670 (3.8ghz) or 940 (3.2D) or 570 (3.8ghz no 64bit)?

richklein · Jan 18, 2006

Hi,

I am going to buy one of these chips with a ASUS MB P5WD2 Premium and a 2 gigs of the PQI 5400 DDR 2. Probably a 150gig raptor as well and a ATI Radeon X1800XL 256MB 256-bit GDDR3.

I think the mobo, ram, hard drive, & video card should be pretty decent. I will be using mostly office type applications & will be doing some gaming as well.

I am a little unsure about the differences between dual core & 64 bit processors. Do I need to use WinXP 64 with this setup? Will it speed things up or slow things down? Do I want dual core even if the processor is slower? I mostly use office apps, email, web browsing, etc. I tend to have 20 windows open at a time (15 web windows, email, word, etc) but I thought the ram would handle those.

Whats the appropriate processor for me (no overclocking on this system - maybe a little bit ... )

Thanks,
Rich

batboy · Jan 18, 2006

You will need to use WinXP 64 if you want to run true 64 bit, but these CPUs run fine with XP Pro too. I love my Presler and would recommend one, but the single core processors with Hyperthreading do fine for multitasking too.

Sentential · Jan 18, 2006

Your best bet for overclocking right now is not the 940 but instead the 920. Save the cash and buy some games in its place

richklein · Jan 19, 2006

batboy said:
You will need to use WinXP 64 if you want to run true 64 bit, but these CPUs run fine with XP Pro too. I love my Presler and would recommend one, but the single core processors with Hyperthreading do fine for multitasking too.

Is there a benefit to using winxp 64? Is it faster with the 64bit processor?

I thought it broke down to:

3.2 Dual Core / 64 Bit
3.8 single core / 64 bit
3.8 single core / 32 bit

Do the 3.8's have hyper threading?

richklein · Jan 19, 2006

Sentential said:
Your best bet for overclocking right now is not the 940 but instead the 920. Save the cash and buy some games in its place

I am not really looking to overclock. Probably when I get it out of the box, I will OC it for kicks, but for everyday, I wont be OCing at all.

batboy · Jan 19, 2006

Right, the 570 you listed is the only one that don't support 64-bit. I have not seen any head to head comparisons, but 64-bit programs are supposed to run a little faster. Trouble is, not many 64-bit programs out yet. Of course you need the 64-bit OS to even run 64-bit apps. Yes, both of the single core CPUs you listed have hyperthreading. I sent you a PM.

richklein · Jan 19, 2006

Got the pm, thanks!

So if I have win64 (I have it from being in the MS action pack), would that be a good thing to install with a 64bt OS? If I use regular 32bit office 2003? Do 32 bit games work find one 64bit winxp?

steveeb · Jan 19, 2006

If it was me I'd buy the 920. The 820 & 920 D's are the best overclockers for the money IMO.

batboy · Jan 19, 2006

If you already have the 64-bit version of Windows, then by all means get a CPU that supports 64-bit. Hard to beat these new Presler 9XX series processors.

richklein · Jan 19, 2006

Hrmm, I am more confused now than before, I thought that the 3.8 prescot (670) was faster than the 3.2 presler (940)? Again, for non overclocking in normal office applications.

hUMANbEATbOX · Jan 19, 2006

why even consider the 670, when you could get a 661?

richklein · Jan 19, 2006

I dont see the 661 listed on newegg.com (where i am shopping). what processor is it?

richklein · Jan 19, 2006

ooh again, I am not planning on overclocking. I will play from time to time, but I want to leave the chips on their default speeds. Thats why I am trying to figure out what is faster by default

maxxpehling · Jan 19, 2006

you could go to mwave to get a 661, if you have the hard cash to buy one now thats the way to go. It seems like you want a nice fast multi threaded 24/7 CPU, the 661 is EXTREMELY cool, way cooler than prescotts from what I've seen, and will run plenty fast for you. Newegg should have the 661 anytime now but there are other very reliable shops to get one from.

richklein · Jan 19, 2006

One question, is the 661 a dual core, or just a cooler hyperthreading processor? Is it 64bit?

I admit i get a little confused when reading the 64bit, DC, HT, etc. Is there one chip that has all these features? I am trying to keep the processor under 600 bucks.

The 3.8 prescott with 64 bit was my number one choice, but I am afraid I am falling into the marketing of the dual core (whatever taht really does). i have had a HT 3.2 NW for a few years & I dont really know what benefit I get from teh HT.

maxxpehling · Jan 19, 2006

the only 64 bit dc ht is the 955, which is 1300$ ;-D the best bet is a 661, it is 64 bit *for the future applications* and hyper threading which is "2 logical proccesors" I would recomend a cedar mill 661 over a presler 940 because the 661 runs SO much cooler and will be a better day to day proc. can answer more if you need me to.

richklein · Jan 20, 2006

sure any further explaination would be appreciated.

The 670 (prescot 3.8) is hyperthreaded & 64 bit but runs very very hot.

The 661 (CM @ 3.6) is hyperthreaded & 64 bit but runs very cool, so it has more better day to day (plus I assume it would be easy to get a very stable 3.8ghz out of it).

if running 64 bit windows with 32bit apps, is there any benefit at all?

Is that roughly it?

How new are these ceder mill chips? When are they due out at places like zzf or newegg?

maxxpehling · Jan 20, 2006

they are a week old, people are getting 5ghz on AIR cooling with a 661 so I'd say 3.8 isnt even a question just as long as you HAVE a heatsink... here it is at tigerdirect
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1645061&CatId=1552
I'm not really up to date on 64 bit, microsoft has a new OS coming out called vista, not sure when. but obviously it won't hurt to have the 64 bit as it appears to be the next generation software so it would just be future proofing. and as a day to day proc the 661 is your best bet hands down, unless of course you want to wait 6 months for a conroe, and if anybody else cares to elaborate on that subject feel free to as I have no knowledge of conroes

proth · Jan 21, 2006

If you're going to run stock most of the time and do the occasional overclocking, I'd get the 940. Dual cores will speed up windows tasks like running antivirus while browsing, running other apps, etc....The 940 is also future proofed as more applications will take advantage of dual core processors. Although the 940 doesn't have the maximum "stock" clock, it will seem like the fastest when using the computer the "normal" way, not like the way we "un-normal" people use it.... Then you can crank it up to 5GHz when you want to play.... The 940 overclocks so easy, I'd set it @ 4 or 4.2 GHz and let it run 24/7

Just my opinion.

CoreGamer · Jan 21, 2006

If you dont understand Dual cores, its basically like errr running two graphics cards in Sli, the dual core CPU's have..well basically 2 Processor chips on one. Of course a dual core 3 Ghz isnt really 6 Ghz, due to bandwidth and such, but I think thats as "basic" as I can put it

670 (3.8ghz) or 940 (3.2D) or 570 (3.8ghz no 64bit)?

Member

Senior Moment

Contributing Member

Member

Member

Senior Moment

Member

Member

Senior Moment

Member

Contributing Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads