Dual Channel DDR on Pentium 4 vs Athlon XP

[dukbtr]

Hello,
I am getting ready to build myself a new PC. It will be mainly for video editing, Photoshop, and gaming. It will be at least 3gig CPU, as for AMD XP/64 or Intel I have not decided. I want to run dual channel memory. I have a stick of CORSAIR 512mb, CL 2.5 and want to by another to match. I have 2 questions?

1) Does it really matter if the sticks of ram are not sold together as a pair stating for dual channel purposes?

2) Why does the Pentium get such a boast from dual channel and the AMD doesn't? All my research here and on various websites state this fact. Is it because the Pentiums are Quad pumped FSB or the speed of the chip is the actual running Clock speed VS.the double memory rate and actual slower clock speed for the AMD CPUs?

I have always been an AMD backer but if for the Aps I'm going to run I will see better performance from Intel I might have to switch.

If anyone could help out with these questions I would be thankful.

Thanks,
dukbtr

 

[cdogg]

1) Technically no. Preferably yes. Getting matching sticks increases compatibility and reduces the chance of random blue screens.

2) As you've suspected, the Pentium 4 benefits more from dual-channel. With the 800MHz FSB, it would be in synch with two DDR400 sticks running in dual-channel mode. AMD's FSB is still limited to 400MHz. Being out of synch may not hurt performance much, but it does somewhat prevent it from taking advantage of the extra bandwidth (latency gets in the way).

Although it's nice to have for maximum performance, dual-channel isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Systems that are usually benchmarked with single channel vs. dual channel would be lucky to see anything more than a 5% increase in overall performance. Again, the 5% is nice but hardly worth the fuss.


~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[Sirius776]

The new AMD 64s also benifit with the on dye mem controller (I think). Get a AMD64 now (939 pin) and you will be set.

1.) I agree, I have better times with memory that is matched.

2.) I hate intel, even though I might be going to work for them...

 

[Ed2020]

Am I right in saying P4s are better for video editing and other multimedia work than Athlons.

I know this used to be the case, not sure it is anymore though.....

Ed Metcalfe.

Please do not feed the trolls.....

 

[cdogg]

The Athlon64 has closed that gap considerably, but the edge is still slightly in favor of the P4. Both camps have new releases on the horizon, so that could all change soon.


~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[DragonQ0105]

To be honest, I would go for an Athlon 64 (the 939-Pin version as these are the newer ones), and DDR3200 Memory. 1GB should be enough for your needs, but money isn't a big problem, 2GB will be great.

Athlon 64s give an average performance boost of 25% to 32-Bit Software, and of course can run 64-Bit Software at full speeds (which is VERY fast).

To take advantage of this, you'll need a fast Serial ATA Drive, or if the motherboard doesn't support it, an IDE ATA133 Hard Drive should be fine too.

 

[pweegar]

I'd think hard about going with the AMD Athalon 64! I am using one now and love it. The only way that an intel processor (other than maybe the Intel Extreme chip - which is way to expensive) can beat the 64, is IF the software you are using was programmed to use the newest instruction set of the intel chip. And it isn't going to be THAT much faster. And when software for the AMD 64 comes out in the 64 bit version, you should see a big difference. Windows XP for the AMD 64 Beta is FAST! Even tho there are limited drivers availble right now. Windows XP 64 is supposed to be out later this year.

 

[hthb]

It is a widespread misunderstanding that 64-bit programs are inherently faster than 32-bit ones. It is most often the other way around.
The main difference between 32-bit CPU's and 64-bit ones is that 64-bit ones can address (i.e. use) a gazillion megabytes of RAM while 32-bit ones can use only 4 gigabytes. It's simple math really, cause 2^32 = 4294967296 and 2^64 = 18446744073709551616.
I don't know why 64-bit binaries seem to run slower, but I think it's because they are larger than their 32-bit counterparts. They can be 50% larger which means more I/O from the hard disk and stuff like that.
Read this

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=5768&page=1

for a benchmark.

Also, you need a 64-bit Operating System (i.e. Solaris, Windows XP 64-bit, a 64 bit Linux/BSD distro). And then you have to have 64-bit programs too. I don't know of any Windows games which are 64-bit, but some will probably be released soon. And if you use the free/Open Source OS's you probably have to compile everything yourself. Ofcourse, with the Athlon64 you can use 32-bit programs too, but then you don't have any benefits of 64-bit computing.

There is however one benefit from Athlon64 (aside from it's "cool" factor) which has nothing to do with the fact that it's 64-bit. It has an extra CPU flag which it uses to mark memory space executable or non-executable. So buffer overflows (the reason behind many of our beloved worms and viruses) won't happen (in theory). And Windows XP SP2 is going to add support for it.

If I were going to buy a CPU now, I would still purchase Athlon64, but not because of any performance boost of 64-bit programs vs. 32-bit ones, because there isn't any.

Just my 50 cents.

Visit

http://www.doc2pdf.net

for a free, no need to register, .doc (MS Word) to .pdf (Acrobat) file conversion.

 

[dukbtr]

Thanks to everyone who answered. I think that I will be going with an Athlon 64, although I might wait until next year when the dual core chips start to ship.

 

[ceh4702]

One option would be to go with the Intel motherboard with the new 775 socket which support DDR2. That way you can use faster memory. Of coures they cost more, and you have to buy new memory and you may need a PCI-Express video card, and the processors may even run hotter.

However, the Athlon64 is one good platform. I would be tempted to try out the 64 Bit Linux.

There is also an advantage to faster Drives and RAID and using 1 or 2 gigs of RAM.

It is cheaper to build a Dual Xeon Box than use an Intel Extreme Edition P4. I have not heard any info on the new Xeon Workstation Processors that Intel Claimed they were planning on producing.

If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.

 

[StanPulsar]

Check out Tom's Hardware Guide, or Silent PC Review... good articles and reviews.

You said you would wait till dual core CPUs come out. If you ever change your mind, and buy sooner, keep in mind that Athlon64 on 754 socket does NOT support dual channel. On 939 socket it does, but it only features 512 L2 cache (except for FX versions, with 1024 L2)

Everything is quite well explained on both websites I was talking of. ;-)

As for your problem with 2 DDR modules, it is advised to get them at the same time, (that's why they sell "twin sets" to get exactly the same serie) but how important does it turn to be? Some timing issues as said above, possibly.