View Single Post

**Praetor** · 05-15-2005, 02:21 AM

Section 2 - How to Pick a Processor? FAQ

The quick and dirty answer is "For singlecore, AMD for gaming. Intel for non-gaming. For multicore, AMD unless you're approaching the point of firing up 12+ full CPU threads simultaneousl. In that case, go Intel ... and if you have to ask if you're firing up that many ... you're probably not.". Granted this is by far not an absolute law, it's quite good enough.

That being said there are some commonly asked questions and ideas that should be addressed. Again, do realize many of these are not set-in-stone but rather, are more like guidelines and questions to address before making that final decision. For the most part, this section will not pertain to mobile chips although I may add something about using mobile chips in a desktop environment if i get around to it.

AMD or Intel?
Ah the age-old question. If the above general rule of thumb wasn't good enough for you there are some considerations to take and some comments worth mentioning:

If you're considering something like a Pentium4 560 -- sure you wont get the same framerates as a FX55 but you wont notice in either case and if you do intend to do things other than just gaming, perhaps the Intel route might be wiser as Intel is generally stronger in non-gaming environments. Needless to say, when comparing processors (1) compare similarly classed processors (i.e., dont waste time comparing a FX55 to a Celeron) and (2) dont compare processors you dont really intend to buy (cuz sure that FX55 looks super nice but it doesnt mean your Sempron 2400 is gonna be a gaming beast)
There is very little sensible argument for buying the absolute best processor anybody has to offer. Granted the cost generally acts as an inhibitor (although it seems to only inhibit people from buying them but it hasn't yet impacted people who dont know the first thing about computers from talking like they know something). Granted if you are just looking for the absolute best of the best sure that's where you should be looking but also do realize that those extra 200MHz or whatnot aren't going to add an extra 6months to the lifetime of the CPU or anything
If you're not the type to run half-a-billion things at once, all of them CPU intensive then Hyperthreading isnt gonna mean a whole lot to you -- and if you are the type that does that -- Hyperthreading isnt going to help a whole lot (but it will help)
"Surfing the internet", "Checking email", "Burning CDs", "Watching movies", "Listening to music", "Using Word" and such do not qualify as CPU intensive tasks. Gaming, movie encoding, statistical analysis etc -- that's CPU intensive. Now of course if you've got 4 movies open, are trying to seed to 5000 clients on bittorrent while simultaneously doing a on-the-fly DVD burn -- that's CPU intensive -- but you already knew that.
If you are looking to overclock, AMD is generally the route to go (although one could give an equally strong argument in favor of Intel) due to more flexibility with multipliers. Of course with K8 based processors, the increase finickyness with memory dividers may be a turnoff but then again if you're looking to do overclocking, finicky shouldn't be a problem.
A 200MHz OC wont be noticeable by anything but benchmarks. And while I'm on the topic of benchmarks: unless you're in the ballpark of getting an extra 800MHz or so from your processor (at which point you generally know what you're doing and probably wont be reading this), then do realize that benchmarks and realtity are two different worlds and that just because you got ##### 3dmarks wont mean you'll get ### fps in "Game X". Of course this doesn't mean that benchmarks are worthless. I guess the pojnt is that benchmarks should be taken with a grain of salt: beating a configuration by 1fps (a) wont be noticeable and (b) isnt significant enough to be statistically worthy
I guess a refined general principle is that "For anything that is memory bandwidth dependent, AMD is the route to go. For tasks that are sensitive clock-speed or require multiple threads of execution, Intel is the route to go". Some examples:
- Purely gaming machine.... AMD
- Purely office machine (i.e., Microsoft office, email, etc) .... whatever is cheaper. General office applications, even in a multitasked environment dont stresss a system hard enough that Hyperthreading is and advanatage
- Video editing platform .... Intel (unless you plan to use a high end AMD setup in a 64bit environment at which point AMD processors should be at least considered)
- A general purpose family machine .... whatever is cheaper (unlikely that end-users are going to be running numerous heavy duty applications simultaneously negating the advantage of HyperThreading/Intel and also unlikely that the videocard will be good enough that the CPU is a bottleneck thus eliminating the advanatge of on-die-memory controller/AMD).
- Hardcore overclocker ... you wont be reading this nor need to.
- Home Theater .... whatever is cheaper (again, HyperThreading and on-die-memory controller arent advantages)
- A mostly school machine with some gaming ... again like the general family machine: it wont matter all that much.
- A serious work machine ... generally speaking Intel however two exceptions come to mind (1) video operations in a 64bit environment or (2) statistical analysis

