Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Can someone explain this for me?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 30, 2006 8:27:40 AM

OK, I'm looking to upgrade my AMD64 3200+ to an X2 processor. Looking for that nice mid-point, I was just about settled in on the 4400+ Toledo. However, while comparing different ones in the Tom's CPU charts I see a strange anomally, the 4200+ Manchester outperforms (albeit barely) the 4400+ in 3D Studio Max and in Pinnacle Studio 9.

Now I do play some games, and the 4400+ wins nicely there, and it smokes the Manchester in the Multitasking 2, but I use After Effects and Premier Pro 1.5 A LOT. Even though those are not part of the benchmarks they are similar programs.

So I'm wondering, first of all, what is it about the Manchester build that beats the Teledo in these programs, considering the speed is the same and it has less cache? And secondly, does the Toledo warrant the extra $100?

More about : explain

March 30, 2006 9:19:24 AM

Quote:
OK, I'm looking to upgrade my AMD64 3200+ to an X2 processor. Looking for that nice mid-point, I was just about settled in on the 4400+ Toledo. However, while comparing different ones in the Tom's CPU charts I see a strange anomally, the 4200+ Manchester outperforms (albeit barely) the 4400+ in 3D Studio Max and in Pinnacle Studio 9.

Now I do play some games, and the 4400+ wins nicely there, and it smokes the Manchester in the Multitasking 2, but I use After Effects and Premier Pro 1.5 A LOT. Even though those are not part of the benchmarks they are similar programs.

So I'm wondering, first of all, what is it about the Manchester build that beats the Teledo in these programs, considering the speed is the same and it has less cache? And secondly, does the Toledo warrant the extra $100?



What is your budget? What programs do you run besides After Effects and Premier Pro?

Is a few seconds going to make a difference?
March 30, 2006 12:49:00 PM

yep, I vote for the opteron, they OC like mad.
Related resources
March 30, 2006 2:23:06 PM

Quote:
The extra cache is needed for speed in your application, but not enough to justify the $100 increase.

Alternatively you could buy a low clocked Opteron 165/170 which has the Denmark=Toledo core then clock it up to 4800+ speed with ease.


But you said a overclock P4 is cheaper and faster than an Opty? How come you're not spreading your Fanboyism here? Sheesh, keep your story straight man, it's confubbling :evil: .

@Topic: Grab the Opty 165 and OC to 2.2GHz, it will outperform a 4400+ and is only $325.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 30, 2006 3:11:18 PM

Quote:
yep, I vote for the opteron, they OC like mad.
What if he doesn't wan't to/like to OC?
March 30, 2006 4:11:09 PM

I'm going to try and answer your question since no one else really has.

I believe the Manchester outperforms the Toldeo in certain applications because of lower latencies and lower number of cache misses in the smaller L2 cache. As you already noted, some programs take advantage of a lower latency cache. Others do not. In fact the majority of games and applications do better w/ larger caches.

If money is no object I suggest you get the Toledo based core. Either way, we're talking about unnoticable performance differences. Heed wusy's advice.

-mpjesse
March 30, 2006 4:31:51 PM

i'm in a smiliar boat as this guy.

currently i've got a 3700+ @ 2.2ghz. now i'm debating going to dualcore.

i play a LOT of games. but i also do a LOT of multitasking and SQL stuff.

so for the gaming. i wouldnt want any of the individual cores to be below the 2.2ghz. that would give me a decreased single thread performance and... that wouldnt be fun for my gaming.

but for all the multi taskin. dualcore seems to be a better option.

so this gives me the options of basically the 4200+, 4400+.

now the 4400+ is about 150 more expensive in canada and wusy's advice i heed. so the 4200 is the option

HOWEVER> I've got decent cooling and decent RAM on this thing. with the 120mm Copper cooler from Zalman. would anyone recommend going with the Opty or slower X2 and overclocking it to the 2.2ghz speed.

and what are the likely chances of success with either. and the best methods ofit
March 30, 2006 4:39:59 PM

The opty 165 is definately a good choice. I very much game on mine as well do alot of encoding, video editing yada yada yada

Just last night, I wanted to see just how much I could push my machine. Keep in mind, I only have one gig of RAM.

I put on a movie using power DVD and was watching that on one monitor while I had yahoo IM and AIM up as well. (I have two Samsung 930b connected to my single 7800GT) Then I logged into City of Villians on the other monitor. Neither the game or the movie hiccup'd at all! It was incredibly smooth. All the while, in the background, I had my folding software going working on a large WU.

For the next test, i'm about to toss in another DVD burner into this machine. I will open up all of these applications and will try to burn a CD or DVD all at the same time. The purpose is just to see if I can get this machine to choke. So far, i've been unable to and I am overly impressed with it.

