Hi,

Sorry if I'm way off-topic here, but it is "general chat" and since everyone (well maybe not everyone) loves talking hardware, I have a dilema:

I'm upgrading my m-board and processor at home from a AMD XP2100. I don't really care about graphics power too much, but I want a better CPU that won't cost too much. I'm setting a limit of about £150 on it.

I think I'm going to go for a AMD XP 64 3700+ - its got good reviews and runs cool which is nice, and its 150 quid, so within budget.

But wait! I can get a "Intel Pentium D 805 Socket 775 2.66GHz 2MB Cache Retail" for £95, and its dual processor!!! Its a lower overall spec than the AMD, but its dual processor! Just in case I didn't mention - its dual processor !!

What should I buy?!

Matt

I just got 2 Opteron 175's (one for my workstation and one for a new development server). If the 175's aren't in your budget take a look at the 165's. The duals are definatly nice for multi-tasking development.

The 175 / 165 are socket 939 so it would work in the same MOBO as the AMD 3700+.

I'd go for the dual processor.

Quite a while ago i had a motherboard with two Pentium III. And it always felt more responsive... having to to with one more processor being available i think, and not one process that can tie up all of the cpu.

Anyways... scince then i've always wanted dual-cpu whenever possible.

I've had dual processor machines since 1997. I think they are great for developers.

You mean dual core, matt? As that spec is for a p4 that's dual core, or am I misreading it?

Dual processor isn't really worth the money (that's dual proc, not dual core. Dual core is great ). What's worth the money is a very fast harddisk, preferably scsi raid 0, as most of the work is I/O limited anyway.

Sorry for the confusion - I meant dual core not dual processor!

The opteron's are all out of my price range here in the UK I'm afraid. I'm going to dig around for some reviews on the intel dual core proc, but I think its fast becomming my preference!

Frans - you're right about disk speed, I'm making sure the mboard I get supports RAID so thats a future upgrade for me

RAID comes in various versions, each have their own purpose and characteristics. RAID 0 is striping across multiple disks. So you've more than 1 disk to read from at once. RAID 1 is mirroring, which isn't faster, but more reliable, and you have a couple of other types. So if you want an I/O gain, go for RAID 0, which requires 2 disks at least. Also be sure you have a proper backup scenario implemented, as RAID 0 renders your harddisk void when one goes corrupt (so go for good harddisks, like hitachi)

Intel dual cores aren't up to par with AMD's. Opteron's are for servers, so I wouldn't look at those. You can also get AMD dual cores for desktop systems, which perform better, and they're cheaper as well

Obviously disk speed is very important, as the disk is the greatest bottleneck in the system.. I still like having dual processors, though, because the system tends to be a bit more responsive, you don't get those "half-second" delays while switching to your email during a compile and the system has to think about it.

I confess, though, since I've not gone back to single processor since dual core chips came out, I can't say from personal experience if it's wortwhile anymore.

MattWoberts wrote:

But wait! I can get a "Intel Pentium D 805 Socket 775 2.66GHz 2MB Cache Retail" for £95, and its dual processor!!! Its a lower overall spec than the AMD, but its dual processor! Just in case I didn't mention - its dual processor !!

I just got two new computers.

A Pentium D 2.8Ghz desktop at work, and a Pentium Core Duo 2.0Ghz at home. Most other specs are the same, 2gb or ram, 7200 RPM SATA hard drives, basic networking etc.

There is no contest, the Core Duo is much faster than the D.

I wanted to wait for the new chips that are just comming from Intel... (Conroe family) but decided not to wait.

At least with Pentium, going from a 2.20 single core to the 2.8 D I don't see "alot" better performance.

So, remember, even though you have dual core, most of what happens with the app you are working on happens in a single thread.

Bottom line, for Desktop I would go with AMD, fastest Dual Core you can get. For Laptop I would go with the Intel Core Duo.

Or, I would wait for the new Intel (Conroe) based desktops to start shipping. The tests I've seen on Engaget and Tom's Hardware show them blowing away the current AMD stuff.

BOb

The conroe is indeed something to wait for. Passively cooled (!) cpu which beats the crap out of everything available today, and at a lower wattage as well.

Yep - and its also the very reason why I dont want to fork out say £250 ($400?) for a AMD dual core... I think the best thing I can do is get myself a cheap upgrade to dual core (which is intel) and use that while I wait for the conroes to ship later on....

So, the intel dual core takes the lead..... will it make it to the finish line?!

Thanks for everyones response by the way!

I just remembered something.

For coding multi-threading applications, there's some "conventional wisdom" that you need to have a multi-processor box, as some threading bugs may not appear on a single processor machine. E.g.,

http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware3/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=74678&ixReplies=24

Just food for thought.

Intel says Conroe and Merome will ship in July, and has also given them a name of Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreem.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2170

BOb