A Poll Thingy!
So I've pretty much decided that I'm going to get a new computer. The only question is: What colour should it be? Oh, yeah, black. Makes it go faster.
Well, with that sorted, there are only little unimportant details left to decide, like what processor I should get. (Mac fans note: I'd love to buy a Dual G5, but it's just not on the cards this year.) So, let me know what you think. AMD? Intel? Zilog? Update: Oh, yeah. The machine will be running Windows XP, and will be used for web browsing and email... And graphics editing and web design. And video editing. (Video encoding is painfully slow on my current system.) And music editing (Sonic Foundry's Acid). The occasional bit of programming. (Most of my programming is done on Linux). Word processing. Watching videos. And games, of course. In fact, mostly games. I already have a GeForce 4 4600 Ultra, so I'm waiting out the current confusion in the video card market. Wake me when the GeForce 6 is out. (Or the FX2 or the GX or whatever it turns out to be.) I'm also thinking of upgrading my Linux box. That will almost certainly be an Athlon. The reason I'm asking is that the last four or five systems I've bought have all been AMD - right back to the K6-2. I have a P3 box at work, and it's not particularly impressive. So I've never spent much time on a P4, and I don't know how they stack up.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at 12:51 AM
Comments
1
You didn't say what you are going to use the computer for. That's kind of important.
If it's a server running Linux, then you can get away with an AMD xp1900+ and spend your money on memory and hard drives (get a few spares since you seem to break them frequentely).
If you are getting a workstation, what types of programs are you going to be running?
If 3D rendering, then the fastest AMD processor you can afford (not the 64-bit one) and a butt-load of memory.
For games, video card performance is more important than processor performance.
If you just use office applications and/or do web browsing, screw performance. You can get away with something cheap like the xp1900+ (about US$50).
BTW, if you are going for pure geek bragging rights, then you need an AMD 64-bit dual processor system and several gigs of memory. You won't ever need this kind of power, but who cares? At the moment, the 64-bit processors don't offer a lot of benefits over the 32-bit processors. That will change over the next year (or so) as programs are rewritten to take advantage of the 64-bit architecture.
If it's a server running Linux, then you can get away with an AMD xp1900+ and spend your money on memory and hard drives (get a few spares since you seem to break them frequentely).
If you are getting a workstation, what types of programs are you going to be running?
If 3D rendering, then the fastest AMD processor you can afford (not the 64-bit one) and a butt-load of memory.
For games, video card performance is more important than processor performance.
If you just use office applications and/or do web browsing, screw performance. You can get away with something cheap like the xp1900+ (about US$50).
BTW, if you are going for pure geek bragging rights, then you need an AMD 64-bit dual processor system and several gigs of memory. You won't ever need this kind of power, but who cares? At the moment, the 64-bit processors don't offer a lot of benefits over the 32-bit processors. That will change over the next year (or so) as programs are rewritten to take advantage of the 64-bit architecture.
Posted by: Rossz at November 11, 2003 07:28 AM (43SjN)
2
Speedspeedspeedspeedspeed!
Posted by: Victor at November 11, 2003 08:11 AM (L3qPK)
3
Good point, Ross.
The Athlon 65 FX 51 currently has the highest SpecInt 2000 score of any processor. Also the second highest
(32 bit mode with Intel compilers and 64 bit mode with GCC respectively.)
So it will be interesting to see what happens as the 64-bit compilers improve.
And yes, what I really want is a quad Opteron, but it's not in the budget right now
The Athlon 65 FX 51 currently has the highest SpecInt 2000 score of any processor. Also the second highest
(32 bit mode with Intel compilers and 64 bit mode with GCC respectively.)
So it will be interesting to see what happens as the 64-bit compilers improve.
And yes, what I really want is a quad Opteron, but it's not in the budget right now
Posted by: Pixy Misa at November 11, 2003 12:11 PM (LBXBY)
4
Athlon 65? I guess that one is having a bit on the side...
Posted by: Pixy Misa at November 11, 2003 12:15 PM (LBXBY)
Posted by: CPT. Charles at November 12, 2003 07:54 AM (Hgn8p)
6
no point in getting a 64 bit chip if you're using Windows XP - i'd wait until longhorn to jump on that bandwagon.
I'm running Athlon XP2800 with 2gb ram and UW scsi drives and it kicks the carp out of my work's P4 2.8ghz. Plus you can really push the Athlons provided you have enough heat extraction ... remember OverClocking is fun!
I'm running Athlon XP2800 with 2gb ram and UW scsi drives and it kicks the carp out of my work's P4 2.8ghz. Plus you can really push the Athlons provided you have enough heat extraction ... remember OverClocking is fun!
Posted by: rob at November 13, 2003 12:13 AM (kXZI6)
7
If the Athlon 64s were cheaper, it would be reasonable to spend a little extra to get one. But they aren't, so it isn't...
Interesting to hear your results on the XP 2800+ against the P4 2.8. How did you get 2GB of memory, though? 1GB dimms?
Interesting to hear your results on the XP 2800+ against the P4 2.8. How did you get 2GB of memory, though? 1GB dimms?
Posted by: Pixy Misa at November 13, 2003 01:24 PM (LBXBY)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0092 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0072 seconds, 15 records returned.
Page size 8 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.