HardwarePost any questions related to hardware here.
Mission Statement
WindowsBBS is an online community dedicated to easily accessible technical support for those using Microsoft operating systems and other Windows software.
Our goal is to become the leading resource for computer users that require assistance with their day-to-day computer usage, including full support for networking PC's, virus & malware removal, system upgrades and general support questions.
I am finally replacing my dinosaur and am leaning towards an AMD Athalon 64 4000+. The salesman told me that if I am not 3-D gaming, that low processor demands actually are faster on a standard 64 than on an x2 Dual Core.
Does that sound right? Lar
Didn't find the information you thought to find? Check out these Similar Threads
that low processor demands actually are faster on a standard 64 than on an x2 Dual Core.
Sorry, couldn't follow that part but here is the take anyway.
For any multi threaded application, an X2 would be faster than a comparable single core CPU (whether you compare it by speed or bucks for bucks). For single threaded applications (most of the games today), an X2 would not be faster than a single core CPU. However, since most of the applications are multi threaded & WinXP itself is multi threaded, an X2 system gives you a smoother working environment than a single core even if you play games.
You can, for example, keep downloading files and printing reports while playing games on X2 and you won't see much speed difference, but try it on single core CPU & you can really do only one job.
The future is multi core & dual CPU is just the start.
My advice go in for X2 or wait for M2 (due June 06).
The AMD boards still take DDR 400 memory. With 4 slots am I better off with 2 x 1Gb or 4x 512mb? I cannot imagine that I will ever need more than 2 Gb of RAM.
yes, current AMDs run on DDR 400 MHz. You can get either 1 GB x 2 or 512 Mb x 4 whichever is cheaper. Its not going to make difference, but make sure that if you install 1 GB modules, they should go into correct slots on motherboard to enable dual channel RAM access.
Best value in 64 bit dual core AMD processors right now is the Opteron 165 with two 1GB cache's. Very overclockable - do some reading on this puppy - lots of reviews - lots of articles and a great gamer too. Will run at 2.6 GHZ or the equivalent of an FX60. More can be found here
As to memory, you're better off with 2x1Gig vs 4x512. With 2 modules, you can run at T1 timings, but with 4 you'll be stuck with T2. To my knowledge, this currently applies to all boards.
Each to their own ...... but it has become a very popular CPU and will run 2.5 GHZ at stock core voltage which is a lot of processor for under $300. Last line of the same review @ 2.6GHZ with a bump in core voltage reads
Quote:
In other words, Opteron 165 can deliver the performance of Athlon 64 FX-60 processor to enthusiasts for only $278
In other words, Opteron 165 can deliver the performance of Athlon 64 FX-60 processor to enthusiasts for only $278
Where in the world can you get an Opteron 165 for $278!?! The lowest I can find is $325.
Is this a case whereby huge demand is actually making the price go up? Like with that Opteron 146 (?) which was a vicious overclocker as well.
Larry, if you're not an avid 3-D gamer, I suggest you go with a dual-core. It seems that in a single, intense task, one of AMD's FX cpus can best any AMD dual-core cpu but that doesn't seem to fit your needs. At some point, everything will go dual-core. But even now (unless you're an extremely demanding gamer), dual-core is the best investment and is more future-proof.
Rockster, since your info is in regard to overclocking not all will appreciate it but I sure do. I'm biding my time on the switch from Socket A to Socket 939 but an incredible overclocker could make me take the jump that much quicker. I have an Asrock Dual Sata-II waiting on my shelf so I can bring my 6800GT (AGP) with me.
Right now, I have a tiny, almost hair-thin piece of wire inserted into my cpu socket bridging two pin holes which allows me to achieve significantly superior performance. So I guess you could include me in the category of people who aren't that concerned about the longevity of my PC parts.
It's interesting to get varied perspectives on overclocking. They can run the gamut from people who won't dare run non-stock to those who've experimented with cooling their cpus with cold, underground water or dry ice or run their PC inside a refridgerator and then run their cpu at unimaginable speeds. No jokes.
Where in the world can you get an Opteron 165 for $278!?! The lowest I can find is $325.
No argument - I think $325 is about the best price around these days. Still a heck of a buy in my book.
Gary, appreciate your perspective not just because its similar to mine, but until one has been there - its hard to describe the satisfaction that comes from pushing the envelope, finding that right combination of hardware that permits one to achieve the kind of performance that some of these puppies are capable of.
How interchangeable/compatible is the Opteron 165 vs an X2? I mean this in terms of software, hardware, drivers, etc. I am not a tweaker... well I am by nature but cannot afford to fry this hefty investment. I try to live by, if isn't broken, don't fix it, but temptation has gotten the better of me before.
I do need universal compatability, stability and long life above all.
Now I've become interested. Without going through the whole article, if an X2 3500+ runs at 1.8Ghz, what frequency would you need on an Opteron to give the equivalent of 4200+?
If the processor is capable of handling increased frequencies, it is a matter of slowly increasing the frequency and watching temperature and stability as you go.
Rockster2U has been an exponent of the AMD mobile 2400+ core. The core was built to be run in laptops...running it in a desktop with the benefits of extra cooling meant that it could be overclocked very successfully.
Now I've become interested. Without going through the whole article, if an X2 3500+ runs at 1.8Ghz, what frequency would you need on an Opteron to give the equivalent of 4200+?
Frankly don't know. Never had that kind of money to test various configurations
But now frequency matters less (AMD beats Intel hands down at the same frequency) and CPU architecture more.
