It's become apparent that I need to update my PC workstation. I'm not buying a G5 until they stick a dual-layer DVD burner in there. So to fulfill my upgrading addiction it's time for a new-ish PC. But I'm just a simple mac-user. Your world of competeing hardware vendors and actual variety of software confuses and bewilders me.
I've got a 1GHz Athlon XP running Win2K Pro right now. I mostly use this machine for occasional 3DS Max (Brazil!) tasks as well as some Audio. A little Photoshop as well and inevitably some good ol' MS Office tasks. Not so much for the gaming. This is not my primary machine and I won't be using it for too much surfing or anything. I pretty much consider it my PC work machine and justify it as such on my taxes. This will be a Windows XP machine unless someone can tell me why Win2K would be better. It's a DIY labor-of-love project, and I've already got the case, mouse, kb, monitors so I don't need any guidance there. I'm mostly just looking at processors and motherboards right now. I know that throwing shitpiles of inexpensive RAM can forestall upgreade woes and I plan to, but what memory with which CPU? Northside, Southbus, Westeast stack, Mandelbrot fractal hologrammic crystalline-lattice with little LEDs flickering to and fro, oh my.
And so my question is WFT is all this processor shit? I'm hoping the tech-dorkier and far-more-PC-illuminated-than-me can enlighten me with their personal anecdotes, etc. on the strengths and weaknesses of all these different architectures and motherboards. Barton Fink? Who is this Prescott? Xeon is a silly name really and I remember those were around when I built my first PII-350 box back in '99 or whatever, are Xeons really that old? Will all PCs be migrating to 64-bit architecture and would I look like a total douche with my ghetto 32bit pride? Can I/should I run multiple processors? Is that a good idea? OK PC memory was confusing enough before, wherefore did they need to complicate things even further? PC2700 DDR non-ECC half-caf/half-decaf grande mochachino? Your assistance/insight would be appreciated.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
OK, listen up. You're not in Kansas anymore, kid. This world is dangerous. You step into it unprepared like that and you die of cerebral hemorrhage. PowerPCs have no place here at all. You must UNLEARN what you have learned. Then, only then, a PC jock will you be.
So, x86 CPU #101. First you should know that sometimes a name is just that, a nickname for a CPU. Sometimes, though, it's not a nickname, but a reference to the transistor density on a CPU's core. Said density is governed by how many nanometers said transistors are spaced apart, which in turn is governed by the manufacturing process of said core. This is where it gets interesting (if you're a geek like me who thinks these things are interesting, anyway). A CPU generation often consumes several cores over the span of several years, with each new core shaving off another .xx microns from the distance between that CPU's logic gates and raising its internal clock frequency (intimately tied to the ubiquitous FSB to which we'll return later) another couple of megahertz before the architecture has to be revised completely and the cycle begins again.
With all that in mind, let's take a quick tour through present-day processor country.
Bartons are AMD's current generation Athlon cores, also known as Model 10s. So if you buy an Athlon XP 2500, you buy an Athlon XP 2500 with a Barton core. A year ago, if you bought an Athlon XP 2200, you bought an Athlon XP 2200 with a Thoroughbred core, also known as Model 8s. A year before that, if you bought an Athlon XP 1500, you bought an Athlon XP 1500 with a Palomino core, also known as Model 6s.
Prescotts are Intel's current generation Pentium cores. So if you buy a P4 3.4GHz, you buy a P4 3.4GHz with a Prescott core. A year ago, if you bough a P4 2.4GHz, you bought a P4 2.4Ghz with a Northwood core. And a year before that, if you bought a P4 1.5GHz, you bought a P4 1.5GHz with a, uh, Wilma core, I think. Don't ask.
Durons are, or were, AMD's 32-bit budget workstation processors. They now live on in the Sempron family.
Celerons are Intel's 32-bit budget workstation processors, now up to the Prescott core.
Athlon XPs are AMD's 32-bit workstation processors. Athlon MPs are XPs with error-correction and multi-threading features and other neat stuff.
Opterons are AMD's 64-bit server processors with gobs of cache memory.
Xeons are Intel's 32-bit server processors (equipped with the Gallatin core), also with gobs of cache memory. Xeon MPs are Xeons with a bigger L3 cache but a slower FSB than their non-MP brothers.
Itaniums are Intel's intended 64-bit (IA-64) successors to the Xeon line.
P4s are Intel's 32-bit workstation processors, some of which support hyperthreading (which is a more advanced form of superthreading, which itself is a form of simulteanous multithreading, which is, like, tres importante in computer science) and some of which do not. P4EEs are P4s with a Gallatin core and more cache.
