Need advice choosing between AMD and Intel
Okay... I've decided it's finally time to upgrade my PC, and I'd like some advice on which side to join. My motherboard is ancient, incompatible with any of the new stuff. My memory is RD-RAM (don't ask). My video card is AGP.
I've pretty much accepted the fact that I'll be ditching my memory, but I think most people will agree that's a good thing. My video card I would *like* to keep, but with this whole PCI-E thing coming up, I realize that I may have to replace it.
If I go with Intel, I'll probably be going with the Pentium 4 3.4Ghz 90nm Prescott. If I go with AMD, I'm looking at the Athlon 64 3500+. As enticing as the numbers are, I simply don't have the cash for a P4 Extreme Edition or an Athlon 64 FX.
Let me say right now, I am not a PC gamer. I do play PC games occasionally, but for the most part, I'm console only. So please don't say anything like "Doom 3 goes about 10x faster on an Athlon!!" However, I do multitask. A lot. As I type this, there are 30 items on my taskbar. Some people say Intel is better in this area. Also, I do a lot of computer programming. Which CPU would yield quicker compile times? Finally, I do do some occasional video encoding. I may be doing a lot more in the future. Which would function better?
The main thing that attracts me to AMD is its 64-bit-ness and the fact that it will be easy to upgrade later on, but is Intel the chip maker that would better suit my needs? Even if Intel performs better in those areas, do you think AMD would *still* be a better choice? Any advice on this matter will be highly appreciated. Thanks guys =)
I've pretty much accepted the fact that I'll be ditching my memory, but I think most people will agree that's a good thing. My video card I would *like* to keep, but with this whole PCI-E thing coming up, I realize that I may have to replace it.
If I go with Intel, I'll probably be going with the Pentium 4 3.4Ghz 90nm Prescott. If I go with AMD, I'm looking at the Athlon 64 3500+. As enticing as the numbers are, I simply don't have the cash for a P4 Extreme Edition or an Athlon 64 FX.
Let me say right now, I am not a PC gamer. I do play PC games occasionally, but for the most part, I'm console only. So please don't say anything like "Doom 3 goes about 10x faster on an Athlon!!" However, I do multitask. A lot. As I type this, there are 30 items on my taskbar. Some people say Intel is better in this area. Also, I do a lot of computer programming. Which CPU would yield quicker compile times? Finally, I do do some occasional video encoding. I may be doing a lot more in the future. Which would function better?
The main thing that attracts me to AMD is its 64-bit-ness and the fact that it will be easy to upgrade later on, but is Intel the chip maker that would better suit my needs? Even if Intel performs better in those areas, do you think AMD would *still* be a better choice? Any advice on this matter will be highly appreciated. Thanks guys =)
0
Comments
AFX-53: $800
2x Opteron 240s: $384 (which is like $20 more than an Athlon 64 3500+)
1GB of ECC/REG DDR400 is $40 more than 1GB of regular DDR400; a SMP board is $50 more. You're looking at a ~$110 price premium.
Besides, who said anything about the Opteron? The Athlon MP is still a very viable SMP solution, and it's not terribly expensive. Hell, he could go with Xeons too, if he wanted to...
Also don't forgot about my original quesitons about compiling and such =p
Give me a little bit and I'll explain the rest of the stuff with dual cpu systems
This has a number of advantages; if a program is SMP capable (SMP stands for Symmetric MultiProcessing- basically a SMP capable program can use more than 1 CPU to do its work) and properly designed, a dual CPU system can be SIGNIFICANTLY faster than a single CPU system- like almost 2x as fast as a single CPU system with the same processor.
The other advantage dual cpus have is in multitasking. Say you have a program that's not SMP-capable-Morpheus, for example. That program can be using 100% of one CPU (it can't use both, so at most, it can only use 100% of one of the CPUs), and your system will still run flawlessly. Since it can only use 50% of your total CPU power, at the most, you'll have 50% left for other programs. What this means is not only does the whole system run far more smoothly than a single CPU system can, it also is less prone to coughing up hairballs. If a process freezes on a single CPU system, you're screwed sometimes. On a dual CPU system, if that process can only use 1 CPU, you still have another CPU available to close it, so the system won't freeze.
Basically, what it comes down to is that for multitasking and a lot of professional-level stuff (programming, digital video, computer animation, photoshop to a lesser extent, etc.), two slower CPUs are actually going to be faster than a single, faster CPU.
The major difference between a single CPU system and a dual CPU system is obviously that a dual CPU system has two CPUs. You'll need a special motherboard that can accept two CPUs and special CPUs that are designed to run in a multiprocessor system. Also, because you have two CPUs instead of one, you're drawing significantly more power (from the power supply's standpoint; it's not going to raise your electrical bill by any measureable amount), which means you need a larger, high quality power supply. By the same token, you also have 2x as much heat coming off the CPUs which you need to get rid of, so you need better cooling.
