Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

T'aint so bad now

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 10, 2003 11:49:48 PM

Well I have seriously shyed away from P4 before since it ran windows slower than my amd and I can't stand any lag. At work I gotta 3.06Ghz HT, and it runs windows pretty farking well:)  Perhaps I'll consider them for an upgrade now.....tho there's still the issue of the fpu.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.

More about : aint bad

July 11, 2003 1:33:09 AM

I keep telling you: Dual Itaniums!
Or...

.
Dual Xeon MPs at 2.8GHZ with 1MB L2.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
July 11, 2003 2:14:52 AM

what about dual opterons eh? lol if only I was rich...

A womans body is a temple built upon a sewer.
Related resources
July 11, 2003 3:05:07 AM

Hmm... Actually, a dual Itanium workstation bitchslaps a dual Opteron by a long shot.
July 11, 2003 3:07:29 AM

P4s are not bad in FP ops when using SSE2 code.

Why do I get the impression that flamethrower is a terrific admirer of AMD which is having a hard time admitting to the fact that Intel has the upper hand right now?... As if his AMD-loyal side was making him feel bad for also having feelings about Intel, and now he's saying "oh well, <i>T'aint so bad now</i>"? Maybe I'm just paranoid. :smile:
July 11, 2003 10:48:43 AM

ah is that so :D 

A womans body is a temple built upon a sewer.
July 11, 2003 1:26:54 PM

heya FlameThrower;

Yeah we got a little role reversal action going on here.
Intel flagship is cheaper - faster - better then the AMD flagship by a pretty nice margin. I have always had an intel - Asus - Crucial Core, and i can honestly say i got pwned by the AMD box, when intel FUBAR themselves with their contract with RAMBUS and AMD went DDR, and i was stuck with SDRAM cuz RDRAM was too expensive, so there was definately a time there when i was getting pwned by the AMD box but that time is over, its about friggin time, and good riddance!

AMD got shanked cold blooded keke

XeeN
July 11, 2003 2:03:13 PM

Pretty much every chip since HT came out and perhaps a bit before has been intel ownage over amd.

3.06HT and any of the c series chips totally own.

Shadus
July 11, 2003 2:51:58 PM

No...what happened was I bought a new comp right when the P4 came out and I was all hyped up- turned out to be a pos proc so I didn't buy it thanks to tom's benches. Bought a 1.2Ghz amd and to this day I swear by that thing's fpu- it's fvckin fast. Meanwhile, my friends got 1.7Ghz even 2.0Ghz P4's, and windows itself lagged/ was slow, which totally blew. I know ram and hdd and all can influence this, but their systems were fine in that respect. Just saying that my current one runs nicely- we'll see how it holds up when the real stuff start happening tho.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
July 11, 2003 2:56:02 PM

I understand that, but this market changes quickly!

Don't use the same logic from several years behind! Things might have changed.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 11, 2003 3:35:45 PM

I'm still sticking to my beleif that clock for clock, amd rapes intel in my quantum comp simulations cause all they are is fpu.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
July 11, 2003 3:51:22 PM

Quantum Simulations, eh? Flamethrower, flamethrower...

Would you care to elaborate?

FP-intensive programs compiled with SSE2 that use up to 64-bit precision are very fast and give the P4 an edge over even the Athlon's rather powerful FPU.

As for clock for clock, it's of course as useless as total clock rate for the net performance. A 2Ghz Athlon may beat a 2.5Ghz P4, but that doesn't mean a 3Ghz P4 is inferior in any way to a 2Ghz Athlon.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 11, 2003 4:19:57 PM

quantum simulations- I simulate quantum computers as one of my tasks in creating, expanding, and optimizing quantum computing algorithms.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
July 11, 2003 4:55:25 PM

<i>Hm...</i>

How do you do so? Do you solve Schrödinger's Wave equation for a specific system, or do you use classical/semiclassical methodologies?

