Please Help. What cpu would be best for me?

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

Start Free Trial

Your going to find that no two opinions meet with a question like that.

I know from experience that a Pentium 4 is HORRIBLE for heavy multitasking compared to an Athlon XP. Using a Pentium 4 3.06 versus an Athlon XP 3000+, simple tasks like applying Macromedia Dreamweaver templates to multiple webpages (which sucks no matter what) or running batch jobs in Fireworks MX will bring the Pentium 4 to it's knees where the Athlon XP skates right through it.

Unfortunately, I have no experience using both with Maya and Studio Max. With luck, someone can chime in with an educated opinion.

I would go with dual Ahtlon MP's myself.

Well, it's a well known fact that for 3D work the Xeons and P4's are by far the fastest, as well as for most other applications. Do you have benchmarks to backup your claims, jonnyGURU?

Here's some more benchmarks, showing once again that for 3D rendering, the Xeons and P4 are head-and-shoulders above the AthlonXP. Don't get me wrong, I like the AthlonXP, and think it's great value for the money. Just not for this work . . .

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030811/dual_xeon-06.html

More here, again showing the P4 being vastly superior for the task vs. the AthlonXP

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834&p=14

Here's more information taken from the article above:

"At high clock speeds, there's no denying that the Pentium 4 is the processor to have - especially the new 'C' models with the 800MHz FSB. We included results from a slower Pentium 4 1.6A and an AMD Athlon XP 1600+ to prove another point, at lower clock speeds the Athlon XP is still a better option although as higher clocked P4s drop in price AMD's advantage in this area will begin to fade as well. "

Also, FYI: Dual Athlon MP's or any Athlon MP is obsolete. AMD's current processor for workstation or server applications is the Opteron. Opterons are great server CPU's, but AMD really needs to ramp up the clock speed of them before they are worthwhile for workstation applications.

I don't have any benchmarks to "back up" my claims. The one's you have linked are synthetic and should really only be used for reference. I know from real life experience of having several PC's at my disposal that the real time processing power of the applications >>I<< use (not to imply that my results are indicitive of anyone elses) are considerably faster on the Athlon systems.

Yes, the MP is "obsolete", but they're still faster in 70-80% of the apps out there than an equivalent Pentium 4. Real life. Not synthetic.

There's a bit of a difference between using a benchmark and hands on experience. Benchmark programs run in a sterile environment. When's the last time you compiled anything with nothing else running on the PC on a fresh install? Ok... maybe you have, but the point is that I've found that in real life, benchmarks start to favor the AMD just a little bit more. Even Intel admits that HyperThreading can hurt the Pentium 4 in real life on the same margin that it helps the Pentium 4 in synthetic benchmarks. I applaude Intel for recognizing this issue and look forward to their resolution of it.

And, yes (again) the AMD64 CPU's come in "slower" clock speeds, but thanks to 1MB of L2 cache, on chip dual-channel memory controller and Hypertransport buses between CPU's and the rest of the board, the Opteron is still considerably faster than most chips at even higher clock speeds.

I >>do<< have benchmarks to back this. Using a pair of 1.4 GHz Opteron's in an Arima Rioworks motherboard running with 2GB of RAM in XP Pro in "only" 32-bit mode, I was able to benchmark Sandra, PCMark, 3DMark 2001 (as opposed to newer versions because 2001 tests CPU/RAM more than video capabilities and I am limited to a mere 64MB PCI Radeon card), Q3A, Commanche and ProcessorMark (these are the benchmark programs that I had at my disposal) and every test put the dual 1.4's on par with a pair of dual Xeon 2.2GHz that I have in a SuperMicro server here.

My post was not directed towards you. I never meant to state you were "wrong" or that I didn't "agree." I just said that I think that someone that has USED these applications on both platforms in a real world environment would best be able to make comment. I never said that I was best able to comment.

Oh... and by the way, I would go ahead and say that, if price is not an issue, a Pentium 4 would be better than an Athlon XP in higher clock speeds given the benchmarks at Anandtech, despite the fact that they are synthetic. Note that you did not post that link until after I commented. You only linked Tom's Hardware which I always take with a grain of salt no matter what brand he favors. But the Anandtech benchmarks show that the difference is significant enough to tip a hat to. Going back to benchmarks: I want you to note that an equally clocked Athlon MP, even if run in tandem, is going to benchmark the same as a single Athlon XP. Benchmarks have never been able to effectively test the power of two processors. Therefore, I would still look into the Athlon MP solution IF a pair of 2400+'s were in my budget. ;-) The price of a dual 2400+ is the same as one Pentium 4 2.4GHz (after motherboard, etc.) If the budget allowed for more, I'd easily say that a Pentium 4 3.06 and up is a good choice. If you can pair that up with RAMBUS (which is near impossible since Joe Enduser squished the RAMBUS market out of oblivion), you'll be even better off. :-)

I'll grant you that benchmarks are synthetic, yes. Things are different in a real world environment, for sure.

