!!P4 processor prices plummeting!!!

[TekDemon]

Originally posted by: KwikEMartGuy
Go for the AMD64. Especially if you run linux.

AMD64 Kicks ass, even intel is making new chips that will conform to AMD64 ISA.

The intel thing is still only a "possibility" for now, since intel would much rather have IA-64 become the viable platform. But intel always makes sure they have all the angles covered is all.

Anyway personally I would prefer a clean jump to 64-bit and ditching x86...and I don't like how AMD's system means X86's ancient clunkiness goes into the new CPUs too =(

Come on intel...IA-64 needs to rock the world!

 

[TekDemon]

I think I'm gonna hold out just a bit longer for Prescott to mature a bit...

In the meantime I'm happy with my 1.4Ghz...Pentium-M! Pentium-M rules =)

Once you go laptop...man...laptops rule is all I can say.

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: olouie

Originally posted by: SSibalNom

Originally posted by: VulnoX
I used to upgrade my computer all the time, but then I got into college and dont have quite as much money as I used to. I won a motherboard and proc combo from a LAN party I went to. The motherboard is some no-name board and the proc is an 1800+ XP. I still use those to this day, and its been over a year. I can play any game you throw at me without so much as a framerate drop. Max Payne 2, full settings at 1280x1024. Same with SW Galaxies, Halo, Call of Duty, BF1942, basically any game I throw at it. My biggest upgrades within the past year have been moving up to about a gig of ram, and my G4 4200 128 DDR. Nothing special about my computer compared to today's standards, and yet I can do everything just as well as everyone else for what I use my computer for. So I just dont see a reason for upgrading.

But I am building a new computer for someone right now. It will have a P4 2.8GHz with HT, 512 megs of ram Dual Channel, 2 120 gig WD SP's in SATA Raid, and probably a 5900FX vid card. So I will be able to compare then.

As I said, right now I dont see the point, we are still pretty bottlenecked by our Hard Drives and until Raptor class drives become cheaper and larger in size, I wont be touching many more large upgrades.

i seriously doubt your running halo smoothly over 640x480

agreed that setup does not sound like it will really handle halo great above that

I hesitate to encourage any furball, but since we are commenting on the sufficiency of our rigs/necessity of upgrades... I have 1800+ @ 200x10 on a n-force 2 w/ a Ti4200 & it runs Halo competent fast (at 800x600). 12x10 would be too much to ask tho; but just sayin' it can be run w/o the latest/greatest (just not w/ full settings)

 

[onelove]

from price guide:

Intel Pentium 4 2.4GHz 400FSB 133.00 at ABS -32.00

tasty :+) still, too much dough involved in changing platforms for me

 

[bwiest1]

I have a pavilion laptop ze5170 with a 1.8GHz Intel P4.

This laptop takes up to 2.4GHz P4, anyone make a suggestion the best place to pick one up?

 

[AAjax]

Off of the windows xp 64bit website

"Windows XP 64-Bit Edition for 64-Bit Extended Systems is only compatible with 64-bit AMD Opteron? or Athlon 64-based computers. It cannot be successfully installed on 64-bit Intel Itanium?based systems."

Bet they will drop some more

 

[albrandwood]

Originally posted by: TekDemon

Originally posted by: LordSnailz
noob question - would cpu speed matter if you're burning a DVD, unraring, copying files over from drive to drive and dl'ing at the same time? I usually do this simulatenous and it does slow my computer down a bit, but I want to know if it affects the burn dvds.

unRARing actually depends heavily on how quickly your drive can go too...optimally you want to unrar from one physical drive to another, and both should be very fast drives.
But yes, if you have fast drives it should be faster to unRAR on a 6ghz P5 versus a 200Mhz Pentium MMX.

In fact all (except the downloading) these processes are VERY hard disk intensive ... either get a Raid-0 (striping), or use 15krpm SCSI
Try not multitasking ... you aren't saving time ... infact you're probably wasting time, since the HardDrive can't multitask ...
You'll probably want to defrag your drive occasionally as well, since Windoze aint that good at keeping things tidy if you are doing that much work simultaneously ...

@shley

 

[NedNeederlander]

Originally posted by: weepul

Originally posted by: orangel
I don't believe in upgrade anymore, once i've gotten a CPU over 2.4 Ghz.
There is really no point.
But it's about time they lower the prices.

just like how bill gates said we never need more than 64kB of ram. ;p

//krunk (^_^x)

Gates was talking about a 16bit processor which can only address (2^16)bytes = 640kB (efficiently anyway)

As for CPU's, most people( i guess 75% according to DrPizza ) are better off spending that 200 bucks on something that will improve their storage/memory hierarchy or increase bandwidth at their bottleneck. I think thats what orangel meant in not as many words.

