PDA

View Full Version : Dual Core, ATI, Ram....Help!?


Cell_v14
07-17-2005, 11:46 PM
Hey DUdes!
I'm going to upgrade my Computer in 2 days!
It's like this: AMD X2 4200+ vs. 4000+
ATI X800XL (fits My budget!) or a Quatro/ATI/3Dlabs card
2gig ram (corsair vs. twinmos)

THis computer is going to be my special work mAchine for mostly rendering.. (pyrocluster'iced)
I was thinking of a X2 4200+, ATI X800XL, 2gig ram corsair (or twinmos..they're good overclockers!)
What do you recommend?
I really need horsepower for the $$$'s!

Cell_v14
07-18-2005, 12:03 AM
PS: Should i change to a 4400+?

MadMax
07-18-2005, 07:20 AM
the 4400 is 1mb cache vs 512mb on the 4200.

M.E.L.
07-18-2005, 07:30 AM
Hey DUdes!
I'm going to upgrade my Computer in 2 days!
It's like this: AMD X2 4200+ vs. 4000+
ATI X800XL (fits My budget!) or a Quatro/ATI/3Dlabs card
2gig ram (corsair vs. twinmos)

THis computer is going to be my special work mAchine for mostly rendering.. (pyrocluster'iced)
I was thinking of a X2 4200+, ATI X800XL, 2gig ram corsair (or twinmos..they're good overclockers!)
What do you recommend?
I really need horsepower for the $$$'s!

first off...save yourself the cash on the X800 man and just get yourself a nice regular nvidia gaming card (to be quite honest I have never once run into a situation where I have required a Quadro FX card over an Nvidia 6600gt or 6800gt). If you're doing mostly rendering, I'd throw a cheap 256mb Nvidia 6600gt in there (got mine for $166 CDN, couldn't argue there).

As far as the X2's go, again if you are just doing rendering I would suggest taking the price cut and going with an Intel, you can get the 3.0 dual core pretty cheap nowadays and you will have the 2 physical processors as well as the two virtual HT's to work off of (works great under a linux environment).

ram wise, guess it is total preference there man... I'm using OCZ DDR2 533 dual channel in my box, 2gb worth... works great for me.. Anyways, that's just my $0.02 on the matter.

-s

lots
07-18-2005, 07:42 AM
Funny :P

If you are doing lots of rendering, wouldnt you go for the better CPU? ;)

MadMax
07-18-2005, 08:02 AM
As far as the X2's go, again if you are just doing rendering I would suggest taking the price cut and going with an Intel, you can get the 3.0 dual core pretty cheap nowadays and you will have the 2 physical processors as well as the two virtual HT's to work off of (works great under a linux environment).



You would rsuggest going with a half assed, crippled CPU instead of a powerful one for rendering?!?!?

Can I have some of what you are smoking?

Intel's crippled dual cores are not integrated and do not communicate directly with each other. Technically they are not a dual core processor, they are what is called a Multi Core Module and there is a very distinct difference.

Although on the sam epiece of silicon, the cores have no integration and all communication has to go out to the rather slow FSB, then back into the CPU for the second core to address.

Talk about useless and inefficient.

The X2 is a fully integrated dual core design. The cores can communicate directly on the CPU without clogging the bus.

If you are planning on using this for any rendering and multitasking, the AMD is absolutely the way to go.

Cell_v14
07-18-2005, 04:11 PM
First off, a big :applause: for MadMax for a good answer
and a :hmm: for M.E.L., why a 6600GT? it got 8 pixel pipelines vs the X800XL's 16 pixel pipelines...why the 6600GT?

lots
07-18-2005, 04:21 PM
ATI hasnt exactly been great for CG in the past, though it probably isnt as bad, people will recomend Nvidia to you.

Anyway, the vanila 6800 should be considered as well or even a GT. The price at most will be $100 more than the 6600GT. That is, if 16 pipes is a big concern to you :P

Cell_v14
07-18-2005, 04:24 PM
damn, the price of a cheap 6800GT is over my budget :banghead:

lots
07-18-2005, 04:30 PM
The price of a 6800 non-ultra should fit better within your budget.. It is closer to the price of a 6600GT.

M.E.L.
07-18-2005, 04:30 PM
First off, a big :applause: for MadMax for a good answer
and a :hmm: for M.E.L., why a 6600GT? it got 8 pixel pipelines vs the X800XL's 16 pixel pipelines...why the 6600GT?

