I Want To Build A Amd/intel Machine?

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by adamp2p@26 May 2003 - 13:05
(If the real GHz is 2.0 GHz + 2.0 GHz = 4 GHz)

ideally a pc with two 2ghz processors in it would perform like a 4ghz computer, but "real life" performance will usually fall short of that.

[Livy]

this doesnt neceisarily happen, as most programs, may not be able to uttilize the dual proccesors. just stick with a single chip system.

[Somebody1234]

You can also have an Intel based dual CPU system. Not that I recommend this.

Dual CPU systems are a lot more complex than it appears.

You also say you want to build your own system to save money. Dual systems are expensive. Stick to the single AMD based system.

[adamp2p]

Thanks to all the help I have been getting, I found that very few motherboards even support dual AMD's, and not even the Barton chips; and what is the point in having that kind of chip bandwidth without dual channel DDR and a fast system bus?

I think I will wait until I hear several reviews of Intel Hyperthreading machines with dual channel DDR and an 800 MHz system bus to make a final decision. There just is not enough information out there yet.

Thanks a lot for your help, I appreciate it.

[Spindulik]

I always build my own PCs!

You should too.

Not only does it make you more knowledgeable of your PC, you also know how to troubleshoot it better. A good learning experience too. You'll feel good about yourself.

You can save money. look in eBay for items from reliable sellers. Visit computers shows. look for rebates in your newspaper. You will save hundreds like me!

Store bought PCs with software packages have too much crap installed for you to deal with. A clean install of Windows is always good.

I am a heavy 3D gamer, andI have tried AMD and Pentium4. My opinion is that Pentium4 is better. I am not saying this is a fact, it is just my preference. At least Intel calls it what it is (eg. Pentium4 2.0gHz is 2.0gHz, but the Amd 2000 is not 2.0gHz, just a model number, they never directly tell you the speed on the box, usually it is "up to xxxgHz").


Why dual Chips? Are you planning on hosting a server. That is about the only benefit that dual CPUs will offer. It won't make normal (or even heavy) use of your PC any better.

[liquidacid]

At least Intel calls it what it is (eg. Pentium4 2.0gHz is 2.0gHz, but the Amd 2000 is not 2.0gHz, just a model number, they never directly tell you the speed on the box, usually it is "up to xxxgHz").

AMD are trying to get people to get away from megahertz. A lot of people are hung up on that number, but it's only one factor.
Bus speeds, and chip architecture also have a large impact on performance. Relying on just frequency as a measure of performance is faulty logic.

[Livy]

yeah, i agree. also youd be better wi a single amd sys, do it yourself, if u dont know how, get a mate to help who does. then yall know what to do if u need to do anythin

[adamp2p]

I think it would be a smart move to save my dough for now until the Intel Prescott comes out later this year. I think I will be able to save enough by then to buy a 3.2 GHz Prescott with 800 MHz fsb and 1 MB L2 cache (built on the 90 nanometer process). Not to mention, DDR 2...

Right now I have a P4 @ 2.0 GHz and 768 MB PC800 RDRAM, so I think it would be dumb to upgrade with the Prescott coming out relatively soon.

I should be happy with what I got for now.

[ilw]

A word of caution on waiting for a chip to be released.
The release schedules can slip by as much as 6 months especially when they are trying something as problematic as shifting to a new processing scale.
Check out http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t479-s...2135056,00.html
U might want to look at how much AMDs schedules slipped with clawhammer which was originally due out September last year.
So u could still be waiting come march 2004

[lynx]

A few areas to consider when thinking about very high frequency chips:

1) EM radiation - this can severely affect other chips in the system; the higher the frequency the worse the problem. This leads to increased mobo cost.

2) Mobo design - track lengths are critical at high frequencies; again, the higher the frequency the worse the problem. Again, increased mobo cost.

3) Heat generation - this rate of change is affected by the RMS law - double the frequency = approx 3.2 times the heat (given the same voltages etc).

However, multiprocessor systems also have their drawbacks:

1) More complex mobo design - leading to increased mobo cost.

2) Symmetrical multiprocessing does NOT mean both processors share the load, it simply means they are capable of doing so. If only one thread is running, only one processor will be in use = half performance. BUT any program which is highly processor intensive should be designed to be multi-threaded - don't blame the hardware for software shortcomings.

3) There is some overhead in scheduling tasks to run on multiple processors so you don't get double the performance. And since the processors do not share the cache, there is a performance hit if a process has to swap from one processor to the other.

However, a dual processor system should be more efficient than a single processor one since one of the processors can be transferring data whilst the other processor is acting on data in cache (although hyperthreading should get round that anyway).

Considering heat transferrence, the primary objective is to remove the heat from the chip; this puts the heat into the air inside of the case. The secondary object is to remove this hot air from the case.
You could run dual processors at well above half the speeds of a single processor (eg [email protected] [equivalent] against 1@3GHz). It then only takes a linear increase in fan performance to remove that extra heat from the case.

My personal recommendation would be to go for the AMD dual processor option - the hardware is available now, it is cheaper than current Intel hyperthreading options and should give performance (for well written apps or multiple concurrent apps) at least equal to the Intel offering for at least the next couple of years.