This all sounds a lot more complex than it actually is
There are a bunch of people here with at least one dual CPU system (myself, Tex, Drasnor, gtghm I think, Mediaman, Shorty, Mondi I believe... and I'm probably forgetting a few) that'll give you a hand if you decide to go that route, as well as countless other people that may not have dual cpu systems, but which make up the single most knowledgeable base of, well, geeks, that you'll find anywhere. Ask us questions and take our advice and you won't go wrong.
CPU: Intel P4 1.7GHz
Mobo: Abit TH7-RAID
Mem: 512mb of RD-RAM
Hard Drives: 3 HDs, 380GB total. Windows drive is 60GB
Disk Drives: 1 Floppy, 1 CD-RW, 1 DVD-RW
Video Card: ATI All-In-Wonder Radeon 7500
Monitor: Gateway Vivitron 17"
Case: Don't know the form factor, but the case itself is about 17 x 18 x 7.5. My case is pretty crappy looking, so I'm thinking of getting another one anyway.
PSU: Don't know... All I know is that it connects to the mobo in three different places... is there a program I can download that will tell me the wattage?
How much I'm willing to spend: I'd like to keep the total cost of the upgrade below $1000. If I'm severly tempted and I REALLY think it's worth it, I could go as high as $1200.
Noise: Somewhat of an issue. This thing *is* in my bedroom, and I do plan to have it running 24/7, but I can take a little humming in the background as I go to sleep. So long as it's not truck-horn level.
Size: My current case just barely fits into the computer part of my desk, so yeah, any bigger than that and I'd have a problem.
Appearance: I've gone a few years with a pretty generic looking case. If necessary I can go a few more =p
New Monitor, Keyboard, Mouse needed: My monitor is a little on the huge side, but I don't think it needs to be replaced just yet. I am very happy with my keyboard and wireless trackball. So no, they're not needed.
Ouch. Any way you can put the case outside of the desk if you needed to? Not saying you'd have to, but you might...
The only way to get PSU wattage is to look at the PSU itself. There's a sticker on it somewhere that says, but if it came with the case, it's almost certainly not going to be of any use anyhow.
Eh, the more I research it, the more I'm unsure a dual processor is the solution I'm after. For one thing, mobos that support them seem to be practically nonexistant... Also I'm not sure I can deal with that much heat pumping into the room. Plus it's more stuff to buy... From what you say, my PSU will most likely need to be replaced for a dual processor. As of right now I'm still leaning toward a single processor.
It's definately another viable option to think about and research though. I'm not making any purchaces until I'm 100% sure of my choices.
Read These CPUs Reviews
Tech Report Athlon 64 3500+
Tech Report Athlon XP-M 2500+ @ 2.4ghz
Tech Report Pentium 4 3.4GHz
Anandtech Opteron 150 (2.4ghz 1MB) vs. Xeon 3.6 Nocona (ie P4 3.6ghz)
He didn't say Opteron's, i agree. However, going from what he have now to Athlon MP isn't what i call an upgrade worth writing home about.
Yup. Unless it's an Antec, Enermax, PC Power & Cooling, Sparkle, Fortron, or a handful of other brands, your current PSU is going to need to be replaced anyhow.
All power supplies are not created equal; I've seen generic "550w" units die at 300w. And when power supplies die, they can, do, and sometimes will take EVERYTHING in a system with them- your hard drives, your CPU, you memory, your motherboard, the whole thing.
A good quality PSU of sufficient wattage to power the system is not just a good idea, it's a requirement.
I disagree. We both know that a 1.7GHz Athlon XP/MP is significantly faster than a 1.7GHz P4, and that in smp-capable applications, the second CPU can make a massive difference.
I take your post to say:
1. You plan on keeping this system for a while
2. Stability is more important than speed
Are you taking the old machine apart, or do you still want it to run?
Provided you are taking it apart....
If it is working for you, keep your video card.
And, you have the drives.
You need a case, big PSU, mobo, CPU and memory.
I presume that if you go AMD64 you will get a 939 mobo. That looks like where the long trem potential is. The Abit AV8 has gotten a lot of good press.
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2128
AMD looks like a better path right now in trems of longevity and speed/$.
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=13-130-434R&type=Refurbish $45 for a mainboard
Outpost/Fry's have 2X512mb Corsair for $130 or so.
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=17-104-968&depa=0 $76 for the psu (i really recommend this psu)
That's: 182+45+130+76=$430 for a very good A64 setup and a psu that will last for years.