There are advantages and disadvantages to hyperthreading, and I can't WAIT until I can buy an Athlon64 for my home system.

But I've sold P4 and AthlonXP workstations to people who do 3D work. Invariably, they tell me the P4's are faster for 3D modelling.

As for the Opterons: They're a phenomenal cpu considering the low clock speeds of them. In servers they're amazing. I've seen dual Opterons at 1.4GHz blowing away Dual 2.8GHz Xeons in real-world testing in server environments, which is where they really shine... But they're certainly not as fast as dual 3.06Ghz Xeons for workstation apps. Not *yet* anyway.

I can't wait until they are.

I would love to see the day when AMD has the fastest all-around CPU not just for personal computing, but for workstation / server environments. I think with the Athlon64 and the Opteron it will happen. Hopefully they can get them released at decent clock speeds soon and dethrone intel.

Check this out:

http://www.cadalyst.com/reviews/hardware/0903xi/

I don't know what "other workstations" they've tested, but they state that "the @Xi MTower 64 is the fastest CAD system tested to date."

Maybe their previosly tested CAD workstations were Dual P!!!. :-p I'm just kidding.... of course.

d34thk

AMD currently cannot match any new processor Intel puts out on the market. In most cases, a P4 2.4ghz smacks the pants off an Athlon 2800+.

The new Athlon64's being released tuesday have been tested and are VASTLY superior for DX9 games (40 - 50% faster framerates than P4 3.2GHz).

Benchmarks for workstation performance are available from Anand, here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1856&p=7

Basically they show the 3.2GHz intel still faster for 3D Studio Max (though not by much). Here's what they say:

"Workstation performance, as measured by SPECviewperf, has been an area where Pentium 4 has dominated recently. The 2.0GHz Opteron certainly brings this area into parity at the very least, and Opteron becomes the leader in some areas. Comparing the ATI 9800 PRO performance, we find the A64 level Opteron the top performer in DRV-08 and UGS-01 benchmarks. In other SPECview tests, performance is very competitive and much faster than we have tested with the Athlon 3200+ on nForce2. "

jonnyGURU: The fact that the @Xi Opteron system was fast for CAD (2D processing) is no surprise. But for 3D modelling like jingato is doing, it's not as fast.

cesar44

John:

Besides this passionate AMD x Intel arguments, I'd be concerned if I have the correct Operating System for the task because dual processor configuration demand Windows NT/2000/XP Professional while uniprocessor configurations aren't so picky and much more easy-going so even any consumer version of Windows will do.
As for the processor, the AMD Athlon XP+ with Barton core would be a very cost effective option even considering the new Athlon 64 that was announced a few weeks ago, because it's powerful enough for your use and the price tag is very nice too, with lots of MB options.
Another concern would be choosing a fast video board (ATI perhaps?) and DDR333 memory for the MB. As for other features, like ATA-133 or Serial ATA, I don't think any of them would show a sizeable advantage over the other, so they aren't much of a issue ...

Cesar

By the way, Athlon64s and Athlon64FXs require totally different motherboards. The first one needs something like a Socket 650 motherboard [6(something)(something)]. The FX needs a Socket 940 motherboard. That's because the FX is just a really fast Opteron.

Athlon64s are very basic CPUs, meant for practical home computing once the titans start coming in for massive multitasking, but at a lower price.

Worry not! Intel's new CPU will start shipping soon, and it'll work on current Socet 478 motherboards! It is said to be blazingly fast at about 3.4GHz and higher!

Intel optimized benchmarking software to make Athlons seem slower. This scam was discovered, and people stopped using that software - I forgot the specifics. Anyway, Tom's Hardware didn't let that disturb its progress. Now, little Tommy is disliked by many informed Athlon fans because he continued using the old, bad benchmarking software.

Thank you,
Radomir Jordanovic

>>Athlon64s are very basic CPUs, meant for practical home computing once the titans start coming in for massive multitasking, but at a lower price.

Eh?? very basic cpu's??? NOT!!!

the Duron is a very basic cpu. the Celeron is a very basic cpu.

The Athlon 64 is the 754-pin ClawHammer procressor, while the Athlon 64 FX is little more than a higher clocked 940-pin Opteron.

