quote:

Originally posted by davidjames ok mate, thanks for you advice in this thread.. Bearing in mind though i was using a Pentium p4, 3ghz HT, the X2 should be still able to eat that for breakfast? And i could still upgrade sometime in the future, as long as i can work comfortably for now, i dont think i can get through a few more weeks without my music.

The processor model naming scheme only makes sense with processors of the same range.

So AMD A64 processor numbers are not comparible with AMD X2 processor numbers. And neither of them are comparible to Intel processor numbers.

An AMD A64 3200+ is clocked at 2.0ghz but it is comparible to an Intel Pentium 4 3.0ghz. Both are single core.

An AMD X2 3800+ is the rough equivilant of 2x 3200+ cores. So its basically a dual 2.0 ghz processor. Which is the equivilant of an Intel 3.0ghz dual core.

Confusing I know. The only way to tell the speed of a processor compared to others is to check out website like www.techreport.com as they do detailed benchmarks.

Dual core processors dont always use both cores. They are only used by applications that use multiple threads. Windows will get a speed boost regardless but most games these days are single threaded only. Applications like Cubase SX and Logic pro support dual cores though so its definitely worth getting one if you use them.

AMD X2s and A64s typically tend to overclock better than Pentium 4s as they run at lower voltages and produce less heat. Conroe is the big exception as Conroe consumes fuck all power and runs cooler than a Pentium M. You can get ridiculous overclocks on it according to sites like anandtech.com who managed to snag an advance.

AMD X2 dual cores kill all the equivilant Pentium 4 dual cores. Easily. To check out approximate speed comparisons check out techreport. Also bear in mind you can overclock a 3800+ to a 4200+ if you have the right board, BIOS revision and enough cooling.

Also, cache size varies depending on the processor. Intel processors based on Netburst (Pentium 4) *need* loads of cache to make up for the prediction errors as a result of backtracking along its loooong exectution pipeline.

AMD processors, as mentioned before integrate the memory controller onto the CPU so they dont need that much cache. For AMD processors, cache is a secondary consideration to clock speed. Go for the faster clock speed over extra cache anytime.

For Intel processors, cache is way more important.

Last edited by Derivative on Jul-06-2006 at 14:24

If you buy individual parts you don't necessarily have to build it yourself. If you buy them all (or majority) from the same place they'll probably build it for you for free, especially because of the cash you're thinking of spending. Even if they charge you it'll be about £30 tops.

You could also order the parts and get your local PC store to build it (not PC World though!). It might be worth phoning your local store and asking if they would do this, and how much it would cost. Anything over £50 would be too much IMO.

If you go to Uni/College and know any computing lecturers ask them if they fancy a homer! Again I think £30-50 would be fair here.

Then obviously if any of your mates know their stuff and have done it before they could build it.

Theoretically you could build it yourself but if you've never done it before... hmmm. I would say buy a crappy cheap comp for £50 to practice on, not your dream DAW

+++++++++++

BTW Earlier I checked PC World for ink cartridges...

£20 for ONE black cartridge

A cheaper shop literally across the road sold them for £3

I HATE PC WORLD