2.6 Ghz: any reason to upgrade ?

[orangat]

Well, the new trend (not a brand new one ) in CPU manufacturing is increasing the cache levels such as L1 and L2. The frequency is not the all as it was before. After experiencing the significant benefits of higher cache levels in CPU's, the advertisements of CPUs extended another line about how many kbs/or Megs of cache the CPU has.

Therefore in case you want to try out a new CPU, look out for the cache levels as well

No. It hasn't got more or less important, it was always important along with clock speed. The trend in manufacturing is towards a finer lithography process.
Intel's flagship P4 was supposed to hit 10 Ghz although it petered out before even getting halfway, cache size was not the driving impetus in its design.

The concept that clock speed and cache cannot be used to compare across manufacturers seems to be difficult to grasp it seems.

[Paul Peru]

It's hard to give a recommendation without knowing the full spec., but you may want to save your money for a new computer. Sounds like what you've got is nicely sufficient for anyone but a slightly silly person (like myself).

AMD processors are way better for gaming, but you'd need a new mobo as well, and your RAM may not be optimal for that mobo, and the new mobo will probably not have an AGP slot...

There are finally updated AGP cards hitting the market again, NVIDIA 7800 GS is one. A new videocard may be a good option.

I upgraded from a 9800 Pro to a 6800 GT (which was the best AGP card I could find at the time) and it helps me play most games at 1280*1024, which is my monitor's native resolution, so it looks way better. That card is horribly noisy, though! Beware! And it runs hot! piece of ! I'd chuck it out the window if I didn't crave the graphic goodness.

No qualms about recommending AMD processors, though. I got myself an Opteron 165 before the price hike ( that's unusual for a CPU) to replace my older s939 cpu. Nice overclocker, and very well behaved.

[LeftEyeNine]

No. It hasn't got more or less important, it was always important along with clock speed.

Technically you're right. But you have to admit that it was only a clock speed race a few years ago.

[orangat]

Technically you're right. But you have to admit that it was only a clock speed race a few years ago.

Nope your wrong again. Cache sizes have always increased in lockstep with clock speed along with other architectural improvements like higher fsb, EMT64, hyperthreading and core tweaks.

In fact sometimes the cache subsystem are adversely affected in newer steppings. The P4's L2 had a higher latency than the P3, the EE also had an increased cache latency, and the 2Mb Prescott's L2 latency is also higher which pretty much negates the inherent improvement with having a bigger cache. So 'technically' how could cache sizes been more important for performance?

Clock speed is just as if not more important than cache sizes in Intel's design philosophy with the P4.

[Reenk Roink]

Nope your wrong again.

Come here you

No wonder you and ShambleS get along so well...

[doc_bean]

It's hard to give a recommendation without knowing the full spec., but you may want to save your money for a new computer. Sounds like what you've got is nicely sufficient for anyone but a slightly silly person (like myself).

I also suspect my gfx card (9700pro) is damaged, 3D games crash A LOT on my PC (although it has slightly improved with the latest ATI drivers) and they just don't seem to look as nice as they're supposed to (also compared to my dad's 9600).

I'm going to format my HD when I find the time to sort out the crap on my C drive, I hope that will help, but since the lock ups occur purely with games, I suspect my gfx card is to blame.

[Geezer57]

I also suspect my gfx card (9700pro) is damaged, 3D games crash A LOT on my PC (although it has slightly improved with the latest ATI drivers) and they just don't seem to look as nice as they're supposed to (also compared to my dad's 9600).

I'm going to format my HD when I find the time to sort out the crap on my C drive, I hope that will help, but since the lock ups occur purely with games, I suspect my gfx card is to blame.

Have you tried the Omega drivers yet? http://www.omegadrivers.net/ They've been very good with my Radeon 9500/9700/9800 cards, and might fix a few things.
And, if your problems are due to heat issues, you might try one of these http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835186110 I'm using several, with great results - they're surprisingly quiet for the cooling that you get.

[LeftEyeNine]

orangat, you'd like to admit or not, I can't do a thing. But a few years ago, although cache levels were tweaked/improved or not, publically it was a clock speed race, that's why the title of this thread is "2.6 Ghz: any reason to upgrade". I'm talking about what end-users talk about, not the CPU architects.

OK, I'm wrong again

[orangat]

orangat, you'd like to admit or not, I can't do a thing. But a few years ago, although cache levels were tweaked/improved or not, publically it was a clock speed race, that's why the title of this thread is "2.6 Ghz: any reason to upgrade". I'm talking about what end-users talk about, not the CPU architects.
OK, I'm wrong again

I'm talking about clock speed and caches just as you are.

And whether you like to admit it or not, you haven't brought up a single valid point to support your erroneous statement or refuted my points. Caches have been improved and tweaked and enlarged in step with clock speeds all the way back from Pentium1 days.

[Reenk Roink]

I'm talking about clock speed and caches just as you are.

And whether you like to admit it or not, you haven't brought up a single valid point to support your erroneous statement or refuted my points. Caches have been improved and tweaked and enlarged in step with clock speeds all the way back from Pentium1 days.

LEN isn't claiming to be ShambleS you know. Rudeness isn't liked on these forums...

Go to the Backroom...

