Topic: Anyone go Dual-Core yet?

[Nemesis]

I think that's a misunderstanding too.  The Sager 3880 I bought has 1 GB of 533 MHz DDR ram and a 7200 RPM drive.  It absolutely smokes.  If I didn't need a Desktop for other reasons, I don't think i'd even bother.   Thiis isn't even a "Dektop Replacement" laptop.

I've read the review of the modkits that let you put a Pentium M in a Desktop PC.   I'm seriously condiering this and if it goes dualcore with a Clock speed of 2.5-3 GHz it would OWN everything else out there.

Remember the P-IV uses 2 channels of DDR ram to increase performance which is why the P-IV lists FSB speeds of 800 and 1000 compared to the 533 of the laptop.  The Sager 3880 models that I found online specs for also uses ATA 100 rather than ATA 133 (or SATA) on desktops.  Desktop hard drives also have more onboard memory than laptop drives (up to 16 mb for topline drives) both of which limit the drive performance of the laptop.

Just imagine the speed potential if it was not limited by the laptop constraints.   Of course dual core or more would also greatly improve the performance.

Intel just is not ready yet to move everything over to P-M derived chips.  They need all new desktop motherboard designs.  They also need to get people to forget everything that they have said for years about clockspeed being important.  They also need to convert them to full 64 bit designs and add the dual core features.   I suspect they may also be working on adding on chip memory controllers.   They need to prepare a P-M derivative with all these features and that has clockspeed headroom to grow for years.  Either that or build a whole new chip from the ground up.

Intel didn't believe that the Athlon could challenge the P-II and had to rush ahead to keep up when they were wrong.  When the P-IV had a slight but solid lead over the Athlon XP Intel again didn't think that the Athlon 64 could challenge them.  Again they were wrong and caught with their pants down are rushing to catch up.  Both times the Athlons took a solid lead.  Last time Intel was working on the P-IV and had it in the wings almost ready for release.  This time the wings are empty and Intel has to improvise.  Which is good for AMD and competition which is good for the consumer.  Now if only VIA could jump up to the same level. 

[Javora]

I have kids? 

Swapping a motherboard is no sweat, the last PC I bought whole was in 1997 (except fo this Laptop, but thatdon't count).

So many people here it's hard to keep track without a scorecard.   

Ok well in that case you can use that system as a game/file server later on.  One other thing though in reference to my post above, check the MHz rate that the processor is running at.  If the processor runs less than 800mhz it will further limit your upgrade options.  If that is the case then I'm not sure I would bother with the processor.

I would also agree that the video card and Possibly the Ram is holding your machine back.  However you never stated how much Ram you have so it is hard to say.  But I wouldn't bother with a 9600XT this late in the game, I would go with the X800 since you are already using ATI cards.  Again with the more powerful video cards comes the increased power load so keep an eye on your power supply.  After you replace the video card let the system run for a month and see if the machine performs as you think it should.  If not then I would suggest bumping your Ram up to 1Gb if it is not already there, Ram is cheap enough now there is not any need to stop at 512Mb IMHO.

As for the processor read the above paragraph and my last post above.  But keep in mind that game companies are stepping up the system requirements again.  The time of hardware vastly outpacing games has ended and the tables are turning.  Look at Battlefield 2 and all the people crying that their systems can't run the game.  It's going to get worse in the next 12 to 18 months.  Something you may want to keep in mind depending on how long you plan on using your current system.

[Javora]

I've read the review of the modkits that let you put a Pentium M in a Desktop PC.   I'm seriously condiering this and if it goes dualcore with a Clock speed of 2.5-3 GHz it would OWN everything else out there.

Funny thing about the Pentium M.   To conserver power, it lowers the clock speed when it doesn't need to be any higher.   Right now just surfing the net she's running at 433 MHz.  When I play SFC:OP it barely goes above 1 GHz.

Makes me feel kinda silly about spending an extra $250 to get the 2 GHz over the 1.7 

When you read the reviews of the modkits from Asus did you also catch the so-so numbers it was posting in the benchmarks?  The Pentium M does well in games but falters in other areas.  If you play games and nothing else than the Pentium M would be great, I've thought about switching myself just to reduce the noise.  But when it comes to processing power there is no way I would take the Pentium M chip over the highest end P IV.

