tb582 Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Hi guys I'm looking into building a new system, and I just started to think about the processors.... I'm not sure what type of mobo I will get yet but what are the best processors currently out there? Right now I have dual Xeon Noccona processors - Are the Intel® Core™2 Quad Processors the newest thing? I do a lot of video work and After effects.... And just to sum up I'm just looking for what the newest processors are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 yes the intel quads are the best out right now. but wait till the end of july for huge price cuts! the Q6600 is suppose to be 266$ by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tb582 Posted June 11, 2007 Author Share Posted June 11, 2007 yes the intel quads are the best out right now. but wait till the end of july for huge price cuts! the Q6600 is suppose to be 266$ by then.So how do the quads compair with my Intel Xeon Noconnas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsposter Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 not quite true...The Kentsfield CPUs are more of a 'because we can' product from Intel. Fine to great on CPU-intensive tasks that are SMP-friendly and fit wholly into the on-chip cache (L2).But with the same or slower memory bandwidth between those 4 cores and the main system ram (as compared to the E series duals), the cores on a Quad are spending a lot of time in wait state for data and instructions.I'd save a few hundred bucks on the CPU, buy a pair of E6600s, and find a good dual cpu mobo (giving you quad cores in two chips) if you want/need that kind of potential performance and/or bragging rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tb582 Posted June 11, 2007 Author Share Posted June 11, 2007 not quite true...The Kentsfield CPUs are more of a 'because we can' product from Intel. Fine to great on CPU-intensive tasks that are SMP-friendly and fit wholly into the on-chip cache (L2).But with the same or slower memory bandwidth between those 4 cores and the main system ram (as compared to the E series duals), the cores on a Quad are spending a lot of time in wait state for data and instructions.I'd save a few hundred bucks on the CPU, buy a pair of E6600s, and find a good dual cpu mobo (giving you quad cores in two chips) if you want/need that kind of potential performance and/or bragging rights.Lets say that money is no object, then what 2 processors would you go with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 well do you want a server or desktop? for desktop quads are the best. as ive said just wait a month or so for prices to fall ALOT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsposter Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) in the case of MINO, there is a point where the spending of $$ crosses the 'stupidity line'. Either Intel or AMD drop prices about every 20 weeks and looking at their product roadmaps, that will probably continue into 2008.You've got to look at the system as a whole. Fast disk, fast memory, fast video, and a mobo with fast, fat pipes that let all of that run at speed and feed the cores as quickly as possible.There is a lot to be said for AMDs HT1000/2000 pipes coupled with DDR2/800 ram. OTOH, Intels new P35 chipsets and DDR/1066 ram promise to be very quick, but there aren't many real-world tests available right now.Remember that while it's easy to build a system where the cores are in constant wait states it's hard to build a system that can feed the cores as fast as they can eat data.disk: PATA 133 or SATA 3Gb, no real world difference if the drive hardware is otherwise identical. 16 Mb on-disk cache, min 7200, pref 10k rpm drives, a raid set no more complex than Raid10, and a good hardware controller with a fast CPU and lots of cache will help pull the data on and off drives quickly.memory: ECC but not buffered ECC. Microsoft is saying that in their opinion (yah, right) many/most desktop crashes are caused by non-parity ram which means most all that we've got installed. While not a 'performance' item, ECC ram will help with system stability and help you to not lose 'time' due to system crashes.more memory: The fastest memory you can afford. ECC/DDR2/800 for AMD on an HT2000 mobo or ECC/DDR2/1066 for an Intel P35 mobo. Buy a brand name but not a brand names 'value' or low-ball line.mobo: Something with a decent chipset that supports that fast ECC ram and a fast path to your disk controller. This will take some research as there are as many permutations of chipsets from Nvidia, ATI, Intel, ViA, and the minor leagues as there are end-users. Do not underestimate the importance of a good mobo/chipset combination, ALL OF YOUR SYSTEM DATA will pump through that chipset. Consider passive heatsinks on both the northbridge adn southbridge chips. Don't cry over 'missing' PS/2, com, and lpt ports. You can get by quite easily without them. Insist on at least 6, preferably 8 USB 2 ports. Firewire as you need it.video: Fast PCIe-16. Get a fast chipset that uses DDR2 for video ram and has at least a 256 bit internal video ram path. Do the math on the difference between frame rates and decide for yourself if a 5% 'improvement' in frame rates is worth a 30% (or more) increase in price. Pay attention to the cooling on your video card. Some makers overclock chipsets and ram and the resulting fan noise will drive you nuts. SLI costs lots of money for low-percentage improvements (if any).power supply: At least 600 watts from a name brand like PC Power and Cooling. Avoid fancy LED and neon case lights, they'll make more heat and take watts away from your disk drives and cpu.Ahhhhh, CPUs. Why