse than the 8xx /9xx dual cpus.
4.) Conroe 1.83 against prescott 3.2: ONE core is about 1.25 times as fast. Then you have a second core, which can give up to 80% improovement in one app and can give 90% for other work when you do multitasking. Now comes the hard part, usually i do not run 2 full apps but require responsiveness, harddisk, networking, security, gui etc. where i would say the second core adds about 60% of its usefullnes.
That would be total 2 times the performance in the core 2 system.
4.) Efficiency: Take halve power by double performance land at 4x. I am cheating here since the total power consumption of the computer is far less than double, but looking at the cpu that is what it gives. The advantage of using low power is more than just the reduced power, less noise, less cooling trouble, less dust trouble and longer live (for the computer only).
To be short, that is like driving with a 20 year old, no airbag, no impact protection, no abs, loud car that does halve the mgp or with a new, airbag, abs, efficient, more comfortable and faster car that does double the mpg. Now sadly modern cars arent that much better than old ones, and arent aloud to drive at 130mph instead of 65mph. Not talking about they wouldnt be able to do that with using halve the fuel. But probably with halve the maintenance cost.
Or, much shorter: The conroe blows the prescott away, by far. Its better than A64 x2, its better than D9xx / D8xx but ill save you the details. Still, with the dropped prices of the a64 x2 and the EE versions amd gained ground and is no longer that far behind.
Of course, if you put in a budget constrained where core 2 duo is simply to expensive or a home pc with no gaming / other cpu intensive stuff in mind the world looks diffrent and an AMD 3600EE might get intresting. But thats a moot point on a board for AH2 pilots.
-
I'm sold :)
Plus I can do it and still stay well within my budget.
So I'm happy.
I'll report back on how it all works out when I get it together.
One more question.. I've never set up XP to boot from a SATA device... I'm assuming you copy the drivers to a floppy, then at install press F1 to install third party drivers, then load the SATA drivers.. then let it do it's thing? (I'm assuming it will be similar to a SCSI install). Or is there more steps I'll need to know?
Thank you thank you thank you
-
It depends. If you do not configure your SATA interfaces to use RAID, then you do not need any drivers at all. At least that is true for the Intel based motherboards. I am sure it would be true for any other chipsets. No reason for it not to be.
SATA is just the physical transport. The interface to it can still look like an IDE interface.
-
Originally posted by Tigger29
...I'm still into the old school thought that MORE GHZ is better, and was skeptical about expecting a performance improvement while DECREASING GHZ.
Think of GHz as equivalent to RPM in cars. My Toyota Yaris may rev to 8000rpm whilst your Corvette only goes to 6500rpm. Which is the faster car?
-
I like that analogy. Nice one wooley.
-
Got the tax money in the bank!!
Ordering tonight! I'll let you know how it turns out!
-
Cannot figure why anyone would want an AMD CPU right now. Intel owns the price/performance crown right now.
IF i wasnt trying to get the last bit of life out of my 939 system i would be buying intel right now . Any enthusiast / gamer doing a new build and still using AMD must be a loyalist /fanboy.
It makes me wonder what AMD was doing when they had all of the Athlon 64 /FX success, cause AM2 is a weak answer to conroe. Dont get me wrong ive had mostly AMD's since i started building in 1998, but when the performance gap is like it is, it's an easy decision .
-
The socket 939 AMD is mature & you know what you're getting; that's the only reason I can see going with any new build in an AMD.
I might have a higher opinion of the core2duo mobo offerings if I weren't waiting on an RMA for a fried Asus at the moment. They will be a better choice as time goes on than they are right now, lots of choices for motherboards out for the core2 & they all suck. (imo)
All I can advise is choose very carefully! Pay close attention to the memory you intend to pair with your chosen mobo & be sure it has the bios revisions to deal with the core2duo. The cpu is great; it's a real strong performer with a very reasonable price tag....it's everything else in that socket that is the problem. If the mobo makers had solid reliable boards & they weren't finicky about what you put on them the core2 cpu's would be walking away with ALL the new builds right now instead of 99% of them.
Research your build thoroughly, don't just jump on the first parts you see & your build will be sweet. :aok
-
Well yes... this being my first Conroe... I've done a lot of research and while this isn't the best motherboard around, it should suit my needs.
I've also researched it and if it has an old bios that won't accept the Core2Duo, I found a way to update the bios, even if it won't recognize the processor.
I also realize the PCIe slot it has is NOT 16X, but I don't care. I intend to keep using my AGP card (for budget reasons) and if I need higher performace down the road I have no problems whatsoever installing a new MB. Right now I'd rather keep my high end AGP card then invest in an economy PCIe, as the good ones are still a bit pricey.
I figure.. worst case scenario, this setup I ordered will outperform my last "good" system (AMD 2200XP that I fried) by at least two fold. If that is accomplished then I will be more than happy.
Best case.. I have a screaming system (compared to what I'm used to) and won't need to upgrade for awhile. Right now anything is better than this 450MHZ POS I'm on right now!
Oddly enough I have a 1GHZ P3 system in the basement, and this 450MHZ PII outperforms it in almost every way... I think due to the fact that it has twice the RAM and an AGP video (VS. the onboard INTEL graphics on the 1GHZ).
Oh well.. still waiting for the stuff to get here.. I was hoping it may come today but I didn't really expect to see it this soon.. I'm thinking Thursday. I'll let you guys know.. and I'm itching to try out the new EW/MW/LW arenas!
-
HOLY MOTHER OF LTAR!
This thing... whoa!
Got it all in yesterday... put it together... no problems whatsoever.. no errors... no goofy stuff... all went smooth as silk!
I absolutely got a kick out of the windows install timer (estimated time to completion: 35 minutes).. well it counted down each minute about every 10 seconds!
Windows updates and SP2 install took pretty much the rest of the evening.
Wife played Sims2 today... had to pry herself off the computer to get some housework done! She's happy.
I went offline on AH2.. pegged 60FPS no matter what I did at 512 tex's... at 1024 with the high-res pack it's mostly 55-60FPS... if i do some quick view changes it'll drop to 50 or so... I'm VERY happy!
Thanks for the advice everyone.. so far I'm VERY HAPPY with this E6300 setup!