Processor upgrade: Pentium 4 vs Pentium D vs AMD
 

Hello.

I'm about to buy a brand new PC, but I can't decide on what processor to choose.

This is what I'm currently using:

• Hardware: Pentium 4 @ 2.26Ghz and 256MB of RAM. The next PC will have 512MB or 1GB of RAM.
• Software: openSUSE 10.1 + KDE 3.5.4. But, maybe I make the switch to Debian.

The main reason for which I'd like to upgrade is that this computer gets extremely slow when I'm un/installing a package (I can't do anything else during this time), for example. And this makes me waste a lot of time.

I often use this computer to...

• do my web-development stuff (always).
• run a webserver (apache2) to test my web sites.
• read/write email and web-surfing.
• use OpenOffice/KOffice programs.
• compile beta software.
• listen to music and seldom to watch videos.
• use skype (not that often, though).
• use a torrent client (not that often, though).
• among other things.

Any suggestion?

Thanks in advance!

PS: I'd like something that I won't have to change in 2 years and that it's being well-supported (at least in the open source world).

Your system is already very powerful.

Options would be using 64bit and/or dual processors.
I doubt this will make many difference though(unless you really want to use a 64 OS).
IMO the dual core stuff does not provide that much extra. Simply adding more ram might give you the same result.
At this point I would wait anyway, since those new systems will become a lot cheaper very soon.

Installing software should not give that much problems(unless you're using Gentoo or BSD). What package manager are you using(if you're still using Yast, try SMART)? At this point I con only advice you to use a more slim system(like debian) and wait for all prices to drop(should be soon).

Hi, Jens, and thanks for your answer!

I'm just fine with my 32-bit processor and if you say that by upgrading it I won't find a big difference, I think the best I can do is just expand my RAM. What do you suggest me to do? Are 512MB enough or should I use 1GB?

Yes, I'm still using yast. I'm definitely going to give a try to smart.

Thanks, jens, once again!

I'm using a 2.4Ghz P4 with 1Gb ram you should just upgrade the ram. I don't think you would see a noticeable improvement with a newer P4 (and if you do it's probably the ram.) The pentium D (dual core) and AMD64 (64 bit) will give you a noticeable increase but this depends on what you use the computer for and what os you use. This being said (And I am willing to say maybe I got a bum chip or damaged it somehow) comparing my 2.4Ghz 1Gb P4 machine to the 800Mhz 512Mb AMD Durron Machine I built for my brother. It is way less stable and not 3 times as fast at all (In fact he can play almost all the same games I can. So this will be my last intel box (unless I get one of those intel macs.) I would probably use an AMD chip next time. I am using gentoo on my p4 so installing something involves compiling it a much more intensive and longer process then you would have with yast, but I set portage niceness to 6 and I can still play my games while compiling (but compiling takes longer.) you can set the niceness of aything in linux and probably get your package manager to behave the same way.

I agree with the above that you probably won't get much of a performance boost, but if your main complaint is sluggishness while multi-tasking, then dual core could be quite a boon for you.

Just don't get a Pentium 4 or a Pentium D. These Prescott core chips run really hot and aren't as fast as their clock speed suggest. Your current P4 is almost certainly one of the older Northwood core chips--more efficient than Prescott core chips.

Instead, the Socket 754, 939, and AM2 AMD processors are more efficient and cooler running. The new Core 2 Duo from Intel looks even more efficient still (Intel basically gave up on the Netburst technology which was making Prescott so much worse than AMD chips and restarted from the Pentium 3/Pentium M designs).

Basically, if you're willing to spend the money on the latest and greatest, Core 2 Duo looks the best. If you want to save money for a good value, Socket 754 or 939 is probably the way to go. But in all cases, you're likely not going to get a big boost in performance over what you've got right now.

You will be much happier investing in 1gb of memory. After that I would bye a good raid card (harware not fakeraid) and the drives to match up with it. A lot of a "normal" users daily task are now become choked by hd speed. I have a AMD3800+X2(2gb of ram) and a 1ghz PIII( with 1gb ram and raid0). For a lot of tasks the PIII is actually faster due to the short drive access times. If you do a lot of video or audio encoding then the faster cpu will help. The X2 section usually only helps if the specific application is written for it. The newer versions of Avidemux (video encoder) cuts the encoding time by about 40% when I use the multiprocessor mode. In most other situation the second core is only being used minimumly. Yes, if you have a lot of cpu intensive process running you will see a pickup.

