Reccomend specifications for a new machine

BasharOfTheAges · Post by **BasharOfTheAges** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:30 pm

Software design to make use of more cores is just taking off, so from a longevity perspective you're probably better off with the quadcore. Also, I know some of Intel's core2duo chips overclock really well (like 50%+ higher speeds with just air cooling), so those "slow" quadcores may not be as slow as you think. Most media creation related apps make use of multithreading, so the only major drawback to a system with more (yet slower) cores is in playing games that aren't designed for multiple cores. For instance, a new system I built in January 07 with a core2duo takes longer to load older games (and even WoW) than my former roomate's system that was 3 to 4 years older and ran a P4 (IIRC) despite the fact that I have 4 times as much RAM as he does and a much better video card.

NeoQuixotic · Post by **NeoQuixotic** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:45 am

BasharOfTheAges wrote:Software design to make use of more cores is just taking off, so from a longevity perspective you're probably better off with the quadcore. Also, I know some of Intel's core2duo chips overclock really well (like 50%+ higher speeds with just air cooling), so those "slow" quadcores may not be as slow as you think. Most media creation related apps make use of multithreading, so the only major drawback to a system with more (yet slower) cores is in playing games that aren't designed for multiple cores. For instance, a new system I built in January 07 with a core2duo takes longer to load older games (and even WoW) than my former roomate's system that was 3 to 4 years older and ran a P4 (IIRC) despite the fact that I have 4 times as much RAM as he does and a much better video card.

Having multiple cores won't make older games load/run slower. They will only utilize one core, but of course the new Core 2 Duo is much faster anyways. Also, don't bother comparing MHz/GHz anymore. I have a 2.53 GHz P4, and my new processor wll run at 2.4 Ghz and be at least two to three times as fast; not to mention having four cores. CPUs are more efficient nowadays, unlike when Intel just kept ramping up P4 clock speeds until they burst into flames.

Sounds like your hard drive is slow as molasses. Defrag it and if it's still slow, buy a new one or consider a RAID setup. Hard drives are the slowest part in computers and don't seem to getting much of a speed increase anytime soon. Yeah SSD drives are nice, but still have only minor speed increases and a very high price tag for limited storage.

Technology, it's a love, hate relationship

.

BasharOfTheAges · Post by **BasharOfTheAges** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:24 pm

anubisx00 wrote:
BasharOfTheAges wrote:Software design to make use of more cores is just taking off, so from a longevity perspective you're probably better off with the quadcore. Also, I know some of Intel's core2duo chips overclock really well (like 50%+ higher speeds with just air cooling), so those "slow" quadcores may not be as slow as you think. Most media creation related apps make use of multithreading, so the only major drawback to a system with more (yet slower) cores is in playing games that aren't designed for multiple cores. For instance, a new system I built in January 07 with a core2duo takes longer to load older games (and even WoW) than my former roomate's system that was 3 to 4 years older and ran a P4 (IIRC) despite the fact that I have 4 times as much RAM as he does and a much better video card.
Having multiple cores won't make older games load/run slower. They will only utilize one core, but of course the new Core 2 Duo is much faster anyways. Also, don't bother comparing MHz/GHz anymore. I have a 2.53 GHz P4, and my new processor wll run at 2.4 Ghz and be at least two to three times as fast; not to mention having four cores. CPUs are more efficient nowadays, unlike when Intel just kept ramping up P4 clock speeds until they burst into flames.

Sounds like your hard drive is slow as molasses. Defrag it and if it's still slow, buy a new one or consider a RAID setup. Hard drives are the slowest part in computers and don't seem to getting much of a speed increase anytime soon. Yeah SSD drives are nice, but still have only minor speed increases and a very high price tag for limited storage.

Technology, it's a love, hate relationship .

Didn't mean to sound ignorant there... "slower by comparison" is what I was getting at. As in, if the software was designed to only work on 1 core, older CPUs allow faster run times. Consequently, if an application was simply optimized for 2 cores, using a CPU with 2 cores that has a higher clock frequency than one with 4 cores (like what they're selling now) would run faster. It's not a significant reason for not getting a quadcore in the least but it is something worth noting for "full disclosure" of the facts.

As for my drives, they're fine - I do plenty of work on them to keep them running fast and (relatively) error free. When someone's running a late-model P4 @ around 3.6GHz it will run some aspects of an older game faster than a 2.13GHz core2duo - that's perfectly normal.

JazzyDJ · Post by **JazzyDJ** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:07 am

I have to say this thread has been extremely usefull. For the sake of time (need that PC now) & money, and the simple fact that I'll be running mostly older software, I'll probably go for a Core 2 Duo.

My big question now is AMD or Intel more reliable? Especially when doing video editing...

What are the strengths and weaknesses of each brand?