I know <i>a thing or two</i> about physics. You can tell me. :smile:

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 11, 2003 6:22:21 PM

i have a P4 1.5ghz with sdr ram, and my main system is a xp 1700. the p4 blew chunks since the day i got it, the amd is still (in my mind), competitive.
unlike yourself, i have no recent leanings to intel because of their flagship price/performance lead.

I realize they are faster, but who cares, as we've said before how many of these self proposed gurus actually have a 3.2ghz p4?
Mid to low end is what matters to 90% of us. And my processor of choice is the 2800 right now.

I think its a moot point, but without AMD, intel would still be trying to stick RDRAM in our a$$es. knowing that AMD prevented the intel monopoly on the home user to continue to dominate us (price wise also) for another 15 years.

AMDs great 'defeat' at the hand of a billion dollar empire doesnt seem so impressive to me, and its easy to switch sides every time intel 'wins' again. Its silly.
Besides, I'm american, I ALWAYS root for the underdog to topple the king!

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
July 11, 2003 6:45:16 PM

The 2.8GHZ from Intel trounces alive the 3000+ from AMD, and the 2.8GHZ costs FAR less than the 3200+. The 2.8GHZ C 800MT with HT eats the 2800+ from AMD, which back then HAD a chance against it. Therefore, the better choice is a 2.6 or 2.8GHZ C from Intel.

Again, only low end works with AMD, still.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
July 11, 2003 6:45:39 PM

When I upgrade I buy the fastest- money is not the issue there, speed and reliability are. I'm just saying that come time to upgrade, if the opteron sucks compared to a 2^10000Ghz P4/5, I'd get that.
Mes: Using schroedinger's eq if I like it or not as well as other "classical" things.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
July 11, 2003 7:52:40 PM

forgetting that the 2800+ is $100 less than the 2.8C, and that you can put a 2800+ in even a Asus A7V (via kt133) still to this day, i'd like to see that 2.8C go in my SDR P4 based chipset which is newer than a A7V.
Yah it gets beat, not by enough to make most P4 users from all 'eras' of the P4 to upgrade... those with SDR ram support, those with pc800 rdram (that is ridiculous to upgrade to 1066 rdram to take advantage of the P4 because other than in that motherboard, fast rdram is simply useless), and of course, those with the old socket format AND obsolete RDRAM.

I understand that a SDR athlon motherboard would not do a 2800 justice either, but SDR ram is more commonly used cross platform than RDRAM by far.


Instead of upgrade my P4 motherboard/ram/cpu (all to get your mystical 2.8C), I'd rather use a SIS 635 (a fast, stable chipset) which enabled either SDR or DDR usage, so you could buy that board for $45, throw your old athlon processor, whatever ram you have laying around and still have a processor faster than what intel had in the equivelent day.
For instance, my P4s SDR (640MB) memory could go in one of those, throw in my 1700+, move over all the components and blow the doors off any willamette.
If I had RDRAM, with this P4 system, there would be NO upgrade possibility short of replacing everything!
I'm fortunate to have the SDR that is swappable.


The point is, it will work and upgrading a P4 is not worth the thought, its near ridiculous to consider and sometimes impossible without swapping out the entire system.
And we're looking at ONE processor from intel, the P4.. not multiple eras like this kind of socket and ram change is supposed to span over.

So yeah, if your building a system from ground up it might work and be pretty fast, but intel is not going to change their ways and your going to lose.

Regardless, many will continue to bow to intel like dogs.
I learned my lesson on this to many times over in the 80s and 90s.

but exactly what am I supposed to do with this P4 1.5ghz with SDR ram? Its slow as molasses and maybe I want a 2.8C eh? I couldve been more lucky and had the chance to take a RDRAM system in the a$$ like intel loyalists.
any of my athlons from kt133->nforce2 will take a 3200+.
The kt133 was paired with a 700mhz athlon originally!

someday you will realize, it was all about the socket A baby. :) 
most of my post has centered on the recent past. but what about the future for intel? the P5? you mean a new faster P4 with another new socket, no 64bit abilities? I'm not excited.