Just my $.02 worth
Lazlow

I agree about the memory. Going from 256MB to 1GB should make a bit difference.

AMD is the only way to go. They run cooler, they run faster, and every body likes an underdog ;-).

Thank you all for your answers!

I've changed my mind and now I think that I should use a new type of processor, instead of just expanding my RAM. I'm aware of I won't find a huge difference if I compare it with my current P4, but I think it's going to be a medium-term investment switching to a 64-bit processor (according to some research I already did on the www).

I'm willing to purchase a 64-bit AMD processor, but, which one? Taking into account what I use my PC for and that I want it to perform fine for (at least) 2 years or so, if possible.

TIA.

I always seem to get the feeling that it's best to wait just a short while before buying new hardware but I've been researching for a month now and it is most certainly not an easy time for the linux-enthusiast. I'm looking for a new platform myself but I expect it to last for 5 years minimum, be as linux-friendly as humanly possible, of latest technology but still economical.

I'd hoped that AMD's price cuts would have propagated more quickly, but now they are discontinuing new product lines of AM2s and the future seems uncertain. Behind the corner lies more cores and new technology, and maybe even a positive turn for the graphics driver scenario on linux with AMD/ATI. Would this happen we might finally get a proper driver for a modern 3d-card under linux (I so miss the days when matrox millennium II ruled, the linux driver was faster/more stable than the ms windows counterpart on my machine). One thing is for certain and that is that I would never buy so much as a mousepad without having read of several reports of successfull linux-compability.

Anyone having anything to say about real-world experience running linux on either conroes or any AM2 X2-setup would be greatly appreciated.

BTW, Gustavo.
If you are going for an AMD AM2, I've read that you shouldn't opt for anything except the multiple-of-four speeds (2.0, 2.4GHz) on account of being able to run DDR2 memory at a speed of 800.

Where did you read that? That sounds a bit off.

Of course your computer will be slow because you are using KDE. I have a Pentium 4 2 GHz (Northwood core) that is using 1 GB of ECC memory (RAMBUS). It is fast but it has trouble taking the load. I use XFce4 as my window manager. My AMD 700 MHz (Slot A) system has no trouble handling the load. It can handle a running VMware virtual machine and video capture at the same time.

A dual processor system will always help anybody that is running two or more programs at a time. The only problem is you have to use ECC memory. People try to save money by not buying ECC memory, but they get a lot of crashes compared to their single processor system. The only speed that DDR2 ECC memory comes in is 533 MHz. I am waiting until there is 800 MHz ECC DDR2 memory.

AMD has different versions for the AM2 socket. One is for efficient SFC computing which costs a lot because there are limited quanities. The others are semprons for economy and Athlon64 X2 for ethusiasts.

Penguin of Wonder, read http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2762&p=10.

Built my own system w/ an AMD x64 Athlon w/ FC5 x64. Two words: awesome performance. Far better than any Intel box rated at 1.8-2.0 GHz faster. Plenty more perks if you go with an nForce motherboard kit.

What processor/socket/memory-combination do you have? Is the desktop just more responsive or is it some specific area in which you've noticed speed-ups?


Penguin, here's "Tom's hardware" on the odd multiplier issue:
***.tomshardware.com/2006/05/23/amd_reinvents_itself/page46.html

My opinion is that right now is the worst time possible to upgrade. If you want, grab a high-end Core 2 Duo chip and it'll last a couple of years but with AMD buying out ATI (think major CPU design overhaul) and Intel having solid designs on their next-gen microchip already (next-gen after the Conroe) I'm going to be sticking with my system for a while. Admittedly I went all out when I did this like 6 months ago so I'm starting well ahead of the curve but there is just too much stuff happening to be able to pick a solid technology as a if you're planning on building a system that will be able to keep up with the latest and greatest for a few years.

Fantastic advice and definitely true.

Hi, SD-user.

Which distro and desktop environment are you using?

