Which CPU ....dammit ! ? :-)

[RJK]

Hello ;-)

Whilst I could happily spend forever studying cpu / motherboard reviews at
site like Tomshardware etc. ..(...this evening disappeared doing just
that ), if money was almost limitless - which would you buy; AMD or Intel,
and which socket ? ...and now there are dual core cpu's that further
complicate and delay a decision.

I thought I was leaning towards a P4 640 with is attractive 2mb L2 cache
but, then there's several offers on AMD at http://www.aria.co.uk where I buy
my parts.

.....and THIS time around the b****y thing will be silent !!!! ...or as near
as dammit to it as I can get it. I sorted out an abused XP Home ed.
platform the other day and the system box it was in was almost completely
silent, it was a Packard Bell I think.

regards, Richard

 

[Chris Hill]

Hello ;-)

Whilst I could happily spend forever studying cpu / motherboard reviews at
site like Tomshardware etc. ..(...this evening disappeared doing just
that ), if money was almost limitless - which would you buy; AMD or Intel,
and which socket ? ...and now there are dual core cpu's that further
complicate and delay a decision.

I thought I was leaning towards a P4 640 with is attractive 2mb L2 cache
but, then there's several offers on AMD at http://www.aria.co.uk where I buy
my parts.

....and THIS time around the b****y thing will be silent !!!! ...or as near
as dammit to it as I can get it. I sorted out an abused XP Home ed.
platform the other day and the system box it was in was almost completely
silent, it was a Packard Bell I think.

regards, Richard

\AMD dual core. Runs cooler. If I had all the time in the world, I
would wait until they upgrade later in the year to use ddr2.

 

[Sean Cousins]

Hello ;-)

Whilst I could happily spend forever studying cpu / motherboard reviews at
site like Tomshardware etc. ..(...this evening disappeared doing just
that ), if money was almost limitless - which would you buy; AMD or Intel,
and which socket ? ...and now there are dual core cpu's that further
complicate and delay a decision.

I thought I was leaning towards a P4 640 with is attractive 2mb L2 cache
but, then there's several offers on AMD at http://www.aria.co.uk where I buy
my parts.

....and THIS time around the b****y thing will be silent !!!! ...or as near
as dammit to it as I can get it. I sorted out an abused XP Home ed.
platform the other day and the system box it was in was almost completely
silent, it was a Packard Bell I think.

regards, Richard

A dual core AMD64 is the way to go these days. AMD64 does more
calculations per clock cycle than a P4 and that is why a 2.2ghz AMD64
will perform about the same as a P4 3.4ghz cpu. If you want a cooler
running cpu then definately go AMD64. You need to post how much you
want to spend on a cpu to advise you on which one to buy.

 

[John Weiss]

Whilst I could happily spend forever studying cpu / motherboard reviews at
site like Tomshardware etc. ..(...this evening disappeared doing just
that ), if money was almost limitless - which would you buy; AMD or Intel,
and which socket ? ...and now there are dual core cpu's that further
complicate and delay a decision.

AMD.

For upgrade potential: dual-core Opteron and dual socket 940 MB.

For gaming, FX57/59/60 and compatible socket 939 MB.

For a cheaper option with performance, A64 X2 and socket 939.

 

[l e o]

AMD.

For upgrade potential: dual-core Opteron and dual socket 940 MB.

For gaming, FX57/59/60 and compatible socket 939 MB.

For a cheaper option with performance, A64 X2 and socket 939.

For upgrade potential, you have to wait for M2 socket.

 

[John Weiss]

For upgrade potential, you have to wait for M2 socket.

For upgrade potential, you'll wait forever! I limited my responses to what's
available NOW.

 

[Sean Cousins]

For upgrade potential, you have to wait for M2 socket.

M2 is supposedly not going to be around for long anyway so I wouldn't
bother waiting. Sockets change more often than I change underwear
these days. I have an Asrock 939Dual though and it has a socket that
an M2 daughter card is supposed to plug into - probably will turn out
to be useless though when M2 does get here.

