[nessiemonster]

i know both these are older cpus..

well a couple weeks ago i bought a little system with an athlon 64 2.1 gig processor

then today, a buddy gave me a system with a tyan s5350 motherboard, which has dual intel xeon 2.8 gig processors

which should i use for my main system?

it seems that the dual cpu motherboard with 2 2.8 gig processors would be like having a nearly 5 gig processor? clearly eclipsing the athlon 64 2.0 gig processor? or does it not exactly work that way and im thinking of it in the wrong way?

thoughts are appreciated, i need to get a system built, so this will help me with my decision

thanks!

[nessiemonster]

btw, the dual cpu is intel xeon "nocona" 2.8 gig,
the other is amd athlon 64 2.1 gig

[Takaharu]

Let me put it bluntly, you're choosing between a single-core and two single-core workstation processors, both with Hyperthreading. The higher clock speed alone would justify using the Xeon.
The Xeon processor, just so others know, is a socket 604.

Having said that, the motherboard may hold you back. It has no AGP or PCI-Express slot suitable for graphics cards and it has no SATA connectors. Also, it uses DDR (ie: DDR 1) ECC RAM. Other than that...

[Judas]

IF you can survive on PCI graphic card rather then agp/pci-ex.... the xeon will blow the doors off the amd.... they aren't remotely in the same class.

However, a modern intel i3 cpu would wipe both their floors with their slow corpses... if compared.

[blibbax]

If it's a 2.1GHZ Athlon X2, then it's faster - Athlons at 2.1GHZ are (significantly) faster than P4 based CPUs at 2.8GHZ. (To back this up: http://www.anandtech.com/show/1745/6.) Furthermore, the Athlon is more likely to be overclockable than the server board.

If it's a 2.1GHZ Athlon single core, then the Intel rig will pull ahead in many modern applications. But beware the power usage of the dual CPU setup.

Also, as others have mentioned, you need to factor in the cost of acquiring upgrades for either of them, especially when a very basic (http://www.novatech.co.uk/products/m...bb-5302gb.html) modern system would be much faster and much cheaper to upgrade. If one of them already has a decent amount of RAM, or you already have a decent graphics card that fits one, you should consider sticking with that one.

P.S.: You need to be careful about considering two 2.8GHZ CPUs to be equivalent to one 5.6GHZ CPU. A lot of applications won't treat it like that, and perfect scaling is pretty rare in commonly used consumer programs.

[nessiemonster]

thanks for the thoughts guys - the amd is a dual core amd 64, the intel are dual cpu 2.8 xeon.

that server board does have 2 sata 1.5 connectors, 3 pci slots, and 2 pci-x(not pci-xpress) slots, which i understand are backward-compatible with pci.

im actually liking the server board and case, it feels heavy and well-made, with big heavy copper heatsinks on the dual xeons.

if i put in a pci video card and another gig of ram making 4 gigs, i wonder if i would be ok with it as my rig for a year or 2

i pulled it apart and cleaned it up some last night, re-assembled, and let it run while i slept to see if it ran ok, i woke up and it was running fine, and cool

thanks alot gents i am appreciating advice - should i upload pictures of both boards?

[nessiemonster]

i am not going to seem very smart by asking this...

the xeon, it is a single-core, 32 bit processor? or a dual core 64 bit processor? im having trouble wading through pages of info to learn this seemingly simple fact

[blibbax]

Originally Posted by nessiemonster

thanks for the thoughts guys - the amd is a dual core amd 64, the intel are dual cpu 2.8 xeon.

that server board does have 2 sata 1.5 connectors, 3 pci slots, and 2 pci-x(not pci-xpress) slots, which i understand are backward-compatible with pci.

im actually liking the server board and case, it feels heavy and well-made, with big heavy copper heatsinks on the dual xeons.

if i put in a pci video card and another gig of ram making 4 gigs, i wonder if i would be ok with it as my rig for a year or 2

You won't find any PCI video cards that'll run games from the last 6 or 7 years well. 4GB of compatible RAM, depending on the type used, may be seriously expensive.

Originally Posted by nessiemonster

i am not going to seem very smart by asking this...

the xeon, it is a single-core, 32 bit processor? or a dual core 64 bit processor? im having trouble wading through pages of info to learn this seemingly simple fact

Download CPU-Z [download here - link on the right of the page]. At the bottom of the first tab, it tells you "cores" and "threads" for each processor. If it says 2 cores, you're dealing with a pair of dual cores. If it says 1 core, you're dealing with a pair of single cores.

Either way, if the AMD rig has PCI-E and DDR2 support, that'd be your best bet by far imo (if it doesn't, perhaps not). The xeon rig should fetch a reasonable price on Ebay.

[nessiemonster]

the server board takes ddr 266 or 333 - those are only like 25 bucks for a gig, i dont have to use the ecc ram do i?

i cant run cpuz because there's no os on the system, the hard drives empty - last night i tried to install my windows 7 64 bit, but it bluescreens after the initial loading of files to begin setup ;(

i could try 32 bit and see what happens

thanks!

[blibbax]

Originally Posted by nessiemonster

the server board takes ddr 266 or 333 - those are only like 25 bucks for a gig, i dont have to use the ecc ram do i?

i cant run cpuz because there's no os on the system, the hard drives empty - last night i tried to install my windows 7 64 bit, but it bluescreens after the initial loading of files to begin setup ;(

i could try 32 bit and see what happens

thanks!

It might well be 32-bit only. Another point to the AMD rig, if so.

[nessiemonster]

thanks blibbax, i really appreciate your interaction with me on this

it seems that the server motherboard supports a souped-up version of 32-bit, called x86-64 :

from wikipedia-


"x86-64
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"AMD64" and "Intel 64" redirect here. For the Intel 64-bit architecture called IA-64, see Itanium.

x86-64 is an extension of the x86 instruction set. It supports vastly larger virtual and physical address spaces than are possible on x86, thereby allowing programmers to conveniently work with much larger data sets. x86-64 also provides 64-bit general purpose registers and numerous other enhancements. The original specification was created by AMD, and has been implemented by AMD, Intel, VIA, and others. It is fully backwards compatible with 32-bit code.[1](p13) Because the full 32-bit instruction set remains implemented in hardware without any intervening emulation, existing 32-bit x86 executables run with no compatibility or performance penalties,[2] although existing applications that are recoded to take advantage of new features of the processor design may see performance increases."



so the server motherboard is a 32-bit, single core dual 2.8 xeon - maxes at 32gig 266/333 (pc 2100/2700) ram

the other motherboard is 64-bit, upgradeable to a 3.0 dual core amd, maxes at 4 gig DDR2 533 (PC2 4200) ram


thoughts my friends?

[nessiemonster]

maybe i better use the amd board, it holds up to a 3.0 dual core and 4 gigs pc 4200 ram, plus it has a pci-express x16, which i see is where the best performing video cards are these days- i guess i could use the server system for something else

if i max out the cpu/ram of the amd board to 3.0 dual core, 4 gigs 4200 ram, and throw in a decent pci-express x16 video card, you guys figure itd last me a couple years decently?

thanks!

[Takaharu]

Just to clarify, I looked up the CPU when I first replied - it's 64-bit capable.
By my epic powers of deduction it's one of the processors listed here. Best-case it's the 2.8GHz one with 2 threads, otherwise it's one of the other 2.8GHz processors.

As you have clarified that the AMD is, in fact, an AMD x2 then you're best bet is to stick with that. Better still, sell them both and put the proceedings towards a newer system.

[blibbax]

Originally Posted by nessiemonster

maybe i better use the amd board, it holds up to a 3.0 dual core and 4 gigs pc 4200 ram, plus it has a pci-express x16, which i see is where the best performing video cards are these days- i guess i could use the server system for something else

if i max out the cpu/ram of the amd board to 3.0 dual core, 4 gigs 4200 ram, and throw in a decent pci-express x16 video card, you guys figure itd last me a couple years decently?

thanks!

That is the better system, but it'll cost you more than its worth to upgrade it - you'll end up spending enough that you could have sold the systems you have now and bought a better PC. If you insist, buy upgrades that would be compatible with a brand new system (like mid-range, modern pci-e graphics cards, storage drives, case, etc.).

[Judas]

Originally Posted by nessiemonster

thanks for the thoughts guys - the amd is a dual core amd 64

Yeah that makes a significant difference....

[nessiemonster]

well gents, i decided to use the amd motherboard for my system - got it assembled last night-- should i install a 32bit or 64bit operating system? the board maxes out at 4 gigs ram, so the 32 bit limitation of only seeing 4 gigs ram is not an issue here. besides being capable of utilizing more than 4 gigs ram, is there any other advantage of using a 64 bit operating system?



i still do not quite understand why you guys told me to use the amd 64 3800+ board with a 2.0 processor that maxes at 4 gigs ram, instead of the dual cpu intel xeon 2.8 board that will hold 32 gigs ram - was it basically because the amd board has a pci-express slot, and will take newer ram?

in any case, i took you guys' advice

[blibbax]

Firstly, the AMD dual core is faster than the two Intel processors in everything you're likely to want to do with it. On an older system like this, buying more than 4GB of RAM is really a waste of money, so the CPU speed is more important.

Secondly, upgrades are going to be easier and cheaper for the AMD system. It'll fit in a normal case, reliably take normal components, etc. etc.

Thirdly, the Intel system does not support basically any good graphics cards. If you want to do any games from the last few years (I wouldn't push it to current games with either processer setup), you'll need a PCI-E graphics card.

Fourthly, the AMD system will save you a shed load on electricity compared to the Intel system.

Lastly, the AMD system supports 64-bit operating systems. 64-bit has a few minor advantages for stability, security and speed, but more importantly it means that programs can use more than 2GB of memory. This admitedly isn't a massive issue on an older system that won't likely cope well with any demanding applications anyway, so if for some reason you don't want 64-bit, don't worry about it.

Basically, the only advantage of the Intel system is that it can support a uselessly large amount of obselete memory.

[Takaharu]

Not that it makes any difference to the decision but the Xeons, as I said, can run 64-bit operating systems. At the time it was built, if I'm not mistaken, there were no 32-bit operating systems capable of running 32GB RAM. The AMD's ability to run 64-bit operating systems is a moot point.

[blibbax]

Ah yes, my mistake. Apologies Tak.

Nonetheless, my other points (including the crucial last sentence of post #17) remain.

[nessiemonster]

hey guys im gonna veer off-topic just a bit here..

im working with the amd board as i said- got it put together... you know how when youre getting a system put together, you wind up playing jumper-roulette for awhile, until you get the hard-drives connected right, where windows will boot, see the drives, etc?

well im at that stage now, only this is the worse ive ever dealt with this..

drives are detected in bios, then after reboot, arent, then after a few restarts, the drive is detected in bios again. 1 drive works, then when i connect a slave to it it stops working, then when i disconnect the slave, the first drive still doesnt work-- strange things like this, where deduction cant help you because things keep changing at random without order

for instance, i had xp installed to the sata, then i tried hooking up an ide (unsuccesfully) then when i disconnected the ide, the sata drive would hang at the xp boot-screen, never again to work..

its one 80 gig sata, one 80 gig ide, one 40 gig ide

any thoughts?

[blibbax]

Can you find out the default jumper positions by looking up the motherboard manual on the manufacturer's website? Or does that not help?

[nessiemonster]

blibbax, i meant the hard-drive jumper settings... i got the motherboard connections figured out in a half-hour, without the manual

say if i install windows into the ide drive, it works fine, but then when i connect the sata, xp wont boot. then vice versa, if i install windows into the sata, it works, but then when i connect the ide, xp doesnt boot. either seem to work on their own, but not when both are connected-- its confusing

i guess since both are the same capacity, i should install windows to the sata and use it, and if i cant get the ide drive connected and working for extra storage, i'll just have to do without it-- who wants to spend days and days trying to figure this stuff out, i mean, i do need a computer to actually use

thoughts? and thanks

[nessiemonster]

or i wonder if using win 7 will make a difference, ill try that

[nessiemonster]

well, i installed windows 7 , and now the hard-drives all work without issue together and windows boots- go figure..

maybe xp just didn't like something about the configuration? i dunno, but ive had enough, im computered out for the time being- that was several hours over the course of 3 days or so- just to get the case-screws on.

at least though everythings working fine now, and i can proceed to set-up windows.

question- should i max this board out to the 3.2 gig windsor cpu and add a couple more gigs (to make six) of ram? could i use it like that for a couple years if i wanted in relative peace?

thanks thanks to everyone

[blibbax]

Personally, I think maxing out this system would be a waste of money. Old best-in-socket parts tend to go for something of a premium.

You already have a dual core, which is as many cores as they put on the socket. When you're ready to get technical again, you could probably overclock it for 80-90% of the 3.2GHZ Athlon X2's performance. That top Athlon itself barely OCs any further at all - the architecture had a ceiling under air or water at about 3.2-3.5GHZ, depending on the quality of the batch.

As for RAM, if you can very cheaply (£10-ish) get to 4GB total, and you're using 64-bit Windows 7, go for it. Otherwise it's probably a waste. (Incidentally, if you're in the UK and you want 2GB of DDR2, drop me a PM.)

How long you keep this system is up to you. If you pick up a sensible £30 graphics card on Ebay (e.g. 8800GT, HD4850) and your PSU can keep up with it, you could happily play TF2 and Minecraft and do your web browsing etc. for quite some time. If you're not worried about games at all, even better, just get yourself an 8400GS or something for £10.

However, if you're going to come back in a few weeks complaining that you can't play Skyrim and BF3, you'll find that people will generally tell you to get a whole new PC.

[nessiemonster]

blibbax, thanks again!

actually the last game i played with any seriousness was called "divine divinity" and was at least 2 years ago- and that game itself at that point was some several years old- i tend to like those traditional rpg- type role playing games, if/when i play games at all. the last game i played and finished was ...icewind dale

i dont see any options to overclock in the bios, but the nvidia system utility allows for overclocking- i think it only applies once you log into windows, but thats better than nothing... ill see what i can do with it.

so yeah i may just put in a bit more ram to make 6 gigs, keep the 2 gig cpu or upgrade to 3, and use it like for a year or so- later maybe just build a new pc all together.

thanks for the offer on the ram, but im on the other side of the pond (northern california)

any other tips? again thanks

[blibbax]

Originally Posted by nessiemonster

any other tips?

Next time you do anything to do with computers, post here first :P

Glad things are working well for you, enjoy your new(ish :P) PC!

[nessiemonster]

hey guys - quick, somewhat related question if i could?

this motherboard from 2006 has onboard sound (cmedia)

i have a soundcard i bought back in 2000- creative labs xgamer - i was using it right up until i took that system down a few months ago and it always worked fine.

should i continue to use the onboard sound, or install that soundcard from 2000 into the newer system?

now i know that the xgamer doesnt have dolby etc and the onboard does, but honestly i dont too much care about that - the xgamer has a line out so i can run it to my amplifier, thats more what i care about.

also, i bought another 2 gigs of pc2 6400 (400 mghz) ram, so i have 4 gigs pc2 400, and i bought an nvidia gt440 videocard

reckon this'll get me by fairly well for a year or 2?
thanks!

[blibbax]

I'll let others comment on the soundcard issue, as I don't really know.

But for a system for general use and light gaming, that system sounds solid for a little while, yes :P

[Takaharu]

If the onboard soundcard doesn't have a line out - which you need - and the external card does then I'd recommend the external soundcard.
As long as you're content with the audio quality that the soundcard can produce that's all that matters.