A Computer hardware and components forum. ComputerBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ComputerBanter.com forum » Processors » Intel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Worth upgrading?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 10th 10, 08:22 AM posted to comp.sys.intel
Mac Cool
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default Worth upgrading?

ECS GeForce6100SM-M (1.0) AM2 NVIDIA GeForce 6100S Micro ATX AMD
Motherboard
Athlon 64 X2 5400+
2GB RAM, WinXP

I want to switch over to an intel processor and I'm considering the i3 530
or the i5 750; big difference I know. But I've read the i3 is very
overclockable if I decide to go that way. But I'm not sure if it's enough
of an upgrade to bother. The only real benchmarks I could find comparing
them are Passmark which I'm not that familiar with.

Passmark

X2 5400 1493/284
i3 540 2865/129
i3 530 2713/136
i5 750 4195/58

I don't game at all. I use my pc for vector graphics, video transcoding
and lots of multitasking. I would like to keep the upgrade under $300
initially (mb, cpu, ram).
  #2  
Old June 11th 10, 09:13 AM posted to comp.sys.intel
Nate Edel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 219
Default Worth upgrading?

Mac Cool wrote:
Athlon 64 X2 5400+
2GB RAM, WinXP

I want to switch over to an intel processor and I'm considering the i3 530
or the i5 750; big difference I know. But I've read the i3 is very
overclockable if I decide to go that way. But I'm not sure if it's enough
of an upgrade to bother.


Short answer:

Yes, it's enough of an upgrade to bother - it's a 2-generations newer and
better core, with more memory bandwidth and a better cache architecture, and
hyperthreading, etc.

It may not be the optimal choice for your applications, though:
I don't game at all. I use my pc for vector graphics, video transcoding
and lots of multitasking. I would like to keep the upgrade under $300
initially (mb, cpu, ram).


Video transcoding will tend to use extra cores nicely. If you can go up to
the i5-750 or an i7, that's probably your best choice (although for very
heavy video-encoding usage, the 6-core Phenom IIs are an interesting value)
but /specifically for video/ compared to the i3, you might do better
sacrificing a fair bit of speed per core and going with an even cheaper AMD quad
core (ie $99 Athlon II X4 635, $118 Phenom II X4 940, prices per Newegg).

Those are pretty specific to video encoding; the hyperthreading on the i3 is
going to be pretty much as good as a quad core in /responsiveness/ except on
continuously-at-100% workloads.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "I do have a cause, though. It's obscenity. I'm
posting domain | for it."
  #3  
Old June 11th 10, 08:41 PM posted to comp.sys.intel
Mac Cool
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default Worth upgrading?

Nate Edel:

It may not be the optimal choice for your applications, though:


Yeah, this is what I'm struggling with. I suspect it will be fine on the
transcoding. Heck my 5400 protests (runs very hot) but mostly gets the job
done. From looking at benchmarks the i3 would kick it's ass but yeah, the
Phenom would be even better (transcoding) for the money.

I can't find benchmarks on vector graphics (Illustrator, Coreldraw). There
are Photoshop benchmarks but I doubt they correlate.

Per multitasking, I imagine that's more hard disk speed and memory than
cpu.

Video transcoding will tend to use extra cores nicely. If you can go
up to the i5-750 or an i7, that's probably your best choice


That knocks me out of my budget though. We are also remodeling and I'm on
a very tight budget for the next 6 months.

for very heavy video-encoding usage, the 6-core Phenom IIs are an
interesting value) but /specifically for video/ compared to the i3,
you might do better sacrificing a fair bit of speed per core and
going with an even cheaper AMD quad core (ie $99 Athlon II X4 635,
$118 Phenom II X4 940, prices per Newegg).


It's tempting. I've built a lot of AMD machines over the years but
proportionally I've had a lot of problems with weirdness (hardware
conflicts, driver conflicts, overheating). My intel builds always seem to
be less problematic.

  #4  
Old June 11th 10, 09:34 PM posted to comp.sys.intel
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 611
Default Worth upgrading?

On Jun 11, 3:41*pm, Mac Cool wrote:


Per multitasking, I imagine that's more hard disk speed and memory than
cpu.

My eight thread machines (Intel) seem to handle simultaneous heavy
disk i/o and all the other things I do (like running multiple machines
from the same monitor while watching HD video) much more gracefully
than my two-thread machines (Intel and AMD). I suspect the difference
is more graceful handling of frequent interrupts. Running memory
space limited rarely makes good sense, if time and avoidance of
frustration are important to you, regardless of the processor.

Computer buying decisions and preferences can be so personal, but, if
I were you, I'd keep my money in my pocket and focus on the house for
six months.

Robert.
  #5  
Old June 15th 10, 10:43 PM posted to comp.sys.intel
Nate Edel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 219
Default Worth upgrading?

Robert Myers wrote:
On Jun 11, 3:41*pm, Mac Cool wrote:
Per multitasking, I imagine that's more hard disk speed and memory than
cpu.