is this the last item? Because in the greater scheme of things, your CPU/cores are probably the least important piece of the system. Intel and AMD cores are so fast, and so close to each other in terms of potential performance, that you need to 'engineer' the rest of the system first, then drop in the chips. As mentioned earlier, CPUs/cores will be in wait states more often than not so your efforts and $$ need to go into the supporting components before the processors. Do make sure that you get CPUs with at least 1Mb of on-chip cache. The AMDs can vary between 512 Kb and 2 MB, Intel puts 4 Mb on only a small percentage of their dual cores and those go for a hefty premuim price.Single vs dual vs quad cores. There are clear advantages for dual cores. Quad cores don't have the support needed to run them at full speed (yet). There are some server-class mobos, mostly from Tyan and SuperMicro that will run dual core/dual socket (4 cores) processors to good advantage. These are not $100 mobos, more in the $250 range and higher. Remember that MSFT licenses their desktop OSs for up to 4 cores but some licenses are for 2 cores only. And have a look at your applications and games software and make sure it can run on multiple cores. Having multiple cores running under an OS does not guarantee that your apps/games are able to.I run a lot of Photoshop work with 14meg pix raw images that convert to 128Mb tiff files in 5 layers and do real-time wire frame texturing (say on the order of 128,000 polygons in multiple colors) for CAD. My Photoshop and CATIA licenses are for 8 cores. The kind of data demands those applications place on a system has taught me how to build a nice fast system for about $1000-. If you want a none-faster system that is pretty much your price point. For about $500 you might be able to get close to 75% of that performance though. Much depends on the price/performance of the video card, a little research will tell you that the vid cards are quickly becoming the most expensive single component in a system build.Due to price/megahertz comparisons, it's way too easy to decide on Intel CPUs and just throw something together. But keep an open mind and buy the fast system components first and only then look at CPU prices. Edited June 12, 2007 by newsposter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 when ur talking about how quad core is kind of pointless right now, do you remember 2 years ago when dual core was pointless? now look at all of the things that support them. games, OS's, encoders, and lots of other cpu intensive programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsposter Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Yes, two years ago dual cores were pointless until the support components got upgraded to handle the increaded potential throughput.Quad cores are in exactly the same position now.Current releases of Intel and AMD Quads are technology demonstrators for those who want bragging rights. Wait a generation or three. No sense paying AMD and Intel back too early for their R&D.You can go ahead and spend the money, but until chipsets in particular catch up to the need for more efficient cache and main ram interfacing, it's better to go dual-dual instead of single quad. The dual-dual mobos are well established and well known.As always, in a year or so, tech will catch up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 266 dollars for a quad core is expensive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weEvil Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) The quad cores are not really quads. They're two dual cores stuck together. They communicate over the FSB instead of inside the chip. Slightly better perfomance than the dual core, but not significant like you would expect over a REAL quad core.Just get a dual core. It runs cooler too (about half the wattage). Can leave it on for longer.Look at the E6600 from Intel. Its got a great bang for buck. Its **** fast (not quite the fastest) but its also REALLY afforable. Or if you want you can wait for the new AMD lineup (new socket AM3 soon) and the revised 65nm Athlon 64 6000+ which is to run much cooler (now its made with 90nm and its about 125W). Its about the speed of a E6600 in most situations. Edited June 12, 2007 by brucevangeorge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 The quad cores are not really quads. They're two dual cores stuck together. They communicate over the FSB instead of inside the chip. Slightly better perfomance than the dual core, but not significant like you would expect over a REAL quad core.talking about that. when is amd coming out with barcelona!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weEvil Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) talking about that. when is amd coming out with barcelona!!!The same day I'm getting one. Edited June 12, 2007 by brucevangeorge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 talking about that. when is amd coming out with barcelona!!!The same day I'm getting one.see i want one but they are just taking forever! i'll have to see what the news is on it when intel does their price drops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tester.br Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 talking about that. when is amd coming out with barcelona!!!The same day I'm getting one.U gota be kiddin right ??? Dang, the fact is AMD can't run with Intel. Barcelona is a JOKE and it's late, Peryn will completly destroy AMD plans ..AND, BTW AMD's Barcelona difficult to make.http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40211PS> I'm sorry ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now