Computer Processor Question

[SlowwHand]

[Provost Harrison]

Oh it always goes back and forth between Intel and AMD and has done for many, many years now...doubtlessly AMD will regain the crown, only to be replaced by Intel a short time later, and then vice versa...

[Whaleboy]

Athlons are poor in comparison to the Core 2 Duo's, the C2D's are superior by an order of magnitude. They run faster and cooler, at a lower clock speed (and thus more overclockable).

If you're looking for the cheapest possible computer then don't even bother with an Athlon 64, go for an Intel Pentium D 805. They're not brilliant, but they're cheap, offering respectable dual-core performance, relatively low TDP for a Netburst chip. You can pick up a reasonable Intel945 motherboard for pittance (Asrock have a good model).

AMD's only recourse to the Core 2 Duo was to slash prices, which is a pretty poor long term strategy, especially considering that the cheapest C2D 6300 @ 1.86Ghz offers more bangs per buck than any Athlon 64.

I wouldn't be fooled by AMD's apparent bargains; if you're looking for bargain performance, go for a 6300. If you're looking for absolute cheapest price that isn't an AMD Sempron or Intel Celeron, go for a Pentium D 805.

There is no excuse to buy from AMD at the moment, unless you want to upgrade an existing Socket939 system with a cheap dual-core chip without changing your Mobo.

[Whaleboy]

Right now, top of the line Intel beats top of the line AMD, but costs more. I don't know if it's worth the price difference. For older cpus, you're better off with the AMD because they are both superior and are priced competitively. I'd go with the AMD offhand, but I haven't looked into it for a few years.

Actually a Core 2 Duo 6700 (their highest consumer-level model @ 2.67Ghz, I'm ignoring the highest C2D 6800 @ 2.93Ghz which is priced similarly to the FX-62) comprehensively beats AMD's top-of-the-range Athlon 64 FX-62, despite the latter being £300.00 more expensive. This is without overclocking, and by all accounts, the 6700 is a stellar overclocker (which means it'll run cool when non overclocked).

The other thing you need to consider is chipsets (north bridge and south bridge), as there are different capabilities for either cpu. For example, IIRC, nVida chipsets (not video cards) are only available with AMD. I don't know if Intel chipsets still allow you to use rambus memory (or eveny if rambus is worth it) but AMD can't use it, IIRC.

Rambus memory has been obsolete for years now, even for Intel platforms. Both platforms now can take identical DDR2. Older AMD socket 939 and 754 systems use DDR.

Also, there are nVidia nForce 4, nForce 570, and nForce590 chipsets available for Intel Core2Duo. Intels own 965 chipset is also a decent performer while Intels newer 975X boards support ATi Crossfire.... so all bases are covered in terms of multi-graphics support.

[Grandpa Troll]

Whaleboy

I am learning more and more everyday about the inner workings for PC's.

I am a Radeon Graphics Card Fan and an Athlon Processor Fan.

I have allways wondered why a PC has to "Overclock" when shouldnt they simply set the speed rating higher and leave it?

I was also wondering what detrimental effect overclocking has a a CPU?

Thanks in advance, just trying to learn

Gramps

BTW I am running an AMD 64 bit 3400 processor with a 2 gigs ram, and a VisionTek Radeon X1300 AGP 512 RAM

[Asher]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
I am a Radeon Graphics Card Fan and an Athlon Processor Fan.

I have allways wondered why a PC has to "Overclock" when shouldnt they simply set the speed rating higher and leave it?

The speed a chip can reach is a product of how "perfect" it was in its fabrication -- and the quality varies wildly. It's not uncommon for 30%+ of all manufactured chips to be tossed out because they can't reliably hit any product-specified clockspeed.

The rest of the chips are usually clocked at the highest possible frequency that's a model frequency. The chips that hit the highest frequencies are rarer, which is why they're priced higher.

In some situations the chip fabrication is so good, the chips can clock well above their shipping frequency (corresponding to a model number). The new Core 2 Duos, for instance, can overclock very well in general. The reason for this is Intel likely intentionally started with slower clockspeeds so they can keep releasing "new, faster" chips throughout the year.

I was also wondering what detrimental effect overclocking has a a CPU?

It increases heat output and, if you play with the voltage, increases power consumption. In the old days there was a risk you could "fry" your chip if it got too hot, but today the chips are smart enough to down-clock themselves if they get too hot or shut themselves off completely to prevent damage.

Too much heat can result in instability.

[Grandpa Troll]

I did some overclocking..seemed like you went to F8 or maybe F12 and then went and setup both sides to 133 from 100??

But that was 3 pc's ago..Im at piece with this as it is, until, maybe..maybe..a new one comes my way down the road

Thanks for explanation Asher

Gramps

[SlowwHand]

The speed a chip can reach is a product of how "perfect" it was in its fabrication -- and the quality varies wildly. It's not uncommon for 30%+ of all manufactured chips to be tossed out because they can't reliably hit any product-specified clockspeed.