I've only ever owned an Intel P4 (1.5Ghz) in a HP PC and that has been extremely durable and satisfactory for me. It doesn' over heat and I can leave it running 24-7 and not have any problems. My dad on the other hand has had a AMD in a machine he bought at one of those PC flea market convention things and it malfunctioned permanantly on him within the first year or 2. But I think that may be more of a case of where he got his machine.

The big thing that I was noticing with AMD processors is that their specs rating is a little bit higher and has a higher FSB rating for a lower cost than any Intel Processors with equal Ghz ratings (and also all the intels are half the FSB).

What do you all think?

Kariudo · Post by **Kariudo** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:43 pm

Reliability is determined by many components of your computer including your motherboard, ram, power supply and cpu (so your dad's problems most likely were because of where he got it)

If heat is the only factor you're looking at in terms of reliability, then the core 2 duo's would beat the Athlon64 x2's
(the way the core 2 duos are made means that they use less power. less power used = less heat generated)

you can't really compare AMD and Intel by clock speed and FSB/HT.The architectures are different...which is part of the reason why the Athlon64's running at 2.0GHz were as/more powerful than the P4's running at 3.4GHz.

(I'm assuming that you're building this pc yourself)
If you want to lower your rendering and encoding times as much as possible, then you want a core 2 duo.
If you have a budget, then you should get an Athlon 64 x2

I don't know any specific strengths/weaknesses of amd and intel atm...but AMD dominated the last generation because of their on-die memory controller. This meant that information could get to/from the cpu/ram faster, a problem that intel was running into by using an off-die memory controller and using the FSB to communicate between the cpu and ram.
Intel has since overcome the wall that they hit, and by doing that they eliminated the biggest advantage that AMD had over them.

JazzyDJ · Post by **JazzyDJ** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:53 pm

Kariudo wrote: (I'm assuming that you're building this pc yourself)
If you want to lower your rendering and encoding times as much as possible, then you want a core 2 duo.
If you have a budget, then you should get an Athlon 64 x2.

Actually I don't trust myself or anyone in my area to build it so I'll be getting one already made. I'm even more confused now though. With that statement are you saying that the Intel Core 2 Duo processors work better for video editing than Athlon 64 X2s? Is it safe to say that AMDs are better for gaming but Intel is better for editing?

I found a 3.0 Ghz duel core from AMD that costs half of what the same spec rated Intel Cpu would cost. Here is the link...

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp ... 6003680581

That being said, power cunsumption and heat/reliability and noise does concern me a bit beings I'll be leaving it on for long periods of time.

Kariudo · Post by **Kariudo** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:20 pm

core 2 duo's (in most cases) outperform their AMD counterparts, but imo, both groups of processors are so high above the computer requirements for programs like Vegas 6, premiere 6.5, etc... that you probably won't see any difference in speed of previewing, doing the actual editing, starting the program up or importing.
The only real place that you will notice a difference is in rendering/exporting (in which case the c2d would render a few seconds faster)

A 3GHz AMD athlon64 x2, however, does not perform at the same level as a 3GHz Core 2 Duo
here's something that illustrates that (also gives you a general idea of power consumption)

the heat shouldn't be much of a concern unless you want to overclock.
the noise is primarily determined by the cooling system. More fans keep the computer cooler, but add more noise.

Keeper of Hellfire · Post by **Keeper of Hellfire** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:44 pm

Kariudo wrote:A 3GHz AMD athlon64 x2, however, does not perform at the same level as a 3GHz Core 2 Duo
here's something that illustrates that (also gives you a general idea of power consumption)

While it's true, an AMD is a bit slower at same frequency for the tested tasks (for others it might still be faster), you should compare for the same price. And regarding the power dissipation - the tests don't include AMD's EE version or the EE version with Brisbane core. And it is on full load - AMD has a more efficient power management if not full load is needed.

I think it's more personal taste what you prefer. Both manufacturers make good and reliable CPU, and it's good to have competition. I'm satisfied with AMD CPU's since years.

BasharOfTheAges · Post by **BasharOfTheAges** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:07 pm

AMD was the best for the past few years, but Intel is taking the lead again. Looking at tests and benchmarks is usually an exercise in futility - if a company is doing benchmarks it's obviously going to show the results that favors it's own product - and the so called "independent testing" firms are often more biased to one company over the other than Fox News is with politics or game bloggers with next gen consoles.

Gepetto · Post by **Gepetto** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:48 pm

Pardon the intrusion, but it's better than opening a new thread...

I'm also looking into buying a new computer sometime soon, and I have a question worthy of my hardware ignorance: what are the advantages and disadvantages of a dual core 32-bit processor over a single-core 64-bit processor, and where would a quad core fit in there? Which is better for video editing, assuming equal caches and frequencies? If the answer is 64-bit, then should I still use a 32-bit OS on it, or use a 64-bit OS?