Alright someone help out an Intel boy with AMD64 Cores

U

UltimaParadox

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 8, 2003
Messages
6,243
Yeah long time Intel users trying decide if I want to take the AMD plunge to A64 to replace the old 2.8C Northy.

I know the ratings and everything are suppose to say how fast each one is, but the X2s and the different cores bring in a gray area.

Can someone explain the differences or point me to an article that shows the different AMD64 cores, espeically...

Toledo, San Diego, Venice, NewCastle, Clawhammer, and Manchester...

Trying to figure out why some are better than others, such as the X2s where some have 2x512cache and are rated 4600 and 4200 and while the Toledo is 4800 and 4400 and have 2x1meg cache
 
ok real quick:
rev. e= .09 +sse3 +SOI
venice= socket 939 rev e. cpu 512k cache
san diego= socket 939 rev e. cpu 1mb cache
Newcastle= socket 754 .13 cpu 512k cache
Toledo= socket 939 rev e. X2 (dual core) 1mb cache per core
Machester= socket 939 rev e. X2 512K cache per core

4800+=2.4ghz 1mb cache
4600+=2.4ghz 512k cache
4400+=2.2ghz 1mb cache
4200+=2.2ghz 512k cache

I'd ignore the speed ratings you'll just get dizzy trying to figure it out, look at the frequency of the chip and what it does clock for clock with intel.

Rev. E's are hot right now because of their extremely good overclocking capabilities right out of the box. IE. venice 3000+ stock [email protected] is very easy to do, often without a vcore increase and with stock cooling. Many see more like 2.6-2.9 with an aftermarket cooler and a little voltage (still they are way cooler than a p4).
 
Ah thanks I guess the ideal thing to do is go after a Rev E then, now its just time to decide if its worth going dual core, especially since I am coming from an HT machine
 
I don't think you need to go dual core just because you came from a HT machine. If the current prices don't scare you away, I'd go with a dual core setup. If you can stand waiting a little bit for a X2, I don't think you'll be dissapointed by a 3000+ venice. Pick one of those up with a nice nf4 DFI board, take it to 2.6+, and then upgrade in 3-6 months when X2 prices aren't so high (AMD did start from the top of the price ceiling down, the opposite of what intel did with their dual cores) and when there is a greater selection of speeds to choose from. I'll bet that you won't be dissapointed with a venice overclock, and it should be a nice jump from the p4. Otherwise the 4400+ with 1mb of cache is the way to go, it should hit speeds of 2.6ghz with ease. Now if you aren't looking to OC (they are really cool chips, and the 3000+ is underbinned frankly) I don't know what to do, as even the X2's hit 2.5-2.9, and there will be dead kittens.
 
I do a lot of multitasking and my SD3700+ handles it well. Though it doesn't work as well for encoding, but I just set the encode thread priority lower and it works fine. I'll be going X2 when it matures, but single core A64s are NOT bad at multitasking.
 
all this "intel for multitasking" just because of HT is getting old. IMO "multitasking" anymore could be anything. Unless you want to encode and play games at the same time, or watch a movie while encoding (or some similar intensive process), you don't have to worry about a noticable performance hit. Maybe with 5 windows open, your next IE instance will take .7 seconds to load instead of .3, in the overall scheme of things, a discernable difference will be hard to see.
 
mikelz85 said:
all this "intel for multitasking" just because of HT is getting old. IMO "multitasking" anymore could be anything. Unless you want to encode and play games at the same time, or watch a movie while encoding (or some similar intensive process), you don't have to worry about a noticable performance hit. Maybe with 5 windows open, your next IE instance will take .7 seconds to load instead of .3, in the overall scheme of things, a discernable difference will be hard to see.
Click to expand...

I do a lot of encoding....which is why HT was a cheap setup and was actually quite good at keeping the computer snappy.

While, my 2.8C still handles most things perfectly I have been itching for an upgrade heck its been over 2 years, and I thinking of doing more gaming, but I would still like to get some decent work done on this machine. But yeah the X2s are pretty expensive, but dual core is really where I would want to be, just not at the heat the P-Ds produce.

Perhaps I will invest in a faster single thread, until things mature.
 
don't worry about encoding if you set the thread priority. You can do that when you game, also, just don't expect your encode to make much progress during the game. So yes, X2 will help, but it's not necessary yet.
 
well, if you are into encoding, the X2 is going to impress you a ton, but like I said, the buy in price is still pretty high for that technology. The thing I really don't like about the intel dual cores is that they take a decent chip that should have the ability to process 4 threads, and go and butcher it by disabling HT unless you want to drop a ton of cash. The issue isn't really "maturing" but pricing imo. The sub $200 venice processors will overclock great (like the old celeron 300@450 days) with 50% oc's. It'll serve you pretty well, and you won't feel bad about dumping it in a few months because it won't have cost you an arm and a leg.
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
there's also the "future" aspect of dual core.. what happens whe programs finally start taking advantage of this? your cpu will suddenly have a lot of hidden reserves that it didn't before :D

also, read this:
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1027493935&postcount=3
Click to expand...

Nice thank you, yeah I guess the real decision is whether or not I want to go ahead and dump the money into a Dual Core system. I can always play the waiting game, but I have the upgrade itch, as it been over 2 years, and I currently do not own a PCI-E motherboard.
 
UltimaParadox said:
Nice thank you, yeah I guess the real decision is whether or not I want to go ahead and dump the money into a Dual Core system. I can always play the waiting game, but I have the upgrade itch, as it been over 2 years, and I currently do not own a PCI-E motherboard.
Click to expand...


I don't own a PCI-E motherboard and I upgraded from a 2500+ Barton (Socket A...lame, i know) that I had for about 2 years.

I am still an AGP fan, is what I'm getting at - you don't have to dump your AGP card to get dual core. I dont game very much, so I saw no reason to get PCI-E over AGP and save 50 bucks or so.
 
well, if you are going to buy a new card anyways go PCI-E (did you read the [H] article that said there are no plans for a AGP 7800 part?) as it will be worth the money not to have to dump your board later just because you want a PCI-E card. PCI-E is not an "extra" feature that you pay more money for, it is through the chipset I believe. I got a PCI-E board even though I had a 9800pro because I really wanted the nf4 chipset, as it looked to OC better than the nf3, and I wanted s939, which DFI only packaged with PCI-E. I sold my old card for about $120 on ebay, and am currently using a PCI 8mb matrox card. When I see a card I want, then I'll pick it up.
 
^^ sounds like a good plan


basically, just make out a list of everything you want, and how long it will take to be able to afford it, or have it in retail.. the play the waiting game ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top