Dual Core Comparison

Ed Light wrote:
"user" wrote in message
...
I'd go with the fastest X2 you can afford. The X2 goes to 2.4 GHz now
(3800+ is 2 GHz), while the 165 is at 1.8 GHz.


As long as this is an OC group I need to ask this question: won't a 3800+
OC to the same max as the fastest X2 that uses the same core?

Yes. 2.4 is easy. It may need a tad more voltage.

Try out alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd too.


Thanks Ed, that brings up my next question, why pay more? (unless maybe
too chickinsht to OC to the max?) I am satisfied running my 939 sempron
3000+ at 2.5GHz (with a 300w PS and just the PS fan for case
ventilation) so I guess my $75 investment in a cheep sempron is more
expendible than someone who spent ~$300 for an X2. But man, I can rip a
DVD with DVD shrink (50% compression) in just under 20 minutes with
temps never going over 41c, If I got an X2 could I rip 2 DVD's at the
same time with the same performance using the same components as I have
in my $250 system? I don't think so, but then I don't have the need or
money to try. I know there is more to computing than ripping DVD's but
to me it is a good measure of processor (and system) performance so....I
thought OC'ing was all about saving money, getting someting for notting
but lately on this NG it's how much you can spend on raid this and X2
that without consideration on the real issues,.. how many free MHz you
can get... (also what free OS you should use.. Kubuntu ROCKS!!) excuse
me, time for another shot of cheep whiskey.........

"user" wrote

Thanks Ed, that brings up my next question, why pay more? (unless maybe
too chickinsht to OC to the max?) I am satisfied running my 939 sempron
3000+ at 2.5GHz

Wow, where did you find a 939 sempron? Maybe it came in a prebuilt pc?


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org

Fight Spam:
http://bluesecurity.com

I just set up two Raptor 74s in a striping RAID and it is going great!
Quick use and very little noise. So far, I recommend them highly!


"John Weiss" wrote in message
. ..
"Cal Vanize" wrote...

The computer will be used mostly for internet browsing / email, business
applications, and some light gaming. The game that would probably
present the most CPU burden would be MS Flight Simulator 2004.

User often has 4 - 6 business applications open at the same time then may
launch FS keeping the other apps in the background. He indicated that
memory usage sometimes tops 1g in his current system.

He wants a "very responsive" system. I don't want to hear him express
any concerns about stability.

System considerations:

The hard drives will be two WD SE16 250gb in RAID 0 (I have concerns
about the reliability of Raptors). Memory will be two gig (2x1gb) of
Corsair XMS Platinum CAS2 (becuase I have it).

O/S will either be W2K or XP Home.

I'll probably use a ASUS A8N-VM CSM since there is not a heavy burden on
video performance. (I run FS 2004 on a GF-6100 board without any
problems.)

The board is only capable of ~ 20% overclocking but reports indicate its
VERY stable.

I'm interested in using a dual core processor for this application and
are considering either a X2 3800 or an Opteron 165.

Question:

In this application, are there any opinions on whether the X2 3800 or
Opteron 165 would perform better?

Stability concerns are at odds with overclocking and RAID 0. I've already
lost a RAID array due to a MS foulup in a Win XP update. You may be lucky
so far, but...

I have seen no concerns about reliability with the Raptor 74s (I have a
pair). I saw some early concerns about the Raptor 36s, but researching
statistics I could find at the time indicated the failure/return rate was
in line with other IDE HDs (as many for noise as for actual failure). The
74s have been very reliable (and quiet); the 150s should be the same.

I'd go with the fastest X2 you can afford. The X2 goes to 2.4 GHz now
(3800+ is 2 GHz), while the 165 is at 1.8 GHz.

Cal Vanize wrote:

He wants a "very responsive" system. I don't want to hear him express
any concerns about stability.

The post "Performance/price efficient quad-core Opteron setup" may
address your needs.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...a5f082e6e5bf79

Regards,
Stefan

They all still contain mechanical parts, so they all will fail and usually
at the worse possible time.

It is called "life".