I'm sure there are cheaper A64 setups, i just took this out of Newegg basically.
Add $16 for the mainboard to get a new: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=13-152-039&depa=0
Deduct $17 for the cpu: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-486&depa=0
Same price, but new gear instead.
So Geeky, create a dual system at that cost the same or less and that can handle 64-bit as Masamune where interested in 64-bit.
Yes, I have already realized that getting a 939 is the only way to go if I'm getting an AMD. As far as which mobo I'm looking at, I'm currently leaning toward the Asus A8V. Also yeah, I'd never go with a refurbed mobo. I'll probably pick up the memory off eBay, but I won't settle for anything other than a sealed box for the motherboard.
What are the specs of the PSU I'd need to power a system like the one you people are recommending?
EDIT: Mackanz: that mobo you linked to is socket 754
IMHO, I think that given the above statement then building a 64bit system now is not the best way to go.
1) its still evolvoing and new, driver support is better than it was but still a problem.
2) to build anything now long term I would say is risky. Its still up in the air as to how soon Intel will jump on the 64bit band wagon at the consumer level.
Thus I think to build now for the long term is a mistake as in a little as 6 to 8 months we could see some huge changes.
Looking over your thread I would say that there is no reason why you couldn't look at buying a decient dual CPU system either Intel or AMD.
I know that through various ways you could easily put together a hella dual system for much less. Heck if you wanted to go to Xeons you could even salvage your RAM that you used in your current system.
There are plenty of dual AMD and Intel systems and parts out there that you could have it all and SCSI too, and if done properly, I challenge you to really be able to tell the difference from a that and a rig built from the newest stuff... For the most part, programs can only run so fast before you can't even read the screens... LOL
I just built a dual P3 600mhz system for a guy and the multitasking even on that rig was unbeleiveable. With him standing there I Burned a CD while streaming live Video from 2 different sources, had a MP3 going in the background, 5 or 6 different IE windows up and AutoCad and Photoshop up all at the same time... He was amazed at the work this thing can do.
I don't know about you, but for me yea I'd love to mess around with a 64bit rig but to get stuff done and not have to worry about issues I'm going to stay with my dual Xeons, I love them and I'm only at 2.2Ghz @400FSB.
GL,
"g"
May i ask why you'd like S939 instead of S754?
Besides, the fact that he wants 64-bit is all well and good, but for his application, even dual 32-bit CPUs would be better than a single 64-bit CPU. If he wants to go with 64-bit anyhow, so be it. But a single cpu system is not the best thing for what he wants to do. Period.
64 Bit: I know the technology is still evolving. I'm sure as hell not going to load Win64 Beta on my new system right off the bat. However, the idea of not having to upgrade again when the *real* Win64 comes out is really enticing to me.
Time frame: 6 to 8 months is way too long. I'm pushing the limits of what my system can do, and I need this upgrade sooner than later. I'm shooting to be up and running with everything good to go by the end of October.
Dual Processor: I have not ruled this out, I'm just still leaning toward a single one. One thing that would help is if someone could link me to some good Dual Processor motherboards so I could get a little info.
My RAM: I do not want to salvage my RAM. RD-RAM is an ASS to upgrade, due to its expense and annoying "has to be installed in pairs" attribute. I'm looking forward to getting a 1GB DDR chip at the moment and filling up all four slots on the mobo one at a time as time goes on.
Socket 939: I want a 939 due to the fact that 754s are obviously on the way out. It is becoming less and less likely that AMD will continue to make faster chips on the 754 chipset. So if I get 939, I'll be able to easily upgrade later down the road without having to swap mobos.
PSU: No one has yet answered my question. I would like someone to tell me "If you decide on the P4 Prescott, you'll need at least a ____ watt PSU with _ connectors of ____ type. If you decide on the Athlon, you'll need a (etc), if you decide on the dual processor, you'll need a (etc)."
PSU:
It's going to depend on a number of factors. If you want something that you're going to be able to use for future upgrades, your best bet is to get at least a 450w Antec, Enermax, or PC Power & Cooling ATX power supply. Any new PSU will have all the connectors you need for a single CPU system and many dual CPU systems.
Some dual CPU systems require special PSUs, but if you have questions about a specific board, post the board you're looking at here, or ask me or whatever, and you'll get an answer.
1) Xeon or Opterons? Keep in mind heat is an issue.
2) What is the approximate percentage of software able to take advantage of two CPUs?
3) Lets say I go with Xeons and I get two 2.0Ghz processors. If I am using a piece of software that is not able to take advantage of two CPUs, does that mean that that piece of software will behave as if I have only one 2.0GHz CPU?
Also if anyone else has any other advice they'd like to give, feel free...