If speed is your concern, thats crazy because its always see sawing and sorry to burst your bubble, the P4/Athlon days are OVER. Yes the P4 pulled a lead right at the end but who in there right mind would consider a 3.2 P4 right before the P5 and A64 release??
Sitting here and saying "yep, those 800mhz fsb p4s really cook!", its really just too late.
And like I outlined earlier above, this late in the game, I would hope to god that the reason for buying a P4 3.2ghz would be as an UPGRADE to a current system, not to build fresh.. and I explained the many follys in the upgrade process for many Intel users.
The big picture is that the P4 is/was a mass disappointment of horrible decisions by intel to many users, myself included.
During the P4, they discovered AMD was not going to allow them to have a monopoly, and intel basically crapped designs until they finally got ahead of a 233mhz fsb with an 800.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by kinney on 07/11/03 04:13 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 11, 2003 8:11:10 PM

Find me proof that a 2800+ with 333MT FSB (if there is a 400MT version, include THAT as well) will run on the KT133, same FSB as well, not downgraded and run with a lower clock speed.

Fact is Socket A is only idealistic. Those who bought the 3200+ or any 200MHZ FSB Athlon have LOST. They cannot run it on their old systems.

EDIT: Surfing online, I found the 800MT 2.4GHZ P4 to be similarly priced to a 2800+, and checking on Anandtech reveals the CPU is the winner. So, not only do you get skyrocketing performance in SSE2 apps, but you get Hyper-Threading for a few bucks more than the AMD system. And you're there whining you want your 64-bit when Intel is offering two technologies available to use on-the-run?
Don't make me laugh, I just proved you wrong about your 2800+, with a 2.4GHZ system.
--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 07/11/03 04:16 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 11, 2003 10:02:00 PM

I feel you missed my point.
I admitted before that yes, if your building a system today your going to go the fastest, cheapest with a P4.

My point was, those fast P4s werent available until fairly recently. All this time Athlon has had the lead.

But with those processors coming as of late, most people already have pentium 4 systems, many with completely obsolete (RDRAM) and a hodgepodge of SDR systems, many with socket 423.
Anyone honestly the needs the fastest today, is going to be soooo sore in the morning when basically the P5/A64 are so very close.

Intel has left P4 owners (such as myself) through the course of the P4 lifeline left with no options for upgrade and they odviously had no long term plan in the memory, or rather, architechure department as AMD does.

So while upgrading and maxing out a current RDRAM 1066 or DDR P4 system since they are close to yesterdays news and will need all the power they can get in the future, would be, I'd hope, the primary reason for buying one of the 800mhz FSB P4s.
Yet I'm stuck upgrading my 1.5 P4 to a paltry 1.7ghz.

About the A7V, I might have been a touch overzealous about that board, but I wouldnt doubt with some underclocking the 400mhz FSB athlons would work on one.
But it does not have official support.
As far as your comment on the 400mhz fsb athlons not being usuable on any older motherboards, not true, Asus released a bios update for the A7N8X allowing the use of those. Showing the strength and longterm viability socket A has had.

It just goes to show that building a new Pentium system right now is a waste with everything coming in the next 2-3 months, and upgrading is simply a much harder/impossible task for an intel user than athlon in most cases.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
July 12, 2003 12:48:33 AM

But then again both CPUs are now obsolete in a few months as the new systems roll in. Any AMD user or Intel user as of now who has purchased a new system or upgraded, will be stuck with nothing to add soon.

Remember btw that AMD also did a socket switch, or more of a Slot to Socket switch. Like Intel and the foolish Socket 423 to 478 switch. (though we'd agree that Socket 423 is indeed a huge socket and really a waste of space and electrical components)
Intel's P4 socket has remained the same so the Socket story is a moot point on either side, it's the processor compatibility.

