If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Athlon 64 queries
Hi,
I'm currently trying to decide between an Athlon 64 3200+ and a P4, 2.8 - 3.0 My main interest is in digital photography and I want something that will handle large RAW files quickly. Gaming etc is not really a priority. I'll also be using 1024 Mb of RAM I've read extensively about the Athlon 64 and can appreciate that when 64 bit applications are here it will come into it's own - but what about now? My main worry is that, notwithstanding the benefits of memory control directly on the chip, etc, the Athlon 64 is still only a 2.0 Ghz processor (albeit with a 1Mb cache) Will the P4 (either the 2.8 or the 3.0 version) be faster for the type of work I want to do - in short, is a 2Ghz Athlon as fast (or faster) than a 3.0 Ghx Pentium in non-3D type applications? Many thanks for your input. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
An Athlon 64 3200+ should perform better than a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz
running 32 bit Photoshop. When a 64 bit version of Photoshop is available, an Athlon 64 running it should greatly outperform a P4 running 32 bit Photoshop. "My main worry is that, notwithstanding the benefits of memory control directly on the chip, etc, the Athlon 64 is still only a 2.0 Ghz processor (albeit with a 1Mb cache)" Clock speed is meaningless for gauging relative performance except when comparing chips that are otherwise the same. A good analogy would be comparing a centipede to a race horse. A centipede can take many more steps per minute than a race horse, but you know that a race horse can travel much further in a minute than a centipede. Spiro wrote: Hi, I'm currently trying to decide between an Athlon 64 3200+ and a P4, 2.8 - 3.0 My main interest is in digital photography and I want something that will handle large RAW files quickly. In that case you might want to use very fast hard drives, and more than a gig of ram. Gaming etc is not really a priority. I'll also be using 1024 Mb of RAM I've read extensively about the Athlon 64 and can appreciate that when 64 bit applications are here it will come into it's own - but what about now? My main worry is that, notwithstanding the benefits of memory control directly on the chip, etc, the Athlon 64 is still only a 2.0 Ghz processor (albeit with a 1Mb cache) Will the P4 (either the 2.8 or the 3.0 version) be faster for the type of work I want to do - in short, is a 2Ghz Athlon as fast (or faster) than a 3.0 Ghx Pentium in non-3D type applications? Many thanks for your input. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"JK" wrote in message ... An Athlon 64 3200+ should perform better than a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz running 32 bit Photoshop. When a 64 bit version of Photoshop is available, an Athlon 64 running it should greatly outperform a P4 running 32 bit Photoshop. "My main worry is that, notwithstanding the benefits of memory control directly on the chip, etc, the Athlon 64 is still only a 2.0 Ghz processor (albeit with a 1Mb cache)" Clock speed is meaningless for gauging relative performance except when comparing chips that are otherwise the same. A good analogy would be comparing a centipede to a race horse. A centipede can take many more steps per minute than a race horse, but you know that a race horse can travel much further in a minute than a centipede. Thanks for that - can I now throw problem #2 at you? I decided to go ahead with the AMD system but have discovered that the 3200+ processor now ships in two versions - [1] 1024 level 2 cache, with a clock speed of 2.0Ghz and [2] 512 level 2 cache, with a clock speed of 2.2Ghz (which is the version immediately available to me) Having spoken to AMD they inform me that revisions to the core have 'allowed' them to reduce the cache (not sure why they's wnat to do that) and by increasing the speed slightly they have maintained the benchmark scores, and can still call it a 3200 chip. I'm a bit dubious about this - can a 50% reduction in L2 cache be compensated by the small increase in speed from 2.0Ghz to 2.2Ghz? One of my reasons for choosing the AMD was the 1024 l2 cache but I'm now very hesitant about buying it with the reduced cache - what's your opinion? Thanks |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Spiro" == Spiro writes:
Spiro "JK" wrote in message Spiro ... An Athlon 64 3200+ should perform better than a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz running 32 bit Photoshop. When a 64 bit version of Photoshop is available, an Athlon 64 running it should greatly outperform a P4 running 32 bit Photoshop. "My main worry is that, notwithstanding the benefits of memory control directly on the chip, etc, the Athlon 64 is still only a 2.0 Ghz processor (albeit with a 1Mb cache)" Clock speed is meaningless for gauging relative performance except when comparing chips that are otherwise the same. A good analogy would be comparing a centipede to a race horse. A centipede can take many more steps per minute than a race horse, but you know that a race horse can travel much further in a minute than a centipede. Spiro Thanks for that - can I now throw problem #2 at you? Spiro I decided to go ahead with the AMD system but have discovered Spiro that the 3200+ processor now ships in two versions - Spiro [1] 1024 level 2 cache, with a clock speed of 2.0Ghz Spiro and Spiro [2] 512 level 2 cache, with a clock speed of 2.2Ghz (which is Spiro the version immediately available to me) Spiro Having spoken to AMD they inform me that revisions to the core Spiro have 'allowed' them to reduce the cache (not sure why they's Spiro wnat to do that) and by increasing the speed slightly they Spiro have maintained the benchmark scores, and can still call it a Spiro 3200 chip. Spiro I'm a bit dubious about this - can a 50% reduction in L2 cache Spiro be compensated by the small increase in speed from 2.0Ghz to Spiro 2.2Ghz? Spiro One of my reasons for choosing the AMD was the 1024 l2 cache Spiro but I'm now very hesitant about buying it with the reduced Spiro cache - what's your opinion? Spiro Thanks This issue has been discussed for some time, and I have asked the same questions. Find a web site that have benchmarked both processors and benchmarking sites report the reduction in cache is insignificant on benchmark scores. The question that should be asked will you see the difference in performance and the answer is no. I purchased the 512k cache after asking the same question and saved a few bucks. Anyway it is hard to find the 1024k cache 3200+. I sure someone has them if you look hard enough. Good luck, and report how your system build goes regardless if it is good or bad. Later, Alan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Walpool" wrote in message ... "Spiro" == Spiro writes: Spiro "JK" wrote in message Spiro ... An Athlon 64 3200+ should perform better than a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz running 32 bit Photoshop. When a 64 bit version of Photoshop is available, an Athlon 64 running it should greatly outperform a P4 running 32 bit Photoshop. "My main worry is that, notwithstanding the benefits of memory control directly on the chip, etc, the Athlon 64 is still only a 2.0 Ghz processor (albeit with a 1Mb cache)" Clock speed is meaningless for gauging relative performance except when comparing chips that are otherwise the same. A good analogy would be comparing a centipede to a race horse. A centipede can take many more steps per minute than a race horse, but you know that a race horse can travel much further in a minute than a centipede. Spiro Thanks for that - can I now throw problem #2 at you? Spiro I decided to go ahead with the AMD system but have discovered Spiro that the 3200+ processor now ships in two versions - Spiro [1] 1024 level 2 cache, with a clock speed of 2.0Ghz Spiro and Spiro [2] 512 level 2 cache, with a clock speed of 2.2Ghz (which is Spiro the version immediately available to me) Spiro Having spoken to AMD they inform me that revisions to the core Spiro have 'allowed' them to reduce the cache (not sure why they's Spiro wnat to do that) and by increasing the speed slightly they Spiro have maintained the benchmark scores, and can still call it a Spiro 3200 chip. Spiro I'm a bit dubious about this - can a 50% reduction in L2 cache Spiro be compensated by the small increase in speed from 2.0Ghz to Spiro 2.2Ghz? Spiro One of my reasons for choosing the AMD was the 1024 l2 cache Spiro but I'm now very hesitant about buying it with the reduced Spiro cache - what's your opinion? Spiro Thanks This issue has been discussed for some time, and I have asked the same questions. Find a web site that have benchmarked both processors and benchmarking sites report the reduction in cache is insignificant on benchmark scores. The question that should be asked will you see the difference in performance and the answer is no. I purchased the 512k cache after asking the same question and saved a few bucks. Anyway it is hard to find the 1024k cache 3200+. I sure someone has them if you look hard enough. Good luck, and report how your system build goes regardless if it is good or bad. Later, Alan Thanks for your input. I realise that we're talking miliseconds in speed terms but my worry is that the reduced cache will adversly impact on manipulating large graphic files. Did they reduce the cache as a cost saving exercise? Finally, are you pleased with your own choice (and do you photo edit with it?) regards |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Spiro" == Spiro writes:
