StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm planning on upgrading my computer (new motherboard, memory, processor, etc.). I current have an AMD Athlon X2 processor. I'm looking at going with a quad-core processor but I don't know would be better - an Intel or AMD quad-core processor.

Any advice?

What's your budget and what are you going to be using it for? Just playing games I assume, not like video encoding or 3d rendering?

Dominus Atheos wrote:What's your budget and what are you going to be using it for? Just playing games I assume, not like video encoding or 3d rendering?

I'm trying to not break the bank for the upgrade. It would be for playing games.

paladin wrote:

Dominus Atheos wrote:What's your budget and what are you going to be using it for? Just playing games I assume, not like video encoding or 3d rendering?

I'm trying to not break the bank for the upgrade. It would be for playing games.

AMD Phenom II 965.

Tech Report has a nice scatter chart showing base system costs as of June. In short: if you can afford Intel's Core i7 line, get it, otherwise AMD's line is a better value.

Well if it's gaming only then go the AMD route, you can get a lot of bang for your buck plus there aren't any games that require multi core processors - your graphics card will have more impact on how good games are over how many cores you've got.

On the other hand if you've got the money to burn then the i7s just fucking rock, cannot believe how fast this new beastie renders in Vue 7

Don't bother with quad core?

At the low end, the price different 2/4 core is pretty negligible these days.

Stark wrote:At the low end, the price different 2/4 core is pretty negligible these days.

That is a fair change then; the last time I looked [about 6 months ago] they were still pointlessly more expensive. If only any games used those extra cores

The older quad 2.6s are only about $10-20 more expensive than the similar vintage 2s. I still think it's worthless, but from future-proofing you're not risking any real money anymore.

Manufacturers are forging ahead with multi core 64 bit computing.
Software is still bogged down in 32 bit single core mentality.

Darth Nostril wrote:Manufacturers are forging ahead with multi core 64 bit computing.
Software is still bogged down in 32 bit single core mentality.

32-bit process space is enough for the vast majority of commercial software - nevermind games. Software that takes advantage of multicore systems is also much more difficult to handle than single-process ones.

paladin wrote:I'm planning on upgrading my computer (new motherboard, memory, processor, etc.). I current have an AMD Athlon X2 processor. I'm looking at going with a quad-core processor but I don't know would be better - an Intel or AMD quad-core processor.

Any advice?

Intel will be releasing cheaper, dual channel versions of the Core i7 in the upcoming weeks, along with a Hyper Threading-less version named Core i5. I'd wait and see if any of those are going to be in your price range, and failing that, they should at least bump down the prices on the current Core 2 Quad line.

JointStrikeFighter wrote:

Stark wrote:At the low end, the price different 2/4 core is pretty negligible these days.

That is a fair change then; the last time I looked [about 6 months ago] they were still pointlessly more expensive. If only any games used those extra cores

There are some instances where on the intel side, the quad core chip is the exact same price as the dual core equivalent. There really isn't any point in not buying a quad-core processor these days, even if there really isn't anything outside of 3D rendering software or the handful of games that support SMP that will even take advantage of them.

That being said, if you're wanting to go AMD, I'd recommend the Phenom II 945 over the 965. Sure, its 400MHz slower, but its also $76 cheaper and will run cooler. Honestly, at that speed, are you really going to notice a performance drop because of a measly 400MHz? If it matters that much to you, you can just overclock the difference and save the money.

Whichever side you go with, I'd recommend at minimum 4GB of RAM. (preferably in 2x2GB sticks) As cheap as it is, there really is no reason why you shouldn't. Just don't go beyond that if you plan on sticking with Windows XP, as the 32-bit edition will not read past 3.5GB. (this is a limitation of the 32-bit architecture, and NOT a problem with the hardware) If you plan on running a 64-bit flavor of windows, then go as far as you want.

Running XP on that sort of hardware is a bit, well, stupid. Its less secure then newer Windows and it is much less efficient at using available resources (practically no caching, no gpu acceleration of the interface, etc.). With Windows 7 being released - which is essentially what Vista should have been, and has shown to be actually faster then XP on the same hardware while having much less compatibility problems then Vista at launch since it uses models introduced in Vista for which the industry has painfully adapted to (as well as having a few more tricks in its bag for those stubborn programs that don't want to work), you should really be getting it. And if you're switching, going 64-bit at the same time is simply prudent future-proofing, plus it lets you use all your RAM if you have 4GB or more.

