I agree with Kenny. "Phenom II X6 1055T" is the way to spend money on an AMD.

I actually just found this out the other week. First, I thought that something was wrong with my setup, but alas... I have never had the need to OC before, but that got me going, ha!

I have had a few Artics over the years, they have never let me down.


No, no and no...


Ha, as if it weren't bad enough, now he's talking about cars! American cars on top of that! The first I now next to nothing about, the second I know less than nothing about! LOL

But I get your point. It's never at good idea to become a cheerleader of something base solely on one single facet/number... As I said, I knew I was mistaken, just not why. Now I do.


From all your help, my mind is made up: I am going to find a Phenom II Quad somewhere. If I cannot find that, I will have to 'settle' for a Athlon II Quad (unless someone specifically tells me that a Phenom Dual is better than an Athlon Quad).
Surely, I will find one... I am still miffed as to why none of my usual stores have them anymore, though...

Enough, Phenom II Quad it must be...

Again, thank you all for your help and taking time to enlighten me, much appreciated!!

All the best...
CJ

The K10 core is about twice the performance of the K8 although you have a K7 core which is about four times slower than the K10 core.

I disagree with most suggestions here because it seems they are not right or others a just are bull. In Linux, it helps a lot to have more processors than a fast processor. L3 cache in K10 cores does not make it faster, it just helps with multi-threaded applications. Adding more RAM does not improve performance. This is a false statement, but it could hold true if the amount of RAM is completely used up and the computer is using swap. Dual cores worked in the past, but not now because more processors are better in Linux compared to Windows. Windows still is designed for single processor systems and this includes Windows 7. A low end video card handles two screens thanks to today's high capacity video memory at 128 megabytes, so a high end video is not necessary. A high end video is required for complex 3D rendering, games, and decoding an high resolution H.264 interlace content.

What is needed for VMware or Virtualbox, is a lot of memory, about +4 GB, and a separate high performance storage device. I recommend four Western Digital VelicoRaptors behind a true hardware RAID controller. If the VelcioRaptors are on a none true hardware RAID, the performance of your setup will be reduce. I suggest setup the four drives in a RAID-10.

The AMD processors that I suggest for your setup are the following.

AMD Athlon II X4 620
AMD Pheneom II X4 945 (95 watt version or C3 stepping)
AMD Pheneom II X6 1055T

The Athlon II processors have separate L2 cache, so they can not be added up to 2 megabytes. They are basically four Athlon processors using a modified version of the K10 core. The Athlon II works fine for multi-taaking, but not for multi-threaded applications.

The Phenom II X2 555 BE makes a great processor for a gaming setup. Its 6 megabyte of L3 cache helps with the inefficiency of games. Using the processor for other task, it then becomes inefficient from a high L3 latency.

I suggest the AMD Phenom II X6 1055T if you do not want to upgrade in five years. If you are waiting for the Bulldozer core to come out, the Athlon II X4 620 will be a better buy. The Phenom II X4 945 is the in-between area for budget and performance.

I am thinking about the Phenom II X6 1090T BE and under clock all cores to around 2 GHz and (try) setting the turbo around 3.6 or 3.8 GHz.


I am a computer nerd, so you lost me about cars. I am not a mechanic. Your comparison is poor. At this time, AMD is throwing efficiency at the table. Both Intel and AMD uses the same microarchitecture design, but Intel has a little better methods to handle efficiency than AMD. Though AMD provides budget processors and a cheaper six core processor.

Processor performance is like two painters. Painter A can paint a wall in one hour while painter B can paint two walls in one hour. Both painter A and painter B uses one person. Painter B has a special ability to split itself apart to handle two walls at the same time. Each wall is an instruction. You pay painter A $100 for two walls to be painted while you pay painter B $50.

Electro, that was a lot to take in, but thank you for taking the time to expand on this.
I must admit I always worry a bit when the disagreements start to set in, simply because I am asking the question in the first place due to lack of knowledge, which in turn means that I am in no position to make judgement about who is right and who is wrong.
On the bright side, I am not sure I see all that much contradiction between your post and the previous posts made here (again, that might be down to my lack of insight in the matter), so I can still accept what you - and the other kind souls - have said to help me make the right buy.

If I were to shorten, and amend slightly, your list to:

1. ATHLON II X4 635 AM3 (slightly higher model)
2. PHENOM II X6 1055T-2.8GHz-9MB-AM3-125W (no change)

... would that make much difference to your advice (I suspect that it will not)? The change is made based on availability from my usual outlets, nothing more than that.

With regard to the X6... I started this whole thread thinking an Athlon dual would probably be enough, but it seems that my needs have been growing exponentially in just a few days, without me knowing... so...

For my purposes stated prior (i.e. development/programmin, one XP VM at the time max., some trading, a bit of internet and mail...) - and for a guy who has happily been using his 2600+ for some 6-7 years... Honestly, wouldn't the X6 be overkill for me, not to mention a needless oil and heat burner? Or do you still think I would benefit?
(Again, price is not the overruling issue, but no need to throw money away for no gain either.)
I do hear you about 'the more cores, the merrier' under Linux, though...

Again, thank you for taking the time, it really is helpful!

Cheers!
CJ

If you are dealing with high-end graphical stuff, including stuff that may not be games (such as transparent [RGBA] windows, an "overview" and transparent menus, a desktop cube, or using your computer as a DVR) you would certainly benefit from the X6, as such stuff can typically be hard on CPU and GPU.

Remember that AMD numbers their Athlons with an "equivalent" clock speed. Their claim was that the Athlon 2700 ran as fast as an intel processor of the same generation that was clocked at 2700 MHz, while their processor was actually clocked somewhere around 2 GHz.

The Phenom-II processors are clocked at the indicated speed. My 955 is clocked at 3.2 Ghz, which is a 50% increase in speed just based upon clock over the Athlon 2700. I have in fact benchmarked the individual cores, and that 50% is about right.

However, there are 4 cores, and much faster memory since the FSB is a lot faster. Also, the PCI-e bus is a lot faster.

The result is that my disk drives now operate at their electrical limits in terms of data transfer (they never did before...too much time waiting on the PCI bus and the CPU). Memory runs a LOT faster, and there are 4 cores rather than one, each 50% faster than the single processor that was replaced. My overall system improvement ranges from about a factor of 10 to about a factor of 40, just depending (graphics are a lot faster; NVidia 240 GT replacing the NVidia 7800 GTS).

Also, the capability for parallelism leads to an overall improvement in responsiveness that is far in excess of what would be experienced with a single core just because of reduced latency for pending processes.

Absolutely. Even a quad will be producing lots and lots of wasted cycles considering your profile. As I pointed out before, I do all the things you listed on a five year old system and it doesn't even begin to show any signs of strain. No need for hardware RAID (which alone will set you back 1000 euros) or massive amounts of RAM (installed on a regular drive and with only 1GB of RAM assigned, an XP image will be faster than a native install).

But Kenny... no. None of that... at all... as per my posts.


This is very true - and since this thread is focused on the CPU, I tend to forget that. Thanks for reminding me.

Oh boy, I haven't even gotten as far as GPUs yet! Hopefully, the choice will be somewhat easier, ha!


Since there is only a couple of Euros difference between a Dual and a Quad (Athlon II), that is not such a biggie, even should it lead to wasted cycles. It would simply be the smarter choice (also looking just a bit into the future), I think.
I do believe you, but I am myself sitting with a six year old system that is exactly struggling a bit by now, so I want to avoid simply just getting over the fence, but actually have a bit of leeway - but within reason (tanks to knife fights, no... but a slightly bigger knife, ha).

No, I have no need for that.

I was thinking of going up to 8Gb, but on your advise, I will start with just the 4gb (in two slots)... alas, I can always throw more at it later, should it be needed.


There is another issue to take into account: I chose a fairly cheap-end MoBo based on my needs, not wishing to go OTT for things I am in no need of - alas, there simply is no sense in throwing top-of-the-range things at it (e.g. an X6). (I make an exception for the RAM, as that is usually crucial.)

Ok, I will have to make up my mind now (if not, at this rate the system will be outdated before I get around to using it).

Based on price and my needs (and availability), this will be my choice:
* ATHLON II X4 635 2.9GHZ 2MB cache (Euro 113,99)

Grrr, I just noticed there are X3 cores out there too, ex.:
* Athlon II X3 95W AM3 440 1.5MB 3.0GHz (Euro 82.99)
... for Pete's sake, somebody stop me before my head explodes!

Cheers!
CJ

Okay, then you're better off with the quad core, as six cores would be burning precious power and heat.

LOL! If the OP does not live in Europe (not counting England) then that should be "dollars", "pounds", or "pesos".

... Or Denmark... or...

Actually, been most of these... but right now, it's Portugal, so Euro is just fine.

Not shrewd enough...

Oh you weak soul, diverted by that siren song of speed and flash. No Yankee Mechanic you.

To have a system that will function reliably, you need quality components, with the capacity to do the work you need. This will include headroom for future needs, plus anything extra that comes cheaply for an increase in capacity.

A poor PSU, or motherboard, or poor quality RAM will not serve you well. Remember that your are building a system, not a collection of components. It should be integrated and balanced in both function and capacity.

The Sirens always sang of what one most desired, not of what brought one safely past Cilla and Charybdis.

Vær nu lidt sindig.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_De...7s_Masterpiece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-horse_shay

I thought that was exactly what I was trying to accomplish...? What, specifically, do you find troublesome with the choice?

Here is what I am planning on, so far:
MoBo: ASUS - M4A87TD/USB3 - Eur 97.99
CPU: ATHLON II X4 635 2.9GHZ 2MB cache - AM3 - Eur 113.99
Cooler ARCTIC COOLING - Freezer Xtreme Rev2 - Eur 31.09
RAM: KINGSTON - HyperX/DDR3 4GB 1600MHz CL9 Kit (2 x 2Gb) - Eur 124.99
Graphics XFX - Geforce GTS 250 1024MB DDR3 DUAL DVI PCI-E - Eur 133.99 ** Probably too cheap **
HDD: tba
Sound: tba

'Sindig', troede jeg da at jeg var - I would have thought this fitted your bill of reasonably functionality with your mentioned upgrade where it can be gotten cheaply?
There certainly are no downright cheap components here... just not overkill and bloat.
But by all means, correct me where you find me in the crude. After all, that's the point of posting here.

Cheers!
CJ

The Athlon II X4 635 might be a good buy but only if additional cost is not 5% more because the 635 is only 5% percent faster than the 620 model. Over here in the US, the 635 model is only $2 more. Over where you are, I do not know how much is the difference.

The Athlon II X4 620 is about 7 times faster than your present processor. This information is taken from cpubenchmark.net. If you divide it by two for a more real world spec, it will then be about 3.5. Round that number to a whole number which will then be about 4.

I do not recommend using high speed memory if the CAS is too high. I recommend stay with DDR3-1333 as your highest speed because at this speed is actually over clocking the memory controller. The normal memory speed for the AMD K10 and Intel Nehalem is DDR3-1066, so you are just over clocking the memory for little performance gain. I suggest picking memory that runs at the normal voltage for DDR3. The normal voltage for DDR3 is 1.5 volts. G.Skill right now has better models for DDR3 memory. Pick DDR3 memory that can handle 1.5 volts and low CAS at its rated speed. This will simplify setting up the system.

Artic Cooling is not the best heat sink. There better brands that have heat sinks that are a lot better. Though you have to provide additional attention to the cooling of the motherboard if using tower heat sinks.

Since USB in Linux has poor performance, USB 3.0 will not work as good at it advertises. You have to upgrade all your equipment to take advantage of it. I disagree with your motherboard selection because you are just wasting money on a feature that is just going to suck. I recommend SATA or IEEE-1394 (aka i.Link or Firewire).

The sound card you should select is an ASUS Xonar D1 or DX. The D1 is a PCI based version and the DX is an PCI Express version. If you do not care for sound quality or you do not have a high quality sound system, do not buy it. I do not recommend X-Fi based sound cards for Linux because you are paying more for little feature that Linux supports. The ASUS Xonar is fully supported in Linux because its bells and whistles is sound quality.

The hard drive that I suggest is Western Digital SE16 which is now known as the Blue series. It has good performance for its price. If you want better performance, I suggest a Western Digital Raptor, but not the Velociraptor. The Velociraptor penalizes the computer, but the Raptor does not. I recommend only use the Velociraptor behind a true hardware RAID controller. 3ware or Areca are good examples of a true hardware RAID controller.

The power supply brands that I suggest are Seasonic and Enermax. Another brand is FSP. Antec, OCZ, and Corsair does not make good power supplies because they care more about making money instead of quality.

Det er ikke let...

As you mentioned in your first posting, you can ask, and receive any sort of answer you could possibly imagine.

It is not that you choices or the reason for your choices are unreasonable or unrestrained. It is the fact that no increase in the specifications of a system, at an ever increasing cost, can overcome the fact that the technology changes too rapidly for you to be able to buy your way far enough ahead of that change.

Whatever you buy is likely to be supplanted by hardware based on other technologies, using other standards, than those of today. If you buy capacity that is much beyond your envisioned immediate needs, you risk investing in a system that might well be usable, but would nonetheless be a technological antique in five years.

The shay, the wonderful shay, is characterized as being a whole, an entity of all or nothing, lasting its hundred years. I would say your system should be the same , but envisioned so that you could give it away after five years and feel that you were well served and your money well spent, well used up. Neither too much nor too little. Sindig Sindig