You have to see however that each time a new P4 comes out, there is about a 15% boost overall in performance. The 800MT with HT CPUs are a true boon to someone who has a 1.5GHZ like you, and upgrades the whole lot. You are guaranteed a double performance. You can't get that with any AMD or Intel "upgrade" with no mobo+CPU transfer. Then the issue of RAM comes in as well.
IMO, why upgrade this soon anyways. Get a good P4 like the 2.4GHZ C, wait 2 years, switch. You'd really be silly to buy then a P4 which could run on your current mobo (if that were the case, hypothetically), considering the fact:
1)That there is a big amount of new chipsets with excellent performance
2)The RAM is likely changing as well. This brings the fact that upgrading a P4, if it were allowed like the AMDs (I can agree AMDs have more upgradability, but NOT that much more), is not as beneficial without switching the lot. Consider that the Pentium 4 architecture LOVES bandwidth. Would you like it if you bought a 2GHZ and later upgraded to a 4GHZ, with no new RAM or mobo? Can you imagine how pathetically weak it is? The wise choice would be to buy the new mobo which with today's economy IS RELATIVELY LOW (never once seen an Intel chipset mobo being priced at 160$ CDN and it being new) and add new RAM. Only that can really help.
Therefore, why the hell would you want P4s to be flexible? They would only suffer!

Furthermore, the article <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20030303/amd_at..." target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20030303/amd_at...;/A> on THG has a wealth of benchmarks to show enough proof of how bad it is to upgrade with old chipsets on board. There is nearly a 2x delta from the first chipsets to the last. Sure it gives my system some life, but how much? 50% more? Why not go for 100% more? IMO an upgrade should have a 2x ratio minimum, to feel like you did something.
If I am going to upgrade my XP1600+ now, I'd likely go for a 3200+, but given the fact I have a KT266A chipset, I must ask myself 2 things:
1)Will it run on such board?
2)How garanteed am I to get more performance? I'll likely not double.

Of course if for 50$ you can get a new AMD CPU which gives you 50% more performance, that is a whole different issue, being exceptional. :wink:

PS: I know you like to argue you f00l! :smile:


--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
July 12, 2003 1:18:51 AM

Quote:
how bad it is to upgrade with old chipsets on board. There is nearly a 2x delta from the first chipsets to the last.

Excellently argued there, but still, it is to AMD's credit if a 50% boost is possible through a CPU upgrade... It's not that good as some would like you to believe, though: a 50% boost is probably rare and there are considerable differences in mobo performances as well. Interestingly, sometimes, you might just upgrade your mobo instead of your CPU - and that might give you a better upgrade! But noone things of that, of course, because it feels like a major system overhaul. Is it really?...

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 12, 2003 7:33:42 AM

You bring some interesting points. The chipset part is very true, for me (i thought), going to the Nforce2 was enough of a performance increase for me to upgrade.
But I had always had major stability problems with my VIA boards and found myself deciding between going all intel or trying an nforce.

About how you were saying the motherboard affecting the performance greatly, I dont know how the intel side goes (I honestly had sparse knowledge of intel chipsets, though I waited a very long time for granite bay and then finally went nforce), but as long as you have a kt266a/sis635 or 'above' you won't find drastic increases in performance from an AMD mobo. That is my opinion but we all know dual ddr is kind of wasted on a athlon and that a fast single memory controller is as fast. Point being, the kt266a is old in my mind, so I dont know if the same rules apply to athlons when you say on the intel side a mobo change will increase performance so drastically. I dont know what chipset was dominant in the intel camp when the kt266a was released.

Regardless of my squabbling, I am personally waiting until Sept 22nd (rumored day of drastic price drops for intel) and then consider a 3.2 p4, depending how badly the p5 rapes it, a64 performance and how big this price drop is.
But I dont think todays top chips are worth those prices and by then they are still going to be decent performers.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
July 12, 2003 1:52:51 PM

Flamethrower, let me just tell you that any current P4 with DDR you can buy today will outperform your Athlon in both FPU and Integer performance.

Intelligence is not merely the wealth of knowledge but the sum of perception, wisdom, and knowledge.
July 12, 2003 4:39:12 PM

I know that, but I still respect my athlon a lot. We'll see how opterons perform around Christmas.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
July 12, 2003 5:04:51 PM

Quote:
We'll see how opterons perform around Christmas.