Duel core Pentium M chips aren't going to rule anything until most or all the programs are written to take advantage of the duel core systems.  Don't get me wrong duel core systems are nice, heck poke your nose into a real file/game server and most likely you will find a duel core system.  These systems are great at running two or more programs at the same time, like playing SFC OP while your antivirus is running a system scan for example.  Otherwise, since the programs out there now don't take advantage of the duel core system there is no advantage to having them right now.

That is one of the reasons I haven't jumped on board the collective -duel core, 64 bit, duel video card- boat yet.  It is all in transition right now and until things settle down, I'm not falling for the marketing hype.  I would hate like He|| to be one of those people that bought into the Intel LGA 775 chipsets right now as IMHO those people are screwed.  Intel has already said they plan to dump the 775 chipset about a year after the platform was launch.

[FPF-DieHard]

My "server" that has hosted the majority of the major D2 campaigns for the last year is an AMD 1.4 GHz with 512 RAM running Windows 2000 Server.

This "server" has never given me a problem EVER!  I'm goine to use this set up until it catches fire.

[Javora]

I'm not suggesting that you should get rid of your current server, not that I knew you even had a server machine already.  I'm just trying to give the best advice that I can given the very limited amount of information you have given at the top of your thread.  These systems of yours are exactly that, yours, what you do with them is entirely up to you.

[Nemesis]

My "server" that has hosted the majority of the major D2 campaigns for the last year is an AMD 1.4 GHz with 512 RAM running Windows 2000 Server.

This "server" has never given me a problem EVER!  I'm goine to use this set up until it catches fire.

So long as you are happy with your system, don't change it.  That is my standard advice to people on computer upgrades.  Does it matter if it is obsolete?  No.  What matters is does it do what you want and need?  If yes don't waste your money changing it to keep up with technology.

[ELITE-Kaos]

The whole dual core issue was recently thrown up in the air with the discovery that AMD has quad core almost ready to go.  At the recent Comdex conference it was confirmed by AMD that the Q Core could be ready to ship as early as q1 2006.  This would make the Dual core systems rather like the Semperon with the Quad core becoming the new high end beast.

There has been some talk in here about the 64bit processors and how they are only relevant when a 64 bit OS is available.  Well it is out, Windows 64 Bit lusnched in May of this year and so far has been working very well on my system and the networks we run at work.

For any users wishing to upgrade there video cards remember that PCIe is the way to go.  If you decide to stick with the AGP systems then I would advise against the X800 and instead recomend the 9800pro or even the X700 AGP cards, the X800 is just to overpriced for a card of its spec.

As the CTO for a large IT based company (TGL Ltd.) my job is to ensure that we recomend to our customers equipment that is right for the job they want to do today and tomorrow.  We have major suppliers send us new hardware all the time in the hopes that we will recoment it to our larger clients.  Our task is of course to remain independant and just give the evaluation of the systems corporation wish to purchase.

In light of this we are currently telling our customers to hold off on the upgrading of old systems as there is a major battle happening between SLI and MVP (Crossfire).  IMO ATi's MVP is the better solution but market forces have a part to play in deciding which of the two will be the winner.  In theory the MVP systems have the potential to go much faster and use many more GPU's than the SLI system.

If you have to upgrade now and Games are the main reason for you having a PC then AMD is the only processor to go with.  AMD gives better value for money and they have the "3D now(2)" built into the CPU.  Intel are great if you want to do large 3d rendered movies or you work in a lab decerning how many atoms fit on top of a pin head in a 30 mph breeze (many of our customers have a need for this).

In short

CPU : 64 bit even with a 32 bit OS they still rock and run colder than there 32 bit counterparts.
GPU : ATi have the edge right now but there are still to many uncertanties reagrding both companies new technologies.
Adaptor : APG is dying, this makes the cards cheaper except the hybrids.  PCIe is due to have a standards change in the near future which may result in the current PCIe cards not working in future motherboards.

