I think he will recommend Barton 2500+ in the Overclocking section. Because alongside with unlocked 1800+/2000+, the Barton 2500+ is the best AMD overclocker and it's damn cheap!
I know the oc section will follow, but I think it is worth saying (perhaps in some graded way) which you will get good oc'ing from (eg xp1800) and which are bad.
Oh, an important point imo: when talking about these lower end xp's, such as the 1700, make it clear that you can upgrade as far as the 2400 (2ghz). Upgradeability for relatively cheap is an important consideration for me, and many others no doubt.
Congrats, you put a lot of work in it, it may actually be usefull. A few constructive comments though:
1) change the order. Move "Picking the right cpu" to the top of the post, its what people will need/want to read. the rest is more...background info. As it is now, a newbie being directed to the FAQ may not even scroll down far enough to find what he needs to read.
2) I know the whole point of your exercise is to make generalizations, but it might be usefull to include links to specific benchmarks if you have the time. Especially things like DivX encoding, 3D rendering or CAD.. people generally use just one specific app for this (not surprising if you know how much a true 3D package costs), and they should mostly only look at the performance of a certain cpu for that single app. So it would be nice to able to click to benchmarks using 3DS, Maya, POVray, ..
3) you knew this was comming: I can't agree with your x86-64 statements. I'll first discuss factual errors:
-"AMD64 is marketing name of x86-64".. minor nitpicking, but x86-64 was also a marketing name. I would rather say "AMD64 is AMDs marketing term to describe its 64 bit extentions to the x86 ISA" or something
- "and it will overcome the 4GB memory limitation of current 32 bit CPUs. Since this feature is currently not utilized in windows environment and more than 4 GB memory is going to be necessary in desktop PCs at least until 2006, "
NO NO NO NO, and again NO. LOL, please Spitfire, didnt you read any of the discussion on this ? 64 bit is <b>not</b> about accessing more than 4 GB RAM, its about having a flat memory address space, allowing apps to break the 2 GB address space limit, regardless how much or how little RAM you have. A 64 bit cpu and OS are definately usefull even with only 1 gig or RAM. please, do me a favor, and read <A HREF="http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2003_04_20_Looking_at_Intels_Prescott_part2.html#The need for 64 bit processing: Closer than you think." target="_new">this little piece by Hans de Vries</A>. Scroll down to "The need for 64 bit processing: Closer than you think." Its only 1 paragraphs, and nearly a year old, but still as true as ever. Keep in mind Hans is not at all a DTP'er, and there are plenty of people using Photoshop. And this is just one tiny example. Also bare in mind, he is not even mentioning the fact windows (and every other 32 bit OS) is limited to 2 GB /process as they reserve 2 GB for the kernel, VMM, etc. (okay, 3 GB for XP PRo if you edit boot.ini, but you need recompiled apps to take advantage of this).
You are entitled your own opinion on 64 bit adoptions, but at the very least I think you should report that opinions vary widely on this matter... minimum minimorum. Otherwise, I believe you are doing your readers a disservice by not giving them the whole picture. At least allow them to make up their own minds.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bbaeyens on 02/03/04 04:24 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
2) Yeah, generalization is the whole point of this guide. But most of the similar apps. prefer similar kind of CPU. Exceptions usually come from programs that aren't used in the first place, but has some use (Ogg Vorbis encoding for example, AXP 3200+ = P4 3.2 GHz = A64 3400+ in this app, SSE2 is useless here). The generalization thing will still be the main concept, but I will try to point out exceptions from now.
BTW, if you use pirated software, then "how much it costs" is useless. Especially students and beginners mess with lots of software without buying. And many small Asian commercial animation houses use any software they want to use, because of free style piracy. (don't be rude on them, they really can't afford to pay $400 to $1000 for a single software. They will be out of business if they're forced to pay for Maya, 3DSMax)
3) Maybe I'll rename the AMD64/x86-64 naming things according to your suggestion.
I've read most of your arguments about memory limitations. I know it's 4 GB addressing (4 GB, 2GB + 2 GB), not only physical RAM. But then, currently most people are fine with 512 MB physical and 512 MB virtual, total 1 GB addressing. In fact, I'm using 512 MB physical + 256 MB virtual, total 768 MB addressing space. I can't remember when I last got "low virtual memory" message (my work is gaming, some audio editing, audio/video encoding). Some people need 1 GB physical and maybe similar ammount virtual RAM, but they are still not majority.
And "until 2006" is my way to say "end of 2005". I want to mean, 4 GB addressing will be good enough for 95% people for whole 2005.
>BTW, if you use pirated software, then "how much it costs" >is useless
Well then, consider the learning curve of a program like 3DS. Once you get to know it, you'll think twice about switching to Maya. Oh well, this is OT anyway.
>But then, currently most people are fine with 512 MB >physical and 512 MB virtual, total 1 GB addressing.
Most people are fine with a 2500+ for now. I am. In fact, I might be fine with it for another year or two. Does that mean I wouldnt benefit from a 3400+ ? A P4EE ? Sure I would ! same applies to 64 bit. You may not *need* it, but that doesnt make it useless.. far from. And unlike a P4EE/A64/FX, chip, AMD64 support is free.
Besides, if I spend >$400 on just the cpu, I expect to hang on that system for a while. 64 bit is not a requirement, nor will it be for quite a while, but it is anything but useless.
> I want to mean, 4 GB addressing will be good enough for >95% people for whole 2005.
Define "good enough". You mean like in "sub optimal" ? You mean like people found windows 3.11 good enough in 1996 ? Or windows 98/ME good enough today ? It still gets the job done you know.. who needs XP ?
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
I take it you not going to post anything from Apple are ya?
Perhaps a note to in FAQ about that not being added if you not going to.
<b>on the verge of catastrophy (y1.999...k)</b>
ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro - WD 80G HD(8M) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by cdpage on 02/03/04 05:46 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
I have to agree with bbayes here. I am a photoshop user, and I am really anxious to move to 64 bit. 2 GB isnt enough for me. I get out of memory errors on a daily basis, and usually lose my work. I even go as far as disabling my firewall, MSN messenger, etc to have as much memory as I can. I have a 10 GB scratch disks in photoshop, but that doesnt help.
I currently own a P4 2.4C with 1,5 GB ram, and when I heard about Apple's G5, I was actually considering buying one until I heard the OS doesnt fully support 64 bit addressing yet, so its pointless. If and when Windows comes out for 64 bit, as does photoshop, I'll buy a 64 bit computer the very same day. I don't even care if it would be little slower than my current P4.
I too understand that the Mac OS is not fully 64 bit yet... not sure when it will be eather... but you'll have to wait for the 64 bit PC version of PS, but i think the new PS for mac is already setup for 64 bit.
by then the OSx might be fully 64 bit...
<b>on the verge of catastrophy (y1.999...k)</b>
ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro - WD 80G HD(8M) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW
Besides, if I spend >$400 on just the cpu, I expect to hang on that system for a while. 64 bit is not a requirement, nor will it be for quite a while, but it is anything but useless.
That's all what I said. It's won't be useful for some time. The buyer is the man to decide if it's important to him or not. Some people upgrade within 2 years and some not before 4 years.
Quote :
Define "good enough". You mean like in "sub optimal" ? You mean like people found windows 3.11 good enough in 1996 ? Or windows 98/ME good enough today ? It still gets the job done you know.. who needs XP ?
In my defination, "good enough" means Windows 2000 is still good enough.
Quote :
BTW, did you read that link ?
No. I suppose it backs up your claim regarding this topic. Anything else?
