Processor Confusion the Memory Wall and GHz

HeavyMetal · Post by **HeavyMetal** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:15 pm

Alright lets see if we can really test the expert advice of some Anime/Vid fans.

Okay I plan on using a barebones kit to build a PC, but processors have changed...ALOT since I last purchased a PC.

This is a question in multiple levels so hopefully I can make it clear.

First Part:
Pentium 4, Pentium D, Core 2, and Athlon.

First I know nothing of Athlon chips so I would have no clue as to whether I should chose one. Seriously no clue at all, but I have no reason not choose Athlon over Intel.

I seem to find Pentium 4 with Hyper Threading with the highest GHz followed by Pentium D, then Core 2.

Is this due to the Memory Wall speed issue? I don't know if a Core 2 with lower GHz will out perform the speed of a higher GHz P4 or PD???

Does FSB and other processor to part connections on newer chips make up for a lower GHz clockspeed so greatly???

Second Part:
Memory slots on the motherboard are the second complication. I see things like 2GB or 4GB limit. Does that mean if a single slot 2GB RAM chip comes out I cannot use it since the board was to house two to four 1GB RAM chips?

Plus I have no idea about the pin numbers for RAM 240 or 185 I think. Not sure if that means one is faster or not.

It would appear getting the fastest RAM possible makes a difference since clockspeed went past the speed of memory access.

Third Part:
PCI and PCIE are limited on motherboards. Is there a way to expand that? I mean cases can have a ton of expansion slots, but that doesn't mean much if you have too few slots on the board.

I would hate to buy a PCI part only to have to unplug another part.

Fourth Part:
Would it be better to buy a 256MB GeForce Vid Card and add a TV tuner or just get an 256MB ATI All in Wonder?

Yeah that part is sort of off topic, but I heard GeForce have higher performance. Plus I don't mind things being separate parts, makes future upgrades easier in a way.

Basically I am looking for a way to compare processors on an equal field to know which to choose. I just have no Athlon knowledge and Intel chips now have varied strengths in different areas.

I like the advances, but it was easier when high Hz meant the better chip.

Sorry for such a mangled question. I guess I was out of the Tech loop for too long.

Willen · Post by **Willen** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:04 pm

I may have to answer this in parts because of the length.

CPUS

Pentium 4 and to a certain degree Pentium D are rubbish. Unless you get it really cheap, don't bother.

Athlon64: What rock have you been hiding under?

The Athlon64, Athlon62 X2 Dual Core, and the Opteron server processors are what made Intel lose a chunk of marketshare lately. 64-bit mode, integrated memory controller, lower power consumption, and overall better performance are the advantages of the A64 over the Pentium 4 and Pentium D. Ok, later P4s and all PDs are 64-bit capable, and the just announced PD revisions have a much better power consumption rating, but it's a bit too little too late considering...

Core 2 and Core 2 Duo are the next generation chips from Intel. If you don't wish to go the AMD route, this is the chip to get. Assuming you can get your hands on a desktop version atm.

Forget about clock speed comparisons between different CPU families. Even the clock speed evangelists at Intel have gotten off that bandwagon.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... spx?i=2795

Kariudo · Post by **Kariudo** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:08 pm

if you have the money...definately get the intel core2 duo, it is the supreme overlord of processors atm.
if you're on a tighter budget, get an Athlon 64 X2 (msrp for all amd desktop cpus was cut in half when core2 came out)
the entry level one (x2 3800+) works very well...I wouldn't get anything higher than a X2 4400+ (this seems to be the point where difference in price overcomes difference in processing power)

even though the GHz is lower on core2, it obliterates everything else
don't be fooled by the Gigahertz myth

The ram limit depends on the motherboard, manufacturer, and the cpus the motherboard is compatible with.
I'm not completely sure, but usually ram slots can only utilize up to a certain ammount of memory (usually about 1-4GB per slot). So if your mobo has 4 ram slots and the specs say it can handle up to 4GB of ram...a 2GB stick would either not work, or only have 1GB recognized by the system

the speed of the memory doesn't always equate to it's performance (kinda like the GHz myth)
ddr2 may run at speeds of 800MHz, but it also has increased latency (which reduces performance)
* personally, I would go with ddr, but that depends on what cpu you get
Memory speed and latency contributes a bit to performance...but getting a $300 set of sticks doesn't offer much improvement from a set that sells for $150. (like-brand comparison...not comparing USModular with Geil)

if you get memory from a reputable brand (Giel, Corsair, Crucial, OCZ and Kingston are all "good" brands) the lower end of the line will do fine (unless you're an extreme gamer/trying to run premiere and after effects at the same time...with some other programs on the side)

most mobo's have plenty of pci/pci-e slots.
The only thing I have seen pci-e x16 used for is video cards
pci-e x1 is used by some network cards (otherwise just normal pci)
capture cards, sound cards, etc use pci.
keep in mind that most mobo's include things to take up some of the expansion slots (USB, Firewire, Joystick/Midi, external Sata)
even if there were pci expansion cards, you would have a hard time making that many cards fit in the case

as for video/capture cards, I would probably get them seperately (if you have to mash 2 things into 1, there will probably be performance sacrifice)

Willen · Post by **Willen** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:52 pm

The amount or lack of PCI or PCI-E expansion slots is almost an non-issue since most motherboards have many of the things that required the add-in cards built-in nowadays. Ethernet, Sound, USB, Firewire, RAID, and even WiFi can be found built on the motherboard today. Admittedly, the add-on card solutions are better, but it will cost you much more and take up a slot on the board. You could easily build a computer today using integrated graphics and never touch the expansion card slots.