 

[skotl]

The new Intel Core Duo looks like a pretty amazing bit of kit. It's
faster than the P4 dual-core extreme addition and uses a fraction of
the power (so the fans can be slower / quieter).

I'd have said AMD all the way before, but your options have become
complicated again(!) because you should compare them to the Core Duo.

 

[Chris Hill]

The new Intel Core Duo looks like a pretty amazing bit of kit. It's
faster than the P4 dual-core extreme addition and uses a fraction of
the power (so the fans can be slower / quieter).

I'd have said AMD all the way before, but your options have become

Of course isn't that the one with the bugs in it? I think I'd rather
have a cpu with a little more history behind it.>complicated again(!)
because you should compare them to the Core Duo.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Whilst I could happily spend forever studying cpu / motherboard reviews at
site like Tomshardware etc. ..(...this evening disappeared doing just
that ), if money was almost limitless - which would you buy; AMD or Intel,
and which socket ? ...and now there are dual core cpu's that further
complicate and delay a decision.

What type of use do you plan for the PC you are building?

There are relatively few applications that require extremely powerful
processors. Most of the processor power in a PC or a Mac goes into
driving the GUI (drawing windows on the screen, in other words), if
there are no processor-intensive applications running.

Some things that _are_ processor-intensive include many games,
anything that manipulates video, programs that manipulate still images
in some cases (if they have complex filters or other CPU-bound
functions), various other types of real-time simulators (flight
simulators, etc.), and some types of math and database mining
software.

Ordinary office applications consume virtually no processor at all and
will run very nicely on less than premium processors.

Servers will also run nicely on more modest processors if they are not
CPU-bound. Often disk access or memory limits or Net pipelines limit
server performance more than processors.

As for AMD vs. Intel, I prefer Intel. AMD processors I had
self-destructed when the CPU fans failed, because they contained no
overtemp production on the chip. Intel processors will throttle
themselves down if they overheat, saving the processor (and usually
allowing the machine to continue running) until the cooling problem
can be fixed.

I prefer 32-bit to 64-bit currently. It will be a long time before
64-bit applications significantly outnumber 32-bit applications.

Note that Microsoft Vista chews through processor power like there's
no tomorrow, and requires a high-end video board as well, thanks to
all the useless graphic bells and whistles that MS is building in to
try to get people to buy it. Supposedly you can turn these off, but
then again, why bother with Vista to begin with? Even on XP, I still
run with the classic Windows layout instead of the XP nonsense.

I sorted out an abused XP Home ed.
platform the other day and the system box it was in was almost completely
silent, it was a Packard Bell I think.

What processor temperatures did it have?

Mass-market PCs may favor silence and low-cost over reliability and
life-expectancy, using the absolute minimum cooling they can get away
without and still have the machine run (for a while).

Not that this is anything new. I remember watching TRS-80s fail after
only a few hours because Radio Shack never wanted to put any kind of
fan or ventilation in them.

 

[Chris Hill]

What type of use do you plan for the PC you are building?

There are relatively few applications that require extremely powerful
processors. Most of the processor power in a PC or a Mac goes into
driving the GUI (drawing windows on the screen, in other words), if
there are no processor-intensive applications running.

Some things that _are_ processor-intensive include many games,
anything that manipulates video, programs that manipulate still images
in some cases (if they have complex filters or other CPU-bound
functions), various other types of real-time simulators (flight
simulators, etc.), and some types of math and database mining
software.

Ordinary office applications consume virtually no processor at all and
will run very nicely on less than premium processors.

Servers will also run nicely on more modest processors if they are not
CPU-bound. Often disk access or memory limits or Net pipelines limit
server performance more than processors.

As for AMD vs. Intel, I prefer Intel. AMD processors I had
self-destructed when the CPU fans failed, because they contained no
overtemp production on the chip. Intel processors will throttle
themselves down if they overheat, saving the processor (and usually
allowing the machine to continue running) until the cooling problem
can be fixed.

Or just use a mainboard that has the option to shut down when it gets
too hot. Any decent mainboard will have the option and you don't have
to buy intel to get it.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Or just use a mainboard that has the option to shut down when it gets
too hot.