As for intel's new CPU, I believe you're referring to the P4 'Extreme Edition', which is simply a P4 with an added 2Mb of L3 Cache.

How this affects 3D rendering applications depends on the app:

In Lightwave 7.5 Radiosity Reflective Things benchmark, the intel P4 3.2EE is ahead by a small margin, with the other P4 3.2's and the Athlon64 FX close behind. Keep in mind the Athlon64 FX is thise close while ONLY RUNNING AT 2.2GHz processing speed. When AMD releases faster versions, watch out.

In Lightwave 7.5 Raytracing, the Athlon64 FX is the clear winner.

In 3DStudio Max benchmarking the Intel P4 3.2EE is also still ahead.

Realistically, I believe intel is still ahead in the high-end processor war, unless true 64bit applications can start being released, in the which case the Athlon64 and 64FX will undoubtably prove to be the real winner. AMD is gambling on that, imho.

Intel's CPU that will support 64-bit apps will run at 3.4GHz on current P4 motherboards. Then it will require its own socket for higher speeds.

Soon, Athlon XP CPUs should drop into the low-end CPU category, whereas Durons will fall into today's K6-2 era.

jingato

ASKER

What is your on the best Xeon vs. the best Operton?
Also, if I where to go with dual Xeons, do you think it would be best to wait till Intel comes out with a 3.2GHz Xeon at 800fsb?
Does anybody know if and when that might happen?
Thanks
John

For server work, the Opterons win hands-down. For 3d rendering workstation apps, the Dual Xeon configuration should be faster.

The Xeon is currently available in both 3.06 and 3.2GHz versions, however it's designed to use the 533MHz system bus. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the 800MHz system bus is incredibly fast compared to 533, it's not. It is, in fact, marginal at best.

Truth be told, the new intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz EE (Extreme Edition) is a Xeon @ 800MHz, albeit with the ECC turned off. This is from tomshardware.com:

"Since Intel already has an inkling of what the outcome of the eternal duel between Athlon 64 and P4 will be, the manufacturer hastily introduced the "P4 Extreme" a few days ago at the IDF (Intel Developer Forum 2003) in San Jose. We were there: the processor is nothing more than an Intel Xeon with a P4 label tacked onto it, complete with a 2 MB L3 cache, now offered with FSB800 (200 MHz real FSB speed) and 3.2 GHz. To get the faster clock speed under control, the ECC checking in the CPU was unceremoniously deactivated. "

So in a way, it (the 800MHz Xeon 3.2) is already available.

jingato

ASKER

Thanks for the info. Now, If I go with the current Xeons, do you think the 3.2 GHz would be worth the extra money over the 3.06GHz. There is quite a price difference between the two. Do you think it is worth it?

Thanks
John

Personally, for saving a few seconds on a render, NO WAY. ;-)

But that's just me. ...And everybody who cares about saving a buck.

Just an fyi, intel ALWAYS charges more for the top line processor than they need to. They know people with too much money will buy it. It's overpriced, and as such it subsidizes the lower-cost processors. Intel has a history of actually LOSING money on their lower end processors, and this is how they offset that.

Let's be honest, does it really cost intel that much more to make a 3.2 than it does to make a 3.06?? Nope. But, people with money will, and do, pay the extra for it.

Keeps the bottom line happy while still being able to price low-end chips affordably.

jingato

ASKER

Thank your for all you input. I have decided to go with the ASUS PC-DL Deluxe motherboard with dual xeon 3.06. I just have one more question. The motherboard sais it works wirh DDR333. Would I be able to use DDR400 with it, but use it at 333 MHz.
Thanks again
John

You can use DDR400 on that particular board, but only at 333MHz speed.

It's a good way to go, considering the costs are only minimally higher compared to 333MHz RAM, and it gives you a slightly better upgrade path should you end up getting an 800MHz FSB CPU in the future.

I believe I have read something about DDR400 ram working slower than DDR333 ram when the 400's running at 333 speeds... I have DDR400 running at 266, but it's still a bit strange... How true is this? It's at CL2.

Thank you,
Radomir Jordanovic

cesar44

Radomir:

It should run marginally faster than DDR333: for more details, there is a good DDR review for you at Tom's Hardware Web site.

John:

Regarding the Intel Xeon CPU, besides the CPU performance, the total investiment should also be part of your decision (a major part, for the matter). Check current Xeon and Athlon 64 MB and CPU prices and see how much will you have to spend, because in ths case I believe your check-book should be the judge ....

Cesar

Ok. Thanks.