"Chris LeFebvre" wrote in message
...
I've seen hard drives from just about every major manufacturer fail at
one
time or another, IBM, Western Digital, Seagate, Maxtor, Quantum, Hitachi,
Toshiba, Fujitsu, Connor (that's going back a ways).. it seems like at one
time
or another every company lets quality control slip and starts getting a
higher
failure rate and then eventually pulls themselves together. Back around
1999-2000 I built some systems using IBM drives based on some rave reviews
but
over a six month period those drives had a disastrous 3 in 5 failure
rate.. sure
they were replaced under warranty but what a headache. Since those IBM's
I've
been using a lot of Western Digital drives and the last couple years the
special
edition ones with the bigger cache and the three year warranty.. probably
out of
twenty installed I've had a couple go bad (but not die outright) which I'd
consider normal for any manufacturer. I've tried out a couple Seagate
drives (I
thought a five year warranty was pretty good) which some people have been
giving
high praise to and I haven't had any problems and they seem to perform on
par
with the WD special edition drives.

- Chris LeFebvre

VanShania wrote:

personally, I think hard drives fail mainly because of bad handling by
the
vendors and /or new owners. I had 1 WD HD fail, but it gave warning signs
right out of the antistatic covering(OEM). It was clicking anytime it was
accessed. And since the vendor I bought it from dropped my replacement on
the desk, I guess that said it all. I did try a logitech joystick once
and I
wasn't impressed. Although their new 10 button one looked pretty good.
But I
found microsoft's joysticks to be more user friendly. I think most people
start out as average users until they get to see how a computer can make
life simpler. Then they become power users and wish they would have gone
with a raid enabled motherboard so those 4gb (home/ripped)movies would
transfer a little quicker, or games load/install quicker, etc. I read an
online review recently and he said that once you go raid 0, you'll never
go
back. Also JBOD is also a (slowest)raid array that is the slower than any
non-raid setup, and I believe if one drive fails, the whole array is also
lost. You have used Vista yourself?

--
Sapphire Radeon X1600 Pro 512mb AGP
MSI Theater 550Pro TV Tuner
Thermaltake LanFire Midtower with Antec 550 Watt PSU
Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 nForce3, A64 3500+, Stock Cooler IdleTemp 28 C
2 Gb Dual Channel PC3200 OCZ Platinum 2-3-2-5 CL2.5
Viewsonic A91f 19in Moniter
PATA WD 80+120 Gb HD 8mb buffers
Pioneer 110D+Liteon 1693S Dual Layer burner
Logitech MX 310 Optical Mouse
Microsoft Sidewinder Precision 2 Joystick
Microsoft ergonomic keyboard
Cheap computer speakers with Sennheiser HD 477 Headphones

3DMark05Free-Overall 4006 Original Drivers
Cpu 4264
3Dmark2001 - 17680

Games I'm Playing-
Battlezone II, IL-2 Sturmovick Series
Empire Earth 2, Need For Speed: Underground 2,
Civ IV

"NoNoBadDog!" wrote in message
...
As far as HDD go, Western Digital are more prone to failure than most
other brands.

I service computers. When the HDD is the failing component, it is most
often a Western Digital (all flavors). I don't have hard figures, but
a
best guess would be that perhaps 70% of bad HDD are WD. Also high on
the
list are Iomega and AcomDATA. I would not recommend them *AT ALL*.

FWIW, the most reliable hard drives are the ones made by Seagate. I
see
very few failed Seagate HDD.

Raid 0 in not necessary or recommended for the average user, and is not
necessary for Vista. The new breed of drives with Perpendicular
Recording
and NCQ are fast enough in a JBOD installation.

I would also stay away from any Microsoft joysticks. Since you are
already going with a Logitech mouse, I would also recommend one of
their
keyboards and joysticks. They are of much better build quality than
the
MS.