Joe88 · Post by **Joe88** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 7:40 pm

As for graphic , and your not much into gamming then pic up and ATI ALL-IN-WONDER x1900

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814102685

if you really wonna go overboard then you should wait until the x1950xtx comes back in stock but is hefty at $550

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDe ... ode=324614

or there is the x1900xtx at only $380

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814195003

though if your into vid editing then go with the ALL-IN-WONDER
also get a Core 2 Duo, I would suggest a E6600 since it features that 4MB L2 shared cache, + plus you can almost do a 100% OC on it to match a X6800...

well as for mobos... theres tons or Core 2 DUo capble, some of them are good, some of them suck ass,
look at DFI lanparty, Gigabyte, and ASUS boards
stay away from the cheap $100 boards like ECS, and nForce based boards since they have horrible over clockers, and the over performance isnt that good.

as for RAM DDR2 800 is the standard for most high performance systems today
2GB (2x 1GB) costs around $240 for a good pair
if you wanna save $60 then you can get some patroit DDR2 667 instead

and one more thing about GPU's , dont be fooled with that quad-SLi 2GB memory stuff from nVidia, theres such a bottle-neck in the CPU that pretty much other ones can out run it eaisely

motherboards usually have 2x PCI-E 16x on the better boards and usually 3x PCI slots and maybe 1x PCI-E
with about 5x SATA plugins for HD also

HeavyMetal · Post by **HeavyMetal** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 7:43 pm

Yes I have been under a rock. Been busy...real busy.

I am not falling for the GHz myth by any means or comparing clockspeeds. I am talking about speed, multitasking, and the whole package.

I keep seeing things like P4 with HT at 3.2GHz with 800 Bus. Then I see Core 2 Duo with 2.0 or 1.8 or so with 1066 Bus.

(Multitask all it wants, but if I have to wait I get bored.)

That is what makes the comparison hard. Its like 1 or more GHz vs about 200 in Bus. Then HyperThread is suppose to make it like a dual core as is PD, but Core 2 Duo is the real deal. Duo is new so maybe AMD is better? The water seems to have gotten muddy.

Last time a bought a computer Hz was basically the tell all of the CPU.

I just want to make sure I make a good choice. I edit video, game, and multitask constantly plus I intend to stick a good Vid card in.

I figured separate capture and vid was best. I don't really like integrated graphics chips because then I can't pull it out later. Granted putting a better one in is supposed to override.

I was just wondering if even the most basic Core 2 Duo would kick even the best P4 w/HT or PD's ass. Plus AMD seems close, but Duo's first reviews seem to point to Intel as back on top.

I'll toss out the money on a processor since I can alter much of anything else later.

HeavyMetal · Post by **HeavyMetal** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 7:44 pm

Damn forgot to say that it seems AMD chips have lower cache or is it just me?

Joe88 · Post by **Joe88** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 7:55 pm

Even the lowest Core 2 Duo runs right up against AMD FX-62 $1000 CPU
which is pretty good for a $250 CPU

plus they have a 100% OC on it, so they can bypass it

so what the buget for this rig ?
and for cases...

Kariudo · Post by **Kariudo** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:12 pm

as said earlier
core2 duo is the best cpu money can buy right now (you might find some small-brand one, but I doubt it)

just because the clock speed is lower (and the fsb being slightly higher) doesn't mean that performance/multitasking suffers
P4 (HT or not) has heat problems and had poorly designed gate prediction/clearing algorithms

IIRC, HyperThreading was a technology that allowed threads to share some of thier alloted memory (this actually reduced multitasking power)
core2 also implimented a new architecture, 65nm process, and 64bit support...which makes it much better than any P4.

another great case is AMD's athlon64 line
64-bit support, and an on-die memory controller (as well as HyperTransport...if it isn't the memory controller I just mentioned) made these cpus much better than P4 (with the exception of integer/floating point calculation) despite a 1GHz difference in clock speed (HTT-FSB was between 200-400 MHz faster)

AMD's cache sizes were on-par with the other processors at the time of their release (heck, 2MB on the higher end athlon64 x2's was big at the time of their release)

since you are willing, get a core2 duo

Willen · Post by **Willen** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:13 pm

Because the AMD A64s have the on board memory controller, they don't need the massive cache the Intels do.

And for multitasking (and encoding) Dual Core is the way to go. HyperThreading is not true multi-core and cannot really replicate one, although it is slightly better than nothing.