ATTN comp geeks: A good system to upgrade to?

Right, so I have a 1.4 AMD athlon cpu, and a radeon 9000... 512 MB DDR Ram.

I want to upgrade soon, as a rather nice supplement to my income is coming soon... I don't want to get top of the line, I KNOW I can't afford that.

So, a question. What Motherboard/CPU combo would work best for SL? AMD or Intel? What should I look for most? front side bus?

Enlighten me

LF

Most important? CPU performance and graphics card speed. My ideal system would be dual Athlon XP2800+ CPUs and a GeforceFX 5950. A fast hard disk is also nice, but not essential.


Does anyone know how the 3dLabs Wildcat series of graphics cards would do with SL? They're designed for professional 3D work rather than gaming, but then, SL isn't a typical game, either.

Would SL really benefit from a second CPU?

In my experiance with the client, it doesnt *seem* multithreaded, so in that case, it really doesnt make much sense spending the extra money on a second CPU when you can buy a faster one.

I'm interested in this information as well, this christmas, I'm hoping to recieve enough to build my own SL-friendly computer.

Has anyone tryed SL on a dual-processor machiene? Or a machiene with a > 3 Ghz CPU?

get one of them new fangled 64-bit processor systems. 6.4 terabytes of RAM *gurgle*

it probably won't make that much diff over the latest pentium 4 chips right now, but its still sexy.

bbc

Heh, I would BBC, but It would probobly not be compatable with 32 bit stuff, unless Intel implimented some sort of thing like theyre doing with Apple's G5.

Anyways, SL isnt optimised to use 64 bit processors, so it shouldnt, or have very little influence over its performance.

The difference between 32 and 64 bit processors is mainly the amount of data that can be entered into one of its registers. 64 bit processors have double the register space then 32 bit CPUs do. Registers are basicly processor scratchboards, where the CPU stores data its working on. If SL doesnt utilize the extra 32 bits of space, then getting a 64 bit processor is just a waste of money.

I *think* thats how it works... dunno exactly though.

The 6.4 TBs of RAM might help though

==Chris

くりす

AMD has the athalon 64s that are compatable with 32bit stuff. this is a link

Dual CPU's won't help with SL since it isn't written to support multithreading, and in fact you might have serious problems with SL. I tried running it for a while on a dual p4 system and I could play for about five minutes at most before a complete graphics driver failure. LL was kind enough to look into and even added a command line switch into a build for me to test disabling multithreading for SL's file system read/writes, but it didn't help. Proceed with caution. If you have apps that do support multithreading though (like 3ds max, maya, photoshop, etc.) then dual cpu's rock.

I had a very bad experience with a dual AMD box (1.4 athlons). It was the buggiest motherboard it's ever been my extreme displeasure to use, and is now a very expensive paperweight. AMD also has serious heat issues. Your mileage may vary but I'll never buy another AMD system (or Tyan motherboard).

If you have some apps that would benefit from dual processors and you're on a budget I'd get a single processor p4 system. Intel's hyperthreading gives you some very nice perfomance boosts and allows apps to treat a single processor as if there were two. My dual xeon p4 screams with 3ds max and renders as if there were four processors (four buckets process at a time instead of just two). Hyperthreading gives me about a 20% performace boost over and above dual processors alone.

Again though, if you don't have any apps that would directly benefit from a dual processor system, don't get one.

Don't get a 64-bit system unless you plan on installing more than four gigs of RAM. Until that point, it's a waste of money. Extra register space is nice, but you have to keep in mind that the "hard" stuff (floating-point math) is handled separately in the floating-point unit (FPU). The 64 bits they are talking about are used for integer operations ONLY. The main advantage to having a 64-bit CPU is the ability of addressing a larger amount of RAM natively, without having to page chunks of it in and out. So, unless you are going over 4GB in the RAM department, it's a waste (or a status symbol, which is usually the same thing.)

I got an ASUS P4P800 Deluxe with a gig of RAM (from the certified RAM list for that particular board), and a 3GHz Pentium 4C. (The "C" means it's a Socket 478 CPU that does hyperthreading, which I will explain below.) The P4P800 Deluxe has a dual-channel memory controller (Intel 865 Northbridge) and features an 800MHz front-side bus and a choice between manual and "easy" overclocking (where you tell it what percent to overclock and it figures everything out for itself.) It also has the ability to run the Northbridge chipset in an accelerated mode. I have the system overclocked 10% (to 3.3GHz) and am using the Northbridge acceleration mode. It is quite fast and quite stable. With a GeForce FX5900 (non-ultra) I scored 5509 in 3DMark 2003. (Over 400 of those points came from just turning on the Northbridge acceleration!) This motherboard cost me $120 but it comes with tons of built-ins, like USB 2.0 and Firewire and gigabit(!!!) Ethernet and sound, and of course the easy overclocking and Northbridge acceleration alone are worth the extra $$$.