Hi all, and thanks for your answers.

Just in the mean time, I'm going to expand my RAM only, but as soon as these AMD processors have lower prices, I'll purchase one of them.

However, I don't know much about hardware pieces as I've only worked at software-level, so, could you mind suggesting me an specific combination of AMD-processor/socket? (I'd like to take advantage of this thread in order to ask this question)

TIA, once again.

Cheers!

Since you will need a new mobo I'd go for socket AM2, this looks better IMO considering upgradability. Also, why not buy an energy efficient processor since the price difference to the "regular" ones is not supposed to be that significant.

For example:
AMD X2 4800+ (2.4Ghz), energy efficient, socket AM2,
but ONLY if prices continue to drop (which I'm afraid they won't since it apparently has been discontinued)

Something that should still be available:
AMD X2 4600+ (2.4Ghz), energy efficient, socket AM2,
but again, only if prices continue to drop.

As a rule of thumb, don't buy unless the whole setup is considerably cheaper than an entry-level conroe where you live or until user reviews start telling of serious flaws in Intel's new arcitechture.

dkrdick,

AMD 64 socket 939 3000+ GHz for extra horsepower / bandwidth. I believe the processor only runs at maybe 1.8-2.0 Ghz - but it easily out performed a 3.4GHz Intel PIV - I ran some processor / 3D benchmarks last summer while on a Windows trial and the AMD simply out performed (although, I can't remember the scores off the top of my head) - I believe we used AquaMark and another program for testing.

Other specs include: Asus A8N-SLI (nForce 4) w/ 2x 512 Kingston Value Ram - went with Asus recommendation . . . I didn't change the latencies on the memory at all. Antec 430 Watt True power 2.0 power supply, PCIe 16x video, and went with a all with a lan party case - hoo ya!

Ran some demos on Doom last summer - had a few glitches at the highest resolution, but for ~$600, I'll take it. Processor stays cool and the fans adjust speed depending on the heat / processor demand. Good stuff and quiet.

I'm running Fedora Core 5 now and there is absolutely no hesitation. I'm up and running in under a minute. Haven't done any benchmarks in Linux. I'd also say that the 64 bit OS's are much faster too . . . no specific area in particular, just overall performance.

Hope this helps,

SD

Gustavo:

Fedora Core 5 & KDE.

Thank you so much! That's it!
 

Hi.

As far as I could understand, It sounds good. I also liked what I found on the AMD's website about this processor:

And that's exactly what I'm looking for.

Yes, maybe I'm better off buying the 5000+ in one go.

Thanks for the advice!

Thanks!

Thank you all for helping me out! Now I have a clue on what I'm going to buy in a few months!

Cheers.

Depending on your present Pentium 4 system. If you are thinking of upgrading your memory, first find out what chipset you have. Earlier Pentium 4 systems come with either RAMBUS or SDRAM memory. RAMBUS memory cost a lot but it has a memory bandwidth up to 3 GB per sec. The systems that comes with SDRAM memory is not DDR, so the memory bandwidth is about 400 MB per sec. These two memory technologies have a huge memory bandwidth difference. Pentium 4 processors are memory bandwidth hungry, so I would upgrade the one that has a larger memory bandwidth.

My motherboard model is Abit TH7II-RAID (Intel chipset 850). I upgraded from 256 MB to 1024 MB of ECC RAMBUS memory. It is well worth the money. I can play Unreal Tournament 2004 with a little to no lag, but still playable in many maps.

I recommend motherboards with passive cooling chipsets. This means with out active heatsinks (fans with heatsinks). The active heatsinks are not reliable and are noisy which is bad for chipsets. The motherboard has no way of monitoring the chipset fan, so do not bother picking motherboards with active heatsinks for chipsets.

I suggest Gentoo because you are able to use new technology when the latest stable kernel supports it.

The processor's MHz is not best for fast performance for general work. I usually pick a slower processor and spend the money on fast hard drives, video cards, memory, power supply. I suggest Western Digital Raptor 74 GB SATA hard drives in RAID-1 (mirroring) because it will access your data faster and they are much faster than their 36 GB and 150 GB models.

