Dual cores? what to do..

Hmmm.. a 920 overclocked or a dual core opty/or X2 overclocked for high end gaming and serious heavy muti-tasking? like a hard core game and browsing for "shortcuts", extracting a file, so on and so forth..
including the current info on the good overclocks on the 920 as of late. (with decent cooling.. say water)

I think if your into killer cooling (extream water or phase) the 920 just might be a better gamer.. at 4.7-4.8 GHz possibly+ or so..

ahhh when is conroe comming! Im not impressed with the stats on the 90nm AM2 news so far.. maybe the 65nm AM2's stats will be better.. (no clue on the actuall performace wich might be steller but at what cost?)

I want some future proofing.. and it seems CPU's are on a threahold of new tech that is unusuall (maybe all the intel PR is pushing this nonsence and I should settle for the dual core opty or try to get the best out of a 920 right now but I am willing to wait a few Q's to get something if it will be signifigantly better)

I have no rig to build on.. so that might make things easier..

any ideas?

I really can't comment on the Intel's as I haven't used one since my old Celeron 950. I can tell you that the Opti dual cores are exceptional.They OC quite well and don't need a lot of juice. That said, there will be a lot of new things coming out in the next year. The AMD 65 AM2's will be the next big jump for them as they will incorporate a new process developed with IBM which will bring some good speed improvements. Whether you should wait or not is up to you. I decided to go for the Opti, figuring I would not be doing any major upgrade till next year when some of these new things are out and are bug free, not to mention the price will have come down as well.

thanks for the reply rseven..
had a thought..
since Im starting with nothing here..

and DDR2 will likely drop then go up in price, once AM2 gets a foot hold in the market place and that would be when I would think about going AMD

how about a system that takes DDR2 now? so I can forgo purchasing DDR ram in the first place?

yes the opty dual cores have great results.. from what Ive seen you need a dual core intel to clock over 4ghz to match it, maybe not so much for games but who knows at this point when you OC them (the reviews really dont take that into consideration).. but it's looking like the presslers are doing that now, maybe not quite the gamer. and the 920 is cheaper then a dual opty (even cheaper then the 165 from what I remember of the pricing, Im getting a little dizzy with reaserch)

so will Intel come out with something in the next couple of Q's that will be a better buy then the pressler 920? that is if I do deside to go with the skip DDR idea (Im running some sweet PC100 in this notbook LOL )

from what it seems AMD is shooting for higher prices with the dual cores in AM2 format for some reason and Im not likeing it (they seem to be killing the lower proc's with not enough cach) but maybe Im just a speculating they arnt even out yet.. LOL

so if something like the pressler 920 comes out of the AM2 camp soon maybe Ill have another DDR2 choice.. Im sure there would be other options in the Intel camp but that one seems to shine to me now..

this idea only gets me to possibly replacing the mobo and proc if Im so inclined later.. I dont know if thats much of a deal or not..

yea.. any socket upgrade will require a mobo upgrage if you want a good system though.. so Im starting to come to a conclusion.. see whats comming soon in the DDR2 camp..

There are two reasons why AMD has more expensive DC's than Intel. First, it is a much more sophisticated design that is clearly superior to Intel's, and second, they could not keep up with demand for a cheap dual core as they just don't have the plants to do it. I think that DDR2 will get cheaper as production ramps up and DDR is pulled back. As always there willbe price spikes along the way when there are market shortages. BTW, the Opti 165's are just under $300 these days.

Like most of us, you would probably do well to wait on any upgrade, but waiting is not something most of us do very well.

rseven said:

There are two reasons why AMD has more expensive DC's than Intel. First, it is a much more sophisticated design that is clearly superior to Intel's, and second, they could not keep up with demand for a cheap dual core as they just don't have the plants to do it.

Click to expand...

the first reason you gave is pure hyperbole.

the second reason you gave, i think hits one of the major issues right on the head. they simply cannot make enough cpu's to sell them super cheap like they used to.

The Intel design was pretty much slapped together to compete with AMD and steal some of their good press. It has never faired well in comparisons with the superior AMD. They even flat out lied about it when they did there first press presentations. That's not hyperbole, that's a fact.

take a look in the intel section, and read about the numerous 9xx's that are over (some well over) 4ghz on air and water.

a 920 is quite cheap compared to x2's, can overclock nicely (or so it seems so far), run in ddr2 mobo's already, and are 65nm.

it certainly is a very viable option for anyone interested in a dual core, don't be so close minded.

I never said it was not a viable option. I only said that it's design and performance are inferior to the AMD's.

well you should state that as your opinion, not actual fact. the truth of the matter is, your last experience with an intel rig was a celeron 950. i don't think you are qualified to say what's better than what.

btw, neither am i, as i've never used ANY dual core. nor do i have any experience with any a64's. nf2 and 2500+ was the last experience i had. but notice i'm not slagging amd. i think both companies offer great chips. i think intel offers great chipsets. i think the 920's are very impressive. I think i would rather have a 920 system than an x2 system.

notice how i stated everything as my opinion. ^^

1. rseven is correct on this issue
2. Everyone knows that intel rushed dual core so they could compete w/AMD

evancold said:

1. rseven is correct on this issue
2. Everyone knows that intel rushed dual core so they could compete w/AMD

Click to expand...

ohhh ok. so it was a rushed, slapped together job. that makes it all the more impressive that 9xx's are now competing with x2's.

There are some truth to the fact that Intel rushed their FIRST dual core attempt to market. That is the Pentium D 8XX series. Personally, I never seriously considered getting one of these. They were two Prescott 90nm cores cobbled together and didn't O/C that well and ran pretty warm.