AMD64 is AMD's proprietary x86-64 CPU architecture, codenamed Hammer, which has been cloned itself by Intel (as EM64T, not to be confused with IA-64) for their upcoming Nocona-core Xeons.
Athlon 64s are AMD's 8th generation CPUs with 64-bit register extensions. Athlon FXs are supercharged Athlon 64s, more closely related to the Opteron.
If you haven't already dozed off, it's time to scroll down to part two (which I haven't actually written yet so there isn't much to scroll down to at this point) and immerse yourself in the wonders of RAM, chipsets, sockets, and FSBs. And maybe motherboards, too.
[ August 03, 2004, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Both AMD and Intel "name" their processors as they are projects within their firms. So Prescott, Barton, and Northwood are projects representing the different chips. It still is called an Athlon XP and Pentium 4, but the programming in the chip is different per project.
AMD Athlon XP: Current core is Barton, but it is also has a low price point. Keep in mind that AMD is releasing a new AMD Sempron to replace the Athlon XP. From what I hear, it is supposed to compete against the Celeron. I have no idea which one is faster, Athlon XP or Sempron, but I'd go with the former.
Pentium 4: DO NOT GO FOR THE PRESCOTT CORE. It has had bad reviews and despite its increased cache, it still does not lift a candle to the venerable Northwood Core (Prescotts also heat up like a blowtorch). So, if you want to have a P4 3.0 GHz processor (like I do), go for one that is P4 3.0C (which identifies Northwood), not P4 3.0E (which identifies Prescott). The price is about the same, but performance is significant.
Oh, I will also point out that the Present P4s support a dual virtual processing function, so that it would make the OS think you have two processors on your system.
Celeron: They are basically Northwood and Prescott processors with 1/4 the cache. Now here is where everything differs. Unlike the original Pentium 4s, the Celeron Prescott is substantially faster than the Celeron Northwood. Though it still does not light a candle to Athlon XP, it closes the gap and I hear that the Celeron Prescott actually can compete with the AMD Sempron.
Athlon 64: The first processor to support 64-bit extensions, but compatible with present 32-bit architecture (what your Windows XP is based on right now). Three types of this processor are available: Socket 754, Socket 939, and Socket 940. The first is the entry level platform, the last is being phased out, and the middle is the soon-to-be-platform of choice. If you're going to consider this route, go for the 754 if money is of a concern. Otherwise, go for Socket 939 but wait until the platform matures. Semprons should be available for Socket 754, but not yet.
Memory: two types are available, DDR and DDR2. DDR is tried, tested, and true, while DDR2 is the new (yet unproven) technology. Intel is supporting DDR2 while AMD is supporting DDR. I'll also point out that the standard speed for DDR is 400 MHz while DDR2 has it at 533 MHz.
One final thing: when buying a motherboard, pay very special attention to the Chipset, the heart of the motherboard. These days however, the choice of chipset on a motherboard does not seem to matter as the major Chipset manufacturers are actually putting out very decent products.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I JUST SAID ALL THAT
(Confession: I went outside in between penning these two guides, and liked it there. Plus I type like a snail.)
OK, so you know your Athlons from your Durons and your Pentiums from your Celerons. But you don't yet know your socket 370s from your socket 478s from your socket 603s/604s from your socket 754s from your socket 775s from your socket 939s/940s or your PC2100 DDR1 SDRAM from your PC2700 DDR1 SDRAM from your PC3200 DDR1 SDRAM from your PC3200 DDR2 SDRAM from your PC3500 DDR1 SDRAM from your PC4000 DDR1 SDRAM from your PC4200 DDR1 SDRAM from your PC4200 DDR2 SDRAM from your PC4300 DDR2 SDRAM from your PC800 16-bit RDRAM RIMM from your PC1066 16-bit RDRAM RIMM from your PC4200 32-bit RDRAM RIMM and that could be a problem. So if you could stay awake for a few more minutes^Zhours, that would be really great.
Rule number one: nobody talks about Fig... no, wait, motherboards are designed for CPUs.
Rule number two: same as rule number o... no, wait, CPUs are designed for memory.
Rule number three: memory is designed for motherboards.
(Actually, at least two of these rules are reversible, but bear with me, eh?)
In practice, what this means is that when you buy a motherboard, that motherboard will influence which type of CPU you buy. And that when you buy a CPU, that CPU will influence which type of memory you buy. And also that when you buy memory, that memory will influence which type of motherboard you buy. And that is because these three components go together like rock, paper, and scissors. But how do you know which of them fit (and, more importantly, work) together and which don't?