That's more hardware that has to be reliable in order to protect the
processor. It's a lot more reliable to put the necessary logic right
in the chip package.

Any decent mainboard will have the option and you don't have
to buy intel to get it.

Any decent processor will have on-chip overtemp protection, and Intel
has it ... but AMD doesn't.

After losing several thousand dollars' worth of computer hardware to
AMD's oversight, I now buy Intel.

 

[Chris Hill]

That's more hardware that has to be reliable in order to protect the
processor. It's a lot more reliable to put the necessary logic right
in the chip package.


Any decent processor will have on-chip overtemp protection, and Intel
has it ... but AMD doesn't.

I've never had a cpu fail due to overheating; course my machine is
sitting right here and if the fan got noisy on startup I'd hear it.
Last machine I saw that failed due to overheating was an old pb 486
which the idiot owners left on all the time. Leaving a computer on
all the time is okay if you have some sense and notice when things
don't act or sound right. Of course it is a rediculous waste of
energy but that is a different discussion.

 

[RJK]

Thanx for all your thoughts

I've fiddling with :-
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2004.html?modelx=33&model1=79&model2=67&chart=28
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=268&model2=250&chart=63

....and it looks to me like I would have to spend a big amount of money to
get bigger speed than my trusty old XP2600+ Barton.

I would have liked something that would e.g. encode a DivX movie to really
high quality, without multiple passes, in maybe just a couple of minutes,
whilst using the PC for several other things at the same time !

regards, Richard

 

[Mxsmanic]

I've never had a cpu fail due to overheating ...

I've lost several to overheating ... all AMD processors.

... course my machine is sitting right here and if the fan got
noisy on startup I'd hear it.

Unfortunately, one doesn't always have the luxury of being able to sit
next to the machine all day to hear if it makes a noise. And in the
cases to which I allude, the fan failure was silent--my first
indication of a problem was when the machine froze.

Last machine I saw that failed due to overheating was an old pb 486
which the idiot owners left on all the time.

There's nothing wrong with leaving a computer on all the time, if one
doesn't mind paying for the electrical power.

Leaving a computer on all the time is okay if you have some
sense and notice when things don't act or sound right.

A well-built PC is safe to leave running all the time. One should not
have to constantly watch a PC just to make sure it doesn't break.
After all, refrigerators, furnaces, air conditioning systems, water
heaters, and many other appliances run continuously or continually
without attention.

 

[Chris Hill]

A well-built PC is safe to leave running all the time. One should not
have to constantly watch a PC just to make sure it doesn't break.
After all, refrigerators, furnaces, air conditioning systems, water
heaters, and many other appliances run continuously or continually
without attention.

None of them are kept alive by $3 fans.

 

[Mxsmanic]

None of them are kept alive by $3 fans.

A good fan can run for years without failure. And good hardware is
designed to shut down if it overheats.

 

[Chris Hill]

A good fan can run for years without failure. And good hardware is
designed to shut down if it overheats.

So, how do you tell a good fan from a bad one; the price on a bad one
can easily be jacked up to make it look like a good one.

 

[Mxsmanic]

So, how do you tell a good fan from a bad one; the price on a bad one
can easily be jacked up to make it look like a good one.

Design, reputation, price, in roughly that order. Since it's hard to
evaluate designs in detail, I tend to go by reputation first, although
I want it to be a ball-bearing fan in any case.

 

[Chris Hill]

Design, reputation, price, in roughly that order. Since it's hard to
evaluate designs in detail, I tend to go by reputation first, although
I want it to be a ball-bearing fan in any case.

There's the problem, manufacturers are constantly looking for the best
way to make money, so reputation can be traded if they feel that is
the best way to go.

What I'm driving at here is that you are arguing both sides of the
street. You argue on the one hand that you need a cpu with built-in
overheat protection, and then on the other hand that leaving computers
on full time is not problematic. If the latter were true, the former
wouldn't be. Perhaps I've just had better luck at buying fans than
you have, I've never had an AMD chip fried by a dead fan. Even my
smoking users have had better luck than that.