Gotta keep it under $200 total

Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:51:27 -0500
> Dave <no@way.dude> wrote:
>
>> I have an aging Intel 2.4GHz P4 system at the moment that desperately
>> needs upgrading, however (as usual) funds are limited. I have to
>> keep things under $200.
>>
>> After a lot of research, I am looking at the following and was
>> looking for opinions:
>>
>> GIGABYTE GA-M78SM-S2H AM2+/AM2 NVIDIA GeForce 8200 HDMI Micro ATX
>> Intel Motherboard
>>
>> G.SKILL 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual
>> Channel Kit
>>
>> AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Brisbane 2.5GHz Socket AM2 65W Dual-Core
>> Processor - Retail
>>
>> Newegg links are:
>>
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128340
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231098
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103212
>>
>> Total with shipping is $192.56
>>
>> I'm going with this motherboard because I already have a Gigabyte
>> motherboard and I've been happy with it. It has dual onboard video
>> to run both my monitors until I can afford a PCIe graphics card. My
>> primary HDD is already a SATA drive, so I can keep my two IDE DVD
>> burners.
>>
>> Once I get the system up and running, I plan to sell my old parts and
>> buy a dedicated video card and more memory.
>
>
> I can't believe nobody pointed out the obvious yet. This is not an
> upgrade! You need to increase clock speed to upgrade. You are moving
> from 2.4 to 2.5GHz, and spending $200 to do it. As I think someone
> else pointed out, you will also need a new power supply. Minimum $60
> for new power supply.
>
> You need to save your money if you want to UPgrade. The system you
> propose to build might be a TAD faster, once you've added the dedicated
> video card. But if your current system has 1.5GB or more of RAM, you
> will not notice a performance increase at all, even AFTER adding the
> dedicated video card!
>
> Oh, and with power supply and video card your total will be about $350
> or more, just to get you back where you are now. -Dave

And what, pray tell, does the "4800+" mean ? It is the AMD P.R.
rating, comparable to a P4 processor. It means the machine is
"twice as fast" as the previous P4, as 4800/2400 = 2. The
reason for this, is the architecture of Athlon64 (and Core2 for
that matter), have an IPC which is 1.5x or more of the P4
architecture.

Note that the P.R. rating system is fallible, and there will
obviously be pathological cases you can come up with. But the
purpose of the AMD P.R. system, was to make it easy for customers
to compare AMD products, to Intel products. The processors do not
have identical performance. One blows away the other.

To give another concrete example. I own a P4 running at slightly
more than 3GHz. I own an AthlonXP processor, a 3200+ in a S462
socket. The 3200+ number is the P.R. rating. The actual clock rate
is 2200MHz. If we were comparing clock signals only, my P4 is a bit
less than 50% faster. Yet the performance of the two processors is
almost identical (tested via gaming). So in this case, the P.R. rating,
in my estimation, is a good estimator for comparing the two
machines. Even though the P4 has a faster clock, that does not
equate to faster performance.

That is why we didn't "point out the obvious".

Paul

In article <20080621114140.888a60d9.noway@nohow.not>, noway@nohow.not
says...
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:51:27 -0500
> Dave <no@way.dude> wrote:
>
> > I have an aging Intel 2.4GHz P4 system at the moment that desperately
> > needs upgrading, however (as usual) funds are limited. I have to
> > keep things under $200.
>
> I can't believe nobody pointed out the obvious yet. This is not an
> upgrade! You need to increase clock speed to upgrade. You are moving
> from 2.4 to 2.5GHz, and spending $200 to do it.

So, I will get ZERO benefit in 3DS Studio Max and Adobe After Effects by
moving from my 2.4GHz P4 to 2.5GHz AMD 64-bit X2?

Did Tomshardware get it wrong on their CPU chart then? According to
their render test, the AMD X2 CPU I selected was 9 times faster in their
3DS Max render test...

Since you are obviously more of an expert than I, could you please
contact them and inform them they are wrong?

Thanks!

when you get the cash get a sata drive for it, check on the gigabyte site
for the drivers you may need that do not come with the board if any.
"Dave" <no@way.dude> wrote in message
news:MPG.22c4d6f628dfff49989682@news.west.cox.net. ..
>I have an aging Intel 2.4GHz P4 system at the moment that desperately
> needs upgrading, however (as usual) funds are limited. I have to keep
> things under $200.
>
> After a lot of research, I am looking at the following and was looking
> for opinions:
>
> GIGABYTE GA-M78SM-S2H AM2+/AM2 NVIDIA GeForce 8200 HDMI Micro ATX Intel
> Motherboard
>
> G.SKILL 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual
> Channel Kit
>
> AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Brisbane 2.5GHz Socket AM2 65W Dual-Core
> Processor - Retail
>
> Newegg links are:
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128340
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231098
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103212
>
> Total with shipping is $192.56
>
> I'm going with this motherboard because I already have a Gigabyte
> motherboard and I've been happy with it. It has dual onboard video to
> run both my monitors until I can afford a PCIe graphics card. My
> primary HDD is already a SATA drive, so I can keep my two IDE DVD
> burners.
>
> Once I get the system up and running, I plan to sell my old parts and
> buy a dedicated video card and more memory.