Will I notice an improvement if I upgrade from X to Y?
- Make sure that your upgrade is possible (or that you will buy the required hardware).... trying to pop an Athlon64 onto a S478 motherboard isn't going to work. Also, more commonly a case with Intel processors: if you're current motherboard supports a 133MHz FSB (sometimes denoted as 533) and you are planning to upgrade to a 200MHz FSB (again denoted as 800) -- make sure you also upgrade the motherboard too otherwise your processor wont be running as expected - for example:
Mobo = 133MHz FSB (max)
Original CPU = Intel Pentium4 2.53GHz (133x19.0)
New CPU = Intel Pentium4 3.2GHz (200x16.0)
Now if you plug this new CPU into the board it will be running at 133x16.0=2.13GHz (because you can't change the multiplier). To get the full 3.2GHz, you will need a motherboard that supports a 200MHz FSB (sometimes marked at 800MHz)
- That being said, if you are staying within the same socket interface and processor core, anything short of a 400MHz (or 400PR points for AMD chips) improvement wont really be noticeable (i.e., an Athlon64 2800 to Athlon64 3000 wont yield earthshattering performance leaps and bounds and neither will a P4C-2.8 to P4C-3.0). Of course the "400" is an arbitraily assigned number but it conveys the point that a single jump wont make a difference. Now if you are comparing between platforms or cores or interfaces, things get too complicated to generalize rules

Buy Dual Core?

Firstly, if you're considering Intel dual-core, only i945 and i955 (and later) motherboards. For AMD processors, you'll need a 939 or 940 pin motherboard and in some cases, a BIOS update to support the second core
Well if you're considering the Pentium Extreme Edition or Dual-Core Opterons then you probably already know exactly what you are looking for and why. These two processors are designed for the server market (do realize the Pentium Extreme Edition and Pentium 4 Extreme Edition are different classes of processors: the former is a server processor, the latter an enthusiast-consumer processor). Regardless, it should be noted that these processors will take a chunk out of your budget either directly from the chip and/or from the cost of supporting components (i.e., motherboard)

The Pentium Extreme Edition has two physical cores with Hyperthreading available on each core which, in principle, means the processor can handle up to four concurrent threads simultaneously. The dual-core opteron however, has two cores but no Hyperthreading so it is only able to deal with two threads concurrently. Naturally quirks with the design of the processor does not mean the Pentium Extreme Edition is the hands-down superior processor between the two: selection should be evaluated on a case by case basis
The Pentium D series of processors is identical to the Pentium Extreme Editions with the exception that it has no hyperthreading and as such can only deal with two threads simultaneously -- just like the Athlon 64 X2. Between the two, the Athlon 64 X2 is a superior processor -- however it reflects in the costs
Generally Dual Core is not a [financially] feasible route for many people right now (being new technology, the price tag will reflect this). Ironically enough the exception is the Pentium D series: the lower end processors are clearly within the price bracket of midranged single processors so definitely an option there