The answer lies in a motherboard's chipset, which consists of two main databuses or "bridges": a northbridge and a southbridge. The northbridge handles communications between the CPU, RAM, AGP port, and the southbridge, and it does so at a certain frequency, while the southbridge handles, uh, other stuff. For a computer to run efficiently, the frequency of the FSB (fancy terminology for the connection between CPU and northbridge) should be in sync with the frequency of the memory bus (not-so fancy terminology for the connection between RAM and northbridge), and those frequencies can only be synchronous with the right types of CPU and memory. Puzzle pieces falling into place yet?
Example. Say you buy a P4 3.2GHz Prescott clocked at 800MHz externally (well, really 200MHz, since all P4s have quad-pumped buses). Then you will also need to buy a motherboard with a 200MHz FSB and memory with a base frequency of 200MHz (DDR400 in the table below) to complement the CPU. Otherwise, if you bought memory slower than your motherboard's memory bus, it'd be forcibly overclocked, whereas if you bought faster memory, it'd be forcibly underclocked. And neither is too desirable.
Another example. Say you buy an Athlon XP 2200 Thoroughbred clocked at 333MHz externally (well, really 166MHz, since all Athlon XPs have double-pumped buses). Then you will also need to buy a motherboard with a 166MHz FSB and memory with a base frequency of 166MHz (DDR333 in the table below) to complement the CPU. Otherwise... you get the idea.
Now, to provide some semblance of order, most types of CPU can only be inserted into one type of socket. So a motherboard designed for a Prescott P4 will have a socket for that CPU only that any other processor will just not fit in. Moreover, in addition to being very clever insurance against wrecking your shiny new $800 FX-53, sockets also serve to deliver the proper voltages and amperages to the CPU so it doesn't fry or stall in mid-operation.
(Maybe this is far too elementary and you just want to know what you should buy to be cool again, in which case I'd steer you toward an Athlon 64/PC3200 platform, but I'm almost done here anyway.)
Re: 32-bit or 64-bit: while there's no question that 32-bit CPUs will gradually be phased out as software specifically compiled for 64-bit hardware becomes more widespread, it'll be at least year before they become truly sparse, so you can still safely buy one without being the laughing stock of the INTARNET COMUMITNY. Maybe. For now.
Re: multiple processors: if you're not into professional 3D modeling and/or audio/video editing, forget it.
Re: OS: 2K, because it's XP without the kiddy shit. Thank you.
Oh yeah, that DDR1 frequency table I mentioned:
PC1600 or DDR200 - 100MHz actual clock rate, 200MHz effective clock rate, 1.6GB/s or 1600MB/s bandwidth/channel. PC2100 or DDR266 - 133MHz actual clock rate, 266MHz effective clock rate, 2.1GB/s or 2100MB/s bandwidth/channel. PC2700 or DDR333 - 166MHz actual clock rate, 333MHz effective clock rate, 2.7GB/s or 2700MB/s bandwidth/channel. PC3200 or DDR400 - 200MHz actual clock rate, 400MHz effective clock rate, 3.2GB/s or 3200MB/s bandwidth/channel. PC3700 or DDR466 - 233MHz actual clock rate, 466MHz effective clock rate, 3.7GB/s or 3700MB/s bandwidth/channel.* PC4200 or DDR533 - 266MHz actual clock rate, 533MHz effective clock rate, 4.2GB/s or 4200MB/s bandwidth/channel.** PC4800 or DDR600 - 300MHz actual clock rate, 600MHz effective clock rate, 4.8GB/s or 4800MB/s bandwidth/channel.
* Partially approved by JEDEC, but does not yet support ECC ** Unlikely to be approved by JEDEC, as it would interfere with the introduction of DDR2
[ August 03, 2004, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Ultra Manjuice (Member # 239) on :
Alls I know, is I can play Doom III, and it is hard. Computahs is whack.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"FSB" is "front-side bus", by the way. If you wondered.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Just saying, a 1GHz Athlon doesn't seem that bad especially since you said that you won't be gaming, and you mostly do audio and office work. The 3DMAX work would obviously be the most taxing...but *ehhhh*
If you're lucky and your processor hasn't "maxed-out" your motherboard, it might be cheaper to just get the fastest processor you can for your current motherboard, give it decent ram, and just wait. (I know that my father's 1GHz board supports up to an Athlon 2100+, which while not particularly impressive would be a fast, damn cheap upgrade)
At least until the whole PCI express, BTX, 64 bit/ 32 bit, DVD+/-/RAM/RW/dual/WTF thing blows over.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I agree with Mucus. Anything over 2 gig is fine for playing games. Anything over 1 gig is fine for Windows XP and 99% of other PC tasks. And since we're on the edge of one of the PC's ten year OMGSUPERMAKEOVER moments, it might be better off waiting.