In article <MPG.22c72a171ecb40c998968f@news.west.cox.net>,
no@way.dude says...
> In article <20080621114140.888a60d9.noway@nohow.not>, noway@nohow.not
> says...
> > On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:51:27 -0500
> > Dave <no@way.dude> wrote:
> >
> > > I have an aging Intel 2.4GHz P4 system at the moment that desperately
> > > needs upgrading, however (as usual) funds are limited. I have to
> > > keep things under $200.
> >
> > I can't believe nobody pointed out the obvious yet. This is not an
> > upgrade! You need to increase clock speed to upgrade. You are moving
> > from 2.4 to 2.5GHz, and spending $200 to do it.
>
> So, I will get ZERO benefit in 3DS Studio Max and Adobe After Effects by
> moving from my 2.4GHz P4 to 2.5GHz AMD 64-bit X2?
>
> Did Tomshardware get it wrong on their CPU chart then? According to
> their render test, the AMD X2 CPU I selected was 9 times faster in their
> 3DS Max render test...
>
> Since you are obviously more of an expert than I, could you please
> contact them and inform them they are wrong?
>
> Thanks!
>

Don't play with the troll unless your willing to take care of it.

Bill

>
> So, I will get ZERO benefit in 3DS Studio Max and Adobe After Effects
> by moving from my 2.4GHz P4 to 2.5GHz AMD 64-bit X2?
>
> Did Tomshardware get it wrong on their CPU chart then? According to
> their render test, the AMD X2 CPU I selected was 9 times faster in
> their 3DS Max render test...
>
> Since you are obviously more of an expert than I, could you please
> contact them and inform them they are wrong?
>
> Thanks!

Sarcasm noted, but I'm not a troll, and whether you believe it or not,
I really am trying to help you not to make an expensive mistake.

The problem with artificial benchmarks is that they usually have no
relation at all to what you do with the computer on a day to day
basis. If you want to increase your score on a particular benchmark,
then replacing your CPU might be a good idea.

IMHO though, the system you intend to build is going to perform no
better than the system you have. Unless all you intend to do with it
is run artificial benchmarks.

But it's your money. -Dave

>
> And what, pray tell, does the "4800+" mean ? It is the AMD P.R.
> rating, comparable to a P4 processor. It means the machine is
> "twice as fast" as the previous P4, as 4800/2400 = 2. The
> reason for this, is the architecture of Athlon64 (and Core2 for
> that matter), have an IPC which is 1.5x or more of the P4
> architecture.
>
> Note that the P.R. rating system is fallible, and there will
> obviously be pathological cases you can come up with. But the
> purpose of the AMD P.R. system, was to make it easy for customers
> to compare AMD products, to Intel products. The processors do not
> have identical performance. One blows away the other.
>
> To give another concrete example. I own a P4 running at slightly
> more than 3GHz. I own an AthlonXP processor, a 3200+ in a S462
> socket. The 3200+ number is the P.R. rating. The actual clock rate
> is 2200MHz. If we were comparing clock signals only, my P4 is a bit
> less than 50% faster. Yet the performance of the two processors is
> almost identical (tested via gaming). So in this case, the P.R.
> rating, in my estimation, is a good estimator for comparing the two
> machines. Even though the P4 has a faster clock, that does not
> equate to faster performance.
>
> That is why we didn't "point out the obvious".
>
> Paul

As I wrote before, the current system and proposed system will be
almost identical, in terms of performance. I'll stand by that
statement, as it is CORRECT.

The disclaimer is, if you want to increase your score on an artificial
benchmark, by all means spend the money...-Dave

In article <MPG.22c795f99341a1198987f@localhost>,
spamtrap@tinlc.lumbercartel.com says...
> In article <MPG.22c72a171ecb40c998968f@news.west.cox.net>,
> no@way.dude says...
>
> Don't play with the troll unless your willing to take care of it.

Sorry I'll just put him on ignore.