But, that's ancient history now. The latest Intel dual core release is the brand new Presler Pentium D 9XX series that uses two better integrated 65nm "Cedar Mill" cores and sports 2X2M on-die cache. These babies are awesome. I now own a 940 and have gotten wonderful benches out of it. Another forum bro has the cheaper 920 which nearly equals mine in clock speed and benchies.

Go over to the Intel CPU section and check out the latest. By the way, these new Presler dual cores are a fraction of the price compared to Opteron. Most of the benches I've run so far has beat overclocked Opterons too. I wholeheartedly invite anyone with an Opteron to post their PCmark2004 scores and I'll gladly post mine.

This is just the stepping stone on the way to Conroe. When the Conroe is released in mid year, the old Netburst achitecture is finally gone. You'll see a totally amazing CPU then. I think AMD is 6 months to a maybe year behind in 65nm technology.

Anyway, back on topic. The Intel 920 is a super low budget dual core solution that might not beat the AMD in every benchmark, but overclocked vs. overclocked, it will certainly win in lots of apps. An excellent bang for the buck and great overclocker.

I prefere the X2 as a processor, but would still get an Intel for the chipset UNLESS...

They run so hot, that I don't believe I could do any overclocking on my rig. I cool my rig with 1 nexus fan at 5v for the case exaust, and another at 5v to cool down the processor.

Anyone with a pressler want to guess what kind of speeds that would be good for?

I think there was a loss of information about Intell dual cores.. Yes I know the old 8XX series dual core Intels were not for me but these new 920's are looking like a sweet alternitive to a opty 165 rig to me.. Im just curious what the diffence will be in gaming and multitasking with these setups OC'd (once a 920 has been well burned in and stable to compare to a good opty 165 rig with the same video card)
that and what will AMD and Intel bring soon that will compare with these two chips (the Intel is looking good for DDR2 and Intel chipsets/ yes I like me some intel chipset action but its not #1 on my list)
sorry to get a argument going by asking this question (I should have clarified that I was not intrested in the first batch of Intel dual cores but I thought everyone knew what the 920 pressler was, my bad)

dropadrop said:

I prefere the X2 as a processor, but would still get an Intel for the chipset UNLESS...

They run so hot, that I don't believe I could do any overclocking on my rig. I cool my rig with 1 nexus fan at 5v for the case exaust, and another at 5v to cool down the processor.

Anyone with a pressler want to guess what kind of speeds that would be good for?

Click to expand...

What HS are you using? Im guessing it would need to be a top of the line one..
I dont think Ive seen anything in the intel forum to compare low flow through the case (5V seems would be a serious Volt mod. that most people wouldnt do to there fans.. I could see 7V as being more likely)
From what Ive read.. 4GHz doesnt sound that tough even in that situation with a top of the line HS..

and I dont know how relevent that is to my question.. Im more intrested in the opty 165 and wouldnt be intrested in running my fans at 5V in that case opty's run hot (and do well with higher temperatures because they were designed for it)

I have an X2 4800+ but as far as deciding on a dual core rig for you. I would recommend an Opteron, save some money and gain excellent Overclockability for the future. If the time comes and you want to upgrade to the new DDR2 or DDR3 architecture and slot designs you wont be in the hole $500 to $1000 on an X2 4800+,4400+ or FX-60. Opteron would be perfect for your needs, overclock one to 2.6 stable and you are good as golden. As far as Intel vs. AMD in this selection, the choice is yours. I am coming from a P4 single core 3.2 OC'ed @ 4Ghz air cooled. Now I am an AMD guy. Good luck with whatever you decide.

Dom

Nasgul said:

And I don't PRIME jack, the name INTEL says it all.

Click to expand...

Not testing an overclocked system for stability is foolhearty no matter what kind of system you run. The bottom line is you don't know what's stable without testing it.

when I was talking about more expensive I was refering to the AM2 format (they have only high stock clockers with more cach in dual core from the specs Ive seen comming)

thanks for the info on High end gaming Nasgul.. it clears that side of my thought process up..

but I use alot of processing power elsewere (I like to do some vid. converting, .avi to .mpg say.. so the more power the better) this would go with multi tasking because I would love to be able to do something while doing this, in doing it previously the computer was down I cant do anything else..
this is just one heavy CPU task I do.. I have done others and would do them more often If I get a rig that would support it..
I have seriously consided SMP before.. no joke.. and if two 940 dualies would do a better job then I would go that route.. (and I know the prospects of OCing isnt good but I would do the homework on the MSI board that has some promise)
Ive looked into Xeon's as well.. Im not very informed yet on that prospect..
I do think the single dual cores might be a better bang for the buck though thats kinda why Im looking into this..

I still think it favors the 920 right now.. but..

I am willing to wait for the next best thing if its within a couple of quarters (heck July wouldnt be bad IMO) If I can get something better suted to my wants then the 920..

this could include conroe or AM2 65nm procs.
any news on when these will be coming out?

greenmaji said:

(heck July wouldnt be bad IMO)conroe

Click to expand...

conroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroeconroe

By July Conroe is supose to be out. Conroe will probaly kill every netburst chip. Not sure how it will relate to AMD but it is supose to come very close in preformce/watt and come at faster speeds.

If you can wait, wait.

Because of AMD limited manufacturing facilities and the high cost of switching over to 65nm, I don't think that will happen till Q1, 07, but that's just my guess. I don't have any idea how the Conroe will stack up against an AM2 90nm dual core, and I doubt that anyone really knows that yet.