How much memory have you got? If it's 128mb, then getting that up to 512 would be a much more cost-effective upgrade. And cleaning up your Windows installation, damnit.
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
God, even my head hurts from reading about this right now... just pretend that your buying a new computer workstation from Dell and configure it online. Then print out the configuration and have it match completely or as completely to your system.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Did I mention the shininess of the G5? Yeah, and to think I was a leetle confused about all this. Ummmm. Holy crap. Thank you? No, seriously, thank you guys very much. I feel like I have a much better idea about this. It's a amazing. I mean that's amazing that you've managed to distill the x86 processor history/naming scheme, socket tree and architecture so succinctly.
Sooooooooo, yes, I could indeed drop a newer/faster processor into my old motherboard (an ECS K7S5A Pro) and I likely will. When I get the new hotness, this machine's crappier parts are migrating into my renderfarm. The idea is to make a new machine that kicks its arse and will be as upgradable into the foreseeable future and use the old busta-machine as a workhorse when I make my show. And so what I'm hearing is that there is something coming around the bend and I'd be better off waiting for a spell. Based on your wise counsel, if I were buying right now, I would be looking at Athlon 64 3000(+?) and Socket 754 Mobo combos. The 64bit seems like the wave of the future and AMD has done me right in the past.
I do find I'm concerned about the generation leap Liam alludes to. Even with my limited PC experience, I kind of feel like that's going to happen soon too. I mean c'mon, Apple's allready putting 64bit processors in iMacs, and I can't imagine PC users sitting still for us flaunting all that extra (and more or less extraneous) processing power/memory bandwidth.
Will the PC OMGSUPARMAKEOVER be as simple as a 64bit OS? Would that mean widespread 939 adoption and the resulting price-drop would be what I should wait for? Will it be Intel's conspicuously late 64bit Itanium thingy? (as an aside: Is it possible Intel has used all this time getting out of their rut of making power-voracious, over-hot, clock-speed-intensive processors to actually spend some of their what surely must be vast resources developing an efficient and extensible processor family?) Also PCI-Express and DDR2 are way too expensive right now, but is that likely to change in the next, say, six months? What will the big change be?
Mostly I just don't want to be left holding my dick. I bought a G4 four and a half years ago and though it is showing it's age, it continues to kick ass. I know things are different in the PC world, but I'd still prefer not to look like a complete moron.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
The last major upgrade of the PC was back in the early 90s, when they dropped ISA slots, replaced SIMMs with DIMMs, when Windows became a 32-bit OS rather than a 16-bit, and likewise with processors. Oh, and we got computers that turned themselves off automatically. Woo.
The new one is going to be similar. We're already starting to get 64-bit processors, but they'll be accompanied by other things, like the aformentioned PCI Express, SATA hard drives (no more jumpers, yay!), DDR 2, and BTX replacing ATX as the new standard form factor (meaning PCs designed around a single fan, rather than the 3 or 4 many now have. There are other changes too, but current arguments between motherboard manufactureers over it's complexity and cost means that it could take a while to arrive). Microsoft are still dragging their heals releasing a 64-bit version of XP too, although common wisdom says they'll probably release one before the end of the year.
IT depends what you want, really. If you want to go 64-bit, I'd say hold on for at least a few months. You buy now, you're buying cutting edge, and only people with more money than sense buy at the cutting edge. You could always get a cheap Athlon XP system. It won't cost you much, it'll run all current things fine, and then you could get a 64bit in a year or two when hopefully the whole situation will be a lot clearer (and cheaper).
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
BTX, of course, is just ATX held in front of a mirror, and one of the industry's sillier innovations to date.
Posted by Ultra Manjuice (Member # 239) on :
Diagram, because you are stupid:
ATX | XTA
Dude. The | is mirror.
Take care not to be stupid and dead.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
In my culture, I would be well within my rights to dismember you.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I think that would be the case in most cultures....
| is a line, not a mirror, regardless of your culture.....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Or a pipe. Or a bitwise OR.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Okay, here's a processor question of my own. Original plans for my new computer were to buy a 2.7 GHz Celeron chip with a 400 MHz FSB and 128k cache. But upon browsing, I discovered this chip called a Celeron D. A 2.66 GHz Celeron D has a 533 MHz FSB and a 256k cache, and is a bit cheaper than the 2.7 GHz Celeron. This seems like a pretty good deal on the surface, but not actually knowing the difference between a Celeron and a Celeron D, I thought I'd inquire...
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Celeron-Ds have Prescott cores. Celeron-nils do not.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
And a Celeron with a Prescott core == good. So I'll get the Celeron-D, then. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Realistically though, you're not going to notice any sort of difference whatsoever between the two. So get whatever one is cheapest.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)