Hence why I said the p4 is the most versatile, but is only the absolute best system for 3+ heavy applications. And hotter isn't that much of a problem, particularly if you watercool it. The chip runs hotter...so what? It's meant to, so it's not going to blow up faster because of it or anything. Those god awful pressies ran at like 60 and 70 for normal, idle temps!
depends if you include the extra power usage in your calculations i dont see how hyperthreading is going to make a major differnce when using 3+ apps, it doesnt make a huge difference on single cored anyway...
Its a night and day difference on my single core P4 2.8ghz with HT. It's not the speed of the chip that matters, but how you use it.
(again I say this...and again I wonder if I've gone insane) I agree with froggy. My P4 2.6 HT is a beautiful piece of silicon, and that HT makes a HUGE difference in what I try to do...like, night and day. I turned it off all of once to see if it hurt my game performance to leave that extra thread kicking around. I'll never do that again, nor will I buy a single-cored computer. I love the A64 venice, but man I would HATE to lose my 2 processors, so I won't make a move to AMD until dual core becomes more affordable.
I'll get the EE840 Smithfield 3,2 @ 4.oo Stable and 2 of the next gen. 7800Ultras - and all the system running at 2 19" DELL monitors.Enough with that X2 4800+ - it cant compare with 840 EE and you know this better than me.So stop with that sh*t - after all i will be using that system and i want real performance in multitasking.With thees 7800Ultras even processor for 20 bucks should do it.I dont think after all i'm gonna loose more than 2+ frames//
You forget that with SLI you can't run 2 monitors, unless you somehow have extra room in your case and have a open pci slot for a cheapo pci card. Even then, im not sure if it works.
It works.I've been doing that for a year.One the one you play HL2,and on the other you watch movie.There are 2 profiles and you switch them from 1 - 2 for the monitor you'd like to use.You can even make to work together.
Uhh, that's not SLI. That's just running dual head, which you can do on one graphics card. SLI is using 2 graphics cards concurrently to render one scene (the object being to do so more quickly than one card can do alone), hence only one monitor output. And seriously, Ra1n3, these people are only trying to help, so you might wish to calm down on all that "so don't give me this sh*t." I would personally spec an AMD X2, but not until the prices came down. But as you say, it's your money...why should you take their advice? You only asked for it, after all. I still side with the idea that a lot of this will end up being wasted money, whether you listen or not.
meh my sister has a HT P4 in her dell machine, found my old Xp3200 system much more responsive but then i guess thats down to how she uses her system, shes not a big multi-tasker i've not really noticed any huge issues using 3+ apps on my X2 tho i've tested it by par checking 2 things at once whilst extracting a 4gig rar archive and web browsing in firefox was still responsive and video playback was still smooth on my XP3200 i'd have to pause video to parity check stuff or just suffer the skipping
My 2.8 with HT will do all that and rip a few dvds, defrag my TB of space, and play GTA:SA all without skipping a beat.
10x man.You really chill me out i'm planning on workstation and 2-3 frames wouldn't affect me in games.I view'd over 4-5 reviews about X2 4800+ and EE840.As you said - X2 is running better in benchmarks and tests,but that's not real performance.In games such results would affect max 5-6 frames compared with 840EE and in multitasking it really don't make sense X2 4800+ is better than 840EE - they should test the systems on real tasks,not only benchmarks and so on.. OMG they test system on 800x600 and even on 600x480 or so That's just points,nobody in thees days plays on such reslolution. Sry again for my language.I'd said that hell easyer om my first language,but "practice makes perfect" after all.Hope you understand me.
*cough* and *cough2* I'm trying to redeem myself for many years of baseless and downright spammy posting.
lol... take a look at the anandtech they do some pretty good multi-tasking benches there the reason they bench at low res when reviewing cpu's is to take the gpu out of the equation at that low resolution the frame rate is limited by the speed of the cpu not the gpu
There is no real "MS Word" test so they have to use a simulated benchmark for something like that, but tests done in programs like Photoshop are real tests and not fake benchmarks. As said before, game tests are done in low resolutions to make the CPU the bottleneck, and not the Videocard. Sometimes games are run in Software mode so that the videocard does nothing at all.
I think that game tests at low resolution should be coupled with game tests at a 'reasonable' resolution tha tyou might play the game at too.