In article <20080622191116.eeaec67b.noway@nohow.not>, noway@nohow.not
says...
> > So, I will get ZERO benefit in 3DS Studio Max and Adobe After Effects
> > by moving from my 2.4GHz P4 to 2.5GHz AMD 64-bit X2?
> >
> > Did Tomshardware get it wrong on their CPU chart then? According to
> > their render test, the AMD X2 CPU I selected was 9 times faster in
> > their 3DS Max render test...
> >
> > Since you are obviously more of an expert than I, could you please
> > contact them and inform them they are wrong?
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> Sarcasm noted, but I'm not a troll, and whether you believe it or not,
> I really am trying to help you not to make an expensive mistake.
>
> The problem with artificial benchmarks is that they usually have no
> relation at all to what you do with the computer on a day to day
> basis. If you want to increase your score on a particular benchmark,
> then replacing your CPU might be a good idea.
>
> IMHO though, the system you intend to build is going to perform no
> better than the system you have. Unless all you intend to do with it
> is run artificial benchmarks.
>
> But it's your money. -Dave

Thanks. I use 3D design software and Adobe After Effects for the most
part and it is these that I wish to increase performance with.

The Tomshardware benchmark was to render a very large and very complex
image in 3D Studio Max (one of the apps I use). And that render was 9
times faster on the 64-bit AMD chip than a 32-bit P4 chip.

Since that is one of the applications I use on a regular basis, that is
not an insignificant or artificial benchmark to me. That is me being
significanly more productive, and ultimately making me more money.

Correct me if I am wrong, but should going from a single 32-bit
processor to "essentially" two 32-bit processors increase performance?
Especially if the software is designed to take advantage of multiple
processors?

Also, even if, as you say, I get no significant performance increase
immediately from the processor I can afford today. At least I'm moving
to an "upgradeable system", right? As opposed to my current system
which is maxed out. At least in a couple months when I have some spare
cash, I can simply replace the processor with a faster one.

>
> Thanks. I use 3D design software and Adobe After Effects for the
> most part and it is these that I wish to increase performance with.
>
> The Tomshardware benchmark was to render a very large and very
> complex image in 3D Studio Max (one of the apps I use). And that
> render was 9 times faster on the 64-bit AMD chip than a 32-bit P4
> chip.
>
> Since that is one of the applications I use on a regular basis, that
> is not an insignificant or artificial benchmark to me. That is me
> being significanly more productive, and ultimately making me more
> money.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but should going from a single 32-bit
> processor to "essentially" two 32-bit processors increase
> performance? Especially if the software is designed to take advantage
> of multiple processors?

Will it increase performance? Probably. However, I have to be careful
in answering that to the affirmative. I'm still betting that you won't
"notice" a difference. And, I'd be willing to bet that even tom of
tomshardware would advise against this upgrade.

I'm building systems frequently, so I've already built (roughly) the
two systems you are writing about. If my reason was
upgrading...ummmm, no, I wouldn't do it.

You're probably going to do it anyway, so I wish you the best of luck.
I just hope you won't be too disappointed with the results.

> Also, even if, as you say, I get no significant performance increase
> immediately from the processor I can afford today. At least I'm
> moving to an "upgradeable system", right? As opposed to my current
> system which is maxed out. At least in a couple months when I have
> some spare cash, I can simply replace the processor with a faster one.

Never plan a system build thinking about a future upgrade. Build what
you need today. By the time the bang/buck factor makes sense to
replace your processor or video card or whatever, technology has
progressed to the point where the smart money is on starting over by
replacing everything. Unfortunate, but that's the way it is. -Dave

In article <20080624235413.83d32d57.noway@nohow.not>, noway@nohow.not
says...
> Will it increase performance? Probably. However, I have to be careful
> in answering that to the affirmative. I'm still betting that you won't
> "notice" a difference. And, I'd be willing to bet that even tom of
> tomshardware would advise against this upgrade.

Okay, here is my report...

I re-installed XP 32-bit on the sytem and started doing some tests.

As you suggested, most applications show next to NO performance
increasses of any kind. In the case of Adobe After Effects 7.0 Pro, it
actually renders about 2% slower than my old system.

Because I doubled my memory to 2GB, the OS itself is a bit more
responsive.

However, I re-rendered several projects on the new system using Cinema
4D, 3D Studio Max and Adobe After Effects CS3. Since all of these
applications directly support multiple cores I got a 195% speed increase
from these applications (which are what I use to make a living).

That means a 6 hour render on my old system takes a few minutes over 3
hours now. THAT, all by itself, has made me more productive in my work
and was worth the effort.

So, if someone else is contemplating a similar upgrade and they are NOT
using software which is multi-core/multi-CPU aware then I would agree
with you that the upgrade would not be worth it. However, in my case,
it was WELL worth it and I have profited from the upgrade already.

I have budgeted for a processor upgrade in September after my daughter
goes back to school, so things should only get better. What is most
important to me is that the motherboard I chose is extremely flexible
and very upgradeable.