Quantcast

Maximum PC

It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:06 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Where to from here?
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 9:01 pm 
Willamette
Willamette
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:30 am
Posts: 1286
Location: 13, Center, and ready as a human torpedo.
At the moment I have a 3.2E on a Asus board. Now I was thinking that I would put the 3.2E on a new board and put an old celeron on my current board. However my love for Intel has slowed, and I think I might go AMD.
Firstly, am I wasting my cash? I do mainly graphic work, but do enjoy gaming.
Secondly, what would a match for my 3.2E, and how much would it cost?

Finally, I have got about $400-$500 to spend, but would not use this if I went the Intel road, and could put the cash into other PC options.

Thanks


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:05 pm 
Phoenix Foundation (Top 10)
Phoenix Foundation (Top 10)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 2262
Location: Michigan
I almost switched to using a P4 3.0 from an XP 2600+. Then I built 2 Athlon 64's and fell in love with AMD all over again. I have a 2.8 P4 in my laptop and the 3200 walks all over it in folding. Not sure on real world apps tho. I dont see any difference in my games between the 2.8 P4 and the 3200+, both seem to run them the same.

I would say save a few bucks, build a nice Athlon 64 setup with a gig of RAM and youd be happy.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:00 pm 
Little Foot
Little Foot

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:04 pm
Posts: 131
To be honest, AMD64s kick in gaming and Intel kicks in Graphic Design (I assume you mean 3D). 3D rendering programs optimize Intel's Hypterthreading, and games bottleneck at RAM comunication. AMD64 has faster RAM access (due to the integrated memory controller) and Intel can run multiple threads.

I say... wait a bit, save up a bit and get a Dual-Opteron setup with NUMA support. If Graphic Design makes you money, get a computer that can keep up with you and increases your efficiency and in the end, you computer will pay itself off in no time and your profit will go up. If it is just a hobby, well then you decide. With Graphic Work, nearly any computer can do it, just some of them will make you wait forever. And also, 1GB may not be enough... 2GB or even 4GB will do you good if you are serious in 3D rendering.

If you are talking about Photoshop... 1GB is good and I don't know if even Dual-Opteron will be worth the extra seconds it saves you on a filter.

Arquero


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:31 am 
Willamette
Willamette
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:30 am
Posts: 1286
Location: 13, Center, and ready as a human torpedo.
I do most of my work in Illustrator and PS. I'm working on an advertising portfolio, so the graphic in not to hard on the PC.

Would a AMD64 3500, or 3800 be a good match for a 3.2E, in most apps?


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:06 am 
Team Member
Team Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:18 am
Posts: 933
Location: Lurking in the shadows...
ranston wrote:
Would a AMD64 3500, or 3800 be a good match for a 3.2E, in most apps?


Yes, one of those would do just fine. You will also have the option of OC'ing those procs. I also second Ricksickle's thoughts.

:)


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:36 am 
Max [Ph]otographer
Max [Ph]otographer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:10 pm
Posts: 5202
I think a good math for a 3.2 P4 would be a 3200+ Athlon 64.

Of course, really, there should be a 3400+ which would be a little more appropriate.

One of the best things you can do to save money is overclock. I have seen the 3000+ Athlon 64 go all the way to 2.7Ghz. Right now, an FX55 is only 2.6Ghz.


Basically, you could potentially outpace a 3800+ with a 3000+ if you are handy. Or at least, you could outpace the 3500+.

What you have to remember though is that just because the 3000+ will overclock by over 800mhz, doens't mean a 3500+ or a 3800+ will.

In fact, the 3800+ will overclock the least because it is still on the 130nm process, whereas the 3000+ is on the 90nm process.

There are overclocked Athlon 64's that are getting over 50% improvements in folding times vs. my 2500+ Barton a 2.3Ghz.

Dan O.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:12 am 
Phoenix Foundation (Top 10)
Phoenix Foundation (Top 10)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 2262
Location: Michigan
If it was me, I would go with the 3000+ or 3200+. It will do everything you want it to, plus save you a little cash. I like the OCing benefits, I think thats going to be my route on my next build.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 5:08 pm 
Willamette
Willamette
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:30 am
Posts: 1286
Location: 13, Center, and ready as a human torpedo.
Well I'm not a big fan of OC'ing, so I think my plan is to get a 3800. Man it's exciting just thinking about it, 64 bit will be sweet and I'll be really happy when windows comes out with a real 64 bit version.

I have seen the latest stuff from Intel, looks like 64 bit, but from some performance benchmarks out there, AMD kicks ass again.

I really never thought that I would go AMD, have been Intel for a while now.

Looking at MB's out there at the moment, I might even go SLI. Is it really a 50% performance gain, or should I just get a ultra board?


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

© 2014 Future US, Inc. All rights reserved.