Netko wrote:Running XP on that sort of hardware is a bit, well, stupid. Its less secure then newer Windows and it is much less efficient at using available resources (practically no caching, no gpu acceleration of the interface, etc.)

Why does XP need GPU acceleration of the interface? It's not like it makes extensive use of transparency.

Not to mention, I want to fucking punch the face of every single one of Microsoft's current UI designers. They. Do. Not. Know. How. To. Design. A. Usable. Interface. Whose bright idea was it, anyway, to make the titlebar of an inactive window gray out to the point where you can't see the fucking title?!?!

ITT we learn Crayz9000 can't change themes.

That said Win7 explodes a little bit when you change themes.

Cue 'OMG TEH TASKBAR IS RUINZ' discussion.

PS why doesn't Win7 have an expose button? way better than 'giant annoying preview' function.

I asked our IT wonk this question. His response was that AMD or Intel dual cores work equally well for 32-bit OSs, but AMD's quad core can't handle 64-bit Vista or NT nearly as well as the Intel quad cores. If you're on a 64-bit OS and your machine's for more than gaming, Intel plus a top tier video card seems like the best approach.

Except AMD chips consistently bench slightly higher at each price point?

From what I understand, my IT guy's perspective on it was not higher processing speed benchmarks, but his own experience on the stability of AMD vs. Intel quad cores with 64-bit systems in both standalone and network configurations. In his words, the Intel cores run Vista, 64bit XP, 64bit Office and CAD programs faster and are more stable. Intel's processors seem to handle multithreading tasks better than AMD's cores, despite AMD's faster benchmark speeds.

It's not a difference I'd likely see unless the AMD machine turns into a crash-o-matic, as Vista is better at program crapout recovery than XP (which was better than Win 2000, and so on), but going with an Intel core now will likely pay dividends down the road when most programs will be coded for 64 bit OSs. In other words, a longer useful life from your hardware. Hell, I still have a 1999 vintage PC I built that has a P3 and Win2000 and it's still trucking, since I have 32-bit apps and don't press it like say fractalsponge does for mad renders.

Oh, so it's just his personal opinion and we can largely ignore it? KK. lol

Stark wrote:Oh, so it's just his personal opinion and we can largely ignore it? KK. lol

No fuckwad, it's his professional opinion as a Computer Science graduate and MCSE-certified analyst, who's owned his IT business for 15 years and dealt with both processor families on a daily basis. Not every system criterion begins and ends with how well Gears runs on it. You Aussie douche.

Yes, slow night = gratuitous insults in G&C!

Oh so it's his appeal to authority personal opinion?

PS, there might be people who work in the IT field in this thread... RIGHT NOW. I hear that makes your word gospel? Thus I AM RIGHT LOL!

You didn't make a single actual claim anyway, just making weaselly statements like 'i bet he meant AMDs sucked at networking' or whatever. I'm hardly dismissing the idea that AMD is behind (they have been for ages) but 'some random idiot I know talking shit says AMD is teh pooz' doesn't count for fuck all.

Or even nine tenths of fuck all.

Go eat a bowl of dicks.

Oh wait this isn't Testing and you're taking this shit wayyy too seriously with your fallacious appeal to authority riposte. You have PC Magazine benchmarks. I have the opinion of an IT professional who makes a living at this shit. And we have poor paladin reading this and scratching his head. Besides, we're probably boring the shit out of "people who work in the IT field in this thread."

Crack open a Foster's and relax, dude.

Count Chocula wrote:Go eat a bowl of dicks.

Oh wait this isn't Testing and you're taking this shit wayyy too seriously with your fallacious appeal to authority riposte. You have PC Magazine benchmarks. I have the opinion of an IT professional who makes a living at this shit. And we have poor paladin reading this and scratching his head. Besides, we're probably boring the shit out of "people who work in the IT field in this thread."

Crack open a Foster's and relax, dude.

Your "IT Professionals" view is full of crap. That's my opinion as an IT professional who makes a living at this.

Benchmarks are objective testing of computing tasks - they give solid performance numbers. I think that rates just slightly higher than what is essentially your IT guy's "gut feeling".