dual chip processors worht it?

[ssmallz]

So I was reading on CNET about how dual core processors can help when running multiple apps and really speed up the computer speed. Like the rest of you, I play 4 tables, mine 6 more, PT and PA-HUD are running and sometimes I try to make a video.

Right now I'm running this off of a laptop w/a 2001fp hooked up. My next step is to buy a tower and eventually get another 2001fp. The computer would pretty much be used exclusively for poker, w/occasional web surfing, and of course, iTunes so I have something to listen to when I play.

The chip I was looking at, after reading some of the other threads on this forum, was the AMD athlon 64 x2 4200. Is it worth it to spend this kind of $$ on a chip or should I just go bargain basement and get a 2 gigahertz celeron? What type of motherboard matches the athlon chip and will optimize its performance? I'm planning on going w/1 gig of ram, is there anything to take into consideration when buying ram or is it all pretty much the same. I prolly only need an 80 gig hard drive, recommendations appreciated. I doubt I need much in the way of video or sound cards and I'm sure I can find a cheap pair of speakers.

All recommendations are helpful and keep in mind that price is somewhat of a factor. I dont plan on skimping on anything but I don't want to spend excess $$ of stuff I won't utilize to the fullest. I'd like to save $$ where I can if possible.

[Bukem_]

For a hard drive I recommend 250 gb seagate

Or this one if you want to save some money 160 gb seagate

I don't think you will be doing anything that takes advantage of dual core, I'd recommend athlon 64 3700+

Ram is pretty much all the same, unless you are planning on overclocking, then you need high quality ram.

I'd recommend going to something like tech-forums.net, they can help you build what you want if you give them a budget and tell them what you will be using if for.

[chris b]

I have to agree with what was said, I dont think you will be doing anything that would see an advantage of a dual core processor. Your better off buying more ram with the saved $$. For ram, you might want to look at some low latency ram, but again I dont think youll need it.

I also have to agree that its probably more cost efficiant to get the bigger HD's. I mean you can probably get 150-150 gb for around 100 if you look for rebates and specials.

[ssmallz]

Why do I want a bigger hard drive if 80 gigs is plenty of space. I'm looking to mainly optimize the speed of the apps I'm running

[chris b]

I was looking at mainly the cost per gig for a bigger HD, but if 80gigs will do then go for it. If speed is a factor look at a HD with a bigger cache or the 10,000 rpm drives.

[Brom]

If you decide to get a dual core, then I recommend you get an X2 4400+ over the 4200+. It has 1MB of L2 cache rather than 512KB, which really helps when it comes to multitasking. If you don't want to spend that little bit extra for the 4400+, then just get the 3800+.

Also when it comes to RAM, AMD can not handle anything higher than PC3200 DDR400. They will be releasing a new motherboard around this summer that will be able to take DDR2 RAM, but until then you are limited to DDR1. If you plan on overclocking it then you could buy some higher RAM, but if not make sure you don't buy what you don't need.

[_dave_]

It is my thoughts that the dual-core processors are perfect for us Internet poker players - we are often running multiple programs at the same time, and performance issues can cost us pots in the rarest of situations.

In your case, if I understand your post correctly, you will be running enough tasks to notice significant speeed improvements over a single core Athlon64 - performance compared to the cheapest of Celerons will be noticable whatever you are doing.

I am thinking you could be doing the following all at once:

- 10 tables open on Party (playing on 4)
- PokerTracker auto-importing regularly
- PA-HUD refreshing also regularly
- Music playing (possibly also downloading) with iTunes
- Video being recorded (of poker tables?)

The main CPU-bound program here is likely PT's auto import, although PA-HUD can quite some CPU if you have lots of hands on players and a few filters set up. The second core in an Athlon64 X2 allows CPU intensive applications to run with less impact on the responsiveness of other programs.

Only you can really decide if the price is worth it. If you do go for an X2 chip (or any socket 939 Athlon64):

[ QUOTE ]
What type of motherboard matches the athlon chip and will optimize its performance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything based on the Nvidia nForce 4 chipset is recommended for top performance, currently a good one is this: ASUS A8N32 SLI Deluxe
This is a really expensive board, a cheaper alternative would be this one: ASUS A8N5X

Also, I have read that the new ATi chipset is supposed to be good. Not tried one yet, but will have done by next week: ASUS A8R-MVP

With motherboards, there are a vast number to choose from - I have linked only ASUS here, so as to compare like with like. Unless a design is horribly broken, it is the chipset + features that determine the performance of a motherboard. Also, when compared with the difference in CPUs, the performance difference between the slowest and the fastest motherboard is tiny.


It is always worth reading a few reviews when considering a potential new motherboard - a good site for this is www.anandtech.com They have many articles, and the forums there are kind of "the 2+2 of hardware".

