amd or pentium (2 Viewers)

[Generator]

If you had of posted that 'shoot in and out' comment in the non-school forum...
I have a p4. I didn't have a choice, but eh, how can I complain?

 

[McLake]

Originally posted by Huy
i'm going to sway with the p4c's

*looks at his computer*

800fsb, o/c to 1ghz+
stock 2.4c northwood o/c to 3.3

btw, air cooling
best bang for your buck

if you're low on the dough, go with amd
be sure to get a proper hsf

im running on a 2.4c though i've got a 3 (stock) o/ced to the same 3.5 mark. it goes well with a quiet case (never goes past 25C idle and 35C under load, great stuff)

Translates:

i'm going to sway with the Pentium 4's.

*looks at his computer*

800Mhz Front Serial Bus, overclocked to over 1GHz
stock 2.4c northwood o/c to 3.3 (No idea what this means)

btw, air cooling
best bang for your buck

if you're low on the dough, go with amd
be sure to get a proper hsf

im running on a 2.4c though i've got a 3 (stock) o/ced to the same 3.5 mark. it goes well with a quiet case (never goes past 25C idle and 35C under load, great stuff)

 

[Huy]

Originally posted by McLake
Translates:

i'm going to sway with the Pentium 4's.
= i've always thought that heat dissapation was important, so i'm an intel 'fanboy'. it's reliability over skimping on any money.

*looks at his computer*

800Mhz Front Serial Bus, overclocked to over 1GHz
= quad pumped fsb, the stock (retail) packages come with 800mhz fsb's, but i've overclocked mine to 1ghz+
while still maintaining all default core voltages (1.49v)

stock 2.4c northwood o/c to 3.3 (No idea what this means)
= it's an original 2.4C (canterwood) cpu, which has been overclocked to over 3.3ghz (i'm currently running 3.3 flat, though my peak clocking has been 3.522ghz with air cooling, no extra necessities such as water cooling).

btw, air cooling
best bang for your buck
= your standard antec case with truepower 380w, this might seem a little low for my needs but it's the new 'sonata' piano black casing (www.antec-inc.com), it's cool

if you're low on the dough, go with amd
be sure to get a proper hsf
= amd's are known for their high temperatures, so be sure to buy a proper heatsink/fan on the baby, go for the volcano series.

im running on a 2.4c though i've got a 3 (stock) o/ced to the same 3.5 mark. it goes well with a quiet case (never goes past 25C idle and 35C under load, great stuff)

= in a while as the prices decrease, the new prescott's will debut, further reducing the previous line of cpu's, my 3.06ghz (with HT) is o'ced to 3.5ghz, which isn't much of an improvement over my 2.4C.

HT (hyperthreading) creates two logical cpu's, so each process (and thread) divides itself into two in effect, giving you two cpu's for the price of one. (2x3.5 = 7ghz ), throw in a xeon mobo with the same overclocked procs and you've got a beast

for those of you interested,

abit IC7-g mobo
4x512mb corsair pc3200 ddr400 (maxed out my ram)
any p4 "C" (canterwood .13 micron) - though o'cing capabilities will depend on your ram (so don't buy cheap samsung/kingmax ones hehe)

800mhz fsb with HT
jack up the fsb, your ram'll handle it (again, make sure it's high quality)

mmm i'll stop ranting

 

[-=«MÄLÅÇhïtÊ»=-]

oic

but with the hyperthreading, that's juz in theory right? Like in real life ur comp aint running twice as fast. And plus since the tech is still new, programs arent designed for it, so it has no effect?

 

[Huy]

Originally posted by -=MLhtʻ=-
oic

but with the hyperthreading, that's juz in theory right? Like in real life ur comp aint running twice as fast. And plus since the tech is still new, programs arent designed for it, so it has no effect?

its not a physical processor per se, but you do get "two" cpu's from the one 'physical' cpu.

if your os and applications were created and designed for HT, then it will work.

to date, only windows xp +sp1 supports HT, and i believe windows server 2003 will work also, i'm not too sure about longhorn alphas, but it will/should

programs such as photoshop7 and i believe some newer games will support HT.

 

[:: ck ::]

wow huy~ u know ur computers

ive heard abt hyperthreading wasnt really sure wot it meant thx~

 

[Person]

correct me if im wrong but i thought HT just means running at actual clock speed cuz the previous p4 cpus without HT runs at 1.4ghz while the AMDS runs faster, eg. a AMD 3200 runs at 2.2ghz actual speed. now im confused.....

 

[freaking_out]

don't worry i'more confused now then before i started this thread.

 

[Beaky]

no HT is just a "Theriotical" second processor that in "theory" should deliver double the proccessor speed of a non HT cpu. HT atm is a marketing gimic, but as time goes on, HT will become more and more useful as more appz and O/S will use it...