 

[Samus]

amd athlon 3000+ is still cheaper that the 3.2c and same as a 3.0c, so why would u get one of those when its like 10% faster in EVERYTHING except divx compression, lol.

not to mention it uses far less power, produces far less heat, and will likely run more stable because of that.

 

[russw]

Originally posted by: NedNeederlanderjust like how bill gates said we never need more than 64kB of ram. ;p

Gates was talking about a 16bit processor which can only address (2^16)bytes = 640kB (efficiently anyway)

Right on the math but wrong on the processor. Pentium 16 bit? 486 16 bit? 386 16 bit?

sorry.

...russ

 

[Lurker1]

 

[Lurker1]

Originally posted by: NedNeederlander

Originally posted by: weepul

Originally posted by: orangel
I don't believe in upgrade anymore, once i've gotten a CPU over 2.4 Ghz.
There is really no point.
But it's about time they lower the prices.

just like how bill gates said we never need more than 64kB of ram. ;p

Gates was talking about a 16bit processor which can only address (2^16)bytes = 640kB (efficiently anyway)

The quote: "640KB of memory should be enough for anyone" from the incredible visionary himself.

(BTW, that heavy dripping sarcasm at the end there...)

And it was in response to a question about why the 640K was segmented in the first place, into 64KB chunks, and why the system reserved the remaining 384KB below 1MB. So, both of your points are incorrect... the 16 bit processors did support more than 640KB of RAM (I had a Blackship 286 with a whopping 1MB!:Q) and they did address them quite efficiently (FYI: video drivers loaded into certain portions of that memory ceiling above 640KB). I'm pretty sure if we tried very hard, we could dig up the actual transcript of that "enlightened" conversation back in 83, or was it 84?

 

[NuclearFetus]

I dare anyone to say the title of this thread 3 times really fast.

 

[mercuryswitch]

Originally posted by: adams828

Originally posted by: orangel
I don't believe in upgrade anymore, once i've gotten a CPU over 2.4 Ghz.
There is really no point.

yeah.. we've all heard that one before

ditto

 

[dealseaker]

i just started doing seti for anandtech, infact just now, it is easy to set up, everyone on this board should do it, maybe you do, maybe i am the last one to sign up, but if i knew how easy it was to help out board out, i would have done it a long time ago

 

[mercuryswitch]

Originally posted by: dealseaker
i just started doing seti for anandtech, infact just now, it is easy to set up, everyone on this board should do it, maybe you do, maybe i am the last one to sign up, but if i knew how easy it was to help out board out, i would have done it a long time ago

no idea what you're talking about, can you elaborate? helping the board sounds interesting.

 

[Coquito]

Originally posted by: mercuryswitch

Originally posted by: dealseaker
i just started doing seti for anandtech, infact just now, it is easy to set up, everyone on this board should do it, maybe you do, maybe i am the last one to sign up, but if i knew how easy it was to help out board out, i would have done it a long time ago

no idea what you're talking about, can you elaborate? helping the board sounds interesting.

Drop by the the Distributed Computing forums & see what interests you.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Adam8281
noob question - would cpu speed matter if you're burning a DVD, unraring, copying files over from drive to drive and dl'ing at the same time? I usually do this simulatenous and it does slow my computer down a bit, but I want to know if it affects the burn dvds.

Processor would be important with some of these tasks in themselves, like the raring, but RAM is super important given that you're doing a number of tasks at the same time.

you need each drive on a separate cable. ide doesn't like it when two devices try to communicate using the same cable, bogs down incredible amounts. buy cheap silicon image orwhatever ide controller and have one device per cable. cpu doesn't matter much.

intel prices plummeting....bah, still couple hundred for a chip, amd still has bang for buck. the price premium for the speed difference isn't worth it. its like paying 200% for 20% speed increase... just some numbers i pulled out of the air but thats the gist, video card is more important anyways. when you do things like turn on 4xfsaa or 16xaf, its all videocard burden, not cpu.

 

[jhu]

yay, lower prices. i'll still stick with my celeron 800.

 

[modedepe]

Originally posted by: mercuryswitch

Originally posted by: dealseaker
i just started doing seti for anandtech, infact just now, it is easy to set up, everyone on this board should do it, maybe you do, maybe i am the last one to sign up, but if i knew how easy it was to help out board out, i would have done it a long time ago

no idea what you're talking about, can you elaborate? helping the board sounds interesting.

Text