Big question
- Thread starter Shady
- Start date
If thats all its going to be doing, unless the program can utilize both cores, The biggest single core you could get would be the fastest for $250, Intel or AMD which ever you like
But I would say this would be just as fast plus dual core
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115004
But I would say this would be just as fast plus dual core
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115004
Last edited:
thealmightyone
New Member
I guess all you need is a crappy mobo with integrated graphics, some cheap DDR2 memory, and then the best Core 2 Duo you can afford with what you have left.
I'm under the impression that single core C2D's dont exist. Is this true? I highly doubt buying a dual core over a single core will reap any benefits, which is why I ask.
EDIT: Is this new build JUST for the maths, or will it be your new build for future use. Also, the $250; what do you want that to cover? The entire build?
I'm under the impression that single core C2D's dont exist. Is this true? I highly doubt buying a dual core over a single core will reap any benefits, which is why I ask.
EDIT: Is this new build JUST for the maths, or will it be your new build for future use. Also, the $250; what do you want that to cover? The entire build?
Last edited:
however i believe CPU is the most important thing i should take care of but i don't think that's a wise decision.
I'm using a program called BladeGen v4.1
it's pretty old
anywho
I'm optimizing some engine air flow system to minimize the usage of fuel.
so the whole thing is about optimization
it's gonna be solving TONS of equations coz i'm dealing with infinite functions
the equation is minimum of 13 variables
it's gonna be doing some differentiation
and saving values in files and editing existing files and stuff
i think i'm mainly dealing with floating points, coz accuracy is very important to me
EDIT: by the way i don't mind suggestions on other parts of the PC
Last edited:
be specific please
1-which athlon 64
2-why not X2 ?
3-what advantages does the athlon 64 has over others in math calculations ?
1. Any Athlon 64 that is within your price range.
2. If it's an old program it's not going to be multi-threaded so the X2 is a needless cost if the standard A64 is cheaper, if not go with the X2.
3. AMD does floating point operations (on the FPU registers not the SSE ones) faster then Intel, this includes the Core processors. Synthetic benchmarks look at the float test, the multimedia float is SSE.
2. If it's an old program it's not going to be multi-threaded so the X2 is a needless cost if the standard A64 is cheaper, if not go with the X2.
3. AMD does floating point operations (on the FPU registers not the SSE ones) faster then Intel, this includes the Core processors. Synthetic benchmarks look at the float test, the multimedia float is SSE.
fade2green514
Active Member
if you're overclocking, then the core 2 duo is the best processor all the way. in fact even if you arent, it still is, for the money at least.
this is because it benchmarks higher in all benchmarks except for memory speed, which actually doesnt matter for a whole lot of applications anyways. if we were talking 4 cores then sure, memory speed would matter, but only if you were utilizing all the cores.
not to mention, they're better than any AMD proc, and theyre overclockable to AT LEAST 3ghz. you should be able to push it to 3.4ghz fairly easily. its got the better factors of both netburst and K8 architecture, in that it has massive overclocking ability... and GREAT architecture.
so in conclusion, its better at stock, and has more overclocking potential than most processors on the market.
i mean cromewell obviously linked you to show you that athlon 64 is better, but the article he linked you to was called
"Game Over? Core 2 Duo Knocks Out Athlon 64"
wow.
this is because it benchmarks higher in all benchmarks except for memory speed, which actually doesnt matter for a whole lot of applications anyways. if we were talking 4 cores then sure, memory speed would matter, but only if you were utilizing all the cores.
not to mention, they're better than any AMD proc, and theyre overclockable to AT LEAST 3ghz. you should be able to push it to 3.4ghz fairly easily. its got the better factors of both netburst and K8 architecture, in that it has massive overclocking ability... and GREAT architecture.
so in conclusion, its better at stock, and has more overclocking potential than most processors on the market.
i mean cromewell obviously linked you to show you that athlon 64 is better, but the article he linked you to was called
"Game Over? Core 2 Duo Knocks Out Athlon 64"
wow.
Last edited:
well this is confusing
i can't really say what is the program is gonna be dealing with most of the time.
i'm just guessing it's float coz of the functions and numbers
OK thanks a lot Cromewell i'll consider that while buying
i think i'm goin for the 3700+ then
but will i get any better performance if i get dual core ?
CFX BladeGen v4.1
this is the name of the program
may be i couldn't find the right info
but let me know if it can take advantage of dual core
i think i'm goin for the 3700+ then
but will i get any better performance if i get dual core ?
CFX BladeGen v4.1
this is the name of the program
may be i couldn't find the right info
but let me know if it can take advantage of dual core
Judging by the date on the message for 4.1 I saw (http://www.cfd-online.com/Forum/news.cgi/read/341) I would suspect that it is single threaded.
On the whole the Core 2 Duo is better but in certain tasks (ie. pure floating point) the A64 is.