Now, a word about dual processor systems. Pentium 4C CPUs (C-revision) come with a technology called hyperthreading. Programs run as one or more threads. Non-hyperthreaded processors can only execute one thread at a time, and since any given thread will not use all of the CPU's execution resources, a lot of cycles wind up going to waste. Hyperthreading capitalizes on this by executing two threads simultaneously, with the efficiency gains depending on the disparity in resources required by any two simultaneously executing threads. This is not quite as fast as having two independent CPUs, but it does come close in some circumstances.

A P4C presents itself to the operating system as two separate CPUs. Because of this, you can actually see two separate load meters if you ctrl+alt+del in Windows 2000 or XP, and these will tell you the current operating efficiency of the hyperthreading engine. An application that benefits well, such as Movie Maker (during the encoding phase), will result in a reported CPU load of 90% very easily. An application that does NOT particularly benefit from hyperthreading will show a load of around 50%, since the two threads are not being used to the fullest extent possible. (It's kind of misleading, the CPU is actually at full load but only reporting 50%.) Second Life typically runs at 52-53% on this machine, meaning that while it is placing the CPU under full load, it is not really benefitting from hyperthreading. A tiny bit, but nothing to write home about. Based on this, I do not think SL will benefit much from having a dual CPU system to run on.

There is, however, an advantage for people who need to run other heavy stuff concurrently with SL. I usually run SL in a window, and fire up IE and The GIMP (sort of like Photoshop) in the background. I can tell from looking at the load meters that hyperthreading is helping these apps to load and run quicker alongside SL, because the load meter will spike up to 80% very easily, and the apps themselves are very responsive. So having hyperthreading or dual CPUs will help people who are into multitasking other apps with SL.

Oh yeah... I typically get between 20 and 50 frames per second, and I can go to a gathering with 20-30 avatars and experience almost no lag. I run with a draw distance of 200, and SL feels very different at that setting compared to 128 or 150 (which is what I used to run).

P.S.: Note on 3.0GHz and faster Pentium 4s: The Intel-designed "cooling solution" SUCKS! I had my system overheat so badly, even when I was not overclocking it or using the accelerated Northbridge functions, that it actually shut itself off. It was running in excess of 165F! Anyway, I replaced the stock cooler with a Nexus PHT-3600. It runs at about 2000RPM, is whisper-quiet, and cools far better.

20- and... *gasp* 50 *drool*

I commonly get < 10 with SL on my Laptop

I am *definately* getting that setup this Christmas!

Has anyone gotten any better stats? I want to get the best I can get, so it can at *least* last me 3 years, preferably with sufficiant resources to keep me from drooling at someone elses setup


Huns, how much RAM do you have? What DDR clock speed is it?

==Chris

This RAM is rated 800MHz, which makes it PC3100 (if I recall). I have a gigabyte of it. RAM is so damn cheap these days, you'd have to be crazy to build a system with less than a gig.

The front-side bus (which handles memory<->CPU communication) is running at 880MHz right now due to the overclocking. Perfectly stable, too. I could probably take things up higher but I don't like to push my luck too much with overclocking.

Note that some of the P4Cs are designed for a 533MHz FSB and others for the 800MHz FSB. You will pay more for the 800MHz FSB versions, and it will be worth every cent. You'll also need a motherboard designed for the 800MHz FSB (obviously) and dual-channel memory will yield better performance than single-channel (again, you pay more, and again, it is worth it.) For dual-channel memory to actually run in dual-channel mode, the motherboard has to be dual-channel as well...

There are cheaper motherboards but I have to give the big ups to the Asus P4P800 Deluxe... it seriously kicks ass. I did a good six or seven hours of research before settling on this combination, so my opinion is not ill-considered.

AMDs 64bit chips have several additional features besides just being 64bit.

They do run 32bit code natively, and at speeds comparable (or faster) than the latest intel CPUs. The memory controller is built into the chip which has a good side and a bad side - its faster but if some new type of memory comes out (DDR3)you gotta get a new processor to be able to use it.

