# processor bang for the buck Q

## Lazarus18

Hey all. I'm a Mac head by nature, so know not so much about Wintel hardware. My current Linux system is based on an AMD K6III+ (designed for laptops I believe) overclocked to 550 MHz. It was cheap. 

My wife-to-be uses Linux daily, and we were thinking of upgrading that box to something more respectable. My question is about what would give us the most power for the least $$. I was thinking of either an Athlon or P4 in the 1.5 GHz range, or dual processors of a slower clock speed. 

How much benefit is there to dual processors under Linux, and for the occassional Counter-Strike round in XP? Is it worth spending more on (ie 2x the performance for 1.5x the price)? And what is the difference between Athlon XP, MP, etc. Near as I can figure XP is the top of the line?

Thanks.

----------

## freefall

AMD gives you best bang for the buck. I think the sweet spot is somewhere around XP 1700+ to 1800+.

As for dual, one fast cpu will be faster than two slower in games. Dual is better if you run apps which can take advantage of both cpus, or if you multitask a lot. I have never owned a dual machine myself, but this is the impression I have got from reading about dual setups.

Athlon MPs are meant for dual setups. I think XPs work in duals too but I'm not sure. It's probably safer to go with the MP.

----------

## id10t

XP does support doolie cpus, so there won't be a problem there.  I have a dual P2-450, and it "feels" faster than my single 933 in both Linux (Slack) and Win2k.

Get a doolie board now, and a single mid-range CPU.  Then when the top end cpu that your board supports gets to be dirt cheap, upgrade to a pair of them.

----------

## gboyce

 *id10t wrote:*   

> XP does support doolie cpus, so there won't be a problem there. 

 

Really depends what you mean by "support"

XP processors generally do work in dual processor configurations, but that isn't supported by AMD.  That means if you have problems due to it, you're not getting any help from them.

----------

## c_kuzmanic

Dual processors are the way to go if you can afford it. Friend of mine has a dual athlon mp debian box and it screems, fastest thing I've ever seen.Last edited by c_kuzmanic on Tue May 28, 2002 2:22 am; edited 1 time in total

----------

## paulisdead

Athlon XPs technically support MP configuration, but you'd have to get one of the older Tyan MP motherboards.  The BIOS on the newer MP socket As require an Athlon MP for a dual proc config, and won't recognize a second processor unless they're both Athlon MPs.

----------

## arkane

I do have to bring a few points up if your going to go with the Athlon or AMD equiv of the Intel processors.

First, I want to say that if your going to go that route, you need the following:

1) a good cpu fan with a long life

2) something to monitor the fan (they sell them at your local computer store) so when it does go out, you can shut your system down fast.  (who cares about an ext2 fsck'ing the next time if your processor is fried)

That is the reason I went with an Intel processor.  (not to mention all the issues I see people with AMD chips having under Linux)

Check this page out at Toms Hardware, it does a great side-by-side comparison of a Pentium 4 2-Ghz, Pentium 3 1-Ghz, AMD Athlon (with the thunderbird core) 1.4-Ghz, and an AthlonMP 1.2-Ghz (with the Palomino core used also in the AthlonXP processors)

* NOTE: the above was taken from the explanation of the test case.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010917/heatvideo-01.html

Now, don't get me wrong, I used to run AMD processors back when they were 386 & 486 variants.  I *loved* them back then, but once they started coming out with the Pentium equivalents the heat factor, and subtle incompatibilities came into play.

I'm not a brand-name fetishist, I buy other than intel everywhere else.  I hope AMD kicks it off good with the 64bit processors, I'd love to go that route!

----------

## JohnnyGTO

 *arkane wrote:*   

> 1) a good cpu fan with a long life
> 
> 2) something to monitor the fan (they sell them at your local computer store) so when it does go out, you can shut your system down fast.  (who cares about an ext2 fsck'ing the next time if your processor is fried)
> 
> 

 

Oh-Boy I'll tell you I am having so much fun keeping my 1G AMD cool without driving myself crazy with the fan noise!. Finally went out and got a Volcano 7+ about a 1/4 pound of copper and still I push 50C unless I crank up the fan. 

One possible reason is when mounting fans to AMD chips you can nick the edges of the core (?)  and I've been told that once thats done cooling the chip is next to impossible.!? Guess what my chip looks like   :Sad: 

----------

## arkane

 *JohnnyGTO wrote:*   

>  *arkane wrote:*   1) a good cpu fan with a long life
> 
> 2) something to monitor the fan (they sell them at your local computer store) so when it does go out, you can shut your system down fast.  (who cares about an ext2 fsck'ing the next time if your processor is fried)
> 
>  
> ...

 

Maybe picking up one of those "termal pumps" (Peltier coolers) would help out.  I know that back in the day of the K6 it made ALL  the difference!