BTW, AMD processors does work better in Linux because it gets little to no penalty performance when running 80386 with 32-bit instructions and all the way up to 80686 with 64-bit instructions.

I tend to agree with most of the comments.

I evaluate operating systems out of interest, and use plug-in HDD's in racks in order to get an identical machine state, as near as possible.

I've installed SuSE 9.3 64-bit version and SuSE 9.3 32-bit version on two identical Western Digital WD200 hard disk drives, each in an identical plug-in rack, on an IBM Aptiva with a replaced motherboard, an MSI standard 64-bit one running an AMD processor at 2600+, with 512Mb of fast RAM.

The five ISO's of each version were downloaded and burned from the same mirror (my ISP's actually) and there is quite a remarkable difference in stopwatch timing for power-on to login, login to desktop loaded, and starting typical applications such as Firefox, OpenOffice, etc.

Likewise with shutting down.

This was attempted under both KDE and Gnome, and KDE is nowhere near the sluggard it used to be.

Although there is only the 32-bit version available, I've tried (amongst other distros) PC-BSD v1.1 and 1.2 and actually that is faster than SuSE on the rig I did the stopwatch tests with.

I went back in time and installed and then ran Sun JDS v2 (SuSE 8.2 based) and that was unbelievably swift on the same 64-bit machine.

I think it really depends what you want to use it for.

As an example, I have a quite elderly IBM PC300GL which I use for a file server, which happily runs NASLite on 64Mb RAM. I still occasionally use PCLinuxOS Live CD to do housekeeping tasks on it, so that runs reasonably with the 64Mb needed to be doubled to 128Mb.

I would suggest that if you replace your existing 512Mb RAM with a gig (use the single chip version in preference to just adding a second chip) you will probably find a huge improvement in performance - particularly if you buy wisely, avoiding the cheap RAM suppliers.

Just my thoughts, hope you get what you want out of it.

Richard in Australia

PS, fyi, ...

When PC's shifted to Mr. Gates Windows95, I remember having a discussion with a Microsoft Support engineer about how 32-bit apps would fare on the 16-bit DOS which was retained.

I was running AutoCAD at the command prompt - which was a 32-bit application which accessed the 16-bit OS through a nifty thing called a "DOS Extender", named after the racehorse "Pharlap".

We talked about whether or not DOS AutoCAD would run slower or faster when on a psuedo-32bit OS.

Slower was my bet, and he agreed with me, because of the finite time it takes to address a bus - which already thought it was 32-bit because of "Pharlap".

It was marginally slower using the stopwatch tests I since used for checking operating systems. So I continued to recommend running DOS AutoCAD on *real* DOS :)

For what it's worth, this sort of convo has gone on for many years :D :)

Have fun mate :)

I would add have atleast 1gb of ram in form of 2x512 or if possible 4x256 ,
get a good cooling system for your pc
get a good powersupply
AMD yeah goooooooooooooo for it
--slow while package management ???? On same pc i saw big difference in performance in comparision to suse 9.2 and pCLinux-os try changing distro?

Don't waste your money
 

I'm here on PIII 500Mhz, 352MB RAM, 6GB HDD, Suse 10.1. This is OLD. Yet it's a workable setup. The big problem with Suse 10.1 is YAST package manager/installer, it is slow as a dog. As someone else suggested, try using smart package manager.

I had very similar setup to yours: 2.20 GHz Pentium 4-M notebook, later bought a new desktop. Here are my performance experiences with it. I usually ran SuSE with KDE on it. The notebook originally came with a 4200 rpm 60GB hard drive and 2 256MB sticks of DDR 266 RAM.

1. The hard drive died, so I put in a 5400 rpm 100GB model. This was a fairly big performance increase as the system was now much more responsive than before when loading applications.

2. Upgraded the RAM from 512MB to 1GB. This helped a few applications run faster, especially R and Octave when I was crunching large data sets. But for the most part, it didn't make much of a difference as I would suspend-to-disk or shut down pretty frequently- things didn't have time to get cached in RAM.

3. Bought a new desktop late February with a socket 939 AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ at 2.2 GHz. I put 2 1GB DDR 400 modules in it, a 74GB WD Raptor 10,000 rpm HDD as a system drive and an inexpensive but good WD Caviar SE16 250GB HDD for /home. I put SuSE 10.0 64-bit on it and it is far, far faster than the laptop.