Bobby


"VanShania" wrote in message
...
There are a couple of magazines out(CPU and Smart Computing) that
review
the new Vista operating system. They say you will want a dual core
processor due to the fact that Vista has no less than 36 background
programs running, and you want hard drives that have NCQ like Western
Digital's Raid Edition hard drives. And if he wants a responsive
system,
you will want to do a Raid 0 setup. All this talk of drive failure is
a
bunch of bull. I'll have 6 WD 320 gb Raid Edition drives in 3 raid 0
arrays when I'm done upgrading. The secret to drive longevity is to
make
sure you have fans blowing or sucking air over them to help keep them
cool.
--
Sapphire Radeon X1600 Pro 512mb AGP
MSI Theater 550Pro TV Tuner
Thermaltake LanFire Midtower with Antec 550 Watt PSU
Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 nForce3, A64 3500+, Stock Cooler IdleTemp 28 C
2 Gb Dual Channel PC3200 OCZ Platinum 2-3-2-5 CL2.5
Viewsonic A91f 19in Moniter
PATA WD 80+120 Gb HD 8mb buffers
Pioneer 110D+Liteon 1693S Dual Layer burner
Logitech MX 310 Optical Mouse
Microsoft Sidewinder Precision 2 Joystick
Microsoft ergonomic keyboard
Cheap computer speakers with Sennheiser HD 477 Headphones

3DMark05Free-Overall 4006 Original Drivers
Cpu 4264
3Dmark2001 - 17680

Games I'm Playing-
Battlezone II, IL-2 Sturmovick Series
Empire Earth 2, Need For Speed: Underground 2,
Civ IV




"Cal Vanize" wrote in message
...

[OK, so I cross-posted.]

Background:

I'm in the process of building a new computer for a friend who is a
rather demanding business power-user.

The computer will be used mostly for internet browsing / email,
business
applications, and some light gaming. The game that would probably
present the most CPU burden would be MS Flight Simulator 2004.

User often has 4 - 6 business applications open at the same time then
may launch FS keeping the other apps in the background. He indicated
that memory usage sometimes tops 1g in his current system.

He wants a "very responsive" system. I don't want to hear him
express
any concerns about stability.


System considerations:

The hard drives will be two WD SE16 250gb in RAID 0 (I have concerns
about the reliability of Raptors). Memory will be two gig (2x1gb) of
Corsair XMS Platinum CAS2 (becuase I have it).

O/S will either be W2K or XP Home.

I'll probably use a ASUS A8N-VM CSM since there is not a heavy burden
on
video performance. (I run FS 2004 on a GF-6100 board without any
problems.)

The board is only capable of ~ 20% overclocking but reports indicate
its
VERY stable.

I'm interested in using a dual core processor for this application
and
are considering either a X2 3800 or an Opteron 165.


Question:

In this application, are there any opinions on whether the X2 3800 or
Opteron 165 would perform better?

TIA,

CV

Ed Light wrote:
"user" wrote

Thanks Ed, that brings up my next question, why pay more? (unless maybe
too chickinsht to OC to the max?) I am satisfied running my 939 sempron
3000+ at 2.5GHz

Wow, where did you find a 939 sempron? Maybe it came in a prebuilt pc?


System pulls listed on eBay. In fact there are three listed right now:

http://search.ebay.com/sempron-939_W0QQfromZR40

It is further alleged that on or about Tue, 2 May 2006 18:01:33 -0400,
in alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64, the queezy keyboard of "Oyip
Hopsheda" spewed the following:

|They all still contain mechanical parts, so they all will fail and usually
|at the worse possible time.
|
|It is called "life".

Correction:
I believe it's called "Murphy's Law"/
--
-nos1eep

Most games aren't tuned for dual cores yet but if you get one then in the
future when they are you'll be ready.

The AM2 platform will be coming out, with lower power X2's and using DDR2.
You might want to wait.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org

Fight Spam:
http://bluesecurity.com

"datguy" wrote...

wot about a dual core for a hard gamer?

FX60.

On Wed, 03 May 2006 21:44:25 +0100, datguy wrote:


wot about a dual core for a hard gamer? Deciding weather to go Opteron 170
or 175 or to settle for the 4400 x2.. both the dual cores look nice, price
isnt tooo bad just got a nice 939 mb (dfi lp xpert)
. So wot do you guys rekon to go for? Also Should i look at buying this
soon or wait for AM2 to drop 939 prices?

The X2 4400+ is the same chip as the Opteron 175 but it's $50 cheaper.
When the 939 Opteron 1xxs were first released the Opteron's were cheaper
than the equivalent A64 X2s, probably due to a screw up in AMD's marketing
department, but it looks like they've fixed that now. The 4400+ and 4800+
A64s have 1M caches, the same as the Opterons. The 4600+, 4200+ and 3800+
have 1/2M caches so they have no Opteron equivalents.