[LeftEyeNine]

I'm talking about clock speed and caches just as you are.

And whether you like to admit it or not, you haven't brought up a single valid point to support your erroneous statement or refuted my points. Caches have been improved and tweaked and enlarged in step with clock speeds all the way back from Pentium1 days.

But a few years ago, although cache levels were tweaked/improved or not, publically it was a clock speed race, that's why the title of this thread is "2.6 Ghz: any reason to upgrade"

What should I do more to express my erroneous statement or refute your points ?

[Xiahou]

Nope your wrong again. Cache sizes have always increased in lockstep with clock speed along with other architectural improvements like higher fsb, EMT64, hyperthreading and core tweaks.

Im not sure how true that is anyway.... sure architectures were improved along with clock speeds, but there were no great leaps in cache size that Im aware of.

I mean, you can easily google the specs for various processors and see that cache sizes have fluctuated, but certainly havent increased in "lockstep" with processor speeds. The P2 had what, 256KB of L2 cache at say 300Mhz? If there was a "lockstep" you'd expect a 3Ghz processor to have a L2 of over 2.5MB, yet this isnt the case- most have caches only around 512KB to 1MB. In fact, I believe my old Athlon tbird still only had 256KB of L2.

It's easy enough to look up...

[orangat]

Im not sure how true that is anyway.... sure architectures were improved along with clock speeds, but there were no great leaps in cache size that Im aware of.

I mean, you can easily google the specs for various processors and see that cache sizes have fluctuated, but certainly havent increased in "lockstep" with processor speeds. The P2 had what, 256KB of L2 cache at say 300Mhz? If there was a "lockstep" you'd expect a 3Ghz processor to have a L2 of over 2.5MB, yet this isnt the case- most have caches only around 512KB to 1MB. In fact, I believe my old Athlon tbird still only had 256KB of L2.

The point I'm making is that it has never been just a clock speed race and cache has generally always kept up with the core especially recently. So the emphasis on cache didn't just happen recently. I should've phrased it as cache improvements (instead of just size) to take into account all the cache tweaks as well

The P2 did have 256/512k of cache. But improvements like off-die vs on-die, full vs half speed, associativity, bus width, trace cache were also implemented in later cpu's so cache performance wasn't ignored.

With AMD, cache sizes dropped with the A64's but so did clock speeds because of core tweaks.

[doc_bean]

Have you tried the Omega drivers yet? http://www.omegadrivers.net/ They've been very good with my Radeon 9500/9700/9800 cards, and might fix a few things.

Interesting, with these drivers my game (farcry) still crashed, but the screen went black instead of just remaining static and I was able to ctrl-alt-del out of the program. A small comfort, but still, interesting.

And, if your problems are due to heat issues, you might try one of these http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835186110 I'm using several, with great results - they're surprisingly quiet for the cooling that you get.

How can you tell if it's heat related ? The crashes seem to happen whenever I play a 3D game (not all 3D games have problems) at about 15mins in.

[Geezer57]

Interesting, with these drivers my game (farcry) still crashed, but the screen went black instead of just remaining static and I was able to ctrl-alt-del out of the program. A small comfort, but still, interesting.



How can you tell if it's heat related ? The crashes seem to happen whenever I play a 3D game (not all 3D games have problems) at about 15mins in.

Try leaving the side cover off your computer (if it's a tower), and maybe directing a fan towards the inside of the case. If the extra ventilation makes any difference with your 3D gaming, then heat is most likely the issue. Otherwise, the graphics card itself might be failing. One thing to try, if possible, is to install it (your display card) in another computer, and see if the symptoms are repeated there.

[orangat]

Try leaving the side cover off your computer (if it's a tower), and maybe directing a fan towards the inside of the case. If the extra ventilation makes any difference with your 3D gaming, then heat is most likely the issue. Otherwise, the graphics card itself might be failing. One thing to try, if possible, is to install it (your display card) in another computer, and see if the symptoms are repeated there.

Or just run a stress test program like rthdribl.

[CBR]

That card is horribly noisy, though! Beware! And it runs hot! piece of ! I'd chuck it out the window if I didn't crave the graphic goodness.

You could change the cooler to one of the Arctic Cooling NV Silencer series. I did it for both my old 5900XT and new 7800GT and they run cool and quiet.

Oh and Opterons are great. Have a 165 myself.


CBR

[Paul Peru]

Getting a bit OT, sorry.

You could change the cooler to one of the Arctic Cooling NV Silencer series. I did it for both my old 5900XT and new 7800GT and they run cool and quiet.

I had one on my 9800. Loved it. Silent, efficient, and keeping the case cool as well. My current 6800 has a solid 2 slot backplate, so I'd have to cut it to accomodate an AC solution.
There are 2 tiny whiny fans, and nice heatsinks on both gpu and ram. I tried putting a bigger fan from an A64 stock cooler over the gpu, and it worked great for the gpu and ram, but the card became unstable due to the voltage regulators overheating. (known problem for 6800 cards) I'll need to find a way to cool that part better. Or sell it and buy a 7800 GS.

As for the other discussion here, I think a main reason why the A64-chips kick ### is the on-chip memory controller. The importance of cache size can vary greatly between apps.