4. Switched the desktop and laptop to Gentoo 2006.0 (64 bit for the desktop and 32-bit for the laptop.) Overall performance doesn't seem to differ that much, but certain programs work a lot faster and RAM usage is much lower on the desktop. KDE now starts up with 85MB RAM used on the laptop :D

So I would recommend that you upgrade your computer as I could easily bog down the old laptop when doing a lot of work with it. Here are my suggestions:

1. CPU: Get an AMD Socket AM2 Athlon 64 X2. If you want to run the computer at stock speeds, I suggest getting a 4600+ Energy Efficient. It's under $300. If you do not mind overclocking, get the 5000+. AM2 processors only have integer multiplier values and that causes the RAM to be run at less than its full DDR2-800 speed when the CPU speed does not divide cleanly by 400, which is the DDR2-800's natural frequency. This hinders performance on the 2.2 (4200+) and 2.6 GHz (5000+) units. But overclocking the 4200+ and 5000+ by roughly 100 or 200 to bump the LDT bus back up to 400 MHz will make the 4200+ and 5000+ will run very well. Core 2s are good, but you cannot buy them currently for anywhere near list and the motherboard selection is slim and also expensive. Pentium Ds are very hot-running and the Athlon X2s are for more powerful and a far better bang for the buck.

2. Motherboard: One with passive chipset cooling is very good. My 939 board, an Abit KN8-SLi, has this and it's nice as chipset fans are noisy and I've seen a few die and kill the chipset when they do so.

3. Hard drives: Faster is better, and I recommend a pair of WD Raptor hard drives (either 74GB or 150GB, depending on how much you want to spend) set up in RAID 1 via Linux md software RAID. RAID 1 is redundant and has load balancing, which will improve performance in reads versus just one disk. md RAID is just as fast or faster than a hardware RAID device when you have 10 or less drives and you hardware RAID controller costs less than $1000. Get a decent but inexpensive 200-320GB 7200 rpm hard drive for /home.

4. RAM: Get two matched DDR2-800 modules with a latency of 4-4-4 or less. I'd suggest 2 1GB modules as 64-bit OSes have just about twice the RAM usage of a 32-bit one. 2x1GB of 4-4-4 DDR2-800 will probably set you back nearly $200, but the performance is very good.

5. OS: If you have a 64-bit chip, run a 64-bit OS. AMD's 64-bit processors get a 5-25% speed boost when running 64-bit code vs. 32-bit code and you can still run 32-bit applications easily in a 64-bit OS.

I am running Ubuntu "Dapper" 6.06 on my main machine, home-built a year and a half ago.
Its an AthlonXP-2800+, 1.25gb ram, Abit NF7-S board (Nforce2), Nvidia Geforce 128mb 6600gt AGP.

I have installed the "k7"-optimised 2.6 kernel, and performance is very quick. Have never had a problem with the graphics card, nvidia's drivers are excellent:) I run "R4" visulatation software under Wine through my tv and it runs faster than under XP, i'm also running XGL/compiz and it's fast and stable.

I know there are much faster processors out there, but this does the job, and AMDs are usually much cheaper than Pentiums. I have found it to be very stable under linux, just use the k7-optimised kernel to squeeze out every last bit of performance.

Only one gripe: AthlonXP's run hotter than the 64-bit chips, so make sure you apply plenty of paste and a decent copper cooler, and it should be fine.

Tom

Tom,

You might like to consider adding an extra case fan.

Maybe even make some ductwork from the processor to the fan, using cardboard, like Compaq did with the physically tiny Presario boxes.

If you use a duct, make sure the fan is working as "extract" lol :)


Richard in Australia

If I were you, I would wait a few months (3-4) and see how the Intel Core 2 Duo's come out. If they are a flop, then just go with AMD. Your system is fine, so there is no need for urgency, and you'll just end up overpaying if you buy now.

I don't think I've ever underpaid. :mad:

I've managed to underpay ;)

Three of my current machines are thanks to Fry's deals for $70 and $80 on Sempron 3100+/nForce3-A CPU/motherboard combo deals. Normally, just the processor costs that much! The best thing was, they were straight sale prices (no messing with rebates). I think Fry's sometimes has deals which are below cost to generate interest.