I forget if the AMD also offers a full 64bit data path, it should I think. If it does then it means that data access should be faster as well, even if only doing 32bit apps.

The real deal is that the AMD64s are the top of the line AMDs to be compared with intels top of the line. They perform the same or better on 32bit apps (last I read at least) and have the 'gimick' add on that they can run future 64bit apps.

Personal Supercomputers ===> http://www.go-l.com

The Opteron/Athlon 64/Athlon FX line has MUCH more to offer than just x86_64.

On die memory controller. Lightspeed architecture. Asymetric multiprocessing.

These things are all very nice

The Athlon FX 51/52 are THE fastest x86 processors you can buy, even on pure 32-bit code.

Windows XP on an Athlon FX 52 will outperform ANY of Intel's offerings running standard store bought 32-bit software.

The only possible exception is the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, whose monsterous cache helps in certain situations.

64-bit windows, and 64-bit native code will provide additional performance benefits, depending upon whether or not we get a good compiler

Of course, your going to pay a grand for the processor, another 500 for the motherboard, and another 500 for 512 MB of register dimms.

But these processors are bloody fast, and beat the pants of anything equivalent, even without touching 64-bit stuff.......

SMP will only help you in SL if you do other things while playing SL.

I can actually think of a few things that you may want to do, however----

Such as listen to SLive! radio, or some other internet radio station. Or run SL in a window, while using an internet browser/image processing software in the background to work on your textures/scripts/models.

Think of it this way. SL can only run within one processor. Offloading your OS to a second processor might help a little (or it might hurt, there is SMP overhead). Offloading a whole bunch of other stuff, like GIMP/Photoshop, or Winamp, or Mozilla/Internet Explorer----That will probably help substantially.

Not that I have an SMP system, if I could buy one of those, I would have bought myself a Mac to play with too

It's an overpriced gimmick as far as I'm concerned. Never buy new technology in the first iteration. You get reamed and steamed in the wallet, and then the next iteration comes out with fewer bugs and at a lower price. 64-bit processors might make sense for most people in a year but I don't think they do now.

P.S. I just checked pricewatch...
$730 - Athlon 64 FX
$399 - Athlon 64 3200
(rubber glove, tube of K-Y)

Ah and if you want the only Intel processor that competes with it on a purely 32bit level .... better get a bigger glove.

(also from pricewatch) cheapest Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz Extreme Edition is $995.00.

Not entirely true. The last time I checked, the SL client has five execution threads. Most of the time, one of the threads is doing most of the work, but occasionally, CPU usage by another thread shoots up to 90% or so.

Too true. Never buy a "rev A" anything. That's how I got burned with my Tyan Thunder K7 mobo. Live and learn.

I agree with the sentiments about not being the first with a new tech.

system I would recommend:
Asus A7N8X Delux MoBo (supports all AthlonXPs (non-64bit))
Athlon 2500+ or better
Nvidia 9700 (cheaper) or 9850 (faster, much more expensive)
1gb Crucial Ram - use their site to pick the right kind.
19" or better P series Viewsonic Display
DVD-Rom
CDRW (probably Lite-On but I don't follow good CDRW or DVD reader brands)
80GB HardDrive or better 7200RPM w/ 8mb cache. Get Serial ATA if youcan afford it, but its not a huge deal if you can't. I'd go with Western Digital but that is just what I have used in the past.
Logitch MX-700 (wireless rechargable mouse)
Logitech keyboard.


The Asus A7N8X Deluxe is easily the best Athlon motherboard out there. Intel chips are faster, but they are more expensive too. If you buy an OEM cpu make sure the fan you get for it is rated for the CPU you are getting.

Gotta agree. Very happy with mine.

If you buy either you're either rolling in dough or a fool. The price/performance ratio on these chips is incredibly poor.

No argument here.

It maybe multi-threaded, but as far as I am aware, an application has to be multiprocessor aware to run on both processors at once.

I don't think that an OS can split threads up without the application being aware of it, but I've never played with SMP stuff, so I wouldn't know.

Only on operating systems that don't utilize symmetric multi-processing, and as far as I know, the only non-SMP systems still in use are MacOS 9 and earlier, Windows 98, and Windows ME. MacOS 9 does multiprocessing only if the application is designed for it. Win98 and ME don't do multiprocessing at all.

Bump!

Any new info?