Exactly right. It would be likely be the best sampling rate with consistency of quality. Any manufacturer would rather say their product lasts 7 years and have it last 10 than the opposite.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
I did some overclocking..seemed like you went to F8 or maybe F12 and then went and setup both sides to 133 from 100??

But that was 3 pc's ago..Im at piece with this as it is, until, maybe..maybe..a new one comes my way down the road

Thanks for explanation Asher

Gramps

You usually overclock in the BIOS (depending on your comp, F12/DEL/etc enters BIOS). Every commercial processor these days is what's called "locked", as a way to prevent some massive overclocking. What this means is the "multiplier" is set to a fixed number.

The multiplier is what determines the clockspeed of the CPU in conjunction with the system bus (or front-side bus, as it's also known). If the system bus is 200MHz and it has a multiplier of 10x, the clockspeed is 2000MHz.

Since the multiplier is usually locked, you adjust the system bus to increase the clockspeed. This has some other ramifications, such as memory bus speed and, in some cases, the AGP bus (for graphics chips).

The net effect is increasing the system bus speed is riskier in terms of stability than just the multiplier. On many motherboards, increasing the system bus speed increases the AGP speed as well -- and many video cards are very sensitive to the AGP speed so it could result in lots of lockups.

[Whaleboy]

Good questions Gramps!

As Asher has said, mostly the reasons why chips are rated at different speeds is to satisfy a different price point.

The clock speed is determined like this:

Consider the new Intel Core 2 Duo chips. The design of the chips themselves, called an architecture, are identical across the range. For example, the cheaper Core 2 Duo chips use an architecture called Allendale, while the faster Core 2 Duo chips use an architecture called Conroe (Allendale is a cut-down version of Conroe). When each chip is produced, they are "binned" according to their potential speed.

The speed itself is determined by the Front Side Bus (the interface between the CPU and the Northbridge) in Intel chips, and an onboard "multiplier". For example, the cheapest Core 2 Duo chips use an FSB of 266Mhz*, and a multiplier of 7, giving a resultant speed of 1.86Ghz. If you want to overclock your computer, you can either increase the FSB or the multiplier in the BIOS. In top-end chips, the multiplier is usually unlocked, so overclocking is simply a matter of increasing the multiplier as far as your chips cooling system and voltage can handle.

In cheaper chips, for obvious reasons, Intel and AMD lock their multiplier, or lock it so you can only adjust it downwards. Sometimes that's a good thing, because you can reduce the multiplier, increase the FSB (which improves memory performance if your system can handle it) and overclock your system without raping it with heat.

A good overclocker will use a combination of FSB, multiplier, a judicious use of voltage (all set in the BIOS of a decent motherboard) as well as decent cooling and quality hardware to achieve optimum results.

Ultimately, the aim is to push your components further so they give you performance equal to more expensive hardware.

The risks, as you correctly ask, can vary from the heat causing damage to components, over-volting your components which can cause problems, and instability caused by heat and a process called electro-mitigation (which occurs in hot microcircuitry, and is the process by which chips "decay").

*Intel uses a technology called Quad-Pumped Bus to multiply this speed by 4, which is the speed at which memory is accessed.

You're running a decent system, though you might want to invest in a better graphics card. I'd wait about 3/4 months for that, as the current generation of graphics hardware will plummet in price when the next generation is released. All depends what you're doing with it though. You're running a decent chip, though it's getting a little dated it wont struggle with most things you throw at it .

[Whaleboy]

On many motherboards, increasing the system bus speed increases the AGP speed as well -- and many video cards are very sensitive to the AGP speed so it could result in lots of lockup

Isn't is possible to lock the AGP speed as it is with PCI-X and PCI?

[Grandpa Troll]

I have an AGP and from what I have seen, the AGP is a thing of the past....

But, next go around, I will do a little more checking as to what is the best 3-4 year outlook before choosing motherboard

Gramps

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Isn't is possible to lock the AGP speed as it is with PCI-X and PCI?

Only on some motherboards.

[Provost Harrison]

Yep, all aboard the PCI Express...

[Whaleboy]

I have an AGP and from what I have seen, the AGP is a thing of the past....

To be fair, the performance benefits of PCI-express are quite limited at the moment. In other words, if you pick up a new AGP graphics card like a Geforce7800GS, it's going to perform similarly to the Geforce 7800GT (with deference to Asher on a previous thread, I've since seen a Gainward Geforce 7800GS in action and it is awesome ).

From what you've told me about your system, I'd suggest something like a Geforce 7600GS which will handle Civ4 nicely, as well as most modern games at reasonable detail settings. It wont break the bank either, you can pick one up in the UK for less than £100 now.