[FPF-DieHard]

The high-end AMD chips cost over $1000.  That's nuts, I'm single with no kids and that is still WAY too much money for one component.

In the $350 - $600 price range, you still are better off buying Intel.   

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050627/athlon_fx57-11.html

[Javora]

The whole dual core issue was recently thrown up in the air with the discovery that AMD has quad core almost ready to go.  At the recent Comdex conference it was confirmed by AMD that the Q Core could be ready to ship as early as q1 2006.  This would make the Dual core systems rather like the Semperon with the Quad core becoming the new high end beast.

For any users wishing to upgrade there video cards remember that PCIe is the way to go.  If you decide to stick with the AGP systems then I would advise against the X800 and instead recomend the 9800pro or even the X700 AGP cards, the X800 is just to overpriced for a card of its spec.

In light of this we are currently telling our customers to hold off on the upgrading of old systems as there is a major battle happening between SLI and MVP (Crossfire).  IMO ATi's MVP is the better solution but market forces have a part to play in deciding which of the two will be the winner.  In theory the MVP systems have the potential to go much faster and use many more GPU's than the SLI system.

In short

CPU : 64 bit even with a 32 bit OS they still rock and run colder than there 32 bit counterparts.

Thanks for your post ELITE-Kaos it reinforced some of my fears about the computer industry right now.  At the prices that I saw after doing a quick search, I agree with you about X800 being a little costly.  That wasn't the case a month ago as I remember the price for them being a lot lower.  I'm curious as to what happened??!?

I haven't heard about ATI's MVP system or that the 64 bit CPU's are running cooler than the 32 bit CPU's.  That's good to know, thanks again.

[Nemesis]

The whole dual core issue was recently thrown up in the air with the discovery that AMD has quad core almost ready to go.  At the recent Comdex conference it was confirmed by AMD that the Q Core could be ready to ship as early as q1 2006.  This would make the Dual core systems rather like the Semperon with the Quad core becoming the new high end beast.

A link to a source for this please?  My most recent info is 1st Quarter 2007 and then only for Opterons not Athlon 64s.

(For those who may not know the Opteron is a server chip competing with the Intel Xeon and Itaniums.)

[IAF Lyrkiller]

DH, I feel for you man. I did not upgrade my desktop syst for 5 yrs. And i have had that syst since '94. (between '94 and 2000, i did upgrade that syst ALOT!!!).

Here is the components that i upgraded:

ECS Elitegroup PM800-M2 MB, w/ 2.53Ghz Intel Celeron, 1Gig of RAM, ATI 9200SE 128MB, 300WATT P/S

And yet, i am still looking to upgrade the beasty.

[ELITE-Kaos]

http://www.theinquirer.net/

Do a search for the quad core and you'll find the article and yes it will be an Opteron. I figure Q3/4 2006 or Q1 2007 for the desktop, this will still put them ahead of Intel by about 6 months and has serious ramifications for Moors Law (GPU's don't follow it anyway).

The X800 has risen by upto Ł100 for some of the cards.  I think this represents that the chip is a good one with the X850 offering only a relativley small increase.  Both the X800 and X700 cards have AGP hybrid variants (I run an X700 256Mb AGP 8X) which are both VERY fast cards.  IMO the X700 is a better buy for those looking to upgrade without the hassle and expence of going 64bit.

[FPF-DieHard]

DH, I feel for you man. I did not upgrade my desktop syst for 5 yrs. And i have had that syst since '94. (between '94 and 2000, i did upgrade that syst ALOT!!!).

Here is the components that i upgraded:

ECS Elitegroup PM800-M2 MB, w/ 2.53Ghz Intel Celeron, 1Gig of RAM, ATI 9200SE 128MB, 300WATT P/S

And yet, i am still looking to upgrade the beasty.

I just have some kind of Obscesive-compulsive urge to upgrade becaue I can't have a Laptop that is more power than my Desktop 

My older brother is still running a P-III 800 MHz, and he makes a lot more money that I do (big diffrerence, he's married!)