Its quite similar to AMD's 64 bit processors... The existing software cannot utilize its full potential, but it will kick ass soon!

AS for 3200 en shit... its AMD way of saying "Our cpu that runs at a clock speed of 2.4Ghz delivers the same perfomance as a Intel 3.2 P4....

AMD work on Archectecture rather than clock speed

 

[freaking_out]

i hate those marketing gimmicks, some of them even make a 486 look like a "state of the art system".

 

[Huy]

"correct me if im wrong but i thought HT just means running at actual clock speed cuz the previous p4 cpus without HT runs at 1.4ghz while the AMDS runs faster, eg. a AMD 3200 runs at 2.2ghz actual speed. now im confused....."

HT processors will run at "actual clock speed" -- but when you said that the previous p4 cpu's without HT ran at 1.4ghz, i don't know where you got that from.

the previous p4's which were released w/o HT still ran at clock speed. e.g. a 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.53ghz p4 without HT technology still ran at 2, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.53 respectively.

AMDs *used to* be the better performer in the intel/amd 'war'. using your example, the XP3200+ had only confused customers and 'tricked' the naive into thinking it was 3.2GHz (or "3200MHz"). this is just a performance rating, which is now obsolete since the P4's (especially the p4C's with 800mhz fsb's and HT) are beating them in terms of benchmarks and tests, but it's all about personal preference and how much you're willing to spend on your computer, some prefer AMD, some prefer Intel, that's fine with me -- as long as it works

here is an older article on AMD's PR (performance rating)
but it gives all the info you'd really need,
http://www.upgradingandrepairingpcs.com/articles/2001/upgrade10_01_03.asp

Originally posted by Beaky
no HT is just a "Theriotical" second processor that in "theory" should deliver double the proccessor speed of a non HT cpu. HT atm is a marketing gimic, but as time goes on, HT will become more and more useful as more appz and O/S will use it...

AS for 3200 en shit... its AMD way of saying "Our cpu that runs at a clock speed of 2.4Ghz delivers the same perfomance as a Intel 3.2 P4....

yes, HT doesn't give you "two physical processors" for the price of one. but in "practice" -- it gives you two. giving double the processor speed? that's somewhat sketchy, e.g. paying for a 3.40GHz prescott doesn't give you a "theoretical" 6.8GHz processor (one or two ).

it just means that non-HT processors wont be able to perform twice as many threads in parallel. so compared with non-HT processors, a HT processor will execute "twice as many" threads in parallel IF and only IF the code is optimised for HT (note, it doesnt mean you can load your old pc games in half the time it would normally take).

HT will only become "more useful as time goes on" when the 64-bit computing era comes into play, as you've mentioned. even apple's OSX 10.3 (codename panther) set to be released in september won't be fully 64-bit. microsoft's windows xp is 32-bit, though there IS a 64-bit version out there in it's alpha stages.

for more reading:
http://www.intel.com/technology/hyperthread/index.htm

 

[Rahul]

wats this business about the 32 and 64 bit???

 

[Beaky]

mmmmm 64 bit computing....

 

[:: ck ::]

Originally posted by Rahul
wats this business about the 32 and 64 bit???

u should know u do software design!!!

 

[Rahul]

technically yes!!!

but i am not expertely computer literate, as in like HT, i hadnt heard of it till i read this thread.

 

[:: ck ::]

ah ok i didnt understand it till this thread either

i would have if i still kept reading those pc magazines like how i did in year 7-9 but they r getting too expensive for me now

 

[Huy]

"To make a long story short, Hyper-Threading Technology allows an operating system to view a single physical processor as if it were two logical processors, thus increasing the number of simultaneous threads that the processor can execute."

which was my point before, creating 2 logical cpu's from the 1 physical cpu.

a nice page on 32/64bit cpu's
http://portals.devx.com/Intel/Article/7013/0/page/1
that "should" cover most of it rahul

here's a more technical page on 32 and 64bit computing.
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-1.html

 

[:: ck ::]

out of curiosuity huy are u in uni - wot course?

if not then wot course are u planning to do

u sound like a very technical person

 

[Huy]

Originally posted by :: ryan.cck ::
out of curiosuity huy are u in uni - wot course?

if not then wot course are u planning to do

u sound like a very technical person

i'm still a school student.
(i hope this doesn't change your opinion of me )

but to answer your question, i'm hoping to get into medicine/unsw (if i don't stuff up the umat)
-- second preference goes to dentistry/usyd.

computers are an interest/hobby of mine, it's not my career choice. though i do spend a lot of time with computers and using them (is 20hrs+ a day okay? j/k! ... my back hurts though)

thanks for the kind words though ryan

 

[-=«MÄLÅÇhïtÊ»=-]

hey hey!
ordered new comp 2day

amd 2700+ xp
256 ddr ram
80gig hdd
geforce4 mx440
integrated sound
cordless keyboard and optical mouse

$740 =p