woops. got trigger happy. want to open discussion reagrding CPUs. It appears they are taking the leap from 32 bit to 64 bit dual core processors. I'm in the market for a machine and am ruling out Intel based computers bc I believe AMD is superior. The link above has further links to the Athlon 64 Fx, Athlon 64 X2, and the Athlon 64. Could someone please explain the differences to me in layman's terms? The next gen Athlon Fx processors are going for $1200, and I am wondering if it is worth the investment over the $400 X2. I am starting a "digi-heavy" MArch program this fall so cpu performance is actually required.

woops. got trigger happy. want to open discussion reagrding CPUs. It appears they are taking the leap from 32 bit to 64 bit dual core processors. I'm in the market for a machine and am ruling out Intel based computers bc I believe AMD is superior. The link above has further links to the Athlon 64 Fx, Athlon 64 X2, and the Athlon 64. Could someone please explain the differences to me in layman's terms? The next gen Athlon Fx processors are going for $1200, and I am wondering if it is worth the investment over the $400 X2. I am starting a "digi-heavy" MArch program this fall so cpu performance is actually needed.

The price/performance graph for computer parts is generally hyperbolic. That price increase will probably only get you a performance increase roughly an order of magnitude less than the price increase.

I'd be curious to know the specs of the machines that other students are currently running, and how pleased or frustrated they are by their computers' performance.

Has anyone put it to the test? a pure 64 bit processor like the fx vs something like the X2? all other things being equal.

If we are talking about a 30min reduction in rendering time, then the new cpus may be worth the investment.

well....this is complicated.

if you really want to investigate the various processors, there are various review sites (anandtech, tech report, xbit) that cover these things fairly in-depth (they tend not to focus on design-related stuff, but it gives you some idea)

I'll make a couple quick points, though:

The X2 means dual core. The FX serries is single core, except for the fx60 and 62. the dual core FXs are faster than the x2s, but not $800 faster. the FX serries is actually intended for people with lots of money who want to overclock. if you want to spend that kind of money on an AMD system, dual opteron 270s or 275s would be about the same price and serve most design-related functions better (especially if you render alot)

but...

I should point out that Intel's next-gen stuff (core 2 duo E6xxx serries [conroe], as well as the xeon 51xx series [woodcrest]) is coming out in the next few months, and looks to be a significant improvement both over intel's previous chips, and anything AMD has coming till next year or so.

Best money (at least without knowing your workflow) is probably on a core 2 duo system sometime in early-mid august.

I'm about to get a workstation with Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5060 3.20GHz, 2 X 2MB L2,1066

You seem knowledgable, manamana, what do you think of processor?

yes it is complicated.

thank you for the advice manamana. could you expand on the "design-related functions" that the opteron 270s 275s better serves?

i am still novice at rendering applications, but my seniors in the program I am joining have emphasized the need for rendering speed. i guess i am looking for bang for the buck when it comes to processors, and i am partial to AMD.

The Opterons are meant (marketed) as server/workstation chips, whereas the Athlons are meant more as a "consumer" brand. They're pretty much the same chips, except for some possible cache size differencees and the ability to use multiple Opterons on one board. (but only the 2xx and 8xx series. The 1xx Opterons only work singly: they've got the same Socket 939 as the Athlons.) But now, of course, they're switching to new socket designs. (AM2 and Socket F)

If you're going to need four or more cores, the Opteron's your best bet, since you could set up a dual-processor board. But they're considerably more expensive than the Athlons. Dual-socket Opteron motherboards are more than twice the cost of something for an Athlon. And you would need to use registered memory with the Opteron.

GtHtAu:

the 5000 serries (aka dempsey) isn't terrible, but it is greatly overshadowed by the 5100 serries, which is coming out june 26. if you can wait a few weeks, it would probably be to your advantage.

see (url=http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=1]this[/url] and this for more info.

dot:
for simplicities sake, consider the fx62 vs a pair of 275s.

you have 2 2.8GHz cores vs 4 2.2 GHz cores. And while it is not always the case, the cores are comparable (one hypothetical 2.2 GHz FX core is equvalent to one 2.2 GHz opteron core)

but remember that 4 2.2 GHz cores doesn't add up to 2 4.4GHz cores (or one 8.8 GHz core) - things just don't work that way.

in reality the 275s will be faster when you're either doing lots of things at once (one program uses one core, another uses a second, another uses a third, etc -) or doing something that can easily parallelize it's workload to more than two threads (rendering, some photoshop operations, etc)

Both are scenarios designers (especially students) encounter quite often.

but again, I should stress that intel's next gen stuff is the better bang for the buck...

but...

The 5000 series was just about to break [destroy] the bank, what is the cost difference going to be in say, a Dell Workstation with a 3.0 GHz 5100?

Price structure will be the same; the 5000 serries will get bumped down in price when the 5100 launches.

the 3GHz 5160 will take the price spot of the 5080 ($851). the 2.33 GHz 5140 will take the spot currently occupied by the 5060 ($455)

see here and here