Someone school me with these new CPU's

Noir · #1 08-11-2006, 02:39 AM

Alright, after P4's came out, I no longer gave a poop about the speed of cpu's and when I ordered computers for work, I just went with what seemed like the best bang for the buck from Dell.

Someone school me on which is better nowadays.

Intel? AMD?

Dual core? Opteron?

How do you compare them? I was looking at newegg.com and saw some great deals. 64-bit worth it? I'm assuming that you can install 32-bit software on a 64-bit architecture.

Application: Test servers. Mix between Linux and Windows 2003 Servers. Throwing all sorts of goodies on them.

School me on what's good (to cut costs, I don't mind building them). Gigabyte still good boards? Microstar/Biostar? Asus?

What should I stay away from?

Break from work's over. Time to get back in the game.

b3lha · #2 08-11-2006, 05:12 AM

I'm probably preaching to the converted here, but after many years of buying computers for my company, I've learned a few things which fly in the face of the computer industry marketing "wisdom".

1) It really doesn't make any noticable real-world difference which CPU you buy. The speeds are so similar that you can only measure the difference with benchmarking software. The CPU spends most of its time idling anyway and all CPU's idle at the same speed. If you run windows, look at the CPU usage in Task Manager and you'll see what I mean.

2) Whatever CPU you buy, in 6 months time it will be considered slow. In 3 years time it will be considered obsolete. Compare a 3 year old intel to a 3 year old AMD, they are both slow worthless junk.

3) Whether you spend $500 or $5000, it will be fast enough for what you need and it will still be worth nothing in 3 years time. More expensive computers just depreciate faster. An old rackmount server with multi-Xeons and SCSI raid arrays is equally as worthless as an old desktop. I've thown out minicomputers that cost $100K+ because they were obsolete and nobody would buy them.

4) Upgradability is a myth. If a PC is fairly new, you can upgrade it, but there won't be much benefit. If a PC is up to 3 years old then you can upgrade it but it's not cost effective in the long run. If a PC is older than that then it will most likely not be compatible with the latest upgrades anyway.

5) Laptops are inherently unreliable, particularly when operated by salespeople and management. I don't bother repairing them once the warranty runs out.

6) Build-it-yourself machines often work out more expensive and less reliable than manufactured machines.

What I suggest is this: If buying computers for work, buy the cheapest one on the Dell website with a 3 year onsite warranty. Alternatively if it's not your money and you don't give a **** about the cost then buy something decorative like the ultra-small dells that clip on the back of the monitor. The management will rather that you made the office look cool and modern than you saved 10 seconds of cpu time a day.

If you want a computer for home, pick up an old desktop that some company is throwing out. Try and get it for free or nearly free, companies often have to pay to dispose of them. Run it for 12 months and then get another.

Whatever you do, don't fall for the marketing and spend $2000 on a new computer, then pay to upgrade it several times, then junk it and do the same all over again.

Sorry, this turned into more of an essay than I was expecting. Don't think I'm favouring Dell here. Given unlimited funding I would buy HP machines (actually compaq). They are far superior in build quality but because of that they can't match Dell on price.

bwb3 · #3 08-11-2006, 06:43 AM

Thanks Phil, I needed that. You just saved me a bunch of money.
Gene

Noir · #4 08-11-2006, 10:16 AM

thanks b3lha but your comments really hasn't answered what i was looking for.

i'm not looking to spend $2000 for a machine.

i also do not want a dell w/3 year warranty and speaking as an ex-Compaq and an ex-HP certified tech, Compaq/HP blows.

i whether it's better to spend $$$ on a 32-bit versus 64-bit processor. the quality of intel versus amd. the performance comparisons. the different models and the pros/cons.

SubaSteevo · #5 08-11-2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b3lha

I'm probably preaching to the converted here, but after many years of buying computers for my company, I've learned a few things which fly in the face of the computer industry marketing "wisdom".

1) It really doesn't make any noticable real-world difference which CPU you buy. The speeds are so similar that you can only measure the difference with benchmarking software. The CPU spends most of its time idling anyway and all CPU's idle at the same speed. If you run windows, look at the CPU usage in Task Manager and you'll see what I mean.

2) Whatever CPU you buy, in 6 months time it will be considered slow. In 3 years time it will be considered obsolete. Compare a 3 year old intel to a 3 year old AMD, they are both slow worthless junk.

3) Whether you spend $500 or $5000, it will be fast enough for what you need and it will still be worth nothing in 3 years time. More expensive computers just depreciate faster. An old rackmount server with multi-Xeons and SCSI raid arrays is equally as worthless as an old desktop. I've thown out minicomputers that cost $100K+ because they were obsolete and nobody would buy them.

4) Upgradability is a myth. If a PC is fairly new, you can upgrade it, but there won't be much benefit. If a PC is up to 3 years old then you can upgrade it but it's not cost effective in the long run. If a PC is older than that then it will most likely not be compatible with the latest upgrades anyway.

5) Laptops are inherently unreliable, particularly when operated by salespeople and management. I don't bother repairing them once the warranty runs out.

6) Build-it-yourself machines often work out more expensive and less reliable than manufactured machines.

What I suggest is this: If buying computers for work, buy the cheapest one on the Dell website with a 3 year onsite warranty. Alternatively if it's not your money and you don't give a **** about the cost then buy something decorative like the ultra-small dells that clip on the back of the monitor. The management will rather that you made the office look cool and modern than you saved 10 seconds of cpu time a day.

If you want a computer for home, pick up an old desktop that some company is throwing out. Try and get it for free or nearly free, companies often have to pay to dispose of them. Run it for 12 months and then get another.