My eight thread machines (Intel) seem to handle simultaneous heavy
disk i/o and all the other things I do (like running multiple machines
from the same monitor while watching HD video) much more gracefully
than my two-thread machines (Intel and AMD). I suspect the difference
is more graceful handling of frequent interrupts.


There are often enough badly-written tasks that sit at 100% utilization that
with a regular 2-core/1-thread-per-core CPU you're back to essentially
having a single-threaded CPU for everything else.

It seems reasonably unusual to have two of those at once, and my intuition
is that a dual-core/2-threads-per-core (ie i3/i5 model) will do nearly as
well as a real quad-core for most people.

Tasks that run 2 or more threads at 100% for real work will want more than 2
physical cores; my main experience with that is video encoding.

I'm not sure whether the extra thread per core makes much difference on quad
core systems, with one exception: virtualbox runs a LOT better on my work
system (Xeon W3565, 4 cores/8 threads, 3.2ghz, 12gb) than my home system
(Q9550 overclocked at 3.15ghz, 8gb) but more memory, more cache and the
newer core (including better VT?) makes it hard to compare directly even
with the clock speeds relatively close.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "I do have a cause, though. It's obscenity. I'm
posting domain | for it."
  #6  
Old June 16th 10, 04:54 AM posted to comp.sys.intel
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 611
Default Worth upgrading?

On Jun 15, 5:43*pm, (Nate Edel) wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
On Jun 11, 3:41*pm, Mac Cool wrote:
Per multitasking, I imagine that's more hard disk speed and memory than
cpu.


My eight thread machines (Intel) seem to handle simultaneous heavy
disk i/o and all the other things I do (like running multiple machines
from the same monitor while watching HD video) much more gracefully
than my two-thread machines (Intel and AMD). *I suspect the difference
is more graceful handling of frequent interrupts.


There are often enough badly-written tasks that sit at 100% utilization that
with a regular 2-core/1-thread-per-core CPU you're back to essentially
having a single-threaded CPU for everything else. *

It seems reasonably unusual to have two of those at once, and my intuition
is that a dual-core/2-threads-per-core (ie i3/i5 model) will do nearly as
well as a real quad-core for most people. *

Tasks that run 2 or more threads at 100% for real work will want more than 2
physical cores; my main experience with that is video encoding.

I'm not sure whether the extra thread per core makes much difference on quad
core systems, with one exception: virtualbox runs a LOT better on my work
system (Xeon W3565, 4 cores/8 threads, 3.2ghz, 12gb) than my home system
(Q9550 overclocked at 3.15ghz, 8gb) but more memory, more cache and the
newer core (including better VT?) makes it hard to compare directly even
with the clock speeds relatively close.


I'm not doing anything special right now, and I can drive this machine
(albeit not very often) over 50% CPU usage--whatever that really
means. Computationally-intensive tasks wind up on other boxes.

I'm not a typical user, but the idea that there is nothing to do with
all those resources (unless you are doing something computationally-
intensive and parallel) is just wrong. If I did load the box with
something computationally-intensive, I think I'd notice the difference
between four and eight threads in an unpleasant way.

Robert.

Robert.
  #7  
Old June 16th 10, 07:44 AM posted to comp.sys.intel
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,218
Default Worth upgrading?

On 6/16/2010 3:43 AM, Nate Edel wrote:
There are often enough badly-written tasks that sit at 100% utilization that
with a regular 2-core/1-thread-per-core CPU you're back to essentially
having a single-threaded CPU for everything else.

It seems reasonably unusual to have two of those at once, and my intuition
is that a dual-core/2-threads-per-core (ie i3/i5 model) will do nearly as
well as a real quad-core for most people.


I had an Athlon X2 which was often hammered by a locked up application
taking 100% on a full core. Sometimes that 100% would lock up disk
resources too, so even the other core would have to wait.

I replaced that with a Phenom II X3 (which I was hoping to "over-core"
it to 4 cores, but alas it was not to be). The number of lockups due to
those badly written programs has gone done significantly.

Tasks that run 2 or more threads at 100% for real work will want more than 2
physical cores; my main experience with that is video encoding.


I assume games might require real cores too, rather than virtual cores.
I keep hearing conflicting information about how many simultaneous cores
games can fully utilize. Some say you don't need any more than 2 cores,
others have said 3 is the absolute maximum, if the games are
multi-threaded, then they should be able to use all cores present as
they need it.

I'm not sure whether the extra thread per core makes much difference on quad
core systems, with one exception: virtualbox runs a LOT better on my work
system (Xeon W3565, 4 cores/8 threads, 3.2ghz, 12gb) than my home system
(Q9550 overclocked at 3.15ghz, 8gb) but more memory, more cache and the
newer core (including better VT?) makes it hard to compare directly even
with the clock speeds relatively close.


Virtualization kills my machine. I got Windows XP virtualized under
Windows 7 now, and it's horrid, I won't even begin trying to virtualize
Ubuntu under it yet. It feels like I have a single-core machine again.
Here I think if I had more than 3 physical cores I would've been safe.