Continue to Part 02

05-15-2005, 02:21 AM	#4 (permalink)
Praetor Administrator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canada Age: 24 Posts: 19,946	Section 2 - Part 01 Section 2 - How to Pick a Processor? FAQ The quick and dirty answer is "For singlecore, AMD for gaming. Intel for non-gaming. For multicore, AMD unless you're approaching the point of firing up 12+ full CPU threads simultaneousl. In that case, go Intel ... and if you have to ask if you're firing up that many ... you're probably not.". Granted this is by far not an absolute law, it's quite good enough. That being said there are some commonly asked questions and ideas that should be addressed. Again, do realize many of these are not set-in-stone but rather, are more like guidelines and questions to address before making that final decision. For the most part, this section will not pertain to mobile chips although I may add something about using mobile chips in a desktop environment if i get around to it. *AMD or Intel?* Ah the age-old question. If the above general rule of thumb wasn't good enough for you there are some considerations to take and some comments worth mentioning: If you're considering something like a Pentium4 560 -- sure you wont get the same framerates as a FX55 but you wont notice in either case and if you do intend to do things other than just gaming, perhaps the Intel route might be wiser as Intel is generally stronger in non-gaming environments. Needless to say, when comparing processors (1) compare similarly classed processors (i.e., dont waste time comparing a FX55 to a Celeron) and (2) dont compare processors you dont really intend to buy (cuz sure that FX55 looks super nice but it doesnt mean your Sempron 2400 is gonna be a gaming beast) There is very little sensible argument for buying the absolute best processor anybody has to offer. Granted the cost generally acts as an inhibitor (although it seems to only inhibit people from buying them but it hasn't yet impacted people who dont know the first thing about computers from talking like they know something). Granted if you are just looking for the absolute best of the best sure that's where you should be looking but also do realize that those extra 200MHz or whatnot aren't going to add an extra 6months to the lifetime of the CPU or anything If you're not the type to run half-a-billion things at once, all of them CPU intensive then Hyperthreading isnt gonna mean a whole lot to you -- and if you are the type that does that -- Hyperthreading isnt going to help a whole lot (but it will help) "Surfing the internet", "Checking email", "Burning CDs", "Watching movies", "Listening to music", "Using Word" and such do not qualify as CPU intensive tasks. Gaming, movie encoding, statistical analysis etc -- that's CPU intensive. Now of course if you've got 4 movies open, are trying to seed to 5000 clients on bittorrent while simultaneously doing a on-the-fly DVD burn -- that's CPU intensive -- but you already knew that. If you are looking to overclock, AMD is generally the route to go (although one could give an equally strong argument in favor of Intel) due to more flexibility with multipliers. Of course with K8 based processors, the increase finickyness with memory dividers may be a turnoff but then again if you're looking to do overclocking, finicky shouldn't be a problem. A 200MHz OC wont be noticeable by anything but benchmarks. And while I'm on the topic of benchmarks: unless you're in the ballpark of getting an extra 800MHz or so from your processor (at which point you generally know what you're doing and probably wont be reading this), then do realize that benchmarks and realtity are two different worlds and that just because you got ##### 3dmarks wont mean you'll get ### fps in "Game X". Of course this doesn't mean that benchmarks are worthless. I guess the pojnt is that benchmarks should be taken with a grain of salt: beating a configuration by 1fps (a) wont be noticeable and (b) isnt significant enough to be statistically worthy I guess a refined general principle is that "For anything that is memory bandwidth dependent, AMD is the route to go. For tasks that are sensitive clock-speed or require multiple threads of execution, Intel is the route to go". Some examples: Purely gaming machine.... AMD Purely office machine (i.e., Microsoft office, email, etc) .... whatever is cheaper. General office applications, even in a multitasked environment dont stresss a system hard enough that Hyperthreading is and advanatage Video editing platform .... Intel (unless you plan to use a high end AMD setup in a 64bit environment at which point AMD processors should be at least considered) A general purpose family machine .... whatever is cheaper (unlikely that end-users are going to be running numerous heavy duty applications simultaneously negating the advantage of HyperThreading/Intel and also unlikely that the videocard will be good enough that the CPU is a bottleneck thus eliminating the advanatge of on-die-memory controller/AMD). Hardcore overclocker ... you wont be reading this nor need to. Home Theater .... whatever is cheaper (again, HyperThreading and on-die-memory controller arent advantages) A mostly school machine with some gaming ... again like the general family machine: it wont matter all that much. A serious work machine ... generally speaking Intel however two exceptions come to mind (1) video operations in a 64bit environment or (2) statistical analysis *Will I notice an improvement if I upgrade from X to Y?* - Make sure that your upgrade is possible (or that you will buy the required hardware).... trying to pop an Athlon64 onto a S478 motherboard isn't going to work. Also, more commonly a case with Intel processors: if you're current motherboard supports a 133MHz FSB (sometimes denoted as 533) and you are planning to upgrade to a 200MHz FSB (again denoted as 800) -- make sure you also upgrade the motherboard too otherwise your processor wont be running as expected - for example: Mobo = 133MHz FSB (max) Original CPU = Intel Pentium4 2.53GHz (133x19.0) New CPU = Intel Pentium4 3.2GHz (200x16.0) Now if you plug this new CPU into the board it will be running at 133x16.0=2.13GHz (because you can't change the multiplier). To get the full 3.2GHz, you will need a motherboard that supports a 200MHz FSB (sometimes marked at 800MHz) - That being said, if you are staying within the same socket interface and processor core, anything short of a 400MHz (or 400PR points for AMD chips) improvement wont really be noticeable (i.e., an Athlon64 2800 to Athlon64 3000 wont yield earthshattering performance leaps and bounds and neither will a P4C-2.8 to P4C-3.0). Of course the "400" is an arbitraily assigned number but it conveys the point that a single jump wont make a difference. Now if you are comparing between platforms or cores or interfaces, things get too complicated to generalize rules *Buy Dual Core?* Firstly, if you're considering Intel dual-core, only i945 and i955 (and later) motherboards. For AMD processors, you'll need a 939 or 940 pin motherboard and in some cases, a BIOS update to support the second core Well if you're considering the Pentium Extreme Edition or Dual-Core Opterons then you probably already know exactly what you are looking for and why. These two processors are designed for the server market (do realize the Pentium Extreme Edition and Pentium 4 Extreme Edition are different classes of processors: the former is a server processor, the latter an enthusiast-consumer processor). Regardless, it should be noted that these processors will take a chunk out of your budget either directly from the chip and/or from the cost of supporting components (i.e., motherboard) The Pentium Extreme Edition has two physical cores with Hyperthreading available on each core which, in principle, means the processor can handle up to four concurrent threads simultaneously. The dual-core opteron however, has two cores but no Hyperthreading so it is only able to deal with two threads concurrently. Naturally quirks with the design of the processor does not mean the Pentium Extreme Edition is the hands-down superior processor between the two: selection should be evaluated on a case by case basis The Pentium D series of processors is identical to the Pentium Extreme Editions with the exception that it has no hyperthreading and as such can only deal with two threads simultaneously -- just like the Athlon 64 X2. Between the two, the Athlon 64 X2 is a superior processor -- however it reflects in the costs Generally Dual Core is not a [financially] feasible route for many people right now (being new technology, the price tag will reflect this). Ironically enough the exception is the Pentium D series: the lower end processors are clearly within the price bracket of midranged single processors so definitely an option there Continue to Part 02 __________________ ASUS P5K Premium WiFi-AP, Q6600@3.7 / ASUS P5ND, E6400@3.8 4GB OCz Platinum XTC 8500 / 4GB CorsairXMS2 6400 5x500GB Seagate 7200.10 / 2x500 Seagate 7200.10 OCz 8800GTX 768MB @ 630/800 / 2x Galaxy 8800GT SLI Last edited by Praetor; 08-12-2005 at 08:03 AM.