----------

## jcmkk

First off, I think for pure processing horses, get an AMD.  For most people, I say, if you want to overclock get a Intel, but for best bang for the bug at stock speed AMD owns.  However, linux has a way of frowning on overclockers.  Don't  worry about keeping an Athlon chip cool.  Just get a nice Alpha, and throw a quiet 80mm panaflo on it.  And don't even think about a peltier.  It may have been ok to put together a peltier HS/F combination before, but if you want to use a peltier now, then you'll need a full blown water cooling rig.  This is really a bad time to buy though.  Motherboard manufacturers just started shipping the i850e boards, and "B" chips are still expensive and hard to come by.  On the AMD side of things, their Thoroubred core should be released any time now (they've been saying this for months).  You really should just pick a brand and forget about which is "best".  The real decision making comes down to what motherboard to get.  That is what really decides the speed and stability of your PC.

----------

## ph317

My perception of things currently:

Athlon XP's win hands down on the bang-for-buck factor, great horsepower at a considerably cheaper price than comparably-performing intel equivalents.

Intel's newest P4's coming out now (2.533 on 533 bus...) are the top end of performance, but you pay dearly for that final 10% of performance, so it's hardly worth it.

So on processor alone, the Athlon is a good choice.  The other issue however is chipsets.  If you buy an Intel chipset (which implies an Intel processor, Intel doesn't make chipsets for Athlons), you get pretty rock-solid chipset implementation that is supported well both in winbloze-land and in linux.  My experience (from years old stuff all the way up to VIA's KT333) is that the chipset manufacturers for AMD-based chipsets just can't do a good job, and they aren't well supported.  Even if you just run windows, you have to load special chipset drivers.. and there are always little nagging "issues".  Good linux support tends to lag behind on them, they finally really stabilize around the time they're obsolete.

If cost weren't much of a factor, I would buy a P4 on an Intel chipset around 2.0-2.2 Ghz for the stability and support without paying *too* much for my bang-value.

If I had infinite money and just wanted the best, I would buy the top-end Intel stuff.

If money was a pretty decent factor, and you don't mind things being a bit hacked up from time to time, I'd buy the Athlon on a VIA chipset.

----------

## Trumpcard

Either one of these options should be fairly viable with the recent price cuts on CPU's,  the Xeon chips in some cases were cut ~40% or so.  I would wait a month or so for the unit savings to trickle into the market before buying a processor now.  I almost regret buying a XP 2100 a couple of weeks ago now!

Intel stuff is much more solid and better supported in Linux (I have a Athlon on my linux box now, so Ive seen both sides), but pricewise, its hard to beat AMD.

----------

## ASCI Blue

That Tom's Hardware article is one of the most biased scumbag things I've ever seen. In almost 20 years of dealing with computers I've not once had a fan die on me, the rig my dad has (K6-2 400) has a fan that's atleast 4 years old and still running strong. Nice experiment tom did, sadly for the amount of times I've ever heard of such a thing happening it doesn't matter. 

To keep on topic AMD is always the bigger bang for the buck on a better note the older crustier guys (like me still running a t-bird) can upgrade our current CPUs if we're running KT-133A mobos to Athlon XP's. Not sure how AMD is going to address the next gen CPU's though.

----------

## arkane

 *ASCI Blue wrote:*   

> That Tom's Hardware article is one of the most biased scumbag things I've ever seen. In almost 20 years of dealing with computers I've not once had a fan die on me, the rig my dad has (K6-2 400) has a fan that's atleast 4 years old and still running strong. Nice experiment tom did, sadly for the amount of times I've ever heard of such a thing happening it doesn't matter. 

 

I've had 3 fans die, and 2 fall off, so I definately know it happens and plan for the worst.

You do realize that processors really didn't need fans until around 1992, right? (well, approximately 1992 when the Pentium 90 came out) Before that it wasn't a necessity, only a nicety and your processor could survive.  Stating that you haven't had a fan die in 20 years is about on par with me saying in my 20+ years or dealing with IBM computers I've never had a stick of DDR ram go bad.

----------

## brain

(well, approximately 1992 when the Pentium 90 came out) 

Man, I remember the P-60 as well....now that was a hot chip.

I was working in a PC repair shop at the time, and we had at least 1 or 2 customers a week that had fans fail on their P-60s and it roasted the chip.

----------

## arkane

 *brain wrote:*   

> (well, approximately 1992 when the Pentium 90 came out) 
> 
> Man, I remember the P-60 as well....now that was a hot chip.
> 
> I was working in a PC repair shop at the time, and we had at least 1 or 2 customers a week that had fans fail on their P-60s and it roasted the chip.

 

Oh god.. *hanging head in shame*  I try to forget about that chip.  It was a sad day in the computing world, what with the floating-point bug, heat issues, and all this with hardly any speed increase over a 486dx4/100  :Smile: 

I touched that processor once because I didn't believe a chip could raise in temperature that fast.  After post, I had to remove my finger after only 5-6 seconds.

----------