Yousuf Khan
  #8  
Old June 12th 10, 04:44 AM posted to comp.sys.intel
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,218
Default Worth upgrading?

On 6/10/2010 1:22 PM, Mac Cool wrote:
ECS GeForce6100SM-M (1.0) AM2 NVIDIA GeForce 6100S Micro ATX AMD
Motherboard
Athlon 64 X2 5400+
2GB RAM, WinXP

I want to switch over to an intel processor and I'm considering the i3 530
or the i5 750; big difference I know. But I've read the i3 is very
overclockable if I decide to go that way. But I'm not sure if it's enough
of an upgrade to bother. The only real benchmarks I could find comparing
them are Passmark which I'm not that familiar with.

Passmark

X2 5400 1493/284
i3 540 2865/129
i3 530 2713/136
i5 750 4195/58

I don't game at all. I use my pc for vector graphics, video transcoding
and lots of multitasking. I would like to keep the upgrade under $300
initially (mb, cpu, ram).


I'd go with the i5, and not bother with the i3. If something isn't at
least 4 times faster, then it's hard to notice a difference.

for very heavy video-encoding usage, the 6-core Phenom IIs are an
interesting value) but /specifically for video/ compared to the i3,
you might do better sacrificing a fair bit of speed per core and
going with an even cheaper AMD quad core (ie $99 Athlon II X4 635,
$118 Phenom II X4 940, prices per Newegg).

It's tempting. I've built a lot of AMD machines over the years but
proportionally I've had a lot of problems with weirdness (hardware
conflicts, driver conflicts, overheating). My intel builds always seem to
be less problematic.


Any sort of homebuilt PC will experience those wierdnesses, the
component manufacturers can't and don't test them in the same way as a
complete OEM system would be tested. You yourself are the system tester.
My brother-in-law has a full-gamer system with i7-920 processor, and he
has weirdnesses happening on his system too, like he always has to
reboot twice before the system will boot again. I'm sure a BIOS update
will fix that, but it's upto him to find the updates and apply them.

I think AMD systems will probably make a quantum leap advance in
stability nowadays as AMD itself is now manufacturing all of the
chipsets for its own processors. Nvidia has left the game, for both
Intel and AMD systems.

Yousuf Khan
  #9  
Old June 12th 10, 10:08 PM posted to comp.sys.intel
Mac Cool
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default Worth upgrading?

Yousuf Khan:

I think AMD systems will probably make a quantum leap advance in
stability nowadays as AMD itself is now manufacturing all of the
chipsets for its own processors. Nvidia has left the game, for both
Intel and AMD systems.


Good info, maybe I will give it another go then. Funny to get so much pro-
AMD advice in an intel group. In the past it has been mostly the via and
nvidia chipsets giving the trouble, I've never had problems with the AMD
processors themselves.
  #10  
Old June 14th 10, 06:16 PM posted to comp.sys.intel
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,218
Default Worth upgrading?

On 6/13/2010 3:08 AM, Mac Cool wrote:
Yousuf Khan:

I think AMD systems will probably make a quantum leap advance in
stability nowadays as AMD itself is now manufacturing all of the
chipsets for its own processors. Nvidia has left the game, for both
Intel and AMD systems.


Good info, maybe I will give it another go then. Funny to get so much pro-
AMD advice in an intel group. In the past it has been mostly the via and
nvidia chipsets giving the trouble, I've never had problems with the AMD
processors themselves.


VIA chipsets were absolutely horrid creatures, with incompatibility
problems up the wazoo. VIA spent a lot of time adding new features to
its chipsets, but ignored fixing basic features.

When Nvidia came along, they produced some interesting chipsets, based
on their original Xbox chipset. The original Nforce chipset was one of
the first and possibly only chipsets that could convert any audio format
into Dolby 5.1 audio on the fly. They gave up that highly original
feature in their second generation chipset, and then it just became
another chipset company competing on feature bloat (dangerous RAID
drivers that toasted your data, hardware firewalls that were worse than
software ones, Gigabit Ethernet accelerators that didn't, etc.).

That's why Intel chipsets were so highly favoured since the Pentium
Classic days. They simply concentrated on basic functionality and
getting those right.

So far, AMD is following Intel's path and keeping their chipsets basic.
They haven't bothered to create their own Wi-Fi chipset. RAID is usually
provided by external chips.

Yousuf Khan
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is it worth upgrading yet? Neil Barras AMD x86-64 Processors 4 September 23rd 05 11:30 PM
Is it worth upgrading? Mark Nvidia Videocards 3 April 28th 05 05:15 AM
Worth upgrading my HD? Bobby General 8 February 23rd 05 08:25 AM
Is it worth upgrading my CPU? Lord Deckard Overclocking AMD Processors 6 February 6th 05 04:14 PM
Is this worth upgrading? DC General 1 January 20th 05 08:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ComputerBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.