[Nemesis]

http://www.theinquirer.net/

Do a search for the quad core and you'll find the article and yes it will be an Opteron. I figure Q3/4 2006 or Q1 2007 for the desktop, this will still put them ahead of Intel by about 6 months and has serious ramifications for Moors Law (GPU's don't follow it anyway).

What happened to your 1st Quarter 06 forecast for quad core?

AMD Files Antitrust Complaint Against Intel In U.S. Federal District Court

– Complaint Details Worldwide Coercion of Computer-Makers, System-Builders, Distributors and Retailers from Dealing with AMD –
– Intel’s Illegal Acts Inflate Computer Prices and Limit Choices for Businesses and Consumers –

SUNNYVALE, Calif. -- June 28, 2005 --AMD (NYSE: AMD) announced today that it filed an antitrust complaint against Intel Corporation (“Intel”) yesterday in U.S. federal district court for the district of Delaware under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, and the California Business and Professions Code. The 48-page complaint explains in detail how Intel has unlawfully maintained its monopoly in the x86 microprocessor market by engaging in worldwide coercion of customers from dealing with AMD. It identifies 38 companies that have been victims of coercion by Intel – including large scale computer-makers, small system-builders, wholesale distributors, and retailers, through seven types of illegality across three continents.

[ELITE-Kaos]

Its here:-

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23747


"AMD quad core plans revealed

Computex 2005 Sooner than you think


By Charlie Demerjian in Taipei: Monday 06 June 2005, 18:00

THE NICE THING ABOUT large trade shows is you get face time with the right people, so you can confirm or deny things is a flash.
This time was the whopper that I have been chasing for a while, the four core Opteron.

Well, it is real, there is a four core beastie coming with the F-Step CPUs in Q1. Yes, I said Q1.

This says that the AMD 65 nanometre process is on track, or that the quad core will be delayed, but it is shooting for Q1. One AMD wag told me "but that would make it a 300mm chip" as a sort of denial, and then started grinning his ass off, so it would have to be a 65 nanometre product, but who knows?

With a sufficient price premium, AMD could probably justify a 90 nanometre QC chip. 2006 is already shaping up to be a lot of fun. µ"

[Grim]

Currently running an AMD 64 3000+ and happy with it. I think i'll wait a little longer before i decide to upgrade or not, but when l do i'll definately go the AMD route.

[E_Look]

In terms of plain usability without becoming practically obsolete, an Athlon 64, even a socket 754 version, ought to last many, many years.  I hope to hang on to mine and use it for at least four or five years, at least.

[Sirgod]

Currently running an AMD 64 3000+ and happy with it. I think i'll wait a little longer before i decide to upgrade or not, but when l do i'll definately go the AMD route.

That's a good Procc right there.  I'd recomind It to anyone to be honest.

Stephen

[FPF-DieHard]

I'm narrowing my choices . . . .



-  ATI All-In-Wonder X800 XT (Buy this soon, dump in existing PC)
-  Intel Pentium® D Processor 840 3.2GHz, 800MHz FSB, Socket 775, 2x1MB Cache (Buy when price drops to about $400)
-  Asus P5WD2 Premium WiFi-TV Edition 955X (When I buy the CPU)
- 1-2 GB or RAM (Doubt I'll need more than 1.

[SkyFlyer]

There is not point in buying a 64 Bit CPU until the OS's and applications are ready to use it.

My Desktop is 2 1/2 years old.   2.53 GHz P-IV.   Radeon 8500 All-in-wonder.   Thought it was okay until I got a new Laptop with a 2 GHz Centrino

BLOWS it out of the water.

Maybe I'll just replace the Video card until I get more feedback. . .

I hate you people. I'm running on a 6-7 year old PC. Jerks.

My 1337 system specs:

633mhz Celeron
Intel 810e Mobo 66mhz FSB (would be 100 if I had a Pentium 3 in there).
256mb Ram.
120gb HD @ 7200 RPM
60GB HD External USB 1.1
40 GB HD External Firewire
CD RW External USB 1.1
16x DVD drive
64mb GeForce 4 MX 440 OC (by me).

I get a good 15-20 fps in Counterstrike