Don't you mean how Athlon 64s perform? We've already seen Opteron benchmarks.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 12, 2003 5:57:07 PM

No, chances are I'll be buying a dualie setup and check out how I can speed up these simulations, esp. if I start having to compare em to classically calculating eigen values. I mean if the A64 is much better tho, I may go with that.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
July 12, 2003 6:59:19 PM

It won't be. Simply because it is not multiprocessor capable.

I still say for the 3rd time, Itanium all the way. Up to 5 times stronger in FPU than Opterons.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
July 12, 2003 7:04:17 PM

What I meant towards Intel system upgrade performance was not towards the mainboard upgrading. I meant that the whole system, whenever upgrade on the Intel side, for P4s, will OFTEN offer so much more.
Consider that you have a Wilamette. You go to a 3.2GHZ, you double your speed, then you add a new PAT-enabled motherboard. THEN you add HyperThreading, a usable feature. Then you add 800MT. That alone means you just upgrade and got more than twice the performance. Do that in September and I garantee you will see tremendous performance, outstanding for the price.

nForce 2 btw does use a special optimized logic when using Dual Channel mode, and the extra performance doesn't come from having twice more bandwidth (it wouldn't make sense), but from a special logic in there. I recall Crashman had indicated what was done. That was responsible for the real performance yeild the nForce 2 had over the competition, and especially that it still holds the top position even against any other single-channel solutions from VIA.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
July 12, 2003 7:04:38 PM

If you have the money and are currently making your own code, then consider a dual Itanium/Madison 1.3Ghz system for FP-heavy code. Its SPEC_FP score, 1800, is way beyond anything the Opteron is able to conjure, and it might not be that much more expensive: $1200 each processor. <A HREF="http://www.hp.com" target="_new">http://www.hp.com&lt;/A> sells very reasonably-priced workstations that will suit your needs wonderfully right now. Opteron is certainly a worse alternative for you.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 12, 2003 7:09:55 PM

He said himself money is not an issue.

Now I would like to see how he will get out of this one, either by denial or ignoring it, like he did with each time I recommended an Itanium.
IMO it IS the right way.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
July 12, 2003 7:27:46 PM

Quote:
IMO it IS the right way.

Of course it is the right way. I know that. I just want to see if he can get out his "I love AMD" costume...

I would be delighted if money wasn't an issue and I had to get top FPU performance. I'd certainly get a dual 1.5Ghz 6MB Itanium with AGP slot and lots of memory...

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 13, 2003 5:26:16 AM

This pc would also be used for normal stuff (office work, games, etc.)- how does the itanium handle itself then?

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
July 13, 2003 1:32:37 PM

I'm not sure at all. Using Win2003Server, you should be able to run all of them. I don't know with what speed, though. That's why I keep saying that we should get more Itanium reviews as workstations! Noone listens to me! :frown:

Well, anyway, I thought this was going to be a dedicated workstation. Itanium is probably not the best for normal gaming because it will only emulate 32 bit software and has performance that is comparable to a 1.5Ghz Xeon, I've heard. Actually, because most games will still be 32 bit well into 2004, maybe even 2005, Prescott is actually the top performer in those. Opteron doesn't do that great a job at running 32-bit software and loses compared to current Intel/AMD strictly-32-bit solutions.

Maybe you can get the workstation for the place in which you work and then get a normal, 32-bit much cheaper desktop for your home. That's what any reasonable person would do, within the power users of the scientific community. And if your simulations are REALLY demanding, they'll run for several days - and therefore having two computers is a must. I use a workstation too: it sometimes faces weeks and weeks of straight simulations. What would you do with your Office/gaming meanwhile? You said it yourself: you have a 3.06Ghz at work, and I presume you have an AMD system at home. So you already use more than one computer. And I presume most of your gaming is done at home (hm...), so you could get a good desktop for your home and a killer dual Itanium workstation for work.

You're not telling me that you need ultra-strong FP performance and a powerful multi-cpu machine just because you want to reduce a 15 or 20 minute simulation to a 4 or 5 minute one, right? There are needier people...