This may not seem like a big deal to some but to me, it is as, this is my primary machine.
March 30, 2006 4:47:07 PM

im seriously considering the 165 opty right now. it's < 400 canadian which is my limit right now. gives the dual core at 1.8.

should be an easy overclock to 2.2ghz ( I hOPE). the reason i think the Opty over a cheaper 3800 is the cache. from my understanding, the X2 3800 is only 512kb / Core while the Opty is 1mb / core.

all the things i've seen show the opty having 2mb cache total while the X2 only 1mb. so thatsa a bonus that i think is worth the 30 buck price increase for me. (the 3800 is $355. the opty 165 is $398. I think it's worth the extra 40 bucks.)
March 30, 2006 4:55:10 PM

The opty overclocks very easily. I had mine up to 2.7 but cranked it back down for uber stableness. I built an X2-3800 machine a while back and it was a pretty nice machine too. I do like the opty better because it overclocks a little better.
March 30, 2006 4:59:53 PM

ok. so given these figures i'm about to lay down... which chip would you go

Asus A8n-Sli
OCZ 2 x 512mb DDR (2.5-3-3-7) @ 400Mhz
2 x 7800GT's

cooled by the Zalman 120mm Copper cooler.


should i plug in the 3800+ and hope for a clock to 2.2ghz
opty 165 clocked to 2.2 and hope for a clock to 2.2

or spend the extra 100 and get the 4200.

or say fuck it and just live with the 3700+
March 30, 2006 5:09:35 PM

Quote:
ok. so given these figures i'm about to lay down... which chip would you go

Asus A8n-Sli
OCZ 2 x 512mb DDR (2.5-3-3-7) @ 400Mhz
2 x 7800GT's

cooled by the Zalman 120mm Copper cooler.


should i plug in the 3800+ and hope for a clock to 2.2ghz
opty 165 clocked to 2.2 and hope for a clock to 2.2

or spend the extra 100 and get the 4200.

or say **** it and just live with the 3700+



7900GT, the 7800GT doesn't make any sense any more unless you can get one for under $200.

The 7900GT sells for just a bit over $299.
March 30, 2006 5:14:35 PM

I think he was just pointing out his current system specs. I think he already has the two 7800GT's unless I read it wrong. If that's the case, my apologies.

@mpasternak

I think sticking with the 3700 is probably a good choice to be honest. If I had to choose between the dual cores, the opty 165 is my choice.
March 30, 2006 5:24:40 PM

ok. i'll deal with the 3700 for the time being

and yes. I ALREADY have the 7800GT's in SLI

we wont talk about that....

i'm not happy
March 30, 2006 5:28:37 PM

Why? I have one 7800GT and it's a great card.
March 30, 2006 5:45:56 PM

1 7800GT is a great card.

Sli is pretty worthless

ti's cool to say. Yes, I score 11,000 in 3D mar 06.

but in reality it's got no practical uses.

sure i get 80fps in WoW... but 60fps would have sufficed.

in reality, I bought a 2nd video card. have 2 x the fan noise. my case temps went up 8 degrees on idle and i had to buy a new 500w PSU
March 30, 2006 5:49:10 PM

Thanks for the replies thus far…mpjesse seems to have answered my core questions, thanks man!

For clarity sake, I’ll answer a few questions. First off, Outside of AE and Premiere I use Soundforge, Acid Music and Photoshop CS. As for games, my latest titles are COD2 and Fear.

Budget wise, I’m looking to spend $600 or less. Honestly, I don’t care to overclock anymore. Although I used to enjoy pushing my system (and I still build my own systems) the constant tweaking/cooling/fooling with it just doesn’t appeal to me like it used to. So why am I worried about 100 bucks then? Because it’s 100 bucks…I’m not going to waste it just because. But if there is a good reason to spend it, then the money is there.

For further reference, the primary parts of my system consists of: 2gig Corsair XMS, 7800GT, WD Raptor 74 (as a system drive) and 2 WD 250gig drives in a SATA raid on an NF4 platform.

I just want to be able to cut my render & compression times down and be able to do something else in a different program while that's working...hence the reason I was looking at a dual core.
August 22, 2006 3:26:07 AM

Quote:
The extra cache is needed for speed in your application, but not enough to justify the $100 increase.

Alternatively you could buy a low clocked Opteron 165/170 which has the Denmark=Toledo core then clock it up to 4800+ speed with ease.


But you said a overclock P4 is cheaper and faster than an Opty? How come you're not spreading your Fanboyism here? Sheesh, keep your story straight man, it's confubbling :evil: .

@Topic: Grab the Opty 165 and OC to 2.2GHz, it will outperform a 4400+ and is only $325.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
F U!

Haha, you can't reply now! :p 


PPPFFFTbbbttt. LMAO...low blow Wusy, very low. :wink:

Peace
!