If all you're mainly doing is rendering then it doesn't matter does it? :) If you're gonna play lots of games, sure it'll make a difference. As far as rendering goes, not gonna do a thing :)

-s

M.E.L.
07-18-2005, 04:34 PM
You would rsuggest going with a half assed, crippled CPU instead of a powerful one for rendering?!?!?

Can I have some of what you are smoking?

Intel's crippled dual cores are not integrated and do not communicate directly with each other. Technically they are not a dual core processor, they are what is called a Multi Core Module and there is a very distinct difference.

Although on the sam epiece of silicon, the cores have no integration and all communication has to go out to the rather slow FSB, then back into the CPU for the second core to address.

Talk about useless and inefficient.

The X2 is a fully integrated dual core design. The cores can communicate directly on the CPU without clogging the bus.

If you are planning on using this for any rendering and multitasking, the AMD is absolutely the way to go.

When a user asks for a comparatively lower budget sysem giving the best bang for the buck, would you try and sell them a $1000 CPU? Probably not :)

I'm not sure exactly what YOU are smoking good sir but I haven't had the problem at all with anything that you are saying. Now I'm not sure whether you are a hobbyist or professional, but the P4-D system I've got here is used as my workstation for pretty much everything and I've yet to encounter a single hiccup. I'm not doing silly little benchmark tests or running Q3 engine tests, I am going through the process of a production and it gets the job done in a fast, efficient and very cost effective manner. All things which make a production run so much smoother :) At the end of the day, it gets the job done and saved money for other things.

-s

Cell_v14
07-18-2005, 04:37 PM
Lol going to make a Pyrocluster render on the old setup, and see how fast it will go on the new one :applause:

Srek
07-18-2005, 04:39 PM
I would suggest taking the price cut and going with an Intel, you can get the 3.0 dual core pretty cheap nowadays and you will have the 2 physical processors as well as the two virtual HT's to work off of (works great under a linux environment).

The P4 D does not support HT, only the Pentium Extreme Edition has Dual Core and HT. Nevertheless the P4 D offers some good bang for the buck

Cheers
Björn

Cell_v14
07-18-2005, 04:43 PM
I would suggest taking the price cut and going with an Intel, you can get the 3.0 dual core pretty cheap nowadays and you will have the 2 physical processors as well as the two virtual HT's to work off of (works great under a linux environment).
Ehhmmm, it got two 3.0 gigz, the X2 4400+ got two 3700+ (4200+ got 3500+)
+ the X2 4400+ is a excelent overclocker

MadMax
07-18-2005, 08:02 PM
When a user asks for a comparatively lower budget sysem giving the best bang for the buck, would you try and sell them a $1000 CPU? Probably not :)


Please not the very last line of his first post indicates he is looking for the most horsepower he can get.


I'm not sure exactly what YOU are smoking good sir but I haven't had the problem at all with anything that you are saying. Now I'm not sure whether you are a hobbyist or professional, but the P4-D system I've got here is used as my workstation for pretty much everything and I've yet to encounter a single hiccup.


Considering I pointed out technological facts regarding the processor, I can assure you that you most definitely "experience the problems" with the "So called dual core" that I mention. Your CPU is not magically by passing it's design.


I'm not doing silly little benchmark tests or running Q3 engine tests, I am going through the process of a production and it gets the job done in a fast, efficient and very cost effective manner. All things which make a production run so much smoother :) At the end of the day, it gets the job done and saved money for other things.

That's nice. I don't do silly benchmarks either. In fat I tend to argue that most benchmarks suck as they are not realtive to actual working conditions.

Any CPU will get the job done, it's a matter of how fast they get it done. In this case, X2 eats the Pentium alive. REAL apps prove that.

MadMax
07-18-2005, 08:06 PM
If all you're mainly doing is rendering then it doesn't matter does it?



Uh, yes, it does indeed matter.

rendering is based on horsepower. How efficiently you use the machine will depend on how well it multitasks.

Redner tests with Maya, Mental Ray, Renderman, Lightwave, Cinema 4D and 3DS Max show the X2 to be substantially faster than the so-called-dual-core Intel.

Even a simple 2 frames per second rendering difference add up over time. It's basic math.

I'm shocked that a profesional would even suggest that speed doesn;t make any difference when rendering. That's just ludicrous.

CGTalk Moderation
07-18-2005, 08:06 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.