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 13, 2003 4:30:02 PM

My computer at work has nothing to do with quantum- I'm working only over the summer creating a program to deal w/ real time data and the companies db and then options for reading it and whatnot (need to crete a historic database for instruments as well). So, everything would be done at home. So far my sims have taken several days, but then again, it forces one to optimize and think of new ways of efficiency to make it run faster. In 2 years I go off to college, so I'm not too sure it'd be the best investment to just leave an itanic workstation at my house w/o using it (plus, I probably won't be doing quantum sims for some time after).

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
July 13, 2003 4:39:28 PM

Quote:
so I'm not too sure it'd be the best investment to just leave an itanic workstation at my house w/o using it (plus, I probably won't be doing quantum sims for some time after).

What did you call Itanium again?... :smile:

Anyway, on what computer do the sims take several days?... Is it a sub-2Ghz processor?... if so, I'd invest money to get a great/good desktop computer ASAP, with a 3+Ghz CPU and lots of system memory. There is nothing wrong at all with P4's FPU now! Things have changed. You could get a multi-processor Opteron, but unless you can guarantee that your code runs in a multithreaded way with great improvements, it might not be the best investment - for the same reason that makes Itanium look like overkill, for a 2-year max venture. Opteron does look more like your thing, though, if you were to go for a multi-processor system - if you really want to be playing games with it and so on. Itanium would run your simulations faster and your games slower than Opteron. Where do you get all that money, BTW?

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 14, 2003 1:29:44 AM

Well look who your talking to!!!!! Someone that doesn't even have a clue of how to even put a roof over his head.

Yep, there's a lot of kids running around these forums with a lot of big opinions!!!.

Honey, what's that smell? Don't bother me now I'm working on my computer! OOPS!
July 14, 2003 4:33:12 AM

? Right now I make $15/ hour, and that coupled with some money I have saved over the last 2 years will go for the comp. Face it, I'm 16, there's very little chance I'll be pulling enough to buy a house, food, and car.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
July 14, 2003 1:09:07 PM

I hope you saved a lot, if you want a multiprocessor system! You could give us your budget - if it helped to come to a conclusion... We can try to help. Your call.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 14, 2003 6:35:43 PM

Around 6-7,000 USD so far, but I'll be able to figure it out myself, that's half the fun of building a pc:) 

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
July 14, 2003 7:52:32 PM

Hey... we want to have fun too! :frown:
And don't read the second part of this post if you don't want to know about my opinion.

So <b>STOP READING NOW, FLAMETHROWER!</b> :smile:

Anyway, with that kind of budget, you're probably better off with a powerful dual-Xeon workstation - which'll run games peachy-keen and, if you consider the new 3.06Ghz, 1MB cache Xeons on a 8xAGP board, will probably run most things you throw at it faster than an equivalently-priced Opteron (you'll make a workstation out of Opteron, not a server. THG confirmed that Opteron is not that good a choice for workstations right now!). Also, bear in mind that the 244 is more expensive than even a 3.06Ghz 1MB L3 Xeon. Both will have to use ECC, though. Both can address more than 4GB memory. And no, the Xeon will not be weak in FP if you compile with ICC.

Besides, if you're only going to use this thing for the next 24 months, you might only see the true advantages of x86-64 by the end of that period! So going Opteron now would be a very lousy investment for you.

If you want cheaper, you can go with the 3.06Ghz, 512KB cache Xeon - it got a 30% or so discount today. With the leftover money, you can get as much memory as you can - but there is no way you'll be going beyond say, 3GB, 4GB or, best case scenario, 6GB system memory with this kind of budget. Might be less if you opt for Opteron. You must consider that typical Xeon boards have 6 memory slots and 2GB memory sticks are expensive as hell. 1GB ECC is already expensive enough!

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 15, 2003 1:41:41 AM

I'll be buying this end of year, so we can still wait to see. What I meant about the 2 years is if I bought an Itanic workstation, I wouldn't have much use for it past the 2 years. Now if I buy a hammer or xeon system, yes, I will bring that to college (suppose I can carry it on me back and forgo the laptop....wait, I'll be out partying :tongue: ).

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
!