I also got several fancy heat pipe based tower heatsinks on closeout--$15 each for Coolink BAT1VS heatsinks on par with $40-50 heatsinks.

Thanks for the info SD-user.

Cool and quiet runnings are big factors for me since the next machine I'm getting will also act as a home server of sorts.

Definitely leaning towards an AM2 X2 processor since I think dual cores would benefit my "typical usage". The energy efficient models can't be found anywhere where I live though and when they arrive I bet they'll be quite expensive.

If you're going to build - check out newegg.com. They should have all the parts you need. Fast service. Competitive prices. Good return policy for DOAs too (not that that is really a problem). I did a lot of research into this last summer. A lot of people are very hapy with newegg's service . . . personally I've had zero problems with my box and I've been running it over a year now.

Unfortunately they don't ship outside the U.S.

I'm sure the service/price ratio is good, but looking at their line of AMDs: I can get the 4600+ (X2 AMD) for $20 less "over here", which is still way over the $240 that is on AMD's own price list, which in turn is more than I think you should have to pay for a processor they are phasing out.

The one I've been looking for lately is the 4600+ EE(65W) model. However, even if it's been out for some time, it (or any recent reviews of it) are hard to come by. It's not among those on newegg. If I could find that model at a reasonable price, maybe I wouldn't have to wait X months for 65nm or quad core or become an involuntary test pilot for Intel.

Has anybody actually seen these energy efficient models in action?

EDIT: Seem to have found a review myself:
http://www.hothardware.com/viewartic...leid=854&cid=1
and here's another one:
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/dis...efficient.html

Why has engery efficiency become so important suddenly? I've never had a processor of any kind over heat. I've never even met a person (in person) that overheated a processor. Are you guys running low-watt power supplies or something? I understand that heat is a killer, but i've never ran into it as a problem. And the people I've met online who have, 99% of them eventually admitted to OC'in anyway.

The reason why energy efficient has become more important is some states in the US going to have or had black outs. The black outs occur more in summer than other seasons. Calinfornia has had a black out recently. If energy efficient processors are used, the power strain is a lot less and the owner can use their solar cell generators to power the equipment during the black outs. Also energy efficient processors can be used in environments that have to be quiet (<30 dB) or in very cramp areas that removes very, very little heat. Energy efficient systems are better for the Earth and easier to pay electricity bills. Energy efficient is not about using low power power supplies. It is about squeezing as much work out of something. Energy efficient does not stop at processors. Power supplies should also be energy efficient. My power supply is near 90% efficiency.

It became important because Intel was reaching the limits of how fast they could go with making their processors any faster. Due to the sheer amount of heat generated by the Pentium 4 netburst architecture, Intel tried to redesign the entire layout of computers to compensate--that's what BTX was all about.

In the meantime, though, AMD was clobbering them on CPU performance, and not even BTX was going to do anything about it. Intel's gamble on betting everything on netburst and every higher clock speeds simply wasn't able to keep up with AMD's performance with architectures emphasizing computing efficiency over clock speed.

Intel realized that they were heading for a dead end, and desperately went back to the Pentium 3/Pentium M architecture to compete with AMD. It looks like they've succeeded magnificently with Core 2 Duo, being both faster and more energy efficient than AMD's best processors. However, the clock speed is lower than the previous Pentium D processors, so the marketing guys wisely realized they needed to market based on something other than clock speed.

That's why energy efficiency became so important suddenly. It had been a way for AMD to market their processor's performance edge over the faster clocked Intel chips, and now Intel has to use the same standard to market the superiority of Core 2 Duo over its own older chips.

It is funny, since until not so long ago the "usual" AMDs were considered energy efficient. It only seems natural to me that when the same computational power can be achieved with less energy for almost the same price-tag, I'll go for that option (deciding between 4600+ and 4600+ EE, conroes aside).

I know the difference is almost negligible, but hey, many a mickle makes a muckle as they ... hardly say anywhere.

The reviews don't promise much though.