[ QUOTE ]
I'm planning on going w/1 gig of ram, is there anything to take into consideration when buying ram or is it all pretty much the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

As others have said, cheap memory is fine unless you plan on overclocking.
For a socket 939 Athlon64, it is always worthwhile to make use of the "dual-channel" memory controller, as this will improve performance, especially if you have an X2. This means you should buy 2x 512MB (1GB) instead of a single 1GB stick, unless you plan on adding another 1GB soon.

I hope this helps,

dave.

[ssmallz]

Dave,

That post was awesome and just what I was looking for. Thank you so much for the time and info. I don't plan on overclocking the comp so the standard ram will be fine. I still have a Q on motherboards. Will I notice much of a difference between the cheaper motherboards vs the more expensive ones or will the dif be pretty negligable?

I'm also hearing conflicting points of views on the X2 4400 vs the 4200. I read in another thread on this site that 4200 was the way to go but another poster said the 4400 is much better. Any opinons on this matter?

[ssmallz]

Do you notice much a difference between a 7500rpm drive and 10k rpm drive? How big a cache is optimal? I think the big thing with this comp is that I want to find the right balance between price and speed. I'm looking to find the point where everything is pretty much close to optimum w/out blowing the price outta the water. I'm willing to spend the $$ as long as there are significant speed advantage and my apps run significantly smoother

[_dave_]

[ QUOTE ]

I still have a Q on motherboards. Will I notice much of a difference between the cheaper motherboards vs the more expensive ones or will the dif be pretty negligable?


[/ QUOTE ]

As far as performance goes, there is very little difference between the cheapest and the most expensive motherboards. Unless you are overclocking, which you have already stated you will not be. The main factor in the performance of a motherboard is the memory controller, which is irrelevant to the AMD K8 series CPU - it is built in to the CPU. With an older CPU such as the AthlonXP, Pentium4, Celeron etc. the memory controller is in the chipset - amotherboard component, and differences between boards can be quite pronounced.
There is a small amount of chipset based variation in the speed of AMD64 boards, but at standard clock speeds the performance of any board will be hard to differentiate from another.

The main differences between variously priced motherboards are the features & extras offered: the most expensive of boards will offer the full complement of the latest connections and expandability options - SATA 2 ports, FireWire ports, 10 USB 2.0 ports, 8 channel sound, Gigabit LAN (maybe two GB LAN ports) and so on. An expensive board wil usually come with a generous complement of cables, power adapters and software also. The cheaper options have less available - Firewire is usually the first to go, maybe only 6 USB 2.0 ports (probably still more than enough), 5.1 sound, 10/100 LAN etc. Maybe only 2 PCI slots rather than the usual 3 (or 5 on an older AGP based board). The package probably includes only a few cables - a floppy cable, 1 IDE and 1 SATA (if the board supports SATA). Software will be minimal - A Driver CD is certain, anything else is an unexpected bonus.


[ QUOTE ]

I'm also hearing conflicting points of views on the X2 4400 vs the 4200. I read in another thread on this site that 4200 was the way to go but another poster said the 4400 is much better. Any opinons on this matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is purely a matter of the price you are willing to pay, obviously 4400+ > 4200+ > 3800+.

It is worth comparing the stats for these CPUs - I am quoting prices from newegg - being from the UK, I have no idea if this is good or not, newegg seems to be an often recommended US shop.

3800+ 2 * 2.0GHz / 512KB cache/core - $295*
4200+ 2 * 2.2GHz / 512KB cache/core - $362
4400+ 2 * 2.2GHz / 1024KB cache/core - $460

* ATM, this 3800+ is listed as "one-day-sale" on newegg, I don't know how much more the 3800+ X2 normally retails for.

Looking at this, here is what I'm thinking. 3800+ - the cheapest X2 processor. Probably enough, but it's only $60 more for the 4200+, which has an extra 10% clock speed. Then 4200+ -> 4400+, $100 extra, same clock speed, for double the cache memory - that's quite a jump in price. I'd really need to know how much the increased cache improves performance to decide if this is worth it.

I really do not know how much the extra chache helps It is widely known that more is better, but I do not know by how much. I am of the opinion that it matters more for applications such as 3D games, and heavy-duty math type programs. It is certainly better when the entire application+data can fit inside the cache. In this case, the CPU that can contain the entire program in it's cache will seriously outperform one that can't, but this situation is very rare. It is most often seen with benchmarking programs. More commonly, data will have to be stored in RAM, and even more commonly, data will not fit in RAM and will have to be stored on hard disk. I am ill informed on this though, and have never used such a CPU, so have no real world experience. I have built many 3800+ systems, and a few 4200+ - They are always impressively smooth, and I need to get one for myself [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Soon enough I will...



dave.