Spiro Thanks for your input. Spiro I realise that we're talking miliseconds in speed terms but my Spiro worry is that the reduced cache will adversly impact on Spiro manipulating large graphic files. I use it for large graphic files (largest so far 12MB), and also edit movies and then burn DVD's. No problems so far. I guess my computer is a general use computer for standard computing tasks. I play no games. Spiro Did they reduce the cache as a cost saving exercise? Yes and it is easier to make I have read. Spiro Finally, are you pleased with your own choice (and do you Spiro photo edit with it?) No problem so far. Really you made me think about this issue in another view point. I don't know the answer, but with such large files it is unlikely that changing the cache from 512 kilobytes to 1024 kilobytes will make a difference. Sounds like random access memory would be the big issue with such large files. I bet that a bigger cache would probably help in some circumstances but I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on this question. I have read that large caches are essential for servers, but I don't know the reason why. Does anyone have a link where one could read about this issue. I have a duron with 64 kilobyte cache and it was really fast at one time. ;-). I have read in this group that the 512k cache version overclocks better but I don't plan to overclock. I have burned up my share of processors ;-). That is for folks with cash to burn. Good luck, and report back success or failure. Alan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Spiro wrote: "JK" wrote in message ... An Athlon 64 3200+ should perform better than a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz running 32 bit Photoshop. When a 64 bit version of Photoshop is available, an Athlon 64 running it should greatly outperform a P4 running 32 bit Photoshop. "My main worry is that, notwithstanding the benefits of memory control directly on the chip, etc, the Athlon 64 is still only a 2.0 Ghz processor (albeit with a 1Mb cache)" Clock speed is meaningless for gauging relative performance except when comparing chips that are otherwise the same. A good analogy would be comparing a centipede to a race horse. A centipede can take many more steps per minute than a race horse, but you know that a race horse can travel much further in a minute than a centipede. Thanks for that - can I now throw problem #2 at you? I decided to go ahead with the AMD system but have discovered that the 3200+ processor now ships in two versions - [1] 1024 level 2 cache, with a clock speed of 2.0Ghz and [2] 512 level 2 cache, with a clock speed of 2.2Ghz (which is the version immediately available to me) Having spoken to AMD they inform me that revisions to the core have 'allowed' them to reduce the cache (not sure why they's wnat to do that) and by increasing the speed slightly they have maintained the benchmark scores, and can still call it a 3200 chip. I'm a bit dubious about this - can a 50% reduction in L2 cache be compensated by the small increase in speed from 2.0Ghz to 2.2Ghz? It can on average, since the Athlon 64 is an efficiently designed chip with a relatively short pipeline. One of my reasons for choosing the AMD was the 1024 l2 cache but I'm now very hesitant about buying it with the reduced cache - what's your opinion? http://forums.pimprig.com/archive/topic/20627.html There is much more discussion about it. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...oogle +Search It seems like the newer Newcastle chips at the same speed rating are on average slightly better performers than the older Clawhammer chips. The differences aren't that great though, and for the software where the Clawhammer is faster, it usually is only faster by a small amount. Thanks |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
They were able to reduce the cache size without impacting performance. The reason is that the newer Socket 939 CPUs use DDR (double data rate) memory at its full dual channel double data rate speed. The older Socket 940 chips could use the same DDR memory but they only used it in single channel mode or half speed. The upshot of this is that they could cut the cache in half and not hurt performance. All the benchmarks for memory tests indicate that the newer chip is much faster on memory intensive applications. The difference in systems built with the new Socket 939 CPU is that they require pairs of DIMMs since they are making use of the dual channel capabilities. The older Socket 940 could take the same DDR memory DIMMs but without pairing them. So the older systems could use one, two or three DIMMs instead of pairs of DIMMs. HTH "Spiro" wrote in message ... "Alan Walpool" wrote in message ... "Spiro" == Spiro writes: Spiro "JK" wrote in message Spiro ... An Athlon 64 3200+ should perform better than a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz running 32 bit Photoshop. When a 64 bit version of Photoshop is available, an Athlon 64 running it should greatly outperform a P4 running 32 bit Photoshop. "My main worry is that, notwithstanding the benefits of memory control directly on the chip, etc, the Athlon 64 is still only a 2.0 Ghz processor (albeit with a 1Mb cache)" Clock speed is meaningless for gauging relative performance except when comparing chips that are otherwise the same. A good analogy would be comparing a centipede to a race horse. A centipede can take many more steps per minute than a race horse, but you know that a race horse can travel much further in a minute than a centipede. Spiro Thanks for that - can I now throw problem #2 at you? Spiro I decided to go ahead with the AMD system but have discovered Spiro that the 3200+ processor now ships in two versions - Spiro [1] 1024 level 2 cache, with a clock speed of 2.0Ghz Spiro and Spiro [2] 512 level 2 cache, with a clock speed of 2.2Ghz (which is Spiro the version immediately available to me) Spiro Having spoken to AMD they inform me that revisions to the core Spiro have 'allowed' them to reduce the cache (not sure why they's Spiro wnat to do that) and by increasing the speed slightly they Spiro have maintained the benchmark scores, and can still call it a Spiro 3200 chip. Spiro I'm a bit dubious about this - can a 50% reduction in L2 cache Spiro be compensated by the small increase in speed from 2.0Ghz to Spiro 2.2Ghz? Spiro One of my reasons for choosing the AMD was the 1024 l2 cache Spiro but I'm now very hesitant about buying it with the reduced Spiro cache - what's your opinion? Spiro Thanks This issue has been discussed for some time, and I have asked the same questions. Find a web site that have benchmarked both processors and benchmarking sites report the reduction in cache is insignificant on benchmark scores. The question that should be asked will you see the difference in performance and the answer is no. I purchased the 512k cache after asking the same question and saved a few bucks. Anyway it is hard to find the 1024k cache 3200+. I sure someone has them if you look hard enough. Good luck, and report how your system build goes regardless if it is good or bad. Later, Alan Thanks for your input. I realise that we're talking miliseconds in speed terms but my worry is that the reduced cache will adversly impact on manipulating large graphic files. Did they reduce the cache as a cost saving exercise? Finally, are you pleased with your own choice (and do you photo edit with it?) regards |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Elaine" == Elaine writes:
Elaine They were able to reduce the cache size without impacting Elaine performance. The reason is that the newer Socket 939 CPUs use Elaine DDR (double data rate) memory at its full dual channel double Elaine data rate speed. The older Socket 940 chips could use the Elaine same DDR memory but they only used it in single channel mode Elaine or half speed. The upshot of this is that they could cut the Elaine cache in half and not hurt performance. All the benchmarks Elaine for memory tests indicate that the newer chip is much faster Elaine on memory intensive applications. The difference in systems Elaine built with the new Socket 939 CPU is that they require pairs Elaine of DIMMs since they are making use of the dual channel Elaine capabilities. The older Socket 940 could take the same DDR Elaine memory DIMMs but without pairing them. So the older systems Elaine could use one, two or three DIMMs instead of pairs of DIMMs. This does not explain why there is very little difference in performance an 754 which is a single channel design. Later, Alan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:40:53 -0500, Elaine wrote:
They were able to reduce the cache size without impacting performance. The reason is that the newer Socket 939 CPUs use DDR (double data rate) memory at its full dual channel double data rate speed. The older Socket 940 chips could use the same DDR memory but they only used it in single channel mode or half speed. The upshot of this is that they could cut the cache in half and not hurt performance. All the benchmarks for memory tests indicate that the newer chip is much faster on memory intensive applications. The difference in systems built with the new Socket 939 CPU is that they require pairs of DIMMs since they are making use of the dual channel capabilities. The older Socket 940 could take the same DDR memory DIMMs but without pairing them. So the older systems could use one, two or three DIMMs instead of pairs of DIMMs. I don't know how you came up with this, but it's totally wrong. Both use DDR. Both support dual channel, and both will also work single channel.. Th main difference is that 939 uses unbuffered standard DDR ram while 940 requires registered DDR ram, which is a little slower, but also a lot safer in terms of data integrity. Now socket 754 is single channel, and contrary to popular belief is just about as fast as 939 using dual channel and the same speed cpu. There's been way too much hype put on dual channel. While in memory bandwidth benchmark test there's a big difference, in real applications there's little to none. You can see this in benchmark test on the web in many places. And that probably why AMD chooses not to produce socket 754 cpu's that run at the faster speeds of the 939/940 cpu's. -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pentium 4 vs. Athlon XP vs. Athlon 64's | MarkW | General | 2 | October 10th 06 12:11 PM |
Mobile athlon onto normal board | Gareth Tuckwell | General | 5 | October 18th 04 06:31 PM |
athlon pro 2800+ vs athlon xp 2800+ | Serge Lacombe | Overclocking AMD Processors | 3 | February 5th 04 11:57 PM |
Slowest Athlon 64 humbles fastest P4 in gaming | Tone-EQ | Overclocking AMD Processors | 1 | December 15th 03 04:09 PM |
AMD Athlon 64FX first impressions | Chris | General | 14 | September 29th 03 02:22 PM |