I'm sorry if I'm coming in on this late, but according to the Linux Reality podcast, the Package Manager function in Suse 10.1 is borked, and even Novell recommends people use Smart Package manager.

From what I understand, towards the end of development, there were some changes made in the way it works that caused some issues that they didn't have time to work out. Supposedly it's supposed to be fixed in the next version, but as I said before, Smart Package Manager is the way to go for 10.1.

If I'm not mistaken, you don't even have to download it; it's included in the distro.

I'm currently running Ubuntu with 512MB on a P4 2.4GHz, and it's quite snappy. Linux tends to do things a little bit more efficiently than XP does, so 512MB is a decent place to start. I also ran Suse 10.0 and 10.1 on the same machine and they too were quite respectable speed-wise.

I too am looking to build a new 64-bit system for Vista, but it will also dual-boot Linux, just like the one I'm using now. I've decided to go with the new Core 2 Duo processor for two reasons:

1. I do a lot of video editing work in XP and since most editing apps out there are coded with the P4 in mind, I'd like to stay with that, and;

2. From everything I've read, the performance increase between Core 2 Duo and similar X2 chips is much greater than ever before, not to mention that I've read of some issues with the Socket AM2 nForce boards in Linux. Not to mention that there seems to be no real performance increase by AMD's switching over to DDR2, just like when Intel switched over to Socket 775.

If I weren't bound by the needs of XP and Vista, I'd gladly dump it for Linux, but for now, i can't.

Hi, cubdukat, and thanks for your answer.

You may download it from guru, but it's not included by default.

That's absolutely right! My parents' box, which is quite similar to mine, (also) runs Kubuntu * and it runs fast (very fast, compared to when it ran SuSE 10.1).

* Yes, I'm linuxing my family.

Cheers.

Have you try Cinelerra (CVS version). It is a high quality video editing software. It is better than Adope Premiere and it seems that it can compete with Avid.

AMD's AM2 socket processors comes with virtual hardware extensions. You can use Xen Source to run both Windows and Linux at the same time with a little performance penalty. I think Intel Core 2 Duo processors have too. Only time will tell which one does better.

IMHO, DDR2 is a joke. AMD should forget upgrading to DDR2 and go for GDDR3. It is a lot faster and better.

I hadn't even thought of Cinelerra. I'd heard some really good things about it, but I think I put it out of mind because of my current system. I'd heard that you all but need a 64-bit CPU to use it well. Fortunately that's what I'm upgrading to, so it's definitely on the short list.

Same thing with Xen. I'll have to read up on how to do it. It was in an issue of Linux Format that I bought earlier this year. They should really have a magazine like that for the US market. Linux Magazine and Linux Journal aren't exactly aimed at the beginner or mid-level user like the British mags seem to be.

Depending on whether Vista can run virtualized, I may decide to build a separate Linux box instead of a dual-boot system. That probably would be the best way to go, I guess. I'll have to take a look at that when Vista gets closer to release.

Magazines are obsolete. I keep up with computer technology by reading articles at xbitlabs.com and anandtech.com. Google news is helpful too.

I have used Cinelerra (CVS version) with an Intel Pentium 4 (Northwood core) 2 GHz with 1 GB of RAMBUS ECC memory. The speed is good enough to edit videos. Though rendering takes a long, long time.

Maybe so lol :)

However some of us prefer to read print. That's not a criticism of your view, merely an observation :D

The monthly glossy for which I used to write reviews some years ago has ceased print publication because of the enormous cost of production per copy on short runs. But I tell ya it's nice to see your photo in a rack full of printed stuff heh :D

Enjoy your reading your computer screen mate. :)

Sadly getting a subscription to any one of the British mags is prohibitively expensive (at the current exchange rate, I'd end up paying almost $200 for a full year!). I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing--buying the mags at my local Barnes & Noble.

I have definitely decided to go with the Core 2 Duo E6400 chip. It's still in the affordable range, and has respectable power. With my current Linux setup (I'm now running Suse 10.0) I'm not really doing anything that taxes the hardware, but I'm going to install the DVD version of Unreal Tournament 2004 tonight. It runs a little smoother than in XP.

I'm also doing some more research into what Cinelerra needs, but I think the new system should be able handle it swimmingly.