Whatever you do, don't fall for the marketing and spend $2000 on a new computer, then pay to upgrade it several times, then junk it and do the same all over again.

Sorry, this turned into more of an essay than I was expecting. Don't think I'm favouring Dell here. Given unlimited funding I would buy HP machines (actually compaq). They are far superior in build quality but because of that they can't match Dell on price.

All good points, but #4 is somewhat not valid now that there's ebay. I've upgraded the processor on a couple of older computers for <$20 for an upgrade that would have cost me $200 when the computer was purchased.

As far as Harry's Q's are concerned, I'm partial to Intel myself. The hardcore computer geeks will tell you AMDs are better, but there's really not much of a difference from what I've seen. I prefer Intel simply because if it breaks, it's about 100x easier to find a replacement. (I accidentally fried my P4 recently and found a replacement for $40 within an hour).

Dual core is pretty l33t.

As far as companies are concerned, they all have sucky reliability, sucky customer service, and sucky prices (some just have more concentrated levels of suck in different areas).

Earthworm · #6 08-11-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noir

i whether it's better to spend $$$ on a 32-bit versus 64-bit processor. the quality of intel versus amd. the performance comparisons. the different models and the pros/cons.

All AMD's support 64bit as well as most of Intel's.

I would recommend a Dual core CPU for multitasking.

Intel D805 (2x2.66GHz, 2MB L2) = $100
AMD Opteron 165 (dual core) would make a good starter server platform (for servers that do more than file serving).

If you feel the need to overclock, both of these do so very well.

If you want to spend more money then look at the Conroe's from Intel.

Noir · #7 08-11-2006, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earthworm

All AMD's support 64bit as well as most of Intel's.

I would recommend a Dual core CPU for multitasking.

Intel D805 (2x2.66GHz, 2MB L2) = $100
AMD Opteron 165 (dual core) would make a good starter server platform (for servers that do more than file serving).

If you feel the need to overclock, both of these do so very well.

If you want to spend more money then look at the Conroe's from Intel.

hmm..interesting.

i'm thinking about doing a 64-bit dual core either intel or amd dual processor setup. going to throw about 10gb's of memory on it and probably 500gb of raid5 storage. that should do me pretty well.

i'll probably throw vmware on it. thanks for the tip david. you da man.

no plans for overclocking since i'm not using this for games.

do amd's still overheat like they used to?

Duckie · #8 08-11-2006, 08:32 PM

AMD, with a few exceptions, are incredibly rock solid. In fact it is now intel who has heating problems (but only in gaming apps)

thundering02 · #9 08-11-2006, 11:53 PM

Now don't quote me for the 64 bit apps. But AMD's are locked from the 2500 and up series as of a couple of years ago.

My thoughts from several machines
AMD for full out video and such
Intel for more numbers and such

I don't know why apple still exsists but it seems to be popular with only the crowd that does image stuffs like photoshop and whatnot.

The newer AMD's don't like particular case designs, as I find that many are placed right up against the power supply(which produces massive amounts of heat) otherwise get a full copper heatsink for it anyways.

Hand built machines can be put together for cheaper than their prebuilt counter part unless you are building the exact same thing

17 monitor from 1999 $150
MB and processor AMD 2800 2.08 GHZ northstar chip on a soyo black board approx $250
3 sticks of 512 ddr pc333 2700 memory $150(total) as always the more the better
Power supply and case $2 and $25
350 Gigs of space one being s-ata which amd likes approx $220
cd burner $5
audio card $10
Video Geforce xfx 5200 128b $75

total cost for my machine approx $885 spread over the years to keep up and replace borken and is more than capable of runing almost anything on the market near top quality

NikFu S. · #10 08-12-2006, 12:19 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_N...roarchitecture

What do you plan on using this machine for exactly?

Just FYI I am a hardcore gamer (though loyal to Intel) and I haven't seen a reason to upgrade from my 1.13 PIII until now. My ancient setup keeps up with P4 and AMD kids just fine. The Conroe chip for desktops is the best out there. Core 2 blows everything out of the water.
It's also overkill unless you are running killer apps.

Gigabyte is my board of choice.

Noir · #11 08-12-2006, 01:22 AM

well now it boils down to either amd athlon X2 or the opteron. looking for a dual cpu motherboard and about 10gbs of ram.

the opteron 939 socket doesn't seem to have any dual socket boards on newegg.

the xeon look a little too expensive as well as intel dual core chips w/L1 and L2 cache.

now if intel was throwing one of their parties in atlanta, i'd go and get some at a discounted price.

SubaSteevo · #12 08-12-2006, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

Just FYI I am a hardcore gamer (though loyal to Intel) and I haven't seen a reason to upgrade from my 1.13 PIII until now.

Minesweeper doesn't count

NikFu S. · #13 08-12-2006, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SubaSteevo

Minesweeper doesn't count

Bahhh I can pay Lost Coast on it.

Only thing I haven't been able to run well is GRAW.

thundering02 · #14 08-12-2006, 11:48 PM

World of Warcraft ...Diablo II. 4x4 Evo thing Intitial D the game... all gets played on my mahchine.

Morrowind Oblibion is still too much for even somthing worth $20k

Noir · #15 08-14-2006, 04:25 PM

tough choices...

either i can get a dual processor dual core box w/sans or i go ahead and buy 4 straight up boxes.

if i use go the all in one box setup, i have to use vmware to virtualize and manage the boxes. pros to that is that i could save the data i want or backup the existing setup, blow away a virtual box lickity split, and throw a box back up in 15 minutes.

management would be in one place. obviously the only reason to go 4 boxes is that you won't have one point of failure and one has to build the OS to suit the application four times.

two all in one box setup's would be ideal but then